1001 Albums Summary

Puts you in the sort of daze you may find yourself in during a funeral. Musically limited, yet inexplicably alluring, the weight and wit of the lyrics and the tone carry what would be forgettable songs if brought to existence by anyone else.

Before starting this challenge, I had only heard A Royal Scam. The songs here are shorter and surprisingly commercial, albeit with a zany funk and jazz fusion. I imagine this could get up to four stars for me with repeated listens, but based on first impressions it's a three.

Having heard a couple of Simon & Garfunkel albums and not been wowed, loved a few singles, but rank that 'Call Me Al' song as one of humanity's worst atrocities, I didn't have high hopes going in. This is a collection of songs, not all that different from what I expected. Some are nice. Fairy forgettable after a single listen. I can't tell if I'd like it more, or less, with more listens.

One of my favourite albums of all time and the first which, as a child, I obsessed over. One of the few albums I have multiple versions of.

I'm writing this intro before starting the album - I could name several albums by Arcade Fire but have, to my knowledge, ever heard a single note of a single song by the band. Surprising as they came up in a time when I was making my own music with people who were huge fans. For whatever reason - the way people spoke and wrote about them, the state of rock music at the time - I assumed they were some posey hipster shite and avoided them. Now that I have listened to this album, there are definitely things I didn't care for and actively disliked. There are some of the more twee moments of Noughties rock which shoves it into the hipster sphere and away from the sense of rebellion and individuality that the genre thrives on, but I was mostly pleasantly surprised that I didn't hate the thing. The caveat with this review, and all my of first time listens, is that I've only listened to the thing once. As we all know, impressions of music change with re-listens and with time. It's rare for me that an album is an immediate love. I don't get the impression that I'll ever love this, but there are definitely a few songs I'll add to my car playlist, and that will lead to a deeper dive into the lyrics and my own feelings on those songs. All in all, I don't know if this is a three or a four star. It could go up or down in my estimation with more listens. I get the sense that this is one of those point in time albums - you had to be there, immersed in the sound and have it accompanying your journey at that time. Naturally you could say that about any album, but I don't think this is distinct enough that it'll transcend time and generations like the best albums do.

There is absolutely no reason why I should dislike Stevie Wonder, and I don't. But this album, and the only other Stevie albums I've heard before (FFF) were underwhelming, for lack of a better term. The guy can play, sing, but I struggle to connect with the music on a personal level. Nobody's fault. This feels like nice, inoffensive music that will never be more than a momentary blip on my radar.

I was looking forward to this one as I already knew a few of the songs and that some of my favourite artists held Nilsson in high regard. In total though, this is too kitsch for my liking, with too many of the songs veering into camp experimentation and playfulness which feels of its time. No doubting the creativity and songwriting skills. Elsewhere, a small number of the songs show a heightened prowess and great vocals but this is dampened by some less than impressive vocal moments in other tracks. It's surprisingly inconsistent.

Simplistic and repetitive - musically and lyrically - this packs a punch. It's fun, angry, juvenile, and energetic. Each member is connected to their instrument in a symbiotic fashion, but it's a young love, hand-holding relationship rather than anything more mature. Ladies were understandably pissed off in the 90s, but where is that righteous anger today, where it is really needed? Where are the true standout songs on this album? Does it matter?

Going in, I had no idea what this was or who these guys were. Incredibly dated production, sound, and a very innocent vibe. Even the explicit lyrics feel tame, like a Carry On movie. I imagine for Hip Hop fans this is akin to a modern day hardcore Metal fan listening to rock music from the 50s. The recognisable elements are there, and yet it sounds alien and distant. A good metaphor for evolution for any science-denying God boys out there. This reminded me of watching Fresh Prince and Sister, Sister - those hallmarks of boundary blurring TV for white folks. Lyrics are funny in places, and I assume tongue in cheek rather than misogynistic. Most songs are at least a minute too long and the album has at least two songs more than it should. By the end the entertaining groove becomes monotonous, and the repetitive nature inherent in the genre becomes painful.

One of the easiest five stars I'll give.

Ah yes. It was only a matter of time when I got my first 'on the list for cultural importance rather than quality'. Syd Barrett undoubtedly had an influence on 20th Century music and beyond. What that influence is though, is less than tangible. We know he was a founding member of Pink Floyd, and that his spectre hung over the band long after he left. But when you think of Floyd's best albums - even their less than great albums - Barrett is not directly involved. The Madcap Laughs is very typical of the sort of late 60s zany freak-outs which you saw from the likes of Frank Zappa. It was a new and exciting scene, but while it accentuated freedom and inspiration, musical and melodic ability was something of an after thought. Hence the end result of this album being a curio rather than something your average person is going to choose to listen to. In essence, there's very little stopping you or I or anyone going into a studio today and making a 'better' album than this, assuming you had the money and backing. What this album does showcase is the evolution and descent of Barrett. It's not clear where his songwriting would have gone if things had turned out differently. Many songs sound like they could have been lifted from Piper, and many have a similar vibe. Whimsy is the word you'll see most often when people with half a brain talk about this album. Some of the songs are fine, but the repetitive rhythm and the recurring cadence and limited melodic tics of Barrett mean that you can listen to any two or three songs and understand/avoid everything else. Three stars for being a historical record of a man who could have been a genius, or could have been exposed as a fraud. Two stars for the music.

Having known the band without ever hearing a single album, it's interesting that the first album to pop up on this challenge from them is a live one. I'm generally not a fan of live albums, or of live albums appearing on such lists - they need to be exceptional or have some exceptional story behind them for me to agree they should be included, rather than the usual 'important band released live album' shtick. Having now listened to this album, my review can be summed up in two words - 'mad bastards'

Definitely needs more listens, but good enough that a couple of songs have been added to my playlist. My first full Peter Gabriel album.

Having heard a few Dylan albums previously, including this one, I long ago concluded that he's not for me. What he has going for him are his lyrics. His vocals rarely are better than grating and more than half the time his musical choices are dull. The best compliment I can possibly give him are that his best songs are only enjoyable when performed by someone else. He has plenty of those - but that is the bare minimum when you've had as many releases as he has. Blood On The Tracks is one of the more tolerable albums I've heard. There are a few songs here than I could just about stomach listening to again via his original recordings, but aside from the lyrics and their content, I find it mostly musically uninspired, the constant harmonica is like what crucifixion must feel like, and the whole thing drones on longer than it should. I don't doubt its cultural importance - generally the most important criteria for inclusion in lists such as these (rightly or wrongly) - so I must give it 3 stars. It's a low to mid-range 2 for me personally.

