It’s my second Fleetwood Mac album on this list, and it only confirmed with absolute certainty that their music is not for me. I find their music derivative, bland and uneventful. They obviously rely on a wide range of different influences, but they somehow manage to turn each and every one of them into something boring... Everything felt so slow and dragged-out that I wanted to claw my eardrums out after three songs. How this band became so big is a complete mystery to me.

I've listened to this album so many times over the years that I can't really review it in an objective way. It was one of the first metal albums I ever listened, and it got me through middle-school. Although I love Ride the Lightning even more, I reckon they're both about equal in quality.

Boring generic pop-rock with as much spice and energy as a boiled turnip. A few interesting blues and disco sounds here and there, but not enough to make the album worthwhile. It's not a *terrible* album, it may have been relevant at some point (in a few songs, you can clearly hear the seeds of the "feel-good" tonality that would later define a big chunk of the 80s pop music), but it's just not for me. I'm pretty sure I'll have forgotten every song by tomorrow. Except maybe "The Chain", which I kind of enjoyed a little. How this album is one of the highest-rated ever on this list is beyond me.

A very average cover album... It’s a bit annoying to see it on this list, not EVERY first album is worth listening. It’s just a Britification of American blues classics, repackaged for the UK. It might have been interesting for a public that had never been exposed to American blues... but now it just sounds derivative. « Route 66 » kind of made me laugh, it sounds a bit weird when sung by a very British person whose most adventurous trip back then was probably taking the train to London. Instruments aren’t bad, but Mick Jagger’s voice hasn’t really matured yet. It’s certainly not terrible, but it doesn’t compare with what the Stones would later become... A 2,5* at best, for historical value. There are much better albums to put on this list instead of this one. Why does it always have to be British ? Why not try a bit of Malian Blues or Tuvan Rock for a change ? The world is a big place...

Just like Rubber Soul, Revolver feels like a transitional album between the old and the new Beatles. It’s better than Rubber Soul in my opinion, with a lot of creativity and some very interesting experimentations – the last song, "Tomorrow Never Knows", sounds amazingly, modern, it could totally have been made in the 90s (and still be original). But the rest of the album is a mixed bag, with some songs that don’t particularly stand out. It feels like something’s still missing before they truly reach their peak. Still a very good album for me, a solid 3,5*. Too bad the rating scale on this list is so limited, I end up giving the same note to albums that are wildly different in terms of quality.

Country and country-rock usually bore me, and I’ve never been a big fan of Neil Young’s voice, so I was fearing the worst. To my surprise, however, he really makes it work in this album. There’s a very pleasant, laid-back atmosphere throughout Harvest, with a couple of odd tracks that really stand out (in a good way), like There’s A World. Probably not something I’ll listen again, it’s just not my kind of music. But I totally get the vibe. It’s a honest album by a honest singer who never pretends to be something he isn’t.

I didn’t care much for this album when it came out – the singles were too much on the R&B side for me – so I’m glad I gave it a fresh listen 30 years later. The hits - "Ready Or Not" and the "Killing Me Softly" cover - are actually among the least interesting tracks in this album. Not only have they been overused, they also tend to eclipse what is essentially a very mature hip-hop album. I don’t like Lauryn Hill’s R&B voice – but her rap flow is impeccable. The beats, although a bit simplistic, are very efficient, and quite a few songs are more old-school than the singles would lead you to expect. "How Many Mics" and "The Score" are great tracks ; "Family Business", "Fu-Gee-La" and "Cowboys" are quite impressive, with a real narrative and a great mix of jazz samples and darker sounds. Overall a very well produced album that probably converted more than a few younglings to hip-hop back in the days. Loved it ! Almost gave it a 5*, but I'll keep those for my cult albums.

Not a bad album, the instrumentation is quite intiguing with a mix of very different sounds that sometimes go surprisingly well together, but sometimes fall flat. I don’t care much for the singing, which feels like generic pop (or pop-country) to me. Lyrics are super boring. The guitar is nice though, too bad they don’t use it more often ! And the blues parts (like Insting Blues) were definitely more exciting. An interesting experiment that unfortunately shows the inherent limitations of duo formations – it lacks in depth and complexity, and I think they would have really benefited from a third musician. Not something I’d listen to again, but I’ll give them a 2,5* for effort and originality.

Meh. I kinda like Neil Young when he does country-rock, but this album is just 90 % country. Worse, it’s (very) slow country. I really can’t relate, sorry. There’s only so much harmonica and soft guitar I can take in a day, and I reached my limit about halfway through the album. This must be a North-American thing. Something about pick-up trucks and long boring drives. I tried to find reasons to give it a 2*, but there’s really nothing that stands out, it just sounds like every country album ever. Neil Young has done much better albums, why include this one ? Do we really need half his discography on this list ?

Is there a word in English to express "the opposite of nostalgia" ? Because that’s what I feel when listening to this album. I was a teenager when that kind of music was around, and I hated it. I really tried to give it a fair chance by listening with a fresh ear - but no, I still hate it with a passion. It’s the by-product of a bygone era that should absolutely remain bygone. Did it pave the way for other stuff like trip-hop ? Maybe. But I cannot think of any circumstance where I would want to submit myself again to such musical torture.

Not a terribly bad album, I found it reasonnably pleasant to listen, but it's so unoriginal that I’ll have forgotten everything I just heard by the end of the day. Sounds like a generic imitation of every single rock and hard-rock band you’ve ever heard between the late 70s and the late 80s. What’s it doing on this list exactly ?

Every time I listen to a Beck album, I have the same contradictory feelings : he’s a very talented artist, and yet his music feels emotionless, and bores me after a few songs. He’s clearly a creative and curious mind, with an interesting "let’s do music with everything we can put our hands on" ethos. But I feel this attitude kind of works against him, because each of his records is a melting pot of a little bit of everything, yet fails to achieve a clear identity. This album is a perfect example. It isn’t bad, it’s well executed – but it’s all over the place, and in the end I’m left wondering what it was all about ; no song stands out, and I didn’t find any kind of passion anywhere. I’ve come to the conclusion that Beck is a music nerd who sees music as a technical challenge. He just wants to have fun, but doesn’t necessarily think about his public. Listening to Guero felt like watching someone else build a model plane or a Lego set : everything clicks right into place, the end result is faultless, but ultimately you’re not the one having fun.

A pleasant album by a band I knew nothing about. I didn’t find it particularly original or groundbreaking, but the mix of punk-ish beats and late 90s indie rock vocals gets the job done if you’ve got half an hour to kill. Nothing memorable, but on this list I’ve learned to take what I can get. Who knows what horror I’ll have to listen tomorrow.

I had never bothered listening to this album, I’m glad I finally made the effort. Nothing life-changing here for me, but it was quite pleasant, with some surprising moments (like Art of Dying, that I really loved). Sounds like what The Beatles could have become if they had been to Woodstock. Maybe I’m just a hippie at heart, but I was totally cool with the psychedelic / spiritual vibe (some tracks almost have a Pink Floyd-ish vibe, like the second version of Isn’t It A Pity). I’m not planning to let Krishna into my life any time soon, but it’s nice to listen to positive, wholesome music once in a while. It is indeed really long, but the songs are varied enough so it doesn’t get too boring. However, the best tracks tend to get diluted into the whole, and it’s hard to stay attentive through 23 songs. I didn’t find the final jam session annoying, as some people apparently did ; I followed the original tracklist order, and it was quite all right, sometimes even more interesting than the first two discs. There are some excellent blues moments in there, it's totally worth it. I almost added one star for "Out Of The Blue". A good 3* going on 3,5*.

A few years ago I was at party. People were laughing and drinking. Then out of the blue a guy started playing the guitar. He played really well, and he had a really nice voice. Everybody stopped talking and listened with excitement. We listened to one song. Then another one. Then another one... Then people started exchanging glances – how long was this dude gonna play ? No one wanted to be rude and interrupt, so we spent a good 40 minutes in quasi-silence, and the cheering turned into half-repressed sighs. Excitement became boredom, then unease. I’ll say it again : he played and sung beautifully... But we felt like the party had been hijacked by someone who just wanted a captive audience, and by the time it was over we felt relieved. Listening to this album reminded me exactly of that particular evening. Paul Simon is a great songwriter, he can play and he can sing, there is no doubt about that ; he crafted more than a few beautiful pieces of music. I’ll gladly listen to a couple of songs. Three or four if I’m being polite. But any more than this, and I’ll start feeling like I’d rather be doing something else. Something more exciting, and more importantly something not entirely centered on Paul Simon. Kuddos for the first song, though. Very surprising to hear a (good) reggae song at the start of the album, I didn’t expect that.

I have an ambivalent relation with Bowie. On one hand, a huge part of his work has a pop vibe I don’t really care for ; on the other hand, he was clearly a risk-taker, constantly experimenting with new sounds, and managed to produce some amazing pieces of music. This is reflected in most of his albums, where I can usually find 3-4 great songs I love, while the rest I forget as soon as I’ve finished listening. I had never listened to Aladdin Sane, but I found the same ratio here. The title song Aladdin Sane is a phenomenal track, with the sax and piano almost going into free jazz territory ; Cracked Actor is a great rock song ; Time is a burlesque gem I could listen three times in a row ; and Lady Grinning Soul is a very surprising song I truly enjoyed. But other songs like Drive In Saturday, Panic in Detroit, Prettiest Star or Let’s Spend The Night Together just left me indifferent. A nice album overall – Bowie never really made *bad* music – but also not an album that will radically change my opinion of him.

Not much to say here, it's a excellent soul album from start to finish. Aretha Franklin truly has no equal. Lady Soul is full of heart and energy, with a vibe that almost feels like blues in some tracks (like the legendary Chain of Fools). A few other songs are slightly less impressive than the others, but overall this album is still a strong contender for "Aretha's best". Really can't decide which I like best between this one and I Never Loved A Man.

I’ll admit I’m heavily biased – back when I was an angsty teen, I did so many drugs on this album (and when I say « on », I literaly mean on the jewel case) that just listening to it probably still triggers a chemical response in my brain. That being said, and putting aside the annoying mythos Jim Morrisson would later come to build around himself, I still think this is an absolute beast of an album. There’s no fat, not filler, it’s mean and lean, there’s not a single bad track. It’s just pure blues-rock with a unique tonality and lyrics that are a million times more intriguing and original than any other song in the same period. To put out such an incredible record as a first effort, AND have at least three of the tracks become absolute classics that are still used in popular culture almost 50 years later, is certainly no small feat. « The End » still sends shivers down my spine to this day. Am I being an edgy fanboy for still loving that song ? Maybe, but then so are Coppola and Marlon Brando, so I really don’t mind the company.

This album sounds exactly as I expected from the art cover : very British, quirky and a bit full of itself. I don’t doubt its influential nature ; it might have been a novelty back when it was released, but it’s hard to appreciate now that this kind of music has been endlessly rehashed. It actually sounds like an early blueprint of what a lot of pop, pop-punk and Britpop acts would later try to do in the 90s (probably because they grew up listening to this). It’s not unpleasant, I even liked a couple of songs (like The Beat), but overall I found it mostly bland and unexciting. The words "inoffensive" and "forgettable" come to mind.

Never heard of them. I’m not sure I understand why they’re on this list though. It’s not a bad album, it makes for pleasant background music... but there’s nothing that really stands out for me, it’s just the kind of indie rock we were drowning in during the 90s, with a slight touch of The Beatles sprinkled on it. I reckon they might have been pioneers, going for distorted guitars and dreamy voices before everybody started doing it... But many bands did it better a few years later, and it now sounds very dated and very forgettable. I’m sure their heart is in the right place, but it just bored me.

I only knew UB40 from their mainstream hits in the late 80s / early 90s. It was associated in my mind with "uninspired pop-reggae", so I was expecting the worst. However, listening to their first album made me realize it was actually not *that* bad. Well, I still think it’s boring, don’t get me wrong. But it’s not abysmal-boring, just regular-boring. As often with reggae (Bob Marley excepted), it’s loooooong and dragged-out. Listening to the whole album felt like a 3 or 4 hours ordeal. Man, reggae really IS music for stoners with a lot of time on their hands... There are a couple of slightly more interesting and dynamic tracks here and there (like Burden Of Shame, with its nice use of synth sounds, or the classic Food For Thought), probably so the listener doesn’t fall asleep half-way through the album. Overall not a very pleasant experience for me, but I’ll admit they’re not the commercial hacks I thought they were. The cheesy sax is somewhat a welcome addition, and the jazz / blues influences do bring something new to the table in terms of experimentation. I’ll give them 2 stars for originality.

A plain, honest blues-rock album. Very straightforward and pleasant to listen. A little too much on the country / bluegrass side for me, I think I prefer CCR when they do straight blues (like in the last two songs, which I really liked). Not my favorite CCR album, but still a good one overall !

Not a big fan of country music, but even I have to admit Johnny Cash has a great voice. I’m sure he’s very good at what he does (you can’t have such a lenghty and productive career without doing something right), so I was ready to listen to this album with as much good will as I could. The result, however, was not very satisfying. I kind of liked most of the song, but it was a bit hard for me to enjoy them, since nearly a third the album is just Johnny Cash talking. Between the very average recording conditions, the lengthy speeches, the exasperating blips and the crowd noises, I was constantly distracted from the music, and it made the experience far less enjoyable than it could have been. I definitely have nothing against Johnny Cash, and I’m ready to listen to more of it – but this album just doesn’t cut it for me.

There are only 3 situations where I can understand playing this album in full : 1) You live in a 1980s romcom. You are sad because the person you love doesn’t love you anymore. You’re watching the rain fall through the window at night. I feel sorry for you. 2) A beautiful lady you just met suddenly starts undressing in the candlelight, asking you in a husky voice to make sweet love to her. Go for it, tiger ! It’s probably a dream anyway. 3) You’re Marvin Gaye, and you want to annoy your ex-wife. Seriously, this is an uninspired, self-indulgent album that I could have done without. It sounds like Marvin parodying himself, cranking up the sweetness and cheesyness to 11. Apparently he released this record to pay alimony... Hence the mix of low effort and distasteful whining and bitching about his ex-wife (seriously, who names a song "You Can Leave But It’s Going To Cost You" ? Don’t air your dirty laundry in public, man...). The jazzy instrumentation is good, I’ll grant him that, and a couple of songs are smooth and soulful enough for a casual listen. But many other tracks are boring and lack true emotion. A whole album of this was just too much for me. Clearly my least favorite Marvin Gaye album. Even a 2* feels a bit generous. 3/10

An excellent surprise for me, I thorougly enjoyed this wildly experimental album. It seems like the late 60s and early 70s produced dozens upon dozens of psychedelic folk bands, with very mixed success. The bad ones just threw together a guitar, a few medieval instruments and a sitar, then sung in high-pitched, LSD-altered voices until your ears started bleeding. The good ones... the good ones did exactly the same, actually, but somehow made it work. Pentangle falls into that second category. It’s probably because, contrary to some drug-fueled neo-medieval folk projects (yes, I’m looking at you, Incredible String Bands), the singers can actually sing (beautifully, even) and the musicians can actually play. It makes for a very nice mix of true Celtic folk music and modern experimental rock with a pinch of baroque. I quickly found myself lost in an intriguing musical landscape full of misty groves and unexpected meetings (the sitar / banjo combo in House Carpenter works amazingly well !). It’s not a perfect album, far from it – some experimental parts clearly fall flat. But for me, it’s really the bright side of psychedelic folk. I’ll definitely check the rest of their discography. A strong 3,5* (and a hard choice between a 3 and a 4*... I might still edit my rating later).

Typical 80s nonsense. The lyrics are asinine, the singer is inept. They probably play this music in the elevators of Hell. I’ll grant them a couple of interesting attempts at experimenting with synth sounds, like in From Rags To Riches. But that’s not enough to save this disaster of an album. Why is it even on this list ?

