Struggled to get through this. Self-indulgent and meandering. Sounds more like a Led Zep knockoff in places. Often veers into what sounds like the three of them soloing without really listening to what each other is doing. Odd choice of material, too. Not sure why it enjoys the reputation it does.
Love this. Joyous, funky, playful and righteous...
The one where they got new effects pedals, but sadly not any new ideas. Plodding, uninspired music draped in a new coat woven from the offcuts of more creative musicians, and topped off with some truly awful lyrics.
Was suspicious of this one, as I find the song 'Moondance' really quite annoying, but the rest of the album was quite enjoyable.
Can't get on board with this. Too unsettled, too much going on. I'm sure all these twists and turns are very clever in lots of ways I'm too dumb to understand, but I'm not enjoying the ride.
I absolutely don't know enough about Jazz to rate this. But I enjoyed it, so it gets a 4
Tough listen. I spent the half the time wondering if he was going to talk about anything other than himself, and the other half wondering if he was going to at least vary the delivery of the relentless narcissism. Spoiler alert - neither happens. Production is dated and kind of monotonous.
1 point for the Eminem guest appearance - highlight of the whole thing.
Sure, it's super derivative. And they're posh kids playing at being cool. And they got hyped to high heaven when it came out. But they have the tunes and the attitude to get away with it all. A pleasure to listen to...
I actually like this album. But I really can't justify giving it more than a 3, because the bits I like - mostly the softer bits and the harmonies - are only barely worth wading through the plodding 'funk', exhaustingly crushed mix, and well, Kiedis. Even a 3 feels generous, but the bits I like, I really like...
I love Leonard. Hard to give this a 5 because there's just a slight sense of treading water after his first album, but the high points are so high. 4 it is...
I remember the grownups listening to this at their dinner parties when I was a kid. Hadn't heard it since, apart from the singles. You Can Call Me Al is a classic, some of the rest gets a little samey. I was always a little dubious about the narrative that Simon was inspired by the street sounds of Africa rather than the last couple of Talking Heads records, and it does start to feel a little bit like a gimmick in places. Undeniably solid songwriting though.
This album answered so many questions for me. Unfortunately they were questions like 'What if John Denver had been heavily into sleeping pills?' or 'What if Nick Drake had much more confidence, but much less talent?'. Not for me.
Wanted to like this more, because I thought 'Green Light' was great - but there's just a little too much slow moody stuff and Kate Bushisms for my tastes.
I quite enjoyed this one. Bit lightweight perhaps, but the 80s production is fun, and I appreciated the lack of pretension and cultural shoplifting compared to Graceland.
Yeah this is great. Fantastic songs, great performances, a warm cosy feel to the whole thing. Interesting that Joni Mitchell and James Taylor show up. After enduring an album each by them earlier, it seems like a shame they didn't learn more from the experience.
Just great. What an amazing writer she was.
I've tried to hear what people love about Steely Dan in the past, but it's mostly left me cold. This album seems to be regarded as lesser work before they took on their final form, but I actually found it more enjoyable than what I've heard of their later work. Maybe I just like things less polished. Bit concerned this is the gateway to being on of those 'The Dan' people, though...
Way too unfocussed and meandering for my liking, even if it did have the occasional good moment. It's clear that a lot of skill and effort went into this, but I'm not convinced by the outcome.
I remember liking this when I first heard it years ago - I think because, contrary to a lot of the other opinions here, I found it a lot more accessible than the other jazz I'd been exposed to at that time, perhaps because it doesn't feature dozens of confusing chord changes but just grooves along in a pleasingly minimal way, and perhaps because I was familiar with a lot of ambient and experimental stuff that it may have influenced.
However, it really is minimal - not a lot happens for long stretches of time. And given that about a third of the running time is quite literally cut and pasted from elsewhere on the record, which whole sections repeated verbatim, it's kind of tricky to really call this an essential album. Enjoyable enough though.
I don't get it. I remember reading about Gram Parsons back in the days when you couldn't immediately listen to any music you liked, and thinking he sounded really interesting. People always made the music out to be some mystical, vital combination of country, rock, psychedelia etc that transcended all.
I was confused and disappointed when I heard what he actually did. Cheesy, syrupy country with little of the other stuff promised. I'm still confused now. Not sure what people hear in this, but it's not for me. There are people who do country better, and this doesn't add anything else to make it worth my time...
It's telling how many of the reviews here bemoan that the version they listened to edited out the 'Judas' moment, or describe this as a 'document' - this is one of those situations where cultural significance overwhelms the actual artefact itself.