Ha, so the algorithm is trolling me now. I bemoaned the travesty of Dylan's vocals in the last album, so they hit me up with Slayer. I'm not going to say that Araya is the greatest singer in the world - he's certainly far from that - and I will happily admit that he's not pleasing to listen to. However, Slayer is not supposed to be pleasant, while Dylan is. Slayer, and this album in particular, are meant to sound like the end of the world. The box is smashed to pieces rather than ticked. I have a love/hate relationship with Slayer. They are a very samey band - you could listen to any song off any of their first, say, six albums and be unable to distinguish them. No musical growth, no discernable progress. But that's not what they're about. They want to pummel you in the face over and over again. What sets this album apart from previous ones is that it does have a handful of standout songs. Songs that actually have an intro and are more than just punk shouting, speed, and thrash playing. The title track and Angel Of Death are as top tier Metal as it's possible to get. Having been a DJ in Metal clubs, I wouldn't get through a night without playing, or being asked to play, at least one of those. To conclude, I fully understand any 1 star reviews this must receive, but in terms of pure Metal fury and pushing the needle forwards for other bands, as well as helping to piss off religious cultists, it's undoubtedly a five star album.

I never listened to this at the time - another which had struck me as a hipster critical darling. I got it in my head that it was some sort of direct from Africa tribal collective. No, it's the sort of rap I like - not just songs about money, guns, women, and coming from the streets. A few tracks could use some trimmings.

Sabbath's early records, before the drugs took over and the creative spark faded, were special. They created a genre, taking much from what had come before, and before that new genre took off they went and created a couple of off-shoots. No content with creating Heavy Metal, this album saw them move further from Doom Metal and into sludge territory. People forget, or may not be aware just how great the musicians in this group were, effortlessly flowing from jazz to heavy rock to funk in their own demented way.

Like a Led Zep 3 era Pakistani cover band, but with less sex and more songs about fictional deities.

It's Metallica hitting the big time. I wish they'd continued this trajectory and had a mid-90s album before the wank of Load/Reload. This is an album of anthems and while not all hit the mark it's an example of one of the few times an 80s metal band changed successfully with the times.

I'm not generally a fan of live albums appearing on lists such as these. But for Nirvana, I'll allow it.

I simply cannot fathom why this is here. Sure there are some good songs and it's consistent, but it's nothing more than merely fine. It wasn't influential, it wasn't a critical darling, it wasn't a smash hit, it doesn't have much cultural significance. It also sounds out of time from what was going on... no edge like punk, no prog, less power than garage rock, less bombast than Zep. It feels like The Stones, but several years too late. So why is it here?

My first Julian Cope album and, while it was a tad elongated, it was fine. A mess of styles, yet it works.

The thing with this type of experimental music is that any twat can make it. I should know, I've done it myself. It takes zero talent, zero ability, zero creativity. I'll concede that there's effort involved on the production side of things, but to take something like this and make it interesting, make it worthwhile, make it anything more than a bit of a joke for the person making it - that's the tricky part. This fails in that regard, in most regards, utterly.

I remember this being a huge smash, I remember her name and the album name, but I either must have made it through those years without hearing a single song, or if I did hear one it went in one ear and out the other. Today I had to listen to the whole thing, and it absolutely did go in one ear and out the other. It's just... Nothing. Nothing music. Music for people who don't like music. Unacceptably meh. It would be utterly bewildering that this sold so many copies of I didn't already know that there are a lot of very silly people out there. But what do I know. People can like what they like. But for me this was a genuinely torrid experience. It should be nowhere near a list such as this, but the fact that it was so excruciatingly successful means I must give it two stars instead of the one it deserves, and concede that its popularity earns its spot here.

Growing up a grunge and rock and metal boy, I was fully aware of The Smashing Pumpkins, but until today I had never listened to a single one of their albums. Was it Corgan's voice, was it the shitty video of that Tonight song? Was it some bias I felt due to them being so successful in the US while my beloved, clearly and vastly superior Manic Street Preachers, were not? Don't know, something kept me at bay. This is an album which I imagine I would have liked if I'd heard it at the time. I'd probably like it now with more listens. But I only have time for a single listen and so - first half, they sound like shit Nirvana, second half much more unique and interesting.

It's all weird and fucked up. It's quite repetitive and dull too, but points for being weird.

The Greatest outtakes album ever.

Outside of this challenge I've been running my own challenges for a number of years. One of those was finishing the Bowie discography. I came to the conclusion that I'm a fan of the idea of Bowie rather than the reality. His supposed ability to shift like a chameleon didn't ring true, and many of his albums felt indistinct. I couldn't love his vocals. I didn't like the glam stuff. He seemed like he had only two types of song. But, it's Bowie, I get his importance. Nothing against him, but the music does little for me. Having said that, this one includes my favourite Bowie song, one I'd loved before I ever heard the album (Quicksand). My personal take is three stars, but the Bowie importance bumps it to 4.

Look, I've never heard a Beyonce album before. I've heard a lot of her music on the radio, both solo and with Destiny's Child, and have almost without exception, hated it. She can sing, but I can't stand her voice. All the shite about being independent - that's cool for one song, but becomes grating and increasingly like a calculated marketing move rather than a lyric with any personal truth behind it once it appears in single after single. But I'll listen to this and see if I've missed anything. I want to love as much music as possible. I can't love this. I tried. Open mind and all that. But this is just garbage. And not even fun, throwaway garbage. It's a needlessly hyped star having so much money thrown at creating a product but forgetting the ideas, the soul, the music. Ludicrously over-produced and yet feels cheap. No restraint in any aspect. The vocals are unnecessarily over the top to the detriment of the songs that might otherwise be listenable. Most songs would not be listenable even if you had an interesting voice doing their best work. If you strip everything back to melody and message, most songs wouldn't work. Satan bless her, she's a trier. Tryer? Who knows. I'm not saying she's not talented, but that's the absolute bottom of the barrel bare minimum you would expect of someone who has been a cog in the hit industry for decades. But there's just nothing here. Every note and word rings hollow. It's as erotic as a drunken, diseased, and decrepit grandmother forcing her dusty loins upon you. It's as smart as a MAGA podcaster. For a pop album, it's alarmingly free of melody. Most songs are some barren beat and nothing else. There are irritating sound bites. It's too long. This is an easy one star in my mind... It people love her and her music for some reason, and I get that this was likely influential.