An excellent jazz album I was not familiar with. I never thought synthesizers could work so well in a jazz band, and I’m glad I discovered this record. The intro to Watermelon Man blew my mind, and the overall mood is fantastic. It’s almost perfect – it’s just missing an ineffable little something I can’t quite put my finger on. But I will certainly listen to more Herbie Hancock in the future.

This album was a good surprise for me. Most of the songs didn’t sound familiar at all (I’m a reggae ignoramus, so no surprise here), and were actually much better than I expected. Perhaps because it’s something of a transitionnal album between early Bob Marley and his later, fully-developped reggae period, I found it musically richer than what I usually associate with reggae music. You can still hear the blues, soul and gospel influences behind the music, and there is a variety of moods that make the album as a whole quite interesting. I really liked "400 Years", a song I had never heard before, and "No More Trouble" had an almost blues-like vibe. This album will certainly make me dig deeper into Marley’s earlier works. A solid 3*, or even a 3,5* for me.

After the intro, I was expecting something truly awful. Instead it was merely very boring. I’ll admit there’s some creative ideas, it’s not *shockingly* bad... but there’s also much better synth-pop / new wave music out there. The album as a whole is a mishmash of songs that somewhat seem randomly put together. « Relax » has a catchy tune, but it’s basically just one sentence repeated over and over and over again until you want to puke. Some of the songs were probably good for clubbing at some point, but the rest is too corny, with too much synth, too much filler... And I truly hate the singer’s voice (yes, I know, it’s entirely subjective). It was honestly painful to listen to for me, and I had to skip a few songs towards the end to preserve my sanity. It’s exactly the kind of stuff that made me hate 80s music when I was growing up.

A great album that defined more than a decade of hip hop. It’s an absolute classic full of legendary tracks. You can almost touch the raw energy of an enthusiast crew of newcomers eager to prove themselves. Let’s be real : the music itself is far from perfect. The production is rough and still a bit simplistic, very far from the absolute gems that RZA would later come to produce. The sound recording is pretty awful (I swear it feels like they’re in someone’s basement), and the overall lack of experience is obvious. From a strictly musical point of view, it probably doesn’t deserve more than a 4*. Later Wu Tang albums are objectively better produced than the 36 Chambers. However, its importance in the history of hip hop can’t be ignored. It’s the album that started it all. It gave birth to the Killa Bees super-possee, served as a platform to launch countless artists who would later have a fantastic solo career, like Method Man and Ghostface, and turned the Wu Tang into a production powerhouse with a myriad of affiliated bands like Killarmy and Sunz of Man. And let’s not forget the subjective component... I’ve listened to this album so many times over the years, I can’t give it any less than a full 5*. ‘nuff said !

Soft and comfy pop-rock isn’t usually my cup of tea, but the guys from Coldplay somehow make it work. They hit just the right spot in terms of tone and atmosphere, with a good balance between dynamic instrumentation and ethereal, dreamy voices. It’s not super original, it sounds like a more accessible and mainstream version of Radiohead with a (big) touch of Britpop, but it gets the job done. Not exciting enough to add to my playlist, but good enough for a rainy afternoon once in a while.

Ah, Yes... A band I’ve heard many times in passing during the 80s, without ever trying to know more about them. I was eager to listen again with a different perspective. Sadly, it was an underwhelming experience. It’s not bad – it’s certainly creative, the jazzy moments are nice... But I’m really not on board with the vocal part of the album, the singing feels lifeless. Despite numerous good ideas and laudable attempts to innovate, the end result just leaves me mostly indifferent. Heart of the Sunrise was the only song that I kind of digged (and only the instrumentals), but it was too little, too late. Won’t listen again.

I never gave Rush a chance before. That was a mistake I’m glad to have corrected. It’s a hard album to rate – first because it’s uneven, and second because it sounds like three or four different genres at once. The vocal parts are annoying. Not only because of the singer’s poor voice, but more generally because I think they’re dated and irrelevant. They add a layer of cheesiness this album really didn’t need. The instrumental parts are, however, awesome. YYZ is an incredible piece of prog rock, and the orchestration on The Camera Eye is absolutely epic ; some moments almost made me think of Magma. I’m amazed that it’s such an old album. Parts of it sound super modern, I can totally see how they contributed to shape prog rock. I’ll definitely look up their other works. Would have rated it a 4* for the instrumentals alone, but the vocals made me drop a star. It was a hard choice though, I may edit my rating later after I give it another listen.

It really hasn’t aged well... and it probably wasn’t that good in the beginning. I think I heard this album when I was 15 (and already a metal fan), and even back then I thought it was rather primitive, raw and murky. It’s so badly recorded it’s painful – I had to push my speakers to high volume to hear anything beyond a soup of messy distortions and static. The riffs are pretty bad, but there’s a few catchy songs here and there if you listen with a kind ear. It’s actually not very "metal", except for the menacing, depressed voice of the singer. It could almost be crust before crust was a thing. I won’t deny it was an influential album that contributed to the birth of black metal (mainly by cranking up the ridiculous « Yeah ! Satan ! » vibe), but I’d rather listen to other proto-black metal bands. I’ll give it a 2* for historical interest.

I listened to this album back to back with « Music for airports », and I was pleasantly surprised. I wasn’t familiar with that side of Eno’s works. I was expecting more pseudo-ambient soup, but it’s actually quite interesting, even if I’m not really into that kind of art-rock (or is it proto-synthpop ?). Will I ever listen to it again ? Probably not, but I still enjoyed listening it once. Nice effort.

Second Steely Dan album I encounter on this list, and I’m starting to develop a violent allergy to this band. I truly don’t get the hype. It’s bland, generic and boring. It’s not even dad rock, it’s the musical equivalent of dining on a glass of water and a slice of white bread. People seem to praise their special blend of rock and jazz, but I love rock and jazz, and I only found residual traces of them in this album. Even more than the music, I find the affected, upbeat singing absolutely excruciating. I felt like I was trapped in an endless mall where every shop was exactly the same, full of automatons with painted smiles trying to sell me canned happyness. If that’s "ecstasy", please give me torture. Ok, I’ll admit the album as a whole wasn’t as terrible as Aja. "Boston Rag" was kind of ok, and "Show Biz Kids" had an almost psychedelic vibe for a minute or two. But it was really not enough for me to suffer through so much triteness. I’ll give it 2* because it’s probably objectively a bit better than I make it sound. It’s just too far removed from what I consider exciting music. I find it terribly depressing that there are no less than FOUR (4 !) Steely Dan albums on this list, while a lot of amazing artists don’t even get one.

A jazzman I knew nothing about and discovered thanks to this list. I loved this album ! Made me feel all warm and fuzzy. Or maybe that was the whisky. Equally great as background music and for active listening. It’s smooth and relaxing, but never boring. The organ works really well, and there’s a lot of inventivity in each track. I’ll definitely go back to the Chicken Shack !

I only knew "Shout" and "Everybody wants..." from back in the days, when it was on every radio station. I wasn’t interested then so I never cared about the rest of the album. It was probably a wise decision, because I would have hated it with a passion. I’m a bit more indulgent now... I’ll admit the two main hits aged surprisingly well, something that cannot often be said of 80s pop. As for the rest... it’s still not my kind of music. I don’t hate it... but as often with 80s slow pop, it mostly leaves me utterly bored. I’d rate it a 1,5* for the two main hits, but that’s about it. I'll admit it's completely personal though, I don't really have anything bad to say about the band.

A slight improvement on their previous album... but still a no for me. It’s pleasant enough to listen as background music, but I can’t help but feel these guys just thought « Hey, let’s redo the Beatles for a modern audience ! » and called it a day. It’s bland pop-rock tailored for radio stations, derivative to the point of feeling like plagiarism. And what’s with the murky sound ? You’d think after the success of their first album they’d have invested in better production. Or maybe they drank their previous earnings at the local pub. I’ll be generous and give it a 2* out of misguided nostalgia (« Wonderwall » was constantly playing everywhere in 1995, so it does bring out memories), but it probably deserves less.

A classic punk album that left me sadly underwhelmed, as often with our spiky friends. I can respect the "low-fi / raw sound" ethos of early punk rock bands (a trait they share with black metal) ; it was partly due to material constraints, but also a statement against the overly clean production style of mainstream music. However, the consequence is that you get punk (or black metal) bands that are great live performers and can set a crowd on fire, but can’t record a listenable album to save their own lives. Such awfully murky sound and simplistic guitar riffs are really hard for me to enjoy at home on speakers. This album is a great soundtrack to drink yourself silly with your mates, crush beer cans with you skull and pick fights with random strangers. But since I’m too old for that shit, I’ll pass. I’ll still rate it a 2,5* out of respect for the punk movement and for the unhinged energy of Henry Rollins. But let’s be real – objectively speaking, this is not very good music, and British punk did it better years before.

Can someone explain this band to me ? Because I truly don’t get it. I don’t understand what they’re trying to do, and I don’t understand what people see in them. It just feels so completely amateurish to me, it was painful to listen. The music is abysmal, and the singing feels like nails on a chalkboard (seriously, the singer sounds like the local tavern drunk was allowed on stage for a live karaoke session). I tried listening as background music, but even then it was exhausting. Sorry, I just can’t.

Not much left to say that hasn’t been said before... It’s not the best Led Zep album, it’s not my favorite one either, but it’s still a timeless record with more than a few legendary songs. "Since I've Been Loving You" still sends shivers down my spine. Too bad a couple of other tracks are among their weakest.

After listening to Get Behind Me Satan, I was afraid of giving White Stripes another try. Fortunately this one is a much better album (and I honestly don’t understand why we needed Get Behind Me on this list) – more heart, more energy, more heavy (and cool) guitars... I still have zero interest in their lyrics, and I still find the singer’s voice vaguely annoying... but at least this time the music is good. Seven Nation Army is a superb track, I had no idea it was an original White Stripes creation. I’m still not a big fan of duo formations, but I must admit they really made it work in this album. I’m adding Elephant to my music collection.

I was already a big Portishead fan after Dummy, since I consider this album to be the pinnacle of trip-hop. When they reformed in 2008, I feared the worst – band reunions are often a disaster, especially after a 10 years hiatus. But I was wrong – instead, they gave us both their swansong and their most original album. Portishead have shed the gimmicks and comfy vibes of trip-hop to venture into new, more disturbing territories – somewhere between depressive synth-pop, industrial music and minimalist electronica. It’s a bleak and tortured emotional landscape, criss-crossed by fleeting moments of hope like faint rays of sun filtering through dark clouds. Beth Gibbons’ voice is more mesmerizing than ever, and balances perfectly the oppressive and quasi-industrial beats that pulse through most of the songs. It’s cold and uncompromising, making for a demanding album. It’s not something you can listen as background music - complete attention is required to appreciate the constantly evolving structures and textures of this hallucinatory trip, and it’s clearly conceived to be listened as a complete album, not just a collection of songs. A masterpiece in my opinion – even if I completely understand how some people could find it asphyxiating. Everytime I put on this album, I end up listening it two or three times in a row.

While I can’t think of any circumstance where I would actively want to listen to this, it wasn’t as terrible as I expected. Easy listening country-rock with 80s synths and cheesy looks ? Absolutely not my idea of fun, but I’ll admit it’s a honest effort from a honest artist. That alone puts her above some of the hacks I’ve come across here. Let’s say it’s a 1,5*. I don’t really undersand why she's on this list, though. Sounds like she’d be more at home with "1001 Albums For Truckers Driving Route 66".

A nice surprise. Feels like the missing link between punk and pop-punk. I was amazed to see that it’s a 1978 album, some bands from the mid-90s actually sound almost the same. Not a big fan of the singer’s voice, and some tracks are clearly far better than others. But the funky keyboards were a welcome (and surprising) addition to the punk vibe. A laudable effort.

A perfect soul album, perhaps one of the greatest ever released. I used to think it was a bit too polished compared to some of her other works (it doesn’t have the raw energy of Lady Soul, for instance), but after a second listen I realized how incredibly well-balanced this album is. There’s absolutely no filler, each song is exactly as it should be. The instrumentation is just the right kind of smooth, and Aretha’s voice is probably at her peak. Pure classic !

I’ve never been a big fan of Dylan, an artist I find overrated. Blonde On Blonde, however, is one of the albums I can appreciate, probably because it’s on the blues side of his work. Dylan really doesn’t have a good blues voice, to be honest – it’s more like a constant droning – but the orchestration and songwriting somehow make it work. It’s kind of a mixed bag. The album starts on the wrong foot, with a shrill and overbearing harmonica that quickly becomes annoying. The piano moments were far more pleasant – I enjoyed One Of Us Must Know, even if Dylan still managed to slip in a few harmonica screeches here and there. Leopard Skin was right up my alley, and a few of the last tracks were pleasantly laid-back and (mostly) harmonica-free. Overall, it’s a reasonnably fun album to listen. But as often with Dylan, it ultimately sounds a bit tame and lifeless – like blues made for very polite people, or the soundtrack of an early Woody Allen movie.

She’s got a beautiful voice, no doubt about that... But absolutely nothing else happens in this album. I could barely finish. It’s the kind of bland, inoffensive music that coffee shop chains play in the background while hip customers pretend to work on their laptop. I listened at home, and by the end of the album I tried to order coffee from my wife. She was not pleased. Thanks, Lana. I'm still rating it a 2* for her voice. Now someone please give the lady some real music to sing to...

I didn’t know Ute Lemper before, but this was an excellent surprise. It’s a very intriguing and audacious album, with a dizzying array of influences, and yet a very distinct personality. Ute Lemper blends sultry cabaret music, baroque pop, neo-classic and film noir soundtracks in a unique way, magnified by her incredible voice. It gets even weirder with the lyrics – a strange mix of grotesque sex jokes and dark narratives. It’s reflected in the production, which oscillates between cheesy and disquieting. It’s like the soundtrack of a lost Bond movie no one dares to release because it ends with a BDSM orgy in Venetian masks. The list of talented people who have worked on this album is also super impressive – Nick Cave, Tom Waits, Elvis Costello, and even... Philip Glass ?? The whole album felt like a guilty pleasure, and I suspect it’s exactly the way it was intended to be appreciated. I also understand how some people would hate it ; I actually even surprised myself by liking it. A hard album to rate. In the end I’ll go with a 4* because fuck it, so many albums on this list are generic 60s rock or 90s Britpop bands, it makes me super happy to hear something different for once.

This album has always been one of my favorite hip-hop albums, so I was already quite familiar with it. I gave it a refresh just to be sure – and yep, it’s still great. I reckon it’s not easy to get into that kind of sound ; it’s a demanding album that requires at least a basic hip-hop culture to be fully appreciated. It's also super weird (as always with Kool Keith, who's clearly a mad bastard). It’s abstract / ambient hip hop, and you have to listen to it that way. Don't expect any banger - it’s low-key, sometimes even a bit jazzy, with a lot of attention going to production and atmospheres. It’s an experimental / concept album with metal-esque artwork, disturbing themes and lyrics, haunting loops, and an overall gloomy mood that makes it close to horrorcore (with a big grain of salt, because it's also full of silly jokes, absurd punchlines and hilarious lyrics... "Oh shit, there's a horse in the hospital !"). It may not be Dan the Automator’s best work, but you can feel QBert’s presence all through the album with his phenomenal scratches. As for Kool Keith, he was still a bit rough around the edges at the time (it was his first solo album), but his droning voice contributes greatly to the general unease the album tries to convey. Still a classic in my opinion, but clearly not the album I’d pick to introduce someone to hip hop.