But this is about albums. I was a little apprehensive about listening to this one - an hour and a half of Bob Dylan live? Thankfully it's less gruelling than I expected. The sound quality is surprisingly good for a start. The lyrics, obviously, are the main draw - although they do verge into what feels a little like self-parody in places (like Desolation Row), and it's unclear if there's always a coherent thought behind them, but that's part of the fun. The music? Not so much. That 'voice like sand and glue' gets a little tiring to listen to, the music can be samey, and the harmonica is just ridiculous in places. Part two livens things up with the controversial band, but is somehow less than the sum of it's parts. The musicians are clearly on fire, but there's not much to distinguish one song from the next and a little more light and shade would be nice.
An interesting listen, but not one I'm likely to repeat.
I mostly know the older Smokey Robinson era stuff, but this was a pleasant surprise. Stylistically it lives up to its title, but whilst it does a lot of things, it does them well.
Awesome. Punk can be such a stuffy boys club, and this is a welcome gust of fresh air. Catchy, creative and fun.
Love Janis. But this one doesn't quite do it for me. The comfortable slickness of this band doesn't work with her as well as the ragged edge of her previous colleagues, and often they seem more interested in displaying their chops than supporting the song. Which may be understandable, because some of the material is a little uninspired, and not really suited to her, leaning towards a sultriness that isn't her best side - I'd rather hear her howling above the storm.
When the band get out of her way and she has something good to sing, like Bobby McGee, the results are great. But I'd rather hear those good bits on a compilation than sit through the rest again.
This is an interesting one. It starts off great. Love that broody minimalist kind of early Cure vibe, and the downbeat boy/girl vocals recall MBV. However, as it goes on you begin to realise maybe they only have this one idea? Maybe repeated listens will reveal a little more depth, but I'm not sure I have the patience to find out...
Jesus this was a slog. So plodding. So devoid of melody. So unvarying in it's tone. A chore to listen to.
I love Joy Division, but I don't get why people rate New Order. This is tinny, clattering mess for the most part, with terrible vocals. The occasional bit that rises to average just sounds like something the Cure did better. Did people just really really want to like this? Am I missing some context that would make sense of it? A solid 2.
Bit smooth and jazzy for my tastes.
Pretty forgettable apart from the two songs everyone already knows. I think I would have been ok to die without hearing this one.
Batshit crazy. Have to admire the ambition and what they were able to achieve with the tech available to them, but some of the more novelty stuff I don't think I'd want to hear again. Bits of it are great, though.
Love the upbeat stuff, but the slow ones are a little syrupy for my tastes. Vocals are amazing thoughout, though. Historically significant for sure, but not fully my cup of tea...
Kurt died to save us from shit like this.
An interesting historical curio as a side project that grew to arguably be a bigger deal than the band that spawned it. Has it's charms as a scrappy little one-man project, and Grohl is a great performer, but it gets a little samey and lacks that extra energy that comes from a bunch of people playing in a room together.
Lord no. She's a great singer, but everything else about this is dire, from the songwriting to the production and the bizarre choice of covers.
+1 point for at least not containing the dreadful 'Simply the Best'. I guess that's something...
So bland I genuinely forgot I was listening to it at times.
Haven't listened to this properly for years. The production has dated ever so slightly in places, but the emotional impact hasn't diminished at all.
Side 1 sounds like something from the section in Spinal Tap where it shows what they were doing in the late 60s. Side 2 is kind of glorious in it's stupidity, but overall this isn't an album I'd want to listen to again.
Almost gave this 5 stars without listening, but always a pleasure to hear it again. Whilst their peers were sloppily recycling old Chuck Berry riffs and shouting angrily over the same tired song structures, these guys were truly doing something different. 21 songs in 35 minutes shows you how different. They pulled apart the idea of what a song could be, and what it needed to be - if your idea only takes 35 seconds to get across, don't pad it out and repeat to fade. If you have ideas that wouldn't normally make it into a song, why not? If all you need is one chord, or a repeated chant, or even just a pulse - don't clutter it up with additional layers. The minimalism is part of the point, but then when they do add back in some of the traditional trappings of pop and rock the results are stunning - see 'Ex Lion Tamer' or 'Mannequin'. One of the first albums I've come across that truly deserves to be here, and whose influence is felt long afterwards.
I don't really hear what clearly many other do here. Competent but kind of dull. Dylan's band without Dylan. Neil Young without the edge. Elton John without the entertainment.
Maybe this kind of stuff means more to Americans or something? It's not for me. Also, absolutely terrible name...