Any group which inspired G'n'R is good in my books. This is too glam for my tastes, and you know if a song has any type of horn you can almost guarantee it'll be garbage. This has a few of those, but on the whole it's tongue in cheek, silly fun. It's lacking any killer tunes, its not serious enough for punk, not heavy or technically proficient enough to be Metal. That's the harbinger of much of the shite we'd see in the 80s - a chaotic mix of genres with a focus on image and ability over songwriting chops.

Well, here it is. You all know it. Not the first punk album, but THE punk album. A culture shifter. Violent, sneering, methodic. Admittedly limited, but served its purpose tenfold.

Rights, lads, remember when we promised there would be no Ayahuasca in the studio? Lads? Lads!?

My first full Snoop album, having heard many of his singles and collabs. It's exactly as I expected, lyrically and musically. I probably would have listened to this at the time had it been big where I was, but it wasn't, so I didn't.

Country music is generally abhorrent to me, having had it forced upon me from an early age. This wouldn't have been so bad of they music wasn't, without exception, shit. This album isn't the worst collection I've ever heard. At least it doesn't have any Irish moments. I won't pretend the band can't play, but I also won't deny the fact that slide guitar in country music gives me a violent, vomit reaction. You've heard one Country album, you've heard them all. Thankfully this one is free from the rampant racism, stupidity, religion, and fascism hidden under the guise of Patriotism which is the genre's modern hallmark.

Living on the red, white, and blue side of Ireland's order in the 80s and 90s, I was not allowed to listen to U2. They were from the other side, and we're the bad guys. Nonsense of course, but a true story nonetheless. As such, even as a rabid music fan, most of their music passed me by. I've always known they are one of my musical black spots, and as much as I've loved their singles and many of the bands and albums inspired by them, I never got around to listening to any of their albums. I think today is the first time I've heard a U2 album in full - deffo this one. Naturally that opening bombast of singles is great. I know them by heart,and they're flawless. Maybe it's familiarity or maybe it's quality, but nothing else here loves up to that opening. There are some other food songs, songs I'll likely enjoy more with further listens, but there also appears to be a fairer amount of middle of the road dross on the second half. Dross is too harsh. Average. Nothing that made me feel anything. Taking out the songs I knew, this is a three star album, it with those bangers it's a four.

I was worried this was going to be 80% Country music and 20% zany 60s shenanigans. Thankfully it's mostly 60s rock with a side of zany and a smattering of Country.

My sphincter closes in upon itself any time I'm recommended an artist I've never heard of and see that the album contains 16 songs. Luckily, most are around the 2-3 minute mark, so relax down there. The whole thing reeks of New York Hipster. It's almost certain the guy has copious facial hair. It's sparse to the point of boredom, dull, repetitive, but without any hypnotic quality. This is America begging for another Dylan. But it's just some guy with a guitar, like you will find in any street on any town in the US. It's like if Woody Allen was a folk singer instead of a pedo.

This was a cert for a four star score after that banger of an opening track. But none of the next batch of songs come close to that one, pulling us down to a three.

An album of weird bangers. I'm more of a Tori fan, but this is Kate's best.

Surprisingly dull. Even more surprisingly monotone. If each song was three minutes long this would be a 3 star album.

I was hoping to give this a four as it seems like my sort of thing, but by the end too many of the songs had similar melodies and rhythms. For this genre, I need songs to be more distinct. It's all good, but not enough songs stand out.

The only Queen album I've heard before and presumably their best.

To say I was bemused by her success and acclaim, and yes her infamy, at the time would be an understatement. She was the latest Radio 1 darling, endlessly paraded at all hours of the day whether we wanted to hear her or not, and endlessly berated by the tabloids for... Being a woman or drinking, or something. She had a mildly interesting, overly nasal voice, and sang slightly dark songs in an outdated genre with a barely modern twist. The songs, their arrangement, their sound are not to my taste and I find little joy from listening. While she was, and remains, ridiculously overplayed, that has little bearing on how I feel about these songs; dull, dated, and in arguably the worst genre I can think of. Still, there are a few catchy moments here, and she does make the songs more interesting by slapping some darker lyrics and tone into the mix. But there was no reason for this album, or this singer to be as successful as they were. Winehouse was simply the next in line - the British music business attempting to push 'young woman who sings easily marketed, easy listening drivel with potential for global recognition'. Dido? Duffy? Melua? Adele? Stone? Allen? Lott? Paloma? Tunstall? Maybe... Maybe five good songs between them? But again, what do I know? People like this, and this has lasted longer than many of the works by many of the performers above. While they inevitably transitioned into acting or worse, TV presenting, as they vainly cling to relevance, Winehouse seems to have carved a niche for herself as the 'imagine what we could have had had she lived' of her generation. I think she could have done some great stuff, hopefully transitioning out of shitty jazz and into something with more integrity. There are enough moments on this album to suggest she had more, and better, inside. As it is, this is just Michael Bublé with breasts and tattoos.

I suppose there's a miniscule chance that this might be bearable if you're off your tits. I'm not. So it isn't.

I like The Temptations. You like The Temptations. We all like The Temptations. Let's face it though; they're a singles group. This album tries to be an album, but the songs just ain't there. It just about scrapes a three score.

There are a lot of precious people on this site, handing out one star reviews of this beautiful package of gentle ditties. Sure I prefer my metal to be somewhat more melodic, but there's no doubting the ferocity and impact of this one, and where the vocals may be meme worthy these days, the riffs make up for it.

Having known a bunch of the hits, my first full BB album was Paul's Boutique. I didn't care for it. This is a significant improvement, containing at least a couple of bangers. I appreciate the variety on offer and it sounds great, but as you would expect for a 20 song album, it begins to drag and grate. There's an awful lot of fluff in the middle, there is no need for there to be so many instrumentals, and the whole toddler having a high pitched tantrum vocals feel repetitive sooner rather than later. Cut this to twelve tracks and I'd be happy to give a four star score.

I often think about what it would be like for me, as someone born in the 80s, to travel back in time armed with all I know, to try and live through the 50s. There would be a lot to recommend it - a slower, simpler way of life and a sense of hope after the downfall of the Nazis (lol from 2025). Great movies releasing at a manageable pace. However, having listened to plenty of the music from that time, it would have sucked dealing with the creative limitations. Few genres,, most of them poor, a handful of singers each singing the same handful of songs. Before people realised they could write for themselves. The same weep, choral arrangements. I simply could not cope. Them again, I'd just head to the nearest studio and play the unreleased songs of the future and become a star. And put plans in place so the MAGAs and Thatchers of the world never came to pass. Billie Holiday then. I would have listened to her. In limited bursts of course. There's only so much jazz a sane person can stand. This album is like every other 50s album. A bunch of covers. But at least Billie had character, in her performance and voice. I'll never listen to this again, and you don't need to. No-one needs to. But it's not terrible. It's exactly what you think it is, with added emotional weight and historical context. It's that context which, just barely, scrapes a three star review given how dull the songs are.