Having spent most of the 2010’s in an iron box buried deep underground, I had zero idea who Adele was. I was, however, quite wary of what seemed to be yet another mainstream pop idol designed by comittee to appeal to sad teenagers. I’m glad, however, that I gave Adele a chance. I was right, but I was also wrong. I was wrong because she’s clearly a very talented young woman with an amazing voice and a real soul / blues sensibility. « Rolling in the Deep » and « Rumor Has It » are great songs that convey a lot of emotion. I also liked « Lovesong ». The fact that she forced Spotify to play her songs in order and not as a random mix also speaks hugely in her favor in my opinion... The rest of the album, however, is a mixed bag. The production is far too polished to my taste, and I still think this is music specifically designed to please everybody. It’s smooth and comfy - it’s the musical equivalent of a safe space. I have nothing against safe spaces, but I want music to shock me out of my comfort zone, and this album certainly does not do that. Adele won’t become my favorite singer anytime soon, but with better production and a little bit of risk-taking, she may yet do some interesting things.

I found this album a bit boring when it came out in 1995. It hasn’t really got better with time. I’ll admit it’s impressive that Dave Grohl managed to become an entire rock band almost by himself to create this album... but apart from that, there’s not a lot to be excited about. There's a few nice moments here and there, but it often sounds like a parody of Nivana. I rated this album a 2* at first, but I think it was a bit harsh. Despite its lack of originality, it was not unpleasant to listen, and it's clearly a honest effort. There are so many far worse albums on this list, I'll add 1 star.

The pinnacle of West Coast cool jazz. Objectively speaking, it’s a perfect album – laid-back yet inventive, masterfully executed from start to finish, and featuring a few tracks that have become all-time classics. Take Five is one of the most covered jazz standards ever for a reason – and the original interpretation is still one of the best ones to this day. The only reason I’m not giving it a 5* is because it’s just slightly too smooth for me. I’m not too big on cool jazz, which means it’s not a record I listen to very often ; maybe once or twice a decade, on a rainy sunday afternoon. I prefer my jazz with a little bit more risk-taking and insanity (yes, that means free jazz). But it’s still a solid 4,5* for me.

I must admit I’ve never been very receptive to the Pixies in the past, although I couldn’t really explain why. A couple of my friends were super into them back in the 90s, but I was never that interested. I’m glad I gave Surfer Rosa a fresh listen today ; I appreciated it much more than I used to. The energy level is crazy, and there’s more than a few awesome tracks. It’s really proto-grunge / noise rock at its finest. « Where Is My Mind ? » brings back fond memories of road trips and hazy parties – and it’s still very good, even after so many years. Overall an excellent album with a lot of personality. The Pixies are still a little too much on the noise side for me (I like my guitars a bit cleaner), but I salute the effort nonetheless, and I’ll try to give a fresh listen to their other albums when I have the time.

I am not unfamiliar with experimental music, and I appreciate its value as a force for innovation. However, not all experiments are successful. Sometimes their value lies not in what they managed to accomplish, but on what they opened the door to – but that doesn’t mean they’re interesting to listen to... For me, this album falls in that this category. It may have had an impact on some musicians, but it’s too raw and transitionnal ; I find it really hard to listen to. The 60s were full of weird experiments ; some of them were even weirder than this album, and yet remain much more enjoyable to listen. Ummagumma came out the same year, and it’s infinitely stranger – and yet more haunting – than this. Hell, even Albert Ayler’s most esoteric work are more pleasant to listen to. It doesn’t help that the singer has a terrible, terrible voice. It’s harsh and grating and it got on my nerve so much that I had a hard time listening to the end. I would maybe have liked it better if it had been an instrumental album. But since he never shuts up, I found the whole album unsufferable.

On the same level as "A Rush Of Blood" (or maybe slightly better, but to be honest, they’re so similar that I have a hard time telling them apart) – pleasant to listen, but ultimately neither very original nor very memorable. Comfy pop-rock that builds (with class and talent) on the legacy of dream pop, shoegaze and a bit of grunge to create something sweet and relaxing, fit for rainy afternoons and long distance bus trips. I enjoy it, but I won’t remember any of it.

This album was playing over and over at home when I was a kid, so I literally grew up with it. I cannot review it in an impartial way – it was the very first thing people told me was "music". It will always have a special place in my heart, for it sounds like home and happy sundays. I know the Beatles will later go on producing more complex, experimental albums, but sometimes, simple is good too. A Hard Day’s Night is just that : pure, simple unadulterated fun. It’s the sound of a whole generation, and I can understand why. It may not be the pinnacle of songwriting, it’s pretty basic, shamelessly cheesy... but it’s a masterpiece of efficiency. Does it objectively deserve a 5* ? I don't know, but millions of horny teenagers seemed to think so in the 60s. Who am I to object ?

A great hip-hop album with a festive vibe and a lot of silly jokes. It was a shocker when it came out, but it hasn’t aged that well in my opinion. The beats are a bit outdated, and the « I’m constantly screaming » school of rapping can be somewhat hard to listen now - with the exception of « Looking Down The Barrel... », still a banger for me. I’ve always had a very ambivalent relation to the BB ; they never were my favorite kind of hip-hop, but it’s hard to deny their originality and influence on the local rap scene. « Hello Nasty » is a far superior album in my opinion. « Paul’s Boutique » is a solid 3,5*, but I can’t go any higher.

This album was a relatively good surprise. I only knew Billy Joel through his cheesy 80s hits, so I expected something terrible. But The Stranger was something else. It’s a surprising mix of influences, with some very 70s music and a few interesting experimentations that probably helped define the sound of the 80s. The first couple of songs were really good, but the rest of the album was unfortunately less exciting, and some song were very forgettable. I had a reasonnably pleasant moment overall ; but ultimately, it’s really not my kind of music, nothing really struck a chord or made me excited. I’ll give it a 2* for effort and originality, but I can’t go higher, since I’m pretty sure I won’t listen again.

A good Beatles album that saw an obvious leap in complexity, departing from feel-good pop territory. Not that it’s necessarily a good thing – I’ve always admired the Beatles for their simplicity, the way they initially managed to « do more with less ». Maybe that’s why this album has never been among my favorites and doesn’t speak to me the way other albums do. The band sounds more composed and more professional than before - but also seem to have lost a bit of its original energy, without having reached their technical peak yet. But I guess you can’t catch lightning in a bottle with every album. There’s a few excellent tracks (Norwegian Wood, Michelle, Girl...) along the way, while some others are not as striking or memorable. Overall always a pleasant listen, but not an album I come back to very often.

I had always stayed away from Lynyrd Skynyrd because of their ridiculous image (I can’t take seriously a band that calls an album "God and Guns", sorry), but apparently the original founding band had very little to do with the parody that LS has become (as a matter of fact, every single musician playing in this first album is now dead, so it’s literally not the same band...). Well, I’m glad I gave a chance to their debut album. It’s an excellent Southern rock offering, really impressive for a first effort. Almost every track is an instant classic, and they obviously had a huge influence on many later bands (yes, I’m looking at you, Guns N’Roses). A solid 3,5* going on 4*.

I have a limited knowledge of Deep Purple, a band that I had always thought as lost in that weird buffer zone between 70s rock and proto heavy metal. I’ve heard their mainstream hits, but never tried to dig deeper. I was absolutely amazed to discover such a modern-sounding album. It’s great from start to finish, incredible vocal energy, fantastic riffs. It’s not a missing link or a transitionnal band, it’s just pure, good rock music. « Child in Time » can easily rival some of Led Zeppelin’s best pieces. A true discovery for me, probably the first real « I’m glad I have listened to this album before I die » moment since I started participating. I’m getting the rest of their discography right now.

A beautiful, very atmospheric record that I come back to every few years. As one of the main players of the Mo’Wax label, DJ Shadow helped bring instrumental / abstract hip-hop to maturity while staying true to its underground roots. He perfected the art of layering, made a few fantastic albums, and yet never stopped being a DJ (I’ve seen him perform in a club in the early 2010s, and he didn’t disappoint). His first album displays the same weakness many abstract hip-hop LPs from that period do : it’s a bit hit-and-miss, with some excellent ideas and some less judicious ones. Another thing I regret is that Shadow is not really a scratcher, something that could have benefited some of his compositions. Overall, this album is still a classic for me, even if it’s a bit rough around the edges. Building Steam, Stem and Organ Donor are haunting, eerie pieces of music that I never get tired of. Ideally I’d rate it a 4,5*. It’s really a pity that the most abstract side of Mo’Wax is so under-represented on this list. DJ Krush, an even better artist than Shadow in my opinion, would have fully deserved a place here – but apparently it’s almost impossible to be on this list if you’re not American or European.

Ambient music for trendy lounge bars... I guess if you bore people enough they’ll order more drinks ? Seriously, I didn’t *hate it*, it was kind of all right as background music while I was working. It does indeed set a relaxed mood. But that shit is just soooo repetitive... even Brian Eno’s "Music for Airports" required more attention and brainpower to process. I’ll give it a 2* because I didn’t detest it, but I don’t understand why it’s on this list. It’s super generic, any semi-competent DJ can reproduce this.

That was... actually quite good ! I didn’t expect much since I’m not a big fan of folk-rock, a genre that often tries to put lipstick on bad rock music by adding random folk instruments. But this is absolutely not the case here – it’s even the other way around. Strictly speaking, it’s very traditionnal folkloric music with celtic and medieval influences, and a few modern guitar lines sprinkled here and there. That worked quite well in my opinion. The songs seem all nice and sweet, but if you listen closely to the lyrics... it’s actually not that sweet, there’s quite a lot of vengeance and bloodletting going on, as is often the case with old folksongs (Matty Groves is a song from the 17th century about a lady who seduces a commoner, who later gets stabbed to death for it by her husband...). The album does get a bit repetitive after a while (Matty Groves, Reynardine and Tam Lin are clearly the highlights), and it is a bit too quiet at times. But the singer’s voice makes up for it. Objectively it's maybe a 2 or a 2,5*, but I'll give it a 3* because real folkloric music (not the US redneck version) is sadly under-represented in this list.

To the horror of some of my hardcore punk-loving friends, I happen to like pop-punk and skate-punk. I think optimistic, positive-ernergy music fully has its place in the big punk family. I hadn’t seriously listened to any Green Day since « Dookie ». They’re a tad too much on the pop side even for me, so they’re clearly not my favorite in this subgenre – I’d rather listen Offspring or Bad Religion any day of the week – but I enjoyed this album overall. Some great songs, some less interesting stuff... a weird mix of 2-minutes and 9-minutes tracks... Nothing life-changing, but all in all a nice feel-good album to work by on a sunny afternoon.

I knew I had to come across Michael Jackson on this list eventually, and I dreaded it. As far as I can remember, I’ve always hated both the man and the artist. It’s difficult to explain why – it was like hate at first sight. As a child in the 80s, I found him vaguely repulsive and weird, as if he was an alien parading in a badly imitated human-skin disguise. As a teenager in the 90s, his music was the embodiment of everything I hated in pop music – shrill, artificial, full of fake enthusiasm and synthetic noises. As an adult, I simply had zero interest in his antics (and better music to discover). Anyway. It’s hard for me to listen, let alone review, an entire album of this nonsense. I did it though, for the sake of this challenge. I tried to keep an open mind, but in the end it didn’t change my stance – I still think it’s pretentious, style-over-substance, fame-obsessed garbage. Almost every single track grates on my nerves like nails on a chalkoard. His constant high-piched yodeling and his stupid yoo-hoos and yee-hees simply drive me insane. I’ll admit that Smooth Criminal is not a bad song – it’s groovy and very listenable, once in a while. But that’s about it. Usually, I would rate this kind of album a 2* despite my dislike, because I objectively recognize its influence. But for once I’ll make an exception and judge entirely from the heart. Yee-hee !

A tricky album to review for me. On one side, it’s shocking to see how much of this music is directly borrowed from or copied on 1970s Motown sound. It goes far beyond simple "influences", sometimes bordering on blatant imitation. For the European public of 1993, who had not necessarily been exposed much to such music, it may have sounded super original. But the fact remains that it’s by and large a repackaging and rebranding of older music for a new audience – not unlike what the Stones and the Beatles did in the early 60s to make a name for themselves. I know the line between plagiarism and inspiration can be a blurry one – but Jamiroquai stands right in the middle of that grey area, not without a certain dishonesty (and don’t even get me started on the ridiculously fake political posturing... Dude, you can’t call your "brothers and sisters" to "go paramilitary" when your main hobby is collecting luxury cars). On the other hand, one must admit that Jay Kay is an extremely talented musician / imitator. He managed to produce a carbon-copy of early soul / disco / funk music, down to the very details, the mood, the lyrics and vocal gimmicks. It’s so impressive that I almost suspect him of being a time traveller. Fortunately, he’s not *only* an imitator, and he did inject a few personal twists into the mix. The end result is a groovy, funky, jazzy album that I don’t find particularly original, but that is still pleasant to listen, and certainly did convince a new generation that music went beyond bland pop and commercial rock. So yeah. Good music, but please give credit where credit is due...

One of the best Hip Hop albums of all time, period. I won’t deny that I’m biased since I’ve always been a massive East Coast rap fan. However, this album has truly been pivotal in the history of hip hop, and ushered New York rap music into its golden age. Distancing himself from West Coast gangsta rap and from the very political (but often musically simplistic) conscious hip hop of the 80s, he proves that one can indeed talk about thug life while still being a gentleman about it. Nas displays a smooth, impeccable flow from start to finish. It may sometimes seem lackluster (it doesn’t have the raw insanity of an ODB or the heavy hammering of a Biggie), but it’s just technically perfect, never missing a beat. But as good as he is, Nas is not the main reason this album is so great. Most of all, the production is absolutely stellar, with so many big names of the NY hip hop scene involved that it feels like a best-of album : DJ Premier, Pete Rock, Large Professor... As usual in rap music, the rapper gets all the credit - and it’s a shame, because Illmatic is a perfect example of why production makes at the very least half the quality. Soul and jazz samples blend perfectly, and helped shape the thoughtful, melancholic vibe that defines a big part of NY hip hop. The beats and samples from « NY State of Mind » haven’t aged a day. « Memory Lane » has always been a personnal favorite of mine, and « Represent » could be the official anthem of NY rap in the 90s. A true classic !

Before rap music was on MTV and the radio, before rappers started putting out records... hip-hop was a festive culture that had mainly one goal : play records and tell jokes so people would dance and have fun at block parties. This is indeed a party album that somehow feels connected to these roots : it doesn’t take itself seriously, it doesn’t try to be « artsy », it’s just plain old-fashionned fun. I lack knowledge of the specific context of this album, so I can’t really judge if it was relevant or not when it came out. It does however feel outdated now ; it’s old-school even for 1989, and not all the beats and lyrical experiments have aged well. Some songs are really, really long – which is nice when you’re high and dancing, but quickly feels boring when actively listening at home. By the end of the album it felt like a chore. Tracks are hit and miss – some are funky, while others are annoying I didn’t hate it, but I won’t listen to it again, one try was enough.

I remember hearing this album everywhere the year it came out. It was on the radio, it was at every house party... But even in 1994, it felt uninspired and unoriginal to my teenage ears. It lacked soul and energy, it was just... vanilla (especially since it was the height of the grunge craze back then, and compared to Nirvana, Oasis felt like old people music). And the Beatles had already done so much better... I saw them live at a festival in 1996, and it didn’t change my mind one bit. So. Here we are now, about 30 years later. I tried to put aside my disdain for Oasis and give it a honest listen. I really tried. But nope... still don’t like it. While I don’t hate it with a passion anymore, I found it far too generic and derivative. It’s not BAD bad ; I even enjoyed « Bring It On Down » (the only track that aged well in my opinion). But overall it’s just... meh. Most of the songs are very forgettable. If played at a party, « Supersonic » or « Live Forever » will make 45 years-old people like me nod in recognition, and it will be a nice excuse to start a conversation. But that’s about it...