Absolute masterpiece. Spawned many imitators, but nothing comes close. Astonishing considering the relatively primitive tech used, and still sounds fresh today. Would give this six stars if I could...
I think you either love Curtis or he does nothing for you. I'm the former. This one is kind of low-key throughout, but still something about it gets under your skin.
Love this. Has aged surprisingly well, and is more varied than I remembered. Can come across as childish, but like all the best kid's entertainment, there's some deep deep stuff underneath...
I really wanted to like this. And bits of it I did. But overall it's just too repetitive and long-winded to really enjoy listening to - and despite how ground-breaking it is etc etc, isn't that the point?
Funky but furious. Dark yet playful. Messy and yet somehow coherent at the same time. Just amazing.
So nice to have this come up the day after the challenging slog that was 'Bitches Brew'. Delightful.
I was apprehensive about this due to it's reputation as a 'difficult' listen. Wonderfully surprised to learn that it's actually an absolute blast. No idea why anyone wouldn't like this. Remarkable that it's from 1985 - it's the least 80s sounding album ever, and could have been made at any point during my lifetime. A new favourite...
Glorious stuff from the days when weird was properly weird. A little too chaotic and uneven to be a 5, but that's kind of the point. The best bits are amazing though - as Kurt Cobain obviously recognised.
I get that this is important and all. But it just doesn't really gel for me. Maybe I don't know enough about Jazz. Maybe I lack the spiritual dimension. Whatever it is, it doesn't move me like it clearly does many others. Sorry John. It's not you, it's me.
Never listened to Cheap Trick but had got the impression they would be kind of fun. However, this was somewhat underwhelming at first. Gets going a little more about halfway through when the songs improve. Still not convinced I need this in my life, though.
I'd give this 10 if I could. If you don't like it, you're wrong, and I don't like you...
Some interesting review for this one - seems to have made a lot of people quite angry! It is somewhat dated, but still fairly enjoyable and atmospheric.
Fun. Maybe a little too 'one trick pony' for a 5, though...
I was slightly filled with dread when I saw this one on the list. Where do you start? I love The Beatles, but I've never really loved this album.
The problem is, this is kind of the album equivalent of Star Wars. Hugely cultural impact, touchstone for a generation etc etc - but if you look at it objectively, actually quite clunky and flawed. The drugs and egos were taking their toll at this point, and the quality control had started to slip. Lots of filler (including the much-loved but actually not that great 'Lucy...' - that chorus is terrible). The whole 'concept' thing is a complete red herring. But the good bits are good, and A Day in the LIfe is astonishing - I'm sure much of the album's reputation comes from the sheer impact that track leaves people with at the end.
It's the Beatles, so I can't give it less than a 4, but also it's just not solid enough for a 5. Also bear in mind that on the same scale, Revolver is at least a 10...
I was surprised to see this remarkable record rated so lowly. Then I read the reviews and realised that people were rating the subject matter, not the music. If you're capable of getting past the fact that sometimes art deals with uncomfortable topics, this is an amazing album. Sounds fantastic, and it's influence on others is immediately apparent - Beck, Pulp, Portishead etc. Glad to have had it brought to my attention, which is exactly what this list is all about for me.
Great to hear something a little different, and I really liked this in places. However, some of the production is super dated and cheesy - there are bits that sound like a late-90s Spice Girls B-side. It's also way too long, and did we really need another version of 'Imagine'?
Not as good as you would hope based on the quality of the singles...
I was fully prepared to dislike this as much as I did the Who live album previously. But, it was actually quite enjoyable. Absolutely over the top and self indulgent, and consequently way too long, but still a great-sounding recording of remarkable live band. The seventies stylings aren't really to my taste but I have to admire the skills.
Intrigued to listen to this one as I'm not a fan of U2, but always kind of liked Sunday Bloody Sunday and New Years Day for at least having a bit of a raw edge to them (pun unintended). Unfortunately, they're very much the standout tracks here on a album that mines the same seam with diminishing returns. I'd still rather listen to it than their later output, though...
Do you think that you can hold on, when the beat gets too strong and you feel that you need help to move along?
Do you think that you can hang tough, when the rhythm gets rough and the DJ says "I think you've had enough"?
Amusing to see so many reviews criticising this for being simplistic and juvenile - that's the whole point! I feel sorry for you if you can't enjoy it for what it is...
Twee, lightweight and intermittently actively annoying to listen to. No thanks.
Love this. Yes, it's enormously derivative. Yes, it's wilfully stupid. But to criticise it for those things is to miss the point - it's also awesome. If you can't enjoy this I feel bad for you.