I think I knew about Jimi long before I ever heard any of his songs. I think I was playing guitar before hearing him play. I heard a bunch of his bits long before everyone hearing a complete album. I've heard all his albums before starting this journey. Tis a strange thing hearing your first Jimi album. You walk away expecting to have somehow heard more guitar. It was the style of the time of course, zany, glam, jazzy freak-outs. You wonder what styles he would have adopted had he lived through the 70s and 80s. I don't know what my favourite Hendrix album is, but stylistically I've never felt close enough to them to hand out a five star. They're all fours. Great playing from all, great ideas, a little overcooked, and Jimi's vocals aren't my favourite. I understand this getting all the fives, and it's deserved, but in my all important personal feelings opinion, it's a four.

KD Lang, huh? Assuming this will be the one with Constant Craving on it. Everyone loved that back in the day, me included. Why did I assume she was Scottish? Let's have a listen... The rest of this, thankfully short album, is as dull as get out. She has a nice, bland voice. But it's a voice you'd hear in any lounge bar in any club in any city in the world. The songs are the very definition of meh. Sometimes one hit wonders are precisely that. This is music to drown in the bath too. Live. Laugh. Love.

Supposedly this is both one of the most coherent and most varied Stones albums. My feeling about The Stones through the various albums I've heard by them, is that they are a step above ACDC - very samey songs, very samey sound, though very good at what they do. This album feels like a bunch of white boys ripping off the Blues forefathers they adored. Which is essentially their entire career, aside from brief forays into ripping off The Beatles. Honestly, I've never understood how The Stones got quite so big or remain so adored. I get their live status and how they were so energetic and electric on stage. I get that they were controversial. But the music feels so anaemic in comparison to how people talk about them. They lack the tunes of The Beatles, and lack the potency of Led Zep. Now, I say all this even though there are a bunch of all time bangers that I love. Paint It Black. Gimme Shelter. Wild Horses. A few others. This album doesn't have anything close to any of those. It has some middling rock songs. It has some middling country rock songs. It has some others songs. A few foot tappers. But it has too much if what I can stand - too much honky tonk piano. Too much harmonica. Too much sax. Not enough melody. Not enough emotion. It's a big, overcooked, overrated rock album filled with the extremes of ideas by a band that, by my reckoning, didn't have many ideas of their own at all. Oh yeah - The Manic Street Preachers lyric 'Daylight bores the sunshine out of me' is a VASTLY better lyric than The Stones original version here.

Pixies. One of those bands I've known about for decades and one that I've half-tried to get into, partly because of their significance and partly because I love many of the bands they obviously inspired. And of course because I've enjoyed a few of their songs. I've heard this album plenty of times, and some of their others, but try as I might, I just can't get into them like I want to. It's the repetitive bass led style, the repetitive rhythms, and the irritating vocals. They're one of those bands that would be so easy to lampoon. You know those YouTube musicians who are like 'What If I Played Beyonce In The Style Of Metallica'? Pixies are one of the prime groups of 'play X in the style of'. And it would be so easy to do so. Anyway, with all that out of the way, this album has all the bits. You can see how Nirvana and others were influenced. I'm torn between a 3 and a 4. I'm feeling generous today and I generally like this as a whole, and a few of the songs, more than most of the 3 star reviews I've given here. So a four it is.

Knowing nothing about this beyond the name and genre, I suspect this will be terrible.

No idea what this is or who this is. It's Hip Hop, but not as I know it. I like that it's different the usual rap I tend to hear, especially the lyrics. Interesting musical approach too. It didn't all work for me and it was lacking in the melodic department, but points for being different.

I'm not sure why this is rated as one of the greatest live albums of all time - it sounds fine and the band is okay. Bare minimum requirements for any musical act. I knew maybe one of the songs on the tracklist, but by the time we got there I was bored by the sameness of Van's vocals, by the live arrangements, by the songs themselves. There's precious little variety here. Little crowd interaction. As a fellow Northern Ireland guy you'd think I'd know more VM songs but no, we learned to avoid his inane ramblings many moons ago. His voice is tolerable for a song or two - when you're drunk at a wedding - but for 18 songs? Live? Come on, lads. Also - far too many parping horns on this album for my taste. As soon as I hear a trumpet, I know I'm in for a slog.

Surely a contender for worst album art ever, right? That's got to be up there with those religious albums with old women on the cover proclaiming that Jesus has touched them. Obviously I knew who Nick Drake was, his story, his style, but I don't recall ever hearing a single song till now. This was rather nice. Of course I listened to this half-cut in bed, but it was nice. One to revisit. The barren minimalism did wear thin after a while but by then I was sleepy and didn't care.

I always seem to get these boys and Simple Minds mixed up. I was worried that I wouldn't like this because so many of the popular 80s bands are either cheesy and dated, have that dull, deep male vocal style I can't stand, or both. This sort of falls into those categories, but also works. The songs aren't crap. They feel earnest. Sure they're overlong in places. The only song I knew here isn't one of my favourites, due to over familiarity, but the whole collection works. I'll definitely listen again.

Clean crisp production, great sound if somewhat dated and limited. I was never a fan of this 80s vocal style which 90% of British male singers adopted. But the songs are mostly great. I first knew the band from The Lost Boys, then a few singles, then by appearing on a Manics song. Never heard a full album before.

For many years, Bowie was a black spot in my musical knowledge. Obviously I knew him and many of his songs, but it wasn't until my 30s that I started through his full discography. My conclusion is that I'm more of a fan of the idea of Bowie than the reality. No doubting his talents and his achievements, but more a large swathe of his music the songs are, gasp, not very interesting. Not very good either. Limited. He seems to have only a couple of gears. I didn't like his Glam work, he uses way too much brass for my tastes, and his vocals are not sweet to my ears. And yet, when he makes something I like it'll be a banger. "Heroes" has a great first half, a weaker second. The instrumentals are not as shite as on other albums, and there's a higher ratio of good over balls. It's one of his albums that I could listen to again, or at least has more than a couple of songs I'd gladly put on many times.