I only knew Van Morrison by name. I expected something polite and boring, but it was actually a very pleasant album. While it is indeed a bit too much on the easy-listening side for my taste, the soul, folk and country influences blend well together, and Van Morrison totally makes it work thanks to his genuine love for these genres. It’s full of heart and emotion, and I can totally see myself listening to this again. On the downside, there’s not a lot of variation throughout the album, most songs follow more or less the same pattern (except Moondance, a beautiful song). It’s also a pure product of its time, so much that it almost sounds like the soundtrack of a generic movie about the late 60s. He was obviously a talented artist back in the days, but maybe not original or excentric enough to leave a lasting impression beyond that time period.

As usual, I’m disappointed with this list’s picks in the hip-hop category. I’m pretty sure by now the author has a non-existent rap culture, and just checked which albums were trending each year... I love hip-hop, but Jay-Z is hardly a groundbreaking artist, and The Blueprint isn’t really his best work. Nothing beats his first album (with the Black Album a close second). The Blueprint is... kind of all right, I guess ? It’s not bad – it’s reasonnably good mainstream hip-hop, and Jay-Z earns extra points with me for not assaulting us with 37 useless skits and 23 featurings with the latest trendy MCs. It’s a well-trimmed album with 12 tracks that go straight to the point. That being said, the production is a mixed bag. I was filled with hope after Takover, which had fantastic sampling ; but most of the following songs fell back into the kind of heavy « club hip-hop » nonsense I hate. The last track, Renegade, was the only other song I really cared for – probably the high point of this album in terms of production (thanks to Eminem). Jay-Z’s flow sounds a bit flat, it’s like he’s just going through the motions to pay his taxes. To be fair, Jay-Z never had a particularly great flow to begin with, but he at least showed passion in his first album. Nothing really memorable happens here – it’s all rehashed tropes and tired brags we’ve already heard a thousand times. It’s never as obvious as in Renegade, where Eminem’s perfect flow suddenly eclipses everyone else. Fortunately it’s a short album that doesn’t overstay its welcome. It’s all right for a casual listen... but surely there were better picks available in the rap category ?

Today I learned that edgy ironic hipsters were already a thing back in the 60s – and that they were exactly as cringey as their modern counterparts. Parody is funny if it’s one or two songs at the end of an album. If most of your album - especially your first album as a band - is based on mocking other bands... well, you’re not funny, you’re just annoying, and you only prove that you spend a very unhealthy amount of time thinking about what other people do. Musically speaking, this album was a just a whole lot of nothing for me. It tries to be experimental, but with far less success than other bands of the same time period. The psych-rock parts are not particulary well done, and haven’t aged well. I didn’t care much for the lyrics either. Maybe it’s just not my kind of humor. Parody in music has never been something I find particularly funny. Listening to this album felt like being forced to watch a long one-man show by a stand-up comedian who never makes you laugh. I'm sure some people found it hilarious... but for me it was mainly cringey. I'll give it a 2* for originality, but I have zero interest in this kind of music.

How have I never heard about these guys ? Great psychedelic vibe with a touch of The Who and a pinch of British Invasion. The singer has a very distinctive voice. A few super weird moments that almost sound like very early Pink Floyd. Loved it ! Makes you wonder how many great bands slipped through the web of fame and were unjustly forgotten... I have to check their other albums.

I was expecting something more jazzy, or at least jazz-rock... But this is just a bland mix of mall jazz and vanilla funk. At the very best, it sounds like the opening credits of a late 70s exploitation movie. But most of the time it feels like a tired third-rate band playing at the bar of a cheap cruise boat for old people. I’m sure the musicians play very well, and I’m sure someone will find something good to write about this album. I’ll even admit they kind of grew on me by the end of the album... but it was too little, too late. I already gave them 40 minutes of my life, I can’t be bothered to find something better to say about them. It’s just about the opposite of what I personally like in music.

Interesting album, to say the least. Full of cheeky weirdness and nonsensical fun, with some good jazzy moments and a contagious joie de vivre. Not exactly my cup of tea from a musical point of view, but it was a nice discovery. Definitely enjoyed it !

I’m really on the fence about this album. On one hand, I’m super stoked to finally have a non-Western album on this list. Non-English and non-Western music in general are so dramatically underrepresented that I feel they should get an automatic 4 or 5* just for existing and allowing people to broaden their horizon. On the other hand... I don’t really like Koffi Olomide, and I think it’s a really weird pick. It’s not that he’s "tailored for Western audiences" as some reviewers have suggested – he’s a HUGE deal in Africa, a legendary singer in his own country. But he’s also very far from being the most interesting or original African artist in my opinion. Musically speaking, it’s very uneven. He has a fantastic voice, no doubt about it. I always enjoy his singing. But the conga instrumentation is awfully basic, and the songs tend to be very repetitive. From a strictly musical point of view, I’d probably have rated this album a 2*. Taking all factors into consideration, I’ll go for a generous 3*. But I wish this list would have picked Malian blues or Ethio-jazz instead of a modern mainstream artist.

I was never really interested in Elton John. Not that I don’t like him – I’m just not familiar enough with his music to have a strong opinion about it. This was the first Elton John album I actually listened from start to finish. At the end of the first song, I was in awe. It was amazing, and I thought I was going for a 5* album. But then... the songs started piling up, and it became apparent that Funeral For A Friend was the exception. This album is really all over the place – some good songs (mainly the jazzier ones with a lot of piano), some average songs, some super cheesy stuff, and a couple of abominations (Jamaica Jerk-Off is criminally bad). In the end, I was left puzzled. I can appreciate the talent, the creativity and the passion Elton John has poured into this double LP. It’s objectively a great album, no doubt about that. But personally... only a third of the songs really brought me excitement, and only a couple of them were truly great. I guess it’s just not my kind of music.

Not bad for a first album. It’s clearly still a bit chaotic and rough around the edges, but there are a few great moments here and there. I liked the riffs in « Baby’s On Fire », and « Driving Me Backwards » struck a chord with me. I totally understand why Eno and Bowie would click later on. I would have given it a 3* for the instruments alone, but I really disliked most of the singing (« Dead Finks » was almost painful), so it’s more like a 2,5* (hence a 2* here... sorry Brian). Definitely not a bad album, it grew on me as I listened, and I enjoyed it more than I would have imagined... but I don’t think I’ll replay it anytime soon.

Dire Straits are a mystery to me. Every time I play one of their records, two things happen : 1) I think "woaw, this is actually much better than I remembered. They’re good !". 2) I put away the record and forget about it entirely for years. They somehow manage to make music that is at the same time well-crafted, pleasant to the ears, technically very good, and yet kind of bland and forgettable. That’s probably the reason they’re often considered "dad rock" (well, that and the fact that if you grew up in Europe in the 80s or 90s, there was a 99 % chance that your dad or uncle listened to them). This album is no exception. It’s an excellent debut album, it’s really good music, no doubt about that. But I can’t help but feel that they’re late to the party, making heartfelt, honest blues-rock 10 years after blues-rock was a thing. I have nothing but respect for them, but I can’t say they’ve ever blown my mind. For me it’s just nice background music. Down To The Waterline and Sultans of Swing are still great songs though.

Saying this has "historical value" would be an understatement, since it’s quite literally the birth of Rock’n’Roll Among all the original forefathers of Rock’n’Roll, Little Richard has always been my favorite. His enthusiasm is absolutely insane, and his voice has a special quality that makes me feel warm and fuzzy, even if I can’t really explain why. He has an amazing presence that makes it impossible for me to not smile whenever I hear him. Sure, it’s very gimmick-ish, relying on basically the same structure repeated over and over again... but I don’t really mind. The level of energy thoughout the album is crazy - even 70 years later, many bands can’t even dream to approach it. In the end I’ll go for a 4* because it’s still a bit rough around the edges, with a murky sound (hard to avoid with pre-1960 records) and songs that all sound a bit too similar to each other.

A very dated album in my opinion. It’s super long and repetitive, nothing really stands out, and it can probably be fully appreciated only if you’re full of illegal chemicals. I’m not a huge fan of big beat in the first place, it’s too close to dance and house music for my taste – but I find it even harder to listen in "album mode". Big beat is explicitely designed as clubbing music ; it doesn’t make much sense to blast it on speakers at home unless you’re having a party. And even then, it's super basic. I initially considered giving this album a 2* because I enjoyed the first few tracks. But by the end of the album, the repetitivity was seriously getting on my nerves. Certainly won't listen again. A completely dispensable album in my opinion, especially since You've Come A Long Way Baby is already on this list too...

Back in the mid-80s, when hip-hop still had a strong underground component, LL Cool J was one of the first rappers to go mainstream and make the genre popular. But in 1990, the hip-hop scene was already firmly established, and I’m not sure this album brought much novelty to the genre. It’s a pleasant enough listen, it was good for his time, but quite a lot of tracks now sound very dated. He’s a good emcee, no doubt about that – tracks like Eat’em Up L Chill, Mr Good Bar or Mama Said Knock You Out are still classic examples of old-school NY rap. But it’s not something I’d really want to listen anymore except for the historic value.

Not my favorite Iggy Pop album (my preference goes to "Lust for Life", and I usually prefer angry Iggy to stoned, sad Iggy), but I enjoyed it nonetheless. Putting aside Bowie’s influence (or even direct intervention), it’s a mixed bag of really good songs (I love « Nightclubbing » and « Mass Production » are fantastic) and half-hearted efforts (« Funtime »...). Nothing sounds really bad, but nothing sounds extremely original either. I probably don’t know enough about the context to be fair, though. Another « morning album » to slowly wake up without having to think too much.

A great album that saw U2 reinvent themselves. The ethereal vocals and sonic experiments with distortion (bordering on fuzzbox abuse) probably influenced a lot of bands in the mid-90s. They were clearly ahead of their time. I already knew this album from back in the days – but I didn’t own the CD, so I think I never managed to listen to it from start to finish. It’s much bettter and much more creative than I remembered. I used to think the album just had a couple of good tracks, but I actually really enjoyed most of the songs, including the less famous ones. Ideally I’d give them a 3,5*, mainly because it’s still a tad too pop-ish for me... but I’ll add half a star for the legendary "One". I think I actually had my first kiss on this song at a house party (as a good part of my generation probably did...).

The swan song of Metallica, before they became an average garage rock band... And yet a great album in my opinion : it’s the perfect balance between metal and mainstream hard rock. People used to give them shit for "selling out", but let’s be real... Without this album, Metallica would only be remembered by a handful of nostalgic metalheads endlessly talking about the same 3 great thrash albums. Metallica allowed metal to enter popular culture, and I’m pretty sure this album was a gateway drug into metal for millions of teenagers – that can’t be a bad thing ! So yeah, it’s not thrash anymore, the production is a bit too clean, it somewhat lacks agressivity... but it’s still a very good album with at least three powerful hits and half a dozen very good songs. The "slow but heavy" riffs tend to become a bit repetitive towards the end, but I still enjoy this album.

I don’t really get Dylan. Is it a generational thing ? Or maybe it’s cultural, and you need to be American to fully appreciate his relevance. He’s not a bad artist, he certainly contributed something to music – but I don’t think he deserves the gigantic amount of praise he gets, either. He might be a fine songwriter and composer, but he’s neither a very good singer nor a very good instrumentalist. Anyway. This album kind of embodies all the gripes I have with Dylan. It starts really well, with an iconic song that I always enjoy listening. Then the songs start piling up... and they all sound exactly the same. There’s very little variation, very little risk-taking, all the tracks rely on the same structures and vocal gimmicks. And the harmonica... so much harmonica... It all feels a bit flat and lifeless – like Dylan’s voice – and you end up wondering where it’s all going, and wether he will display more passion at some point (spoiler : he won’t). There’s nothing really wrong with any of the songs taken separately... but by the end of the album, I was just bored out of my mind. Maybe I just have to accept that Dylan must be enjoyed only at very small doses.

A weird mix of (too many ?) influences, that unfortunately never coalesce into a clear musical identity. It’s not an unpleasant album, far from it ; I enjoyed it as background music, thanks to its meditative and melancholic vibe. But I’m not sure I quite understand what they were trying to do. It somehow feels unfinished and a amateurish, like a very well-produced demo. Overall there was nothing truly memorable for me here. I’ll probably have forgotten everything I just heard in a few days. They could also use a better artistic direction... With a terrible band name, terrible album name and terrible cover art, it’s like these guys don’t really want to sell records.

An important and influential album. They certainly experimented with a lot of new sounds and styles, and it’s impressive that they could still reinvent themselves and make such great music by their 11th album (!), at a point in their career where most bands usually start to decline. As revolutionary as it was back then, I’m not sure it aged that well though. Some songs are still pretty awesome, but many others sound a bit tame now. I think I prefered The Beach Boys when they were doing brainless, happy surf music ; maybe it wasn’t as sophisticated as Pet Sounds, but they had a raw energy that this album could sometimes use. I enjoyed listening to it, I acknowledge its objective importance, but it didn’t excite me as much as I would have liked. Maybe I’ll come back to it in the future to try to get a new perspective.

A really good surprise for me. I wasn’t interested in Muse back when it was all the rage (I probably wasn’t the target demographic), so I never gave them a chance. I wasn’t expecting much from this album... but I ended up listening twice in a row (to my own surprise). I know perfectly well that it’s not super original, that it’s derivative, that it’s partly a louder Radiohead clone... Nonetheless, I think they really make it work, and definitely bring something to the table (at least more than other imitators from the same time period). There’s a scope and an ambition in this album that I really appreciated – it’s loud and bombastic, the orchestration is epic, and there’s some surprisingly heavy guitars. It’s not a gamechanger, but it’s pop-rock done right. Will definitely listen again.

It’s a Pink Floyd album. Hence, it's perfect. Pure musical poetry. I could listen in a loop for hours. It’s not my *favorite* Pink Floyd album – there are at least three others I love even more – but it doesn’t mean much. It’s like trying to differentiate different levels of perfection. Let’s say it’s a 4,5* or a 4,75*...

It’s my second Fleetwood Mac album on this list, and it only confirmed with absolute certainty that their music is not for me. I find their music derivative, bland and uneventful. They obviously rely on a wide range of different influences, but they somehow manage to turn each and every one of them into something boring... Everything felt so slow and dragged-out that I wanted to claw my eardrums out after three songs. How this band became so big is a complete mystery to me.

Not an easy album to get into... It’s raw, angry, and as melodious as a bag a razorblades. It sounds like what I imagine psychosis must feel like, and the fine line between noise-rock and just noise is crossed more than a few times. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the dark and disturbing mood. I’m giving it a 3* for its originality and no-compromise attitude, and because fuck polite music.

Sorry, I just can't. If Boredom had a child with Vanilla, it would sound like this album.

I understand the appeal, they’re obviously good at what they do... But it’s really, really not my kind of music. I have a deep-rooted allergy to disco music (and by proxy to the disco side of soul), and I was sincerely hoping Earth Wind & Fire could change my mind. But despite my best efforts, I just couldn’t get into it. I enjoyed a couple of tracks, then it became exhausting ; the high-pitched chorus and syrupy voices are just too grating for me, and I had to (painfully) force myself to listen to the end. Sorry, maybe next time...

Pleasant enough album to listen while sipping my morning coffee. I had only listened to Buddy Holly’s first solo album before that, The Crickets were a first for me. I didn’t know they had such a huge influence on the Beatles ; and to be honest, I didn’t really feel it while listening, they sound miles behind the Beatles. It’s a bit hard for me to enjoy that kind of music the way people enjoyed it 70 years ago. The singing sound really dated, I feel it hasn’t aged as well as some other bands. I only really got into it by the end of the album, and I kind of liked "Last Night". I’d give it 3* for the (limited) fun it brought me, the super nostalgic vibe and the historical value.