I don't get it. Bryan Adams gets slated for this kind of cheesy shit, but for some reason Bruce is a critical darling?
Not my cup of tea.
Nowhere near as good as their first two albums. Marks the point where they began to try a little too hard...
Enjoyed this a lot more than I thought I would. Nice calm vibe but some really interesting stuff going on under the surface. Kind of a sweet spot in their history before things got a little too country for my tastes.
Peak self-indulgent boomer sludge.
Gonna give this a 3 because that's where it lives - not interesting enough to merit either a higher or lower score, but just solidly middle of the road. Tasteful, nice if you like that kind of thing, kind of boring. Like Squeeze if they were less interesting.
Enjoyed this. Not sure it's a 5-star classic, but solid with some great songwriting.
Wasn't sure what to expect here. Love their early era but found the post 'OK Computer' material hard to engage with. This was a pleasant surprise though, combining the more experimental edge of the later stuff with the humanity of their early work. I really should spend more time with the rest of their catalogue.
They only wanted to be loved.
So so earnest. Like Meatloaf without the tongue in the cheek. Too much for me.
I'm giving this a 2, just in case Limp Bizkit also turn up on the list and I need room to express how they're even worse. Seems unlikely, but then this shit ended up on here so who knows?
I get it. This album is a big deal, and bits of it are awesome. But there are a couple of points where my heart sinks.
The first is halfway through each track when you hear 'Screeee! Diddly Diddly Dee!' and you know that you're in for a minute or two of some of the most directionless, un-musical guitar aerobics ever committed to tape.
The second is when the guitar solo finally stops - because then you realise they're just going to play the entire fucking song over again. Honestly, there are some awesome riffs and ideas here but there is no earthly reason why some of these songs need to be over 8 minutes long. Less is more, gentlemen.
I remember really trying to like this album at the time. The high points are great - Beatlebum is on of the best songs of its era. However, like a lot of Blur albums the quality control is lacking, with a lot of 'experimentation' that doesn't encourage repeat listening. Some great songs, but not a great album.
Pretty much put me to sleep.
I was surprised to see this rated so low. Then I thought a little about the content, the person who it comes from, and the kind of people that vote here - and I realised it's not surprising, just disappointing. This is a decent record, shame so many won't give it a chance.
One great track. The rest is forgettable. This list should be about great albums, not mediocre albums that contain one historically significant track.
That moment when you just awoke from a wonderful dream. You can't quite remember what it was about, but you can still feel how it made you feel.
Forget the overly rigid loops of Loveless. This is their woozy, wonky, ramshackle masterpiece.
I love me some Sonic Youth, but I can't quite bring myself to give this a 5. It's just not as great as Daydream Nation or Sister, and despite some awesome moments, something has always felt a little off about it to me - it just doesn't quite fit together properly somehow. Still a cool record though - just not quite their high point.
'One' is great. The rest is plodding, overlong and dull.
Surprised to see so little love for this here. Sure, the sound may seem quite 'generic gen-x indie' - especially to today's ears - but the songs? Fantastic. If you just let this one wash over you because of it's genial, laid-back vibe, you might want to go back for a closer listen. Dando is a hot mess, but he's tossed off better songs in his sleep than most people manage in their whole careers.
Getting this a few days after 'Hysteria', my first reaction to this was 'seriously, there are two Def Leppard albums on this list?'
This is so generic it feels the like the result of an AI prompt for '80's rock with no real content other than how much they like to rock'.
Surprisingly dull. More virtuosity than tunes, leaving the whole thing feeling oddly hollow and empty. Much less than the sum of it's parts.
Pretty sure they just played the same song 9 times in a row.
I can't comprehend anyone not loving this.
I kind of ignored this at the time because he seemed like a bit of a dick - and it seems like I was on the right side of history on that one.
However, despite all the principled 'I will never listen to him...' stances on here, I thought I'd give it a spin - and you know what? It's actually really good.
He's still a dick, though...
I didn't think I knew this album, but was surprised to find I recognised most of the songs on it. They're agreeable enough in a sunny melancholy kind of way - but it says a lot that I had completely forgotten about them since last hearing it...
"Hey guys! I've got this great idea! Just imagine - country music, right ... but played by guys that take drugs!"
Hank Williams - "Say what?"
Good tunes though.
An odd choice. I recall this as ever-present at a certain type of gathering at the time, championed as 'intelligent drum&bass', which I always found rather insulting and dismissive, especially because it often seems to translate as 'vaguely jazzy and rather dull'. There's some good stuff in here, but also a lot of samey, directionless filler.