A few standout tracks I'll definitely listen to again. I was aware of this band back when I was a grunge kid, but I don't have any lasting memories of them or their music. I don't mind the vocals, although they do wane over the course of the album. Everything else is good, noisy, just the way I like it.

Too much parping for my tastes but otherwise good.

I don't get it. The music is limited. The vocals are limited. Most songs are almost indistinguishable from every other. I have no desire to listen to the whole thing again. And yet, I like it. Why is it so alluring? Why am I giving it four stars? I just must be predisposed to enjoy this, against my better instincts.

I should like Bob Marley. He ticks every box for a guy like me. He's one of those dudes that someone like me would have had a poster or T-shirt of. But try as I might, I just can't with Reggae. This started out better than I'd hoped, more funky than reggae, but the Reggae sound and been soon dropped. Nah bro. Being objective though, good band, good lyrics, good things. But I don't need or want to hear it again.

I know that Dylan is worshipped by millions - millions of strange little cave dwellers - but for a dude who was big in the 60s, do we really need yet another album by him from 30 years later? We should have another Alice Cooper album - vastly more influential, better singer, better songwriter, better lyricist. Haven't said that, maybe this is good. Maybe this doesn't sound like the dying mewls of a cow with a spud trapped in its nose. Here he sounds more like Macy Gray. That's not a complement. That's like saying 'you look like Hitler', or 'You smell like Macy Gray '. And yet, it isn't terrible. As silly as the vocals are, once you get a taste for them and can look beyond that distraction, the songs aren't bad. Not great either and they mostly fall into the usual folk blues shtick, but there's some good stuff here. The problem with the food stuff is that, there's no progress, no pay off. Every song just sits and stagnates. On the plus side, that means the chill vibe of the album isn't broken. Down side? It feels aimless, meandering, void. It's like the worst techno music you can think of - have a single good piece, copy and paste until the end of the song. That final sixteen minutes track? Skip and pause at any moment of the song and it's the same as any other. So no, it's not terrible. I don't even mind his vocals here as much, now that he's shouting less. Lyrics good, band good. Just a bunch of songs that do little for me.

I simply cannot understand the love for Country music. I don't understand why it managed to spread beyond its own borders. Keep your horses and cows and cold beers and wife-beating to yourselves - the rest of the world has adult shit to do. She has a nice voice. Scratch that... She can sing, I'm not sure I'd qualify her voice as nice as she has the same hellish twang and warble as literally every other Country singer who has ever existed. The band can play, but I hate what they do with instruments I like and I instruments I don't. What doesn't help is that the Genre only has 2.5 modes. You'd think after a hundred years and a million performers they'd have you know, progressed, but I can't that progress and change is not in the dictionary of several US States and institutions. You have the slow, sad song. You have the shit kicker. And you have one that falls in between. Price to me there's something else. Go on! To say something positive... Before Believing has the potential of being quite pretty, good in fact, if only it were stripped of anything Country. Harris would likely sound great if, again, stripped of anything Country and given something less shitty to sing. There is simply nothing in this world more hateful than a Country Music album.

Difficult to judge on a single listen, but I already knew the big hitters. My brain says three but let's be positive and go higher.

It's fair to say that non of the former Beatles got off to a flying start with any of their solo work. John's was all over the place, George's was experimental nonsense, and Ringo's was exactly what you expect - shite. Paul went for a low-fi approach, hiding away by himself and doing it all. The result is mostly half-baked and lacking in the melody and charm the great man is known for. It's a forgettable album which deserves its inclusion here purely because of who made it and not the quality within. There are thousands of better albums than this, but it has to be here because it's the first solo McCartney album. It's not bad, it's just average across the board.

The birth of chill. One of Pink Floyd's Big Four. Perfection

A couple of tracks are too long. Otherwise fine. Can't imagine why it's in the book though.

I've never liked Talking Heads. Not that I've ever given them a chance. But the videos of those stupid suits and swinging arms and dances - absolutely not. The few songs I've heard - nope. But let's give them a proper go. First song is decent, but then all the vocal nonsense, tics, and jangling guitars start which takes the gloss off everything it touches. Partially a shame because there are good moments here. I say moments because good songs are few and far between. The shite overshadowed those good moments. The best songs are just about better than average, brought back down by the ridiculous vocals. No Compassion might be a great song without the jangle and crap singing. Plus marks for the lyrics, I quite enjoyed the drums...plus marks for being different in principle. I get why people are obsessed with the band, but for now, still not for me.

Back in the mid-90s, The Prodigy became one of a very small handful of Dance acts it was acceptable to like for us Metal and Grunge kids. This album is good, but doesn't contain the bangers that we all remember. It always amuses me when Yanks start talking about 'EDM' likes it's some new phenomena, when the rest of the world has been dealing with the, largely shite, genre for decades. In the 90s, cutesy and one off rave tracks were constantly stinking up the charts, building upon the admittedly worse fare released in the 80s. You couldn't turn on the radio or any chart music show without getting some slop. The Prodigy blew all of that away, giving people with discerning taste something to latch onto. The had edge, smarts, cred. They made actual music, not just bleeps with a beat and a recurring lyric. Still, this is an album I struggle to get through in full. Too big. Not enough great songs to sustain itself. But plenty of good stuff.

It's a well known fact that Iggy and Bowie were 'hand-buddies', providing each other with mutual 'relief' from the 'stresses' of stardom, touring, and drug excess. Which is fine - nothing like a mouth-gift to start the day. But their love would infiltrate each others music, which is a problem when you claim to be a unique punk lad. At least this album is more raw and rock than the previous. It has all the hits. It's more punk than experimental faff. Less glam shite. Less brass nonsense. A big shot of Stones style Blues rock. It simply must be mentioned how terrible all of Iggy Pop's album artwork is - truly atrocious. It must 'also' be mentioned that Lust For Life is basically the same song as Walking On Sunshine. Identical intro, pace, rhythm. All guff out of the 'way' and this is a damn fine album. I like this more than, or at least on par with, the Bowie albums I've enjoyed.

It has always been unclear to me what AC/DC are more like - Status Quo, or a shitty Hair Metal band, but without the makeup. What is clear is that they only make very silly formulaic rock. How much mileage you get out of this directly corresponds to how much you dream about fiddling with women. This, and any DC album, is essentially a Carry On movie in musical form. Do you like a solo? Hmm, I have a big one. Matron! I'm an Aussie and I like the bush. Ooh Matron! I bought a nice packet of biscuits, I just need to unsheath them. Matron! Would you like to CUM around and 'ave one? Oooh Matron! Have a little nibble, my dear, or maybe even a suck. OOOOH MATRON! I have made a mess in my pants.