I had already listened to this album years ago, back when I was trying (with mixed success) to get into Nick Cave. I’ve always seen him as a versatile and capricious artist, capable of the best as well as the worst. Fortunately this album falls into the reasonnably good Nick Cave category. I did enjoy the somber and brooding mood, the soulful singing and the minimalist arrangements. It’s beautifully sung, and the whole album really stands out in his discography with its unique identity. It slowly grew on me, and I think it really benefits from being listened to as a complete album. The lyrics, however, kind of ruin the mood for me – he sometimes sounds like an edgy goth kid who just heard about mortality and agnosticism for the first time. It can be whiny and self-indulgent, and I have a hard time taking him very seriously ("People ain’t no good' doesn’t strike me as a particularly deep assertion...). A pleasant album overall if you’re in the right mood. I’d rate it a solid 3*, or a 3,5* if I could.

So smooth you could slip and fall by listening too hard. The Isley Bros are insane. They’ve been making music for 60 years, and they’ve managed to constantly reinvent themselves from decade to decade without losing their energy. They did killer swing in the late 50s, sick rock n’roll in the 60s, soul and funk in the 70s... It’s hard not to be in awe of their talent. To my great shame, they only came to my attention through the intro sequence of Final Destination VI (the band performing on the top floor is playing one of their hits from the late 50s). I took a instant liking to them and started exploring their early discog. Now this 1973 album pops up on the list and blows my mind again... Ok, it’s not 100 % perfect – it’s a bit too sweet and cheesy for my taste, some tracks are a bit too much on the disco side... But overall it’s an incredibly rich and generous album, with slick guitar work, songs that go all over the spectrum of soul and funk, and a couple of absolute bangers like Sunshine. I’d have rated it a 4* if they had other albums on this list. But since it’s the only Isley Brothers album here, I’ll add a star for their whole discog. And it’s not just a name, they’re really all brothers !! Family reunions must be super groovy.

It started relatively well... until the horrible fake high pitch began in "Masculine You". At first it sounded like Farinelli with the flu. Then they did it again. And again. And again... Like nails on a chalkboard. Stop. Please stop. STOP THIS OH MY GOD I WANT TO CLAW MY EARDRUMS OUT. I’d rather listen to cats in heat for 60 minutes than submit myself to that again. It didn't help that the whole band seemed to be asleep through most of the album. "Nixon" managed to lull me to sleep AND make my skin crawl at the same time. I guess it's a feat in itself ?...

Kind of worked for me. I don’t know enough about the context to take it into account, so my review is purely based on first impressions. There’s nothing particularly memorable about this album, nothing particularly original or inventive, but it’s pleasant enough to listen. I don’t like the singer’s voice, but the instrumentation is all right, with some good guitar work. I really liked the post-punk vibe of the first three tracks, and the title song Marquee Moon almost feels psychedelic at times, with the long dragged-out guitar line. The album gets a bit weaker after that though, but never really bad. The last song left me a good impression. It’s a 2,5* for me, neither good nor bad. At first I wanted to rate it a 2* for its lack of strong identity. But I’ve come across so many albums that were almost painful to listen on this list that I felt it would be unfair. So I’ll go up to a 3*. I may have been influenced by the fact that after listening to some shitty music today, I was starved for anyting half-decent.... so I might come back to this album later and change my review. Or not.

A great jazz album, especially if you’re into big bands. It’s classy yet full of life and energy, impressively well-ordered and coordinated. All musicians are equally good. It’s a tad too old-school for my taste, but considering Count Basie was active as early as the mid-30s, it’s amazing to see how well he evolved with his time.

The absolute worst of the 80s, without much of the good... It doesn’t help that it’s basically the work of a one-man band. Well, one man and his beatbox. I found it hard to listen to such a dated sound without the help of heavily tainted nostalgia glasses. A couple of songs started well... then became unsufferable after 20 seconds. Definitely not for me.

I feel conflicted about this album. On one hand, I’ll admit Moby is talented. He has a curious mind, he clearly knows his way around music history, and he’s tried his hand at many different styles (including tech-house and slow contemplative ambient music). On the other hand – and this was my biggest gripe with Moby back when he was all the rage – I’m kind of annoyed that so many people (including music critics) seem to think that he’s some kind of pioneering genius. Electro, trip-hop and abstract hip-hop DJs had been doing the shit he’s doing for years before Play was even released, some of them with more talent and inventivity (like DJ Shadow). Moby didn’t really invent anything ; he captured ideas that were already present in the wild and repackaged them (beautifully) for a larger audience. His biggest accomplishment in my opinion is getting the art of sampling out of the basement, helping it become acceptable for radio stations. "Play" is a beautifully crafted album, I won’t deny that. It’s full of haunting melodies, with a few loops that can really get stuck in your head. But it is ultimately not as original as it seems. To no fault of its own, it has also been so overused that it’s hard to hear it in a neutral way... Overall, it hasn’t aged very well in my opinion. It feels a bit flat and superficial now.

A Queen Latifah album is like a good bottle of wine – you have to slowly sip a glass or two and learn to appreciate it. If you try to binge-drink the whole bottle, you’ll end up with a hangover and miss the point entirely. Sure, this album sounds VERY old-school – the production is so minimalistic that it’s basically just a background beat, and it can be repetitive at times. The beat is old school even for 1989, it could almost be an album from the mid-80s. But this is largely compensated by the natural, charismatic flow of Queen Latifah, whose obvious enthusiasm and presence make for a very solid offering - in addition to finally giving a voice to women in the world of hip hop. All in all a great album. It think it aged surprisingly well – even now that we have a plethora of good female MCs, the Queen is still one of the best.

Not bad for a first album, a few nice moments. A bit more punk than I would have imagined. I love Chrissie Hynde’s voice, she seems comfortable with a wide range of different styles. It still sounds a bit dated in my opinion, and the songs are really hit-and-miss. I loved « Space Invader », « The Wait » and « Lovers of Today », while tracks like « Private Life » sounded terribly outdated. I spent the album hesitating between a 2* and a 3*... Too bad the grading scale is so limited. In the end it’s probably not an album I’ll listen again, but I don’t think it’s bad, so I’ll go with a 3* for effort.

Third Neil Young album I come across in this list, and I’m already starting to suffer from Neil Young fatigue. According to the author of this list, he’s apparently as important to the history of music as the Beatles, since he’s been granted just as many albums (7, if you’re wondering) – which I find preposterous. Neil Young is not a bad artist, but let’s be serious for a moment. Anyway. This is clearly my least favorite Neil Young album. For some reason his voice is even more high-pitched and shrill than usual. It made me cringe so much I had a hard time listening to the end ; even my cat was annoyed, and ran away in horror when Neil started to sound like some weird redneck Farinelli. The songs are quite repetitive, following almost the same structure, and a couple of tracks are annoyingly cheesy ("Only Love Can Break Your Heart" was unbearable). I have much respect for some of Neil Young's albums, but this one was terrible. The whiny voice is an instant trip to the discard bin for me.

An unremarkable but nonetheless pleasant punk album. Nothing life-changing here, it’s neither hardcore nor pop punk - just regular, standard punk music for people who aren’t completely drunk (yet). It lacks a bit of punch and all songs sound pretty similar (as is the case with most punk albums, honestly), but there’s also nothing really bad. Probably won’t listen to it again by myself, but I could at least blast a few tracks at a party without having my friends run away in terror.

One of the most boring and repetitive albums I’ve come across in this list. Probably a great album if you’re high as a kite and having sex with bikini models at a pool party. But since that never happens to me, I’ll pass.

I really enjoyed the experience. A nice concept album with a strong psychedelic twist, like The Beatles on LSD. Sometimes a bit chaotic and nonsensical, you have to embrace the crazyness to fully appreciate it (well, I guess I’m a hippie at heart...). Not a game-changer, but I will probably listen again one day. A solid 3* for me.

I've listened to this album so many times over the years that I can't really review it in an objective way. It was one of the first metal albums I ever listened, and it got me through middle-school. Although I love Ride the Lightning even more, I reckon they're both about equal in quality.

4th Neil Young album... But it’s all right. This one was actually good. Not fantastic – I doubt I’ll ever use that word to describe a Neil Young album – but quite enjoyable, at least. I really prefer Neil Young when he does country-blues or country-rock instead of just pure country (or worse, nasal whiny ballads), so this album was right up my alley. All the "blues" track, and especially Revolution Blues and Vampire Blues, were pretty cool, and On The Beach was a superb song. Still not my kind of music, probably won’t listen again, but I had good time reviewing it.

This album should absolutely be used as advertisement for "Drugs are bad". My ears are bleeding.

I’ve always had an interest in ambient music, an umbrella term that refers to many very different styles of music ranging from intricate musical landscapes to purely utilitarian music bordering on non-music. But I’ve never been a big fan of Brian Eno, who usually falls into the second category. I see Eno as the Edison of ambient music : he captured a bunch of ideas in the wild, repackaged them and marketed them to the masses (or to airports). But ambient was already very well alive before him, with much more interesting stuff like Reich’s minimalism, Tangerine Dream trippy experiments or even Vangelis and Jean-Michel Jarre’s soundscapes. « Music for airports » is (voluntarily) unsophisticated, with simplistic structures and superficial ambiances. It’s specifically conceived to be forgotten. The album is honest, it does precisely what it says it does - it’s just background noise that you can occasionnaly listen to, or not. But it does absolutely nothing else, so I’d say its musical value is ver limited. There is nothing eery or haunting about it. It doesn’t make airports sound more interesting (to be honest, it would be much funnier if airports played Pantera). It’s a nice soundtrack to paint my garage walls, but that’s about it. However, I don’t hate it ; it wasn’t *painful* to listen (as some albums on this list are...), just very forgettable. I’d ideally give it a 1,5 but since it’s not possible I’ll be generous and go as far as 2.

I’m not overly familiar with CCR except for a few select songs, so this was a great occasion for me to finally catch up. What a great find ! It’s an excellent blues rock (or swamp rock ?) album that kept me interested from start to finish. For an album made in 1970, it sounds amazingly atemporal, with influences going back to the early 60s and some very modern-sounding tracks. Not necessarily my favorite kind of rock, but they have an energy and an authenticity that make me crave for more. I’ll definitely come back to this album (and the rest of their discography). Hard choice between a 4 and a 5* - ideally I’d give it a 4,5*.

Over the years, I’ve tried to get into Depeche Mode about half a dozen times. It never worked for me – maybe I didn’t listen to the right songs or the right albums ? This time, I tried my best to give « Music for the Masses » a chance. I must admit I was finally hooked. It won’t become my favorite band anytime soon, but the cold, brooding atmosphere of this album really struck a chord, and a few tracks left me a lasting impression despite all my initial prejudices. I had never realized Depeche Mode could sound so similar to industrial. I don’t regret giving it a new try !

An impressive first album that aged relatively well, considering how old-school it is at heart. For new listeners, however, it’s probably hard to measure the sheer novelty De La Soul represented back in the days. They didn’t check any of the boxes rappers were supposed to check in terms of fashion, lyrics and attitude (they were even called the hippies of hip-hop for a while...). The music, driven by the innovative work of Prince Paul, was also a bit of a revolution, injecting new diversity into hip-hop with samples from all over the musical spectrum. Their humorous lyrics, laid-back attitude and festive vibe made them rightly famous. It was nice to refresh my memory on an album I hadn’t listened to in a decade. Still very pleasant in my opinion, even if a few tracks sound a bit dated now. It’s also not my favorite DLS album, I personally prefer their later, slightly darker work. Technically, I’d rate this album a 3,5* - but this list suffers from such a massive inbalance between pop-rock and rap (not to mention other less popular genres) that I’ll round it up to a 4* to make a point.

This is the second Joni Mitchell album I get on this list. I really disliked the first one. This one is slightly better – mainly because it’s not just her and a guitar. The second song, Jungle Line, is an interesting experiment, and works quite well. There’s a few other nice moments throughout the album – as far as instruments are concerned. I’ll admit it’s creative, and if it was strictly an instrumental album, I may have rated it a 2* or even a 3*... Unfortunately, Joni’s singing completely ruins the experience for me. I can’t really explain why, but her voice just rubs me the wrong way... It doesn’t help that I have absolutely zero interest in the stuff she sings about ; I can’t relate and I don’t care. I know that many people like her, so I’m probably missing something... But listening till the end of the album was almost physically painful for me. I just can’t, sorry.

What is there to say ? Classic Sabbath stoner-doom sound. Not my favorite Sabbath album, but still a very pleasant one. Some of the tracks were so ahead of their time that half the doom metal bands still use the same kind of riffs 50 years later. Ozzy’s voice is even more high-pitched than usual, which can be annoying, but the band is experimenting with new sounds and it makes the overall experience interesting. Every track is a surprise, and there are some fantastic moments here and there. 7/10

Hard pass. I understand what he’s trying to do, but it’s just not working for me. The first song left me hopeful – it had some emotion, and a nice « duel in the sun » vibe... but I found the rest of the album boring. It’s just too cheesy and dated, it feels like something you’d hear at a wedding in the 50s. Well, at least it’s short...

I used to think I disliked country music, but I have to admit the country albums offered on this list have been reasonnably enjoyable (well, at least I didn’t hate them), and I’m slowly changing my mind in that regard. This album started well with a nice Far-West vibe, and I immediately felt transported to the Frontier in the early 19th century. Listening to the first few tracks felt like sitting on my porch in the desert, watching dust devils and changing shapes in the clouds. Quite a nice feeling... But alas, watching clouds and dust devils also gets very boring after a while. I totally understand the laid-back vibe, it’s nice when you’re in the mood – but a whole album of it is a bit too much for me. When the last track ended I was glad it was over. I have nothing but respect for Nelson, he obviously knows what he’s doing. But it’s the kind of music I can only appreciate at very small doses.

One of the few albums from The Who I had never listened before. As usual, it's a great rock album, with a lot of energy and a wide range of emotions and atmospheres. Not my absolute favorite, but still a great offering. The musicians all know what they're doing (that was not always a given in the early 70s...) and seem perfectly at ease with any kind of beat. 8/10

Not my favorite kind of music, but I must admit it’s a fantastic live performance with an insanely festive vibe. The energy is through the roof, and I totally get why rock’n’roll was such a musical revolution back then. Most of the songs are covers, credited or uncredited, so no point for creativity here – but Jerry Lee Lewis revisits them with a very personal touch.

I enjoyed « Wordy Rappinghood », it’s funny and playful and doesn’t take itself seriously (fortunately, because this is some Benny B level of rapping). Lorelei is not too bad either, it has at least some originality. But I definitely could have died without listening to the rest of this overly long, dull and repetitive album. It’s the kind of experiment that was probably interesting in the early 80s, but sounds totally irrelevant to me today. A single funky bass line, a couple of coconut drums and silly lyrics are not enough to make a compelling album. « Marchez marchez les hippopotames... »... sorry, just... no. It’s the kind of music you’d expect to hear at 04:00 in the morning at a cheap holiday resort party, after everyone has left and the shirtless old DJ is trying to hit on your drunk mom. I cringed for most of the album after the first track.

A nice soul offering. No song really stood out for me, but it’s well crafted enough as a whole, the music flows smoothly from start to finish. As usual with Marvin Gaye, it’s oozing with sweetness to the point you sometimes feel like you’re drowning in corn syrup – but since it’s clearly his forte, I can’t really hold it againt him, and anyone probably knows what to expect when playing a Marvin Gaye record. As often with soul music, Jesus is also involved at some point, which I always find a bit weird – but I understand it comes from the gospel roots of the genre, so why not. Not really my kind of soul music (Marvin Gaye has always been a tad too much on the soft & sweet side for me, I like my soul a bit groovier). But it’s still a good record overall.

For some reason I paid zero attention to Garbage when their title album was released in 1995. I guess the mid-90s had so many indie / post-grunge pop-rock bands that it was hard to keep track. I’m glad I filled that gap. Although not my personnal cup of tea, this is an excellent first album, with more talent or originality than many of their contemporaries. It’s a bit too much on the pop side for me, but I like the way they mix many different influences, ranging from punk to trip hop. Production is top-notch (especially for the time), and some tracks sound really modern. Overall a very well-made album that certainly had some influence on later bands. I’d love to give it a 3,5*, but since I can’t, let’s say it’s a solid 3*.

The hype surrounding the Velvet Underground used to put me off, so I never gave them a fair try in the past - a mistake that is now fixed. Their eponym album is a very decent folk-rock offering with a few twists. I expected something trippier and more experimental, but I still dig the overall vibe. To my own surprise, I enjoyed the ballads more than the rock tracks. Some hypnotic moments here an there. Nothing life-changing, but a pleasant listen.

To say that I don’t have a country music culture would be an understatement - I’ve always found folk performers quite hard to get into, mostly because I lack an adequate frame of reference. It’s a very "localized" genre, with its own tropes, mythology and private jokes, most of which I don’t really understand. However, I found this album surprisingly pleasant to listen compared to other country records. It’s got an intimate, mellow atmosphere that made me feel like I was sitting at a campfire in the middle of nowhere. Old-school folk performers seem to have a very down-to-earth relation to their listeners, mixing music with jokes, tall tales and shout-outs, which makes them something of a missing link between itinerant storytellers and modern musicians. Maybe I’m just indulging too much in the old country music mythos, but I did enjoy it. As often with country, however, I also found it a bit repetitive, and the last few songs started to bore me. I probably won’t become a country music fan - but it was still a nice change from what I usually listen to.

I never really got into The Police - a band I’ve always found overrated – but I’m at least familiar with their first two albums, which are decent enough for casual listening. Synchronicity, however, has very few redeeming qualities in my opinion. The punk and reggae influences that made Outlandos d’Amour interesting are gone. It’s a bland mix of easy-listening jazz and rock, with a touch of elevator-quality "world music". The only song I really like is "Mother" (the only one not by Sting...), mainly because its weird unhinged vibe. "Synchronicity II" is almost interesting, but it’s too little, too late. As for the famous "Every breath you take"... it’s so corny it gives me stomach burns. All in all a very forgettable album that only comforts me in my opinion of The Police.

I’m less familiar with John Lee Hooker than I would like, so I was happy to discover this much-vaunted album. The first track left me sightly disappointed, since it had a « happy feeling » that just didn’t do it for me. But the rest of the album was mostly great – especially « In the Mood » and « Sally Mae », which are exactly what I’m expecting from Blues music : deep, slow, harsh and sexy at the same time. All in all a great Blues album, all the more impressing since it was composed when John Lee Hooker was already 72. The numerous featurings are a welcome addition, although not essential to the album. A good 3,5* for me.

Although I never really liked dirty south as a subgenre, I used to give OutKast a pass because Andre 3000 is an absolute beast of a MC. His flow is extremely technical and versatile, making him one of the best MCs of his generation. The three first OutKast albums were solid offerings, with a dark and sober tonality. I’ve listened to AtLiens and Aquemini quite a few times, and they never get old. Stankonia, however, marks a drop in quality in my humble opinion. It’s more pop-ish, loud and messy than their previous works. The production is all over the place, and there are far too many skits. This album is a perfect example of why a good MC isn’t enough to make a good hip hop record – although the flow is still great in itself, it tends to get drowned in a cacophony of sounds. With Stankonia, OutKast is flirting with pop-rap. Kind of a disappointment. The only truly great track of the album for me is "X-plosion".

For anyone who grew up in the 90s, this album sounds like the generic soundtrack of the decade. It’s been imitated so many times that its originality has now been diluted in the giant pool of pop-rock ; but by the mid-90s, every band tried to sound like Smashing Pumpkins (or like Nirvana), and every wannabe singer tried to emulate Corgan’s very peculiar vocal style. The whining voice and the distorted riffs have been done a zillion times by now, but Smashing Pumpkins were indeed the ones to start the trend (or at least introduce it to the mainstream – I still think they sound like a more presentable, radio-friendly version of Sonic Youth). Anyway, it’s hard not to acknowledge that this is a solid rock album with a few fantastic tracks (like Disarm or Soma), and that it had a great impact on its time, However, I’m still not a fan of the lead singer’s whiny voice. It annoyed me back then, and it still annoys me now. I had a hard time listening to the entire album without pause - I’m probably too old to ingest such a huge portion of raw teenage angst in one serving. After a while all tracks just start to sound the same, with the same gimmicks and the same tortured tremolos. It probably deserves an objective 4 – and I totally understand people who worshiped this album back in the days. But I can’t give it more than a 3, because let’s be honest, I probably won’t listen to it again ; it feels like travelling back in time, it’s fun, but the emotion just isn’t there for me.

Boring generic pop-rock with as much spice and energy as a boiled turnip. A few interesting blues and disco sounds here and there, but not enough to make the album worthwhile. It's not a *terrible* album, it may have been relevant at some point (in a few songs, you can clearly hear the seeds of the "feel-good" tonality that would later define a big chunk of the 80s pop music), but it's just not for me. I'm pretty sure I'll have forgotten every song by tomorrow. Except maybe "The Chain", which I kind of enjoyed a little. How this album is one of the highest-rated ever on this list is beyond me.

A difficult album to rate for me. Like most U2 albums in my opinion, it's a mixed bag. Some songs are great, while others are more forgettable. "Sunday Bloody Sunday" remains a powerful song to this days despite its overuse over the years, and "New Year's Day", although a bit cheesy, is an iconc hit of the 80s. Listening to it again after so many years, I also gained a new appreciation for a few overlooked tracks (I really enjoyed "Like a Song", and "Drowning Man" wasn't bad), while others remained... meh. I was suprised to see that this album is so old (1983 !). I remember hearing Sunday Bloody Sunday everywhere in the early 90s - a testimony to its lasting popularity. Not my favourite kind of music, but clearly a landmark in the landscape of mainstream rock. It was ahead of its times, and it aged much better than I would have imagined.

I had never even heard of the band before listening to this album, so I approached it without any bias. My first impression is that it’s really a melting pot of many, many different influences, ranging from 70s psychedelic rock to Radiohead and everything in between. It’s an interesting effort, and I can’t blame a musician for trying. And it does, at times, succeed : some songs are dreamy soundscapes that managed to surprise me. My second impression is that it sometimes tries to be too many different things at once, and ends up lacking a strong identity. It’s a bit too much on the hipster side, a bit too whiny, a bit too sweet... and I can’t help but thinking « I’ve already heard this before ». It’s really not a bad album, but I can’t rate it as a 3 since I’ve given 3 stars to much better albums before. It deserves a 2 for effort - maybe a 2,2 and a Macchiato, because I have a soft spot for strange dream pop.

I was expecting a blues album.... I was sadly disappointed. I don't quite know what to say. I recognize her talent, it's quite well-sung, but it's really, really not my kind of music. I tried very hard to let myself be convinced, but by the end of the album I was bored out of my mind. The instrumentation sounds incredibly basic to my (admittedly profane) ears, and I have zero interest in songs about break-ups and broken hearts. Sorry Joni, nothing personnal. It's not you, it's me.

A great soul / jazz performance with a lot of heart and energy. It sometimes sounds pretty close to old school rock'n'roll, with a superbly festive atmosphere. Must have been insane to see it live, the crowd is on fire. I usually stay away from live albums since they often sound terrible (and I find the noise of the crowd distracting). This album is better than what I expected in that regard, but the sound is still a bit too murky for me. However, I did a quick comparison between the live and studio versions of the songs ; the live versions are so different from the studio takes that it's not even the same music anymore, so I guess it's worth it. "Chain Gang" was stuck in my brain for most of the day, and I had to give it a second listen. A solid 4* for me, and I can totally understand people who'd give it a 5*. Sam Cooke had fantastic potential, it's sad he was murdered at 33.

A relaxing album with jazzy beats and a very pleasant flow. It feels a bit like the swan song of 90s hip-hop, right before the 2000s turned rap music into something more mainstream. It’s technically good, Common is an interesting MC, even if he doesn’t bring that much to the table in terms of innovation. There was no surprise, no « woaw » moment - just a good craftsman doing his thing, sometimes in a very tongue-in-cheek manner. A few tracks are a bit too funky or RnB-esque for my taste, but I can get over it. I really liked « The 6th sense » and a couple of other songs. I saw some people complain about the length of the album... It’s true that it can feel a bit overstuffed towards the end (« Geto Heaven » was especially annoying), but hey, at least Common isn’t conning us with a 35 minutes album featuring 17 skits and 12 collabs. Would probably listen again, but mostly as background music.

I don’t know a lot about Kraut Rock outside of Tangerine Dream and Klaus Schulze. This album was a good surprise, I enjoyed it more than I would have imagined. Weird blend of ambient and psychedelic rock, sometimes bordering on drone. I loved the first part of the album, the soundscapes were very trippy (although LSD SHOULD have been provided to complete the experience), and more pleasing to the ears than Kraftwerk. The second part of the album was... surprising at first, but it slowly grew on me, and I also enjoyed it despite the huge change in tone. Overall a nice effort, I’m glad to have discovered Neu. I followed up with their first and second albums, which I probably liked even more than this one (especially the first one, which is extremey hypnotic and meditative).

A very average cover album... It’s a bit annoying to see it on this list, not EVERY first album is worth listening. It’s just a Britification of American blues classics, repackaged for the UK. It might have been interesting for a public that had never been exposed to American blues... but now it just sounds derivative. « Route 66 » kind of made me laugh, it sounds a bit weird when sung by a very British person whose most adventurous trip back then was probably taking the train to London. Instruments aren’t bad, but Mick Jagger’s voice hasn’t really matured yet. It’s certainly not terrible, but it doesn’t compare with what the Stones would later become... A 2,5* at best, for historical value. There are much better albums to put on this list instead of this one. Why does it always have to be British ? Why not try a bit of Malian Blues or Tuvan Rock for a change ? The world is a big place...

I was surprised to learn that T. Rex were so big back in the 70s. « Get It On » is the only song that sounded familiar to me – probably something I had heard a few times in movies or tv shows, but never bothered checking out. It does sound fairly modern for its time (the last song especially), although I expected something a bit more dynamic from an album titled « Electric Warrior ». A nice album overall, quite pleasant to listen while drinking my gallon of morning coffee. I'll try to give it another listen in a few days because I feel I might have missed some of its complexities. 6/10

A fantastic blues-rock album. I used to prefer her solo albums, but this one is pretty great too, with a raw, unapologetic vibe that really convinced me this time around. An instant classic ! I see people talk about « psychedelic blues », but there’s nothing really psychedelic here (except maybe the amount of LSD and psilocybin the band was probably taking at the time) – it’s just excellent blues with a Summer of Love twist. The band itself is all right, although not on par with Janis Joplin’s performance. Janis could sing the phonebook and it would still sound sexy and powerful. She carries the whole album on her shoulders with an insane energy that hasn’t aged one bit.

I knew absolutely nothing about this band before, and I didn’t expect much from what seems like a very dated psychedelic folk band. But it was a pleasant surprise, and I quite enjoyed the album. Sounds a bit like Simon & Garfunkel, but softer and trippier. Some songs are a bit too country for me, but there’s always an interesting psychedelic twist somewhere that make them worthwhile. This is not usually my kind of music, but for some reason it seems to work here (not sure if it’s the band itself or my receptive mood today), and by the end of the album I was almost ready to buy a Volkswagen van and join a community. It gets a bit repetitive – a longer album would have been boring, but this one is really short with mostly 2-minutes song, so it didn’t bother me.

I have no idea how to review this. The whole album is so silly that it seems like a joke. Silly costumes, silly attitude, silly lyrics... It’s almost brilliant in its silliness, and I don’t know if Adam Ant is a misunderstood genius or a scammer whoring for attention. I suspect the second option is closer to the truth... The shameless stealing of the "Burundi drums" doesn’t really speak in his favor. And I’m not talking about cultural appropriation – no, it’s just about copying someone else’s work (without compensation) and taking credit for it... That's just dishonest. And yet, I have to admit I kind of enjoyed this album. I listened to it multiple times because I couldn’t make my mind about it. I started by hating it - then loved it, then hated it again... Now I don’t really know. There are some weird moments and some interesting moments... For some reason I can't get "Ants Invasion" out of my brain. Well, at least it made me think, which is the whole point of this project for me - to get out of my comfort zone. I’ll rate it a 3* for now , but it’s entirely possible I’ll come back to it later and edit my rating. 5/10

This list looks more and more like "1001 Albums British People Need to Listen Before They Die"... I’m sorry, but the giganormous Brit-centric (and more generally Anglo-centric) bias is starting to show, and it's depressing. Do I really need to listen to every band that had some small degree of passing fame in the UK in the last 50 years ?... Verve is not a terrible band, and this album is not terrible either. But I really fail to see what it brings to the table in terms of creativity. With about as much punch as a glass of water, it’s rehashed, vanilla pop-rock tailored for radio stations. There are a few dreamy / psychedelic moments that could have been interesting, but they pale in comparison with what Radiohead was doing at the same time. Tolerable as background music, but also entirely forgettable. Certainly not my idea of an essential album. I tried to find reasons to rate it a 2*, but not one song stood out, not one moment surprised me – so no. 2/10

It’s hard to review an album that has been so overhyped and overpraised over the years... The last time I listened to this album, I was much, much younger. I didn’t care for it back then (I really can’t remember why), but I enjoyed it far more this time around. Quite a lot of songs – most of all the mythical « Heroin » - sound very Doors-like, so it’s hard not to compare them ; but this album came out only 2 months after The Doors’ first album, so it may not be a direct influence. I think both bands just really managed to capture the spirit of their time, with a mix of sultry blues, psychedelic musings and vaguely disturbing vibes. The lyrics of Heroin must have been a shocker back then (and probably still are today). Overall a great album - thick and hazy as opium smoke, obviously influential, and still very modern by many aspects. I considered giving them a 5*, but it’s a tad too sweet for my taste (the Doors were definitely more unhinged IMHO), and Lou Reed’s voice somewhat still lacks in maturity.

Loved the discreet funky vibe, smooth arrangements and emotional songwriting. The instrumentation is great, even if it lacks a bit of punch. Not a big fan of his voice on this album, though - I usually love Curtis Mayfield's semi-falsetto, but this time he's going a bit too high for my taste. The album as a whole is a strange mix of social commentary and sexual tension, with a little bit of Jesus thrown into the mix to make it even more confusing. I’m not entirely sure Sexy Jesus is the answer to social oppression, but whatever sails your boat, man. A pleasant listen overall, even if it doesn't reach the phenomenal power of his debut record (Curtis). It’s often corny, but it's so incredibly smooth that my sex-appeal probably increased by 10 % just by listening to this album. A solid 4*.

As a hip-hop, metal and jazz fan, I was excited to see that today's album was made by a guy from Compton, who had played in jazz bands and with Suicidal Tendencies before starting a solo career. I was expecting a wild experimentation in stylistic crossover, and I was really looking forward to it. What I got instead was a pretentious and nonsensical soup of bad RnB, childish lyrics, forced high-pitched voice and Nintendo sounds - a Frankenstein Monster stuck in the Twilight Zone somewhere between "unintelligible rambling", "cringey hipster joke" and "boring elevator jazz". It does indeed feel like being drunk, I'll give him that. He’s also meowing at some point. Literally. Although I’m not sure which is the worst – the meowing, the unsufferable RnB voice or the absurd lyrics about anime characters. My cat certainly shows more depth when he’s meowing at me. At least he’s actually got something to say, and he's actually a real cat. Just to be clear, I'm usually completely on board with weird experiments... That's not what's bothering me here. It's his horribly grating voice and the "hipster ironic vibe". The only thing I didn’t actively hate was the electro / astral jazz vibe. Had it been a purely instrumental album, I might have tried to find something good to say about it... But the singing was so maddeningly irritating that I just can’t be bothered.