It's another Smashing Pumpkins album. This is the one I always hear people raving about. Will I join them? Probably not. Will I remind people that Manic Street Preachers should have been bigger in the US? Yes - Manic Street Preachers should have been bigger in the US. Far more interesting than these boys. On the plus side, this is much more musically interesting than the other SP album on the list. It has the bangers that I remember from the 90s, but it also has that Tonight song with the terrible video where Billy looks like he's doing an impression of The Laughing Cow. I never liked that song, but this time around I didn't mind it. They sound less like a generic Nirvana rip off here. On the down side, it's too long. We all know this, but I admire the attempt. The middle section takes the brunt of this, with too many songs lacking the impact of the early hits and the interest of some in the back half. Then again, if I had fawned over this at the time like many of the glowing five star, woe is me/I was a sad boy in the 90s reviewers here, I'd likely have more love for those songs too. Nothing bad about them - I've only heard them once and there's too damn many of them. As to be expected, Corgan's voice is not the most pleasing, but it's less cringe-inducing here than elsewhere, partly because it's more buried or complemented by the cacophony of noise surrounding it.

Oh dear. I simply never understood the hype. That fucking Seven Nation Army shite was inescapable at the time. Back when I would spend many an hour and many a day in the Students Union, with MTV 2, Kerrang, or Scuzz blasting in the background, it was one of a foul spawn handful of the worst modern rock you could think of. Between it, that awful Evanescence son, that terrible Linkin Park song, and all of those shitty pop punk songs, you simply couldn't get away. True story, I saw these clowns at Glastonbury once but crowdsurfed to the front so that I could get away - I wanted to see Robert Plant and it was the fastest way out. Seven Nation Army has a, let's be honest, very dull riff, and that's all the song is. The riff played endlessly, while some boy wails over the top and some girl slaps a stick on the ground. I simply have never understood why people like it, never mind giving it such undue praise. There was so much better and more adventurous rock at the time than this Led Zep throwback rip off. But perhaps the album is better than that one song? After all, a band is almost never just one song (unless you're AC/DC), and I think Seven Nation Army is the only White Stripes song I've ever heard. Yes I saw them at Glastonbury, but I wasn't paying attention. Skip the opening song as there is no logical reason anyone needs to hear it again. Second song is cool, I could listen again. Third is fine... Fine to meh. Fourth...ah I remember this. This had a video with Kate Moss or some such prancing around a chair. I love the Dusty version, this less so. Fifth is bad - would still be dull if it was sung by someone who can sing. Meg, assuming it's her, cannot sing very well. Sixth is mid-album drivel. Seventh tries to be lovely but doesn't make it. The next is a 3.5 minute song, but for some reason they play it twice. The one after is better, but not great. The one after is barely a song, then a decent one, then another decent one. It's more of the same field until the last song, which is one of the most embarrassing messes I've ever heard. It's almost bad enough to drop my score by a star. In whole though, not as bad as I was dreading, but I remain mystified at the fame and praise this received then and now. I can only assume that, because the rock music being played on radio at the time was so poor that people somehow cling on to this. Or that people are very very silly, which seems more plausible.

It's...fine? Tame by today's standards,.or even by the standards of five years after release. Does Punk music really need keyboards? Obviously not, but at least they sounded different from the usual snarling and three chord guitar attack. Again... It's fine.

The Stones... having heard quite a few of their albums before starting this challenge, I can't say I'm a big fan, or that I understand exactly why they're so revered. I get that they offered a counterpoint to The Beatles, but they feel like such a mish-mash of everything that had come before them. If somebody did something they enjoyed, you could be sure they would nick that idea. It was blatant, and they couldn't do much with those ideas beyond adding a dirty blues riff. It's a personal shame because, after loving The Beatles, The Who, Floyd, Zep, etc in my youth, The Stones were my remaining huge gap - surely I'd love them too. But no. Too limited in their sound, too samey, and whatever raw edge and energy they exuded back in the day - it's lost now via the studio and via the passage of time. That's not to say they don't have some great songs. This album has a couple. But they don't strike me as an albums band. They're a greatest hits band. And they have some great hits. So, as always, nothing bad here, just nowhere near enough to deserve higher than three stars.

I'm no rap expert and was not aware of these guys before this album was offered up as per ze challenge. One wonders if it was popular, if it twas influential. I can't tell. In could research, but ain't nobody got time fo that. What is obvious is that it's less violent, less visceral than most of the rap I know. Less about the ho, the guns, the money, the streets. More about some other shit, I wasn't paying full attention as I listened in the midst of an encroaching sickness. But to these ears it felt low on samples, drum heavy, low on instrumentation. Still fun in places, still got my feverish head nodding, then regretting such rhythmic movement.

Loretta could sing and write her own songs - entry level, bare minimum ability for entering the world of music. But this, like every Country album, sounds just like every other Country album. There's the slow sad song, and the shit-kicker. And all the way through is awful guitar and piano sounds. How many decades has this genre existed for now, and yet it hasn't changed, evolved, done anything different, anything exciting, or somehow managed to produce anything more than precisely those two songs.

Not sure why this needs to be hear. Presumably something about beards. It's solid, no nonsense rock music. No real peaks, no real variance in its sound or sentiment, but sometimes that isn't important. A couple of notable singles, some good guitar, vocals on the dodgy side, possibly because all that hair keeps getting in the mouth.

More rap boys I've never heard of. Based on the era and album art, I can imagine what it sounds like. And that's exactly what it sounds like. It sounds rather silly, but I can see why people would have e enjoyed it in the 80s. It's supposed to have been influential, so I'll take your word for it. Still, it's a lot less remarkable than the rap music which I'm more familiar with from just a few years later. This makes me think of Police Academy 4, but without the funny bits.

I'd heard one Paul Revere album before starting this challenge - this ain't that. This is very similar to that though, inoffensive 60s rock with a bit of melody, a sprinkle of emotion, decent playing, nice haircuts. Nothing much memorable, no standouts, no edge. It lacks the snarl of The Stones and the polish of The Beatles. In essence, it is average. And as such, it has no real business being on this list.