I’ve been an avid hip-hop listener for 30 years, and I never got the hype sourrounding this album. When it first came out, I used to loath it for its obvious commercial nature. Later on I mellowed out a bit, acknowledging that it probably did something right in relation to the 2000s zeitgeist. After giving it a fresh listen, I have some good things and many bad things to say about it. For the good : this album certainly freshened up the dying gangsta rap scene, after 2pac and Biggie’s death had given the final blow to an already not-so-popular subgenre. With his in-your-face attitude and dark energy, 50 Cent injected a bit of insanity and provocation into rap music at a time when hip-hop was well on its way to become polished mainstream music. The production value is quite good. There are a few gritty and heavy beats that make for memorable anthems, and are still super efficient today. There are also, alas, a lot of very simplistic and noisy beats tailored for clubs and attention-impaired teenagers. As for the bad... Well, 50 is just a pure product of the star system. His career was almost entirely built upon the single fact that he was shot and survived. I’m pretty sure a huge chunk of his fanbase were edgy teenage boys who drooled on his bad boy attitude, but had never listened to a classic rap record before that. This could all be forgiven if it was a good album – but it isn’t, not really. 50 just isn’t a particularly good rapper. A full-time member of the Constantly Mumbling school of hip-hop (ok, it’s not his fault, dude was shot in the mouth...), he’s got raw energy but little technique. Most of NY hip-hop crews would just chew him and spit him out for breakfast. Why this list picked him instead of steamrollers like MOP, Das EFX or Onyx, I can’t figure. A one-album wonder, 50 Cent had a short and disappointing career. Last I heard he was selling vitamin water... which kind of shows what kind of an "artist" he is. He was never here for the music, it was never about the art. For me, this just confirms that GRODT is a pleasant but superficial album made by a bullshit artist who was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time (and in the right hands, thanks to Dre). I’m angry that such a poser is on this list, while giants of hip-hop like MF Doom and KRS One aren’t. It’s a damn disgrace.

Here we go again, UK-centric bias at full speed ! Oh well. Let’s give her a chance... The good : pleasant enough to listen. Nice singing voice, and not a bad rapper either. Production is good, with some catchy samples and clean sound. Nice mix of RnB, rap and Caribbean inflences. A diverse musical landscape with some melancholic moments and a few more dynamic tracks. I liked "Put Him Out", where she sounds like a more polite version of Lil’Kim. The bad : flat, consensual and generic. Clearly tailored for radio and mass consumption (her producers worked on Britney Spear’s album, so it’s not very surprising). Sounds like basically every female pop-rap and neo-RnB act between 2000 and 2010, just slightly better executed. Verdict : a reasonnably talented artist, but a mainstream project somewhat devoid of originality. For someone called "Dynamite", she kinda lacks fire. Maybe it would be better if she got angry and cursed sometimes ? But then the BBC wouldn’t invite her... I’m afraid I’ll have forgotten this album in two days. I’ll give it a 2* though, because I didn't actively hate it as I did a few other albums here. Also – why the hell is this on the list ? This is ridiculous. Ms. Dynamite was famous for about 2 minutes in the UK, she made 2 albums then stopped her career. If she’s here, why not Diam’s ? She’s got twice the number of albums to her name...

I’ve never been a big fan of reggae music – it’s just too slow and happy for me (or I’m too impatient and depressed for it). But even I can recognize that Bob Marley is an incredible musician, so I’m always glad to give a chance to one of his albums. This one was pleasant enough. As usual with reggae, I enjoyed the laid-back vibe for about 2 or 3 songs, then I had to do something else while listening because it was just sooooooo slow... But it makes for good background music if you’re in the right mood. The songs are beautifully written and executed, and I really enjoyed the studio version of No Woman No Cry, which I had never heard before. No idea how to rate this objectively, I know too little about the context. So it’s a purely subjective 3* for me.

To me, this album sounds like the textbook definition of "has-been". How anyone could release this two years after the Summer of Love and think it’s still relevant is a mystery. Even in 1969, this was already music for old people. There’s a definite lack of enthusiasm and energy in this album. Presley’s voice has lost its smoothness, and he sounds like he’s constantly mumbling or yawning. The music is average and conventionnal, never displaying any kind of emotion. Add the country vibe into the mix and that’s a recipe for boredom for me... A couple of songs were slightly less bland (like Power Of My Love, where you can almost feel Elvis wake up), but that’s about it. I tried really hard to give it a 2* out of respect for a historical figure of music... but I just can’t, there’s absolutely nothing that excites me in this album.

That was... weird. I have no idea what I just listened. I don’t even know if I like it or not, since I can’t decide what it was exactly. I’m not familiar with XTC, so I have no idea about the context. But "cheesy musical theater meets new wave meets psychedelic orchestral pop" was certainly not what I expected when I woke up this morning... There’s not a single song that struck me as something I’d want to save for a playlist or listen on it own ; but at the same time, the album as a whole was super intriguing from start to finish, and certainly made me curious about the band. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and rate this album a 3* for now – mainly because I still haven’t been able to process it, and I don’t want to be unfair. I’ll certainly come back to it in a few weeks or months and try to get a new perspective on it.

I don’t know much about Springsteen, but for some reason I’ve always had a good impression of him – an unpretentious musician doing his thing without drama. This album (apparently one of his early ones) only confirmed my impression. Although it’s not my musical cup of tea, I can recognize the talent. It’s got heart, and Springsteen sounds like he’s having fun. Musically speaking, it’s a bit overproduced for my taste, but also richer than I expected. There’s a lot of different influences, and I don’t quite know how to define the end product – orchestral blues-pop ? Some instruments sound rehashed and artificial, but you can feel the artist is at least trying to build something that goes beyond consensual country-rock. The result sounds surprisingly modern for a 1975 album. Lyrically speaking, it’s cheesy, but in a honest way. He’s talking to and about the common people (without being a conservative prick, which is in itself a feat when you rely so heavily on the "Heart of America" mythos), and he’s not pretending to be something he’s not. A reasonnably pleasant listen overall, but I doubt I’ll ever come back to it. I’ll give it a 2,5* for effort, and round it up to 3* for honesty.

Mott, an alien from the planet Hoople, was saved from a grisly fate by local superhero Frank "Madman" Einstein when the voracious she-alien Zenelle tried to mate with him and eat him. Despite his weird appearance, he’s an overall good guy, and repaid Madman many times over for his help. If you don’t know who Madman is, he’s a zany but lovable hero created by indie comics legend Mike Allred (who is obsessed by cheesy 50s science-fiction, weird religions and underground rock - I think he even was in a band at some point). His comics are extra pulpy, with a notorious retro vibe and feel-good stories... ... What ? Wrong Mott ? Were we talking about the band ? Ugh... Well, they have long hair, they sing about Memphis and Cadillacs despite being from Herefordshire, and their most peculiar trait is being British on an absolutely-not-biased list made by a British guy. Not terrible, but not terribly good either, they’re the David Bowie that Temu delivered to Hereford when City Hall ordered one. Ok, I'm being unnecessarily harsh. I'll give them a 3* because they helped me wake up in a good mood this morning, and I enjoyed the first half of the album far more than I probably should have. There. Can we go back to talking about aliens ?

Interesting double album that I was only half-familiar with. It’s a bit hard to review, since the two albums are quite different from one another... It’s like taking a long walk in a palace with dozens of rooms (and two very different wings). Some rooms are crumbling and decayed (Baby You Turn Me On sounds like much earlier Nick Cave), others are surprising and flamboyant (the opening title Lyre of Orpheus for instance, which I find magnificent) ; some are silent and deserted, others are full of people having an orgy (the crescendo in Hiding All Away is incredible !). I massively prefer Lyre of Orpheus – an intense, moody and soulful album, which is probably one of Nick Cave’s masterpieces. The atmosphere of the whole album is incredible, with a lot of subtleties and a passionate vocal performance. Abattoir Blues doesn’t make as deep an impression. It sounds more conventionnal, but its lowkey art rock vibe grew on me in the end. It’s well crafted and executed, and there is enough diversity between songs to keep the listener curious. Very nice overall. I will absolutely come back to it. A strong 4* (I would have given a 5* to Lyre of Orpheus alone, and a 3* to Abattoir Blues alone).

I had never heard of this artist before. At first I found the music rather flat and emotionless, but it slowly grew on me. "Things Behind The Sun" was a turning point, and convinced it was actually good. The emotion is there – it’s just low-key and subdued, the listener definitely needs be in the right state of mind and take the time to fully appreciate the general tone and mood of the album. I can recognize the talent ; I understand why it’s on this list, and I definitely understand how this would speak to some people on a very fundamental level. But from a personnal point of view, I have a hard time relating with the lyrics and the emotions the artist tries to convey. Maybe I’ve never felt depressed or melancholic enough ?... It’s not something I’d listen again anytime soon, but I’m glad I gave it try. It’s pretty short anyway, so it never overstays its welcome, as too many album do.

Yacht rock (or jazz) at its finest : annoyingly clean, bland, derivative, and as exciting as gossiping about the neighbor’s latest affair while sipping on a watered-down Margarita. This is music for people who have no musical preferences, and will just listen to anything that’s playing in the background – as long as it’s polite and inoffensive enough to be immediately forgotten. I was sooo not surprised to see that Donald Fagen is one of the guys from Steely Dan... Because of course he is. These guys apparently come from an alternate reality where the quality of music is judged by its ability to lull people to sleep. And Donald is the best there is : with the musical personality of a paperclip, he can take any instrument, any musical style, and turn them into something so boring and emotionless that you’ll think Brian Eno’s "Music For Airports" is a punk album. I’m sorry, I just can’t. Soft rock needs to stay buried. 0/10

A weird album. The songs are all over the place, with good rock tracks, some nice psych moments and a few crazy experiments. There’s even a soft ballad... It’s like they were still struggling to find a clear identity. I didn’t hate it, but it wasn’t memorable either. The whole thing sounds like a pure product of its time (right before the Summer of Love), and it didn’t necessarily age well. "I Had To Much To Dream" and "Sold To The Highest Bidder" are good songs, but the B-side lacks inspiration. I’ll give a 2* to the album as a whole. But I respect the effort. They made me curious though, so I checked their other albums. Their later works are somewhat more interesting. "Just Good Old Rock and Roll" is exactly what it says it is, and "Mass in F Minor" is pure psychedelic insanity. Both would probably have been a better choice for this list. It’s a pity the 1001 list is so obsessed with first albums, even when they’re clearly not the best.

Party music for horny teenagers. Designed by studio execs, produced by committee and performed by an obnoxious manchild who can neither write nor create his own music, it's more an industrial product than an album. Even the Neptunes’ production felt derivative (the blatant "Paint It Black" rip-off in "Nothin’ Else" being the cherry on top). Not only is the end result a torture to listen – it’s also everything I despise in music. 1/10

An instant and definitive soul classic. I usually would not give a 5* to an album featuring so many covers, but it's just perfectly executed from start to finish, there's not a single weak track. I can put it on a loop and listen all day long. 10/10

This list has been really generous to me as far as soul music is concerned ; War is yet another great discovery I wouldn’t have made without it. I had never even heard the name of the band, and even if I had, I wouldn’t have guessed it was a soul-jazz formation (as naming conventions go, I would expect something like « The Fantastic War Ensemble and Their Amazing Cousins »). Anyway. It’s a really convincing mix of jazz, soul and funk, sometimes going into psychedelic territory. The experimental approach is typical of the early 70s funk and free jazz scene, but they also bring strong soul roots to the table. Totally works for me ! On the downside, the jazzy parts were a little weak (the sax was super cheesy), and the album as a whole sometimes sounded too much like a technical exercise, somewhat lacking fire. I’m totally going to listen to the rest of their discog though. A solid 4* for me.

The kind of album I had never listened in full, but had already heard half the tracks somewhere without knowing the band’s name. It was nice to finally listen to the original opus. I’m not big on ska and reggae (mainly due to the inherently repetitive nature of the genre), but this album is indeed full of classic anthems. Loved the youthful energy and the 60s retro vibe, which creates a weird mix of nostalgia and teenage rebellion. A solid 3* for effort and originality.

I’ve always liked the Prince persona more than his actual music, and this album only confirms that view. It’s not a bad album per se (although not as good as Purple Rain in my opinion), but it’s definitely not my kind of music. While I’m sort of impressed that he managed to make an entire double album with little more than a drum machine and a synthesizer, I found the overall production terribly dated. Not only does it sound awfully 80s, it sounds like early 80s, with all the worst gimmicks of that time period. I find the constant claps and breaks painful to listen. I’ll admit there’s a wide variety of styles involved, Prince is clearly at ease with almost any genre. However, too many of these genres are of the kind I dislike – like Rn’B, my personal Nemesis. The only redeeming grace of this album is Prince’s voice, which is as warm and sexy as ever. I’ll give it a 2* for effort and objective talent, but I honestly took very little pleasure in listening.

Now THAT is right up my alley ! Been waiting this stuff for a while. Fela Kuti is one of the music giants of Africa, and he fully deserves a place here as the godfather of Afrobeat. Considering his giganormous discography, however, I find it odd that this list chose to pick a live album that is neither his best nor his most iconic. It’s probably because there’s a Western musician involved... Music critics are notoriously timorous when exposed to non-Western music, and need to be reassured by familiar names. This album is still a fascinating example of how African music, after changing and evolving in America, gave birth to gospel, jazz, soul and blues, then came back to Africa thanks to artists like Fela, and was once again mixed with indigenous music to create new sounds. I’m usually not big on live albums, but this one is really good. It’s full of energy and super groovy. The various influences blend seamlessly together, backed by haunting beats. My only gripe is the relative lack of vocals – Fela doesn’t sing a lot, and when he does it’s often low-key, mostly eclipsed by the instruments. It’s a pity because the first song clearly shows how powerful he can be. As a result, I found the album to be a bit too much of an instrumental performance (especially the last track with its dizzying drumming duel). Still a great concert, a strong 4* for me.

A warm and beautiful jazz album. The fact that it’s a live recording is irrelevant, since you barely hear the crowd. I’m not a big fan of this kind of trios, I usually like my jazz with at least some horns peppered on it. The complete absence of horns throughout the albums makes it a bit too quiet for me, and I often end up listening as background music – which is a shame, because the piano is amazing and clearly deserves the listener’s full attention. But whenever I make the effort to listen with focus, I’m awed by the subtlety of Bill Evans. The bass and drums offer a solid performance as well. My only regret is that it’s always so perfectly contained. I wish they’d go a bit crazy sometimes. 8/10

A no-brainer for me. I won’t even pretend to review it impartially, since it was one of the defining albums of my teenage years. Although I was never part of the weird cult that developed around Kurt Cobain, Nevermind blew our collective minds when it dropped, and made every other rock band sound like dad rock. This was the music we were waiting for without even knowing it – a perfect embodiment of the jadedness, cynicism and muted anger that made up our specific brand of teenage angst back in the 90s. When this album popped up on the list, I realized I hadn’t actually listened it in full for years. I was apprehensive, because I was not sure how well it had aged, and I didn’t want to be disappointed. Fortunately, I wasn’t – it’s still awesome from start to finish. I even gained new appreciation for a few underplayed tracks that I used to overlook. I was also surprised at how incredibly cohesive the whole album sounds, navigating with ease between different styles and moods without ever losing its strong sense of identity. Maybe it doesn’t slap as hard as back in the days. Maybe it’s not perfect. But it was the right music at the right time, and it paved the way for many good things. And there’s a hidden track !! Kids who didn’t grow up with CDs can’t begin to imagine how exciting it felt to discover a hidden track (usually by chance, when your CD player suddenly started blaring at you after 10 minutes of silence). 9/10

Nothing surprising here if you know who Joan Baez is. I can appreciate her voice (although I understand how it would sound annoying to some people), and the songs are mostly light ballads, so it was not unpleasant to listen. I’m not into that kind of music at all, but at least she’s not as whiny and full of herself as Dylan. I don’t know enough about the context to understand precisely what kind of role she played in the folk revival, but it was certainly a laudable effort for a 19 years old girl. Her specific brand of folk music leaves me mostly indifferent, and the songs all sound the same to me (except Donna Donna). But it was all right as a morning album. I’ll rate it a 2* for effort, but I won’t listen again. 3/10

Smooth like honey ! I wasn’t entirely convinced at first, it seemed a bit lacking in complexity. But I think it’s because it flows so naturally that you kind of forget you’re listening... I ended up playing it three times in a row, and when you really pay attention, it’s actually slicker than it appears. But I’ve always been very partial to the fuzzy vibe of the Hammond organ, so I may be biased (on that note, Booker T. mentions in an interview that he was heavily influenced by Jimmy Smith, whose album "Back To The Chicken Shack" popped here some time ago. This list is starting to make sense !). Nevertheless, it’s a nice mix of jazz and blues that prepped the stage for the birth of soul music. Everything is already there : the warm sound, the groovy instrumentation... They only needed a smooth voice to sing over. In this particular case it would really have helped the music shine, and I can think of a couple of singers who would have totally killed it on these tracks. The lack of vocals is clearly the reason why it sounds a bit flat after a while. Still a strong 7/10 for me.

A nice surprise for me, I didn’t expect to enjoy it that much. I always thought KoL were just another late pop-punk clone, but I was wrong, the addition of the Southern blues-rock vibe to the punk act is indeed an excellent idea. A lot of catchy songs here, and a lot of energy. The lead singer should absolutely stop trying to imitate Janis Joplin, though. It doesn’t work and he sounds ridiculous (it absolutely ruins Trani, a song that would otherwise have been great). Even when he sings normally, I’m not a big fan of his voice anyway. A hard choice between a 3 and a 4*. It would have been a perfect 3,5*... I tried listening again in the evening, but a second listen was too much, and I found myself bored. It just lacks a little something I can’t define to make me really excited. 6/10

I listened to the original 6-tracks release. It’s a good live album, no doubt about that. The Who had great energy on stage. I kind of understand why this record would be included on the list, since most tracks are not featured on any other album. Even My Generation, the only album song, is a 15-minutes epic so different from the original that it’s worth a listen (even though I prefer the studio version - this one sounds a bit too much like 3 or 4 songs crammed into one, and it's so stretched-out that it becomes tedious after a while). But one listen was enough, and I doubt I'll listen to this live ever again. In addition, I don't think Live At Leeds is truly "essential material", it feels a bit like a placeholder. It’s a very short record, and there’s already quite a few Who albums here. This space would have been better used by giving a chance to another artist not represented on this list. I considered rating it a 3* at first, but I’m substracting 1 star for this reason. 4/10

Back when I was a stupid teenager, I would have laughed at the idea of listening to Jeff Buckley. It was music for chicks who kept diaries or people who were scared of loud music. So I was kind of happy to see this album pop on the generator today – I could finally prove that I was now a sensitive adult with complex emotions and a nuanced understanding of life ! Well, as it turns out, being an adult is overhyped. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll gladly admit that Jeff Buckley was a very talented artist. His voice is a perfect example of the "soft whispers / broken voice / anguished screams" rollercoaster style of singing that was the mid-90s trademark, and he definitely influenced a lot of musicians. The production is rich and well-polished. The title song "Grace" is indeed amazing, and belongs to the best of what the 90s had to offer. That being said, and despite his talent, Jeff Buckley constantly reminds me why I usually dislike the singer-songwriter "genre" (or whatever you call people singing sad songs without crediting the band). It’s an inherently self-centered, self-absorbed genre that relies on a limited set of tools (but mostly the voice) to convey emotions that are invariably sad and whiny, and almost always about the singer himself. It’s not very subtle, and I find this constant emotional outpour exhausting. It’s basically music to cry yourself to sleep. It gets even worse for musicians who died young like Buckley (with bonus points if they were hot) – people are constantly ranting about how sad and tragic it is, as if their unfortunate (but entirely avoidable) demise somehow made their music better. It doesn't, and I wish people would stop abusing and overusing the word "tragic". So yeah... Nice album, but super overrated in my opinion. I like emotions to be subtly alluded to, not shouted at me. I’ll give it a 3* for talent and influence – but it’s clearly not something I’d listen again, I just can’t relate with all that drama. 6/10

"Psychedelic country" was not something I expected when I woke up this morning... An interesting listen, to say the least. I don’t usually like country music, and I’m not a fan of Neil Young’s voice – I find his particular type of nasal droning quite exhausting. But this album is a weird mix of influences (including attempts at imitating the Beatles ?...) that sometimes blend well together, and sometimes don’t. It’s a bit rough around the edges, with a few good songs and some weaker ones, but I salute the effort. Although I’m not sure it played an essential role in the history of music, it’s at least original, and I enjoyed it as background music. 5/10

I already knew this album, but I was glad to give it a refresh. I enjoyed it far more this time than the last, partly thanks to this list and the new perspective it gave me. I don’t care much for "rock operas" in general. It’s a nice concept on paper, but I think it’s almost inherently doomed to fail - mainly because it’s usually too long, which dramatically increases the chances of having a ton of filler or weak songs. You also need a lot of time on your hands to appreciate them : it's meant to be listened as a whole, it makes little sense to just play a couple of tracks ; but not everyone has the the time or the mental space to sit through 75-90 minutes of music. Very few bands can pull it off – even the masterpiece that is The Wall is a weak link in the otherwise perfect discography of Pink Floyd. However, The Who kind of did it right. They obviously drew a lot from The Pretty Thing’s S.F. Sorrow (Pete Townshend denied it, but I don’t believe it for a second), another contender for the "reasonnably well-done rock operas" hall of fame. The Who added a layer of professionalism to the more dilettante approach of SF Sorrow, but also lost a bit of the crazyness in the process. Tommy is better structured (less LSD, probably) but also less spontaneous. I couldn’t care less about the "story", to be honest ; but I really loved the construction and the overall mood of the album. It’s musically very competent and well-balanced, alternating quiet, psychedelic and dynamic moments with gusto. The long psychedelic tracks like Underture are my favorites, and the short instrumental intermissions are very well done, giving the listener time to breath between the songs. There are a lot of awesome tracks, especially towards the end, and almost no bad song, which is remarkable. And I love the cover art ! I probably won’t listen to this record very often despite its obvious qualities, mainly because it's too long and convoluted (even a bit chaotic at times) for a casual listen. But it is indeed a landmark album. 8/10

I was not too surprised to learn that they first made a name for themselves by licensing their music for TV... It does indeed sound like the soundtrack of a hip Netflix series about angsty young Londoners. I kind of enjoyed it as background music. The gloomy atmosphere grew on me after a while, and there’s definitely a couple of nice loops here and there. But the beats are too minimalist for my taste, and the affected, blasé vocals are a bit annoying. It feels a bit empty, like comatose music for hungover people, and the whole band seems to be on the verge of passing out. Maybe they needed another X ? 4/10

I never got the Elvis hype. It might be a generational thing, or maybe just my own personal sensibility, but I never managed to enjoy his music. I still did my best to give a chance to this album. To make things simpler, I’ll just go with the questions I usually ask myself when rating an album : 1) Is it original ? Not really. This album is entirely made of covers, there’s not a single original song. Elvis was a great showman and performer, but not a songwriter (I don't think he ever wrote or composed a single song in his career). That leaves only his voice, which is nice enough, but hadn't fully matured yet in this album (by his own admission). 2) Is it important in the history of music ? Certainly, although not necessarily for good reasons. I can fully believe that if you were born in 1940, this record would have sounded groundbreaking – especially if your parents didn’t let you listen to black music, and all you could access was sanitized radio stations. It was indeed the first rock'n'roll album to get that kind of success. But the more I listen to early 50’s rockabilly, the more I realize how little Elvis actually invented, and how much better were the black artists (and a few white ones) who came before him, and yet never got as much credit. I’m certainly not blaming Elvis himself - he didn’t invent segregation, and he genuinely loved rythm'n'blues. And the fact that he became the “white face of rock’n’roll” at least helped this kind of music become acceptable to a mainstream audience, an evolution that would eventually also benefit black musicians. But in an ideal world, Elvis would never have become “the King”. 3) Did I enjoy it ? A little. He gets the job done, but I find his energy underwhelming, especially compared to Little Richard’s debut album. Just listen to both versions of Tutti Frutti back to back – there is absolutely zero doubt who is the greatest artist... As for the folksy bits, they just bored me. 4) Will I listen again ? No. If I ever crave 50s rock’n’roll again, I’d rather listen to Chuck Berry, Little Richards and Fats Domino. Maybe they didn't have that special "smooth voice" that Elvis developped later in his career, but they are in my opinion infintely more powerful. Overall, a record I’m glad to have listened once for its historic value, but not something I’ll remember or care for in the future. This album's biggest merit is to be a first album. 4/10

Third Dylan album on this list for me (4 more to go, apparently...), and I’m still not convinced. I still dislike his nasal voice and his singing style, and I still have little interest in his stories. I guess I’m simply not receptive to his so-called poetry (I’d rather just read *actual* poetry). I’ll admit I’m biased though, since “singer-songwriters” have always mostly bored me – people droning about their life and heartbreaks in a soft voice just don’t interest me that much. It’s not Dylan’s worst offering, though. The instrumentals are more polished than in some other albums, and at least this one doesn’t constantly assault you with shrill harmonica sounds. As usual, the only songs I really appreciated were the bluesy ones, like Meet Me in the Morning. His folk songs are kind of all right, but they all sound the same to me. So yeah, I didn’t hate it. But I know I’ll have forgotten most of it by tomorrow. 3/10

A very unsurprising album – it sounds exactly like its (terrible) cover art : a bit kitschy, a bit dated, and quite tame despite its attempts at projecting a bad boy image. It was probably ahead of its time, already feeling like proto-MTV music in 1976. It clearly shares common DNA with mainstream rockers like Bruce Springsteen or Bon Jovi, who even has a similar heart logo (one that seems specifically designed to boost the income of second-rate tattoo parlors). It’s clearly built around a few hits and tailored for mainstream radio stations, and there is little innovation or risk-taking – it’s purely feel-good, unpretentious music. It hasn’t aged very well, but I kind of enjoyed it on a nostalgic level. Maybe I was in the right mood, but it was not an unpleasant experience. It’s easy-listening enough, and it’s a short and straightforward album that does exactly what you’d expect from it, without overstaying its welcome. 5/10

Not fantastic, but not bad either. A few songs sound surprisingly modern (“Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-Five” could absolutely have been made in...1985), McCartney clearly shows he can be creative when he wants. There’s some nice riffs here and there, and a few really surprising sounds (the first couple of minutes of Band on the Run sound downright funky, Zoo Gang could be krautrock, the opening of Let Me Roll It almost has a stoner rock feeling...). The best bits are actually the ones where McCartney stops trying to be an ex-Beatles and just does his own thing. Unfortunately, there are not enough of these moments – too often, it’s just the intro, or the first half of a song... then he reverts back to form, turning what could have been a great track into more conventional pop-rock. It’s a pity he didn’t go all the way, it could have been a much better album with a little more risk-taking. Nice effort, but I'm not sure I’ll listen again. 5/10

Another artist I had never heard of, but who was apparently huge in the 70s. It makes me once again realize the extent of my ignorance. While I’m glad I could tick another box in my “stuff I needed to learn about” list, I can’t say I enjoyed it. I’m sure this album was relevant at some point, and Frampton is certainly a competent guitarist (although not a very good singer), but it hasn’t aged well in my opinion. This kind of music has been so rehashed over the years that it just feels super generic now. It’s too cheesy for me, and the fact that it’s a live album (and a super long one at that) is not helping – the good parts, like the surprising “talking guitar” in Do You Feel Like We Do, are drowned into an ocean of average stuff. The recording quality is dubious, and the "soft ballads" are terrible. I had a hard time finishing it. And then there's the dreadful cover picture, where Frampton looks like he's either dead or masturbating... I considered rating it a 2* for historical value, but I was so bored by the end of the album that I just can’t. 2/10

A complete discovery for me. I had no idea “Son Of A Preacher Man” was originally sung by a British artist. Blue-Eyed Soul is not my favorite kind of soul, but Dusty Springfield has a charming voice, and the instrumentation is nice ; it feels cinematic and yet intimate at the same time. I enjoyed most of it. However, I can’t shake the feeling that it’s a sanitized version of American soul music. It somewhat lacks the grit and intensity that made me fall in love with Aretha, Ann Peebles or Roberta Flack, it's a bit too clean and polished for me. “Son Of A Preacher Man” and “Windmills Of Your Mind” are great songs, but the other ones didn’t move me that much. A nice listen overall, but it could have been better. Not memorable enough to deserve a 4*. 6/10

I could fill a whole essay with the numerous reasons why I dislike Steely Dan, but I don’t have the energy. Let’s just say their music irks me on a very fundamental level, and makes me want to hit someone in the face with a shovel. I have no problem acknowledging they are technically very competent, but that’s irrelevant. Many artists can produce technically perfect music and still be as exciting as a piece of cardboard. I’ll even admit that it’s the least unsufferable Steely Dan album I’ve listened so far. The instrumentals are generally solid ; but I really hate Donald Fagen's soulless singing. The only song I really loved in this album was East St. Louis... which is actually a Duke Ellington cover. All the other songs are just too dull and emotionless for me to care. 4/10

Is this supposed to be a parody ? Because it sounds as if a couple of college students met in a basement and tried to ironically recreate the blues records their dads used to play when they were kids. It’s a pity because I was ready to love this album. Blues meets garage rock – what could go wrong ? As it turns out, quite a few things. The production is bloated and loud ; sound is sometimes so saturated that I had to check if there was a problem with my speakers ("Never Gonna Give You Up" is barely listenable, it’s like listening to static). The blues vibe is so overdone that it’s almost caricatural. I’ll admit there’s some nice beats here and there. As tired and rehashed as they may be, the old blues tropes are still working to some extent, and The Black Keys did manage to inject a couple of new ideas into them (I found "Too Afraid To Love You" quite original). It’s good music for drinking in a pub, but it quickly gets tiring. Most of the songs are very formulaic, reusing the same gimmicks over and over again. One hour of this was just too much for me. 4/10

The literal definition of "dad rock" for me, since my dad owned the album and played it constantly back in the days (it was probably one of the first CDs he ever bought). Since I'm all grown up now, I guess that actually makes it granddad rock... As a kid, I used to find it dull. Over the years, I learned to better appreciate Dire Strait’s musical competency – but it still never really struck a chord with me. This time around was not very different. They’re good at what they do, no question about it. But most of the songs don’t really excite me ; no matter how seriously I try to listen, they tend to just fade into the background after a while. I did however appreciate a couple of songs that I had totally forgotten over the years, like "The Man’s Too Strong". The album also features a lot of interesting experiments with various instruments, something that I had completely missed back in the days. That alone makes this record worth a listen. I’ll give it a 3* for overall quality, and because Money For Nothing remains a true anthem. But I doubt I’d spontaneously listen to it again. 5/10

Loved it ! Goldfrapp somewhat came late to the trip-hop party, but they certainly brought something to the table in terms of inovation. While Alison Goldfrapp is not my favorite singer, she’s comfortable with all sorts of vocal experimentations, from trip-hop to ethereal / dream pop and post-rock. There’s a touch of Cocteau Twins here, a bit of CocoRosie, and even a splash of something like Sigur Ros. Will Gregory (who has worked with a ton of talented bands in the past) managed to create a unique atmosphere, experimenting with a wide range of samples and real instruments (props for using a theremin and a crank organ !). The production still feels a bit rough around the edges, but I really enjoyed the cinematic vibe and cabaret influences. I could absolutely imagine them doing an album (or a movie OST) with Ute Lemper. Can’t go as far as a 5* because a few songs still feel a bit unfinished, like they ran out of ideas before the end... But I’m definitely adding this to my rotation. It's a pity they later evolved towards a more synthpop style, something I'm not really fond of. 7/10