I've no idea if this is the album that has that one song by this band that I know. You know the one, where the singer is facing the camera and doing that thing with her face? Yeah. Yeah yeah, that one. I didn't like that thing, or the video, or the song. As such, I assumed I wouldn't like the band and went on about my day/life. I got a vibe from that song... that pretentious New York vibe. An air of superiority, while being overtly shit. Are they from New York? Fuck knows. But I'm giving this album a go now, 20 years later. Turns out this is the album that has that song. It also has a couple of other songs I remember, so clearly I'd heard a lot of this back then. It doesn't irritate me as much now as it did then. The effect on the vocals does annoy me, like she's singing through static. Her voice is very shrill too. But she makes a lot of sex noises, which is always nice. It's all very noisy, so I can see why people enjoy it. It's not my sort of noise though. The playing is too stilted and basic. Like a lot of the bands of that era, it's all cling cling cling, same note over and over again, then next note, cling cling cling over again, repeat. There were a lot of more inventive, more powerful, more exciting bands at the time but they got buried because, well, they didn't make sex noises or because the radio chose not to push them. These guys were in your face all the time. So, it's fine. Good even. Too basic and cliquey and up its own arse for my tastes. But sex noises. I'm away for a wank.

The thing I heard more than anything before starting this challenge was that there are too many Elvis Costello albums. Here I am with my first - thoughts and prayers. Before listening, I knew who the lad was, with his Mark Lamar 1950's bin man knock-off look. I can't recall ever hearing a single song by him, though I almost certainly have. Obviously the guy behind the book has some 'special feelings' for him. I think that I'd give this a four with more listens. Everything is good, aside from some jangly guitar tones that I've never been a fan of. Drums good, keyboard hit and miss, lyrics good. What is preventing an instant four stars is the vocals. If we had a singer who could belt out these choruses, it would be a four. They feel anthemic and deserve a bit of oomph, but Costello ain't that guy.

Did you dance in the afternoon rain to Catch The Sun in Glastonbury around 2003? I did. I thought that song was on this album. It's not. It does have other songs that I'd forgotten existed in the twenty or so years since I heard them. As such... NOSTALGIA. Days listening to music, pints, nights out on the tear before stumbling home and having a kip on the floor of some friend's floor. Then 2 litres of Lilt to cure the hangover the next morning. Then back to Uni for more Post Structuralist takedowns of beloved Victorian era novels. There's quite a bit of airy, atmospheric nonsense on this album, but outside of those it's all good. And there's a couple of bangers. Hey, I haven't given a four for a few days and because it's almost Christmas and I'm on the wine, I say it's time to be generous. You'll see in other reviews these guys being compared with Coldplay, and I get it. There were a few bands at the time ostensibly playing rock music, but without distortion. That's basically the comparison . Coldplay inexplicably got the spotlight and hit the big time, while the other groups faded one by one. These guys had more potential. Haven were the best of the bunch, but you're likely saying 'who?'. These guys did not have an insufferable twat as a front man. These guys didn't marry one of the worst humans imaginable. It's a good album, not a great one, but it just about scrapes a four for me. More likely a 7 out of 10.

Ah, these guys. I have a friend who swears by them, his favourite band ever. Truth be told, I don't know much about them or many of their songs. This will be my maiden voyage. Well, it's a bunch of three star songs with a couple of four stars in Unsatisfied and We're Comin Out. With added weight for obviously being ahead of the Zeitgeist. Also, for a bunch of punk guys who can barely play, having an almost complete instrumental track is buck nuts. It's noisy, it's less serious and posing than much of the punk which had come out a few years earlier, but it also lacks the tunes of what the alt genre would become.

It's Elvis, y'all. I wonder how many Elvis albums we're going to have to navigate. Is this a live album? I guess we'll find out. This is the first Elvis album I remember listening to. We all know at least 10 Elvis songs, right? Probably more. This album only has one song that I knew from looking at the tracklist. The songs themselves aren't the best. Obviously we're dealing with songs from a time and culture long since lost, many of them mixing Country, Blues, Gospel, soppy ballads. Normally I wouldn't care for most of those genres and actively stay away from them. But Elvis was such a unique presence and voice that he makes them worth hearing, at least once. That said, there are some entirely intolerable songs here - especially the soppy Country shite. Elvis tries his best to make them not shite, but doesn't quite get there. You can just about get through those with your sanity intact. Beepy arrk flnmnrr! The faster, rockier stuff is better but there's nowhere near enough here to warrant a four star score. An Elvis greatest hits, featuring his best songs, that would be a four star or possibly a five star album, it this is let down by the faff. Some great playing a foot tapping stuff to be sure, but not enough of it.

I listened to this lot quite a bit back in the day, particularly the song they did with Bjork, Weak, and a few other singles. I don't think I ever listened to this album in full, and looking down the tracklist none of the titles leap out at me. I had friends who loved this album, but I had moved on to other, less bald bands. This album still has the raw power and presence of Skin and the melodic talent I recall, but it's more Nu-Metal than I expected. Thankfully without all the shite that made Nu-Metal, well, shite. Turns out I don't think I heard the singles from this one at the time. Turns out the singles are the weakest songs on the album. Luckily everything else is great. I should have listened to this at the time, but I'll be listening to it again.

I have to laugh every time I get an highly renowned and successful and brilliant (or otherwise) album by a British act then look at the reviews from yanks which inevitably start with either 'wow, never heard of these guys' or 'what is it with this list and it's favouritism towards British bands no-one has heard of'. I'd anything, the list is way too slanted towards US shite. Who needs to hear more than two Country or Jazz albums in their entire life? Nobody, that's who. Having said that, here's yet another US band no-one has ever heard of. I like my punk straight. And I don't mean sexually. Punk should be ramshackle, heavy, brash, fast, shorty yet melodic, political, slogan heavy, and amateurish. Anything else and it's not punk. Is this post-punk? Apparently it was influential. Maybe it was, but I imagine it only influenced shite. I can hear The Pixies in here, but the parts about The Pixies I don't like. It's not bad. It has experimental moments. It's fast in places, amateurish, the vocals are shouty but bland like Dylan if he was less of a New York poser and instead grew up with a bunch of friends who liked looking at titty mags and boozing. The slide guitar is different, different enough to push this out of the punk genre for me. I had an okay time with it. I'd probably enjoy it more if the vocals weren't so normal. If it had a bit more edge and venom. It feels stripped of the anger it needs to be impactful. Tame. As a blues rock album with punk glazing it almost works, but as a punk album with Blues leaning it feels bereft of thrust. That Cool Of Water song for example, it can fuck all the way off. It's the most watered down attempt at Zeppelin this side of White Stripes. With a different singer, this is a more solid three, but as it stands it's a low 3.

One of those albums which fans like to tell you is super influential, but you look around at what it influenced and... Shrug? To paraphrase that awful Stefani woman, 'I'm just an album'. Which is what this is. It's just an album. Like many others, it came and went like a burp. The dude on the left of the cover looks like my mate from school, Maccers. The dude on the right looks like Slater from Saved By The Bell. The music isn't very exciting or memorable, but at least they tried. They got out of the flooded quarry one day and said 'hey Maccers, hey Slater, hey...Bryce-leigh, you wanna go play guitar'? They all said no. And thus, Spiderland was born. With zero spiders.

The battle over AI music is currently all the rage. Is it art? Is it theft? I'd it right that someone with no training can go make music at the touch of a button, possibly taking precious money and spotlight away from those precious artists who spend their lives toiling away on their six string? But there's nuance, that little thing is tribal little monkeys tend to forget. For example - can original human-written poetry, words, or lyrics be considered art? Even if you don't like those things, you'd probably say yes. But what if those same words are applied to AI generated music? What then? What if the words form an album, and what if the AI prompts for that album were designed in such a way to form something specific, something coherent and cohesive? What then? Well that's what I did. It's online. Under Scrabo's Looming Shadow. A 46 song concept album about potato picking, with my words set to AI music from my prompts. Is it art? Is it the same type of Art as Entroducing? I don't know. All I know is that it's better than Entroducing.

This was my first full Tangerine Dream album, having known and grown up with their TV and movie soundtracks. They made electronic sounds before the medium got taken over by an association with drugs, chaos, and shitty dance music. It was the very essence of experimentation, of playing something new. The problem of course with such things is that other key components of music get lost along the way. You can make as many nifty and cool sounds as you like, but if there's no emotion behind or in front of it, no melody, no message, what's the point? It's exploration for the sake of it. It's Colonialism for its own sake. It's Musk going to Mars just so he can be remembered as the first to do it. It's meaningless. Luckily, there are enough cool and nifty sounds here that it isn't a waste. You can tell the group is excited and dedicated. They want to make... something. Production wise, it's great. It doesn't sound dated. It's just... what's the point? You'll remember none of it after a single listen. So, it's not exactly the Street Hawk theme tune, but it's worth hearing.

I mean, it's Zep. Maligned somewhat upon release, it's an album of some flawless songs - some of their best - and some less good stuff. There's no way it isn't a five stars.

Oh Lord. Another Country album. It'll take a miracle for this to not be a one or two stars. Let's find out. To his credit, Marty does not have the acid-on-eardrums whining twang of most Country singers, and there's a lot less steel guitar and dismal violin moping than I expected. But that's about it for positives. Lyrically, it's the same old bullshit. Let me tell you a tale of [insert cowboy name], whose deeds involved [insert horses, guns, shooting, and being shot]. Repeat. You have to wonder just how much responsibility these Country singers must bear for the countless gun related deaths and atrocities which have plagued the USA for the past hundred years or so. There's no two ways about it - this music, and the genre as a whole, romantisizes firearms and the notion of a man getting shit done via his ability to wriggle his finger while pointing a weapon at someone. Good job, Marty. Now admittedly, there is a certain allure to the notion of spending your days and nights with a posse of like-minded men, roaming the plains, and law only onto yourselves. But two things: for as cool as that sounds, the music which typically encircles that ideal, is hot garbage. Utter shite. Tame, yarn-spinning, weak and fetid wank. Secondly - grow up. What a pile of childish nonsense. Anyone can imagine a life of non-responsibility. Woop-di-fucking-balls. So. Marty. He has a nice enough voice and his sound is not as apocalyptically grating as the genre usually is.

It's a big Proggy boy. Everyone knows the art. I had never listened to the entire thing before, even though I like Proggy boys. Some parts are too faffy and it lacks the emotional connection of Pink Floyd's best work, but it's good.

I have heard this name before. I was probably still working in a place that had a communal radio/ride-sharing at the time this was released, so I may have heard a single or two. But I couldn't name any of those. I had only, to my shattered recollections, heard Daydreaming before - and possibly not even the whole song. But this was great. I like Rap when it isn't just about women, money, and guns. You gotta give me more. This album is smart, funny, and varied in its lyrical content and music. The three track run starting from ... Is as good as any I've heard in rap. Sure the last song isn't great, but we won't hold that against it. We get songs about skateboarding, zombies, and pointing a mirror back at America's own lying, sneering, bloody face. It's a shame he seems to have allowed himself to be chained down by religion, the greatest White Man Lie, but hopefully he's grown out of that nonsense by now.

I have no idea what the balls this is. Based on the name, is it rap or dance? Fun Lovin Criminals vibes from the artwork. But I have never heard of these guys, and neither have you. After listening I can confirm that I never heard any of this before. I can also confirm that there were a hundred bands in the 90s who sounded like this - white guys rapping while sounding like they're dealing with a hernia, or trying to curl out a particularly vicious dump. It's Rage Against The Machine without the Rage, Fun Lovin Criminals without the fun, songs without music. There's zero reason this should be on the list given how derivative it is and considering that other groups did it better. That said, you could pick any single one of these songs and tap your toe while staring wistfully out at the sea as the dying embers of your spliff fall away, echoing the dying embers of your musical taste. Sorry, Garry Love, but James from Twin Peaks is much cooler than you.

My quest to find a Country album that is actually worth listening to has so far been fruitless. But today we have Johnny Cash, the dude everyone who hates Country music, likes. I've heard plenty of Cash songs before - I don't dislike him, but I don't love him even as much as those other County haters do. Next up - I think only an exceptional Live album should ever be on this list, exceptional both because of the performances, the songs, and the surrounding circumstances. Unplugged In New York for example. Will this hit the spot? It gets off to a solid start, by bringing other artists and some of their hits. Thankfully the opening songs are not Country, so it gets me into a positive mood. There's good crowd noise, banter, interaction. June Carter brings the first Country song, and it isn't terrible. It's flirtatious and fun. She then raps out some farm-related poetry. You have to wait a while for Johnny to join. Cash is better than most Country vocalists because he doesn't sound Country - no whining, no hootin' and a hollerin'. He doesn't exactly have a voice for melody, but he gets his point across clearly. The up-tempo songs work because they boil with energy, and there's none of that dreary violin or steel guitar nonsense. A lot of the inherent garbage of the genre is here - the same melodies and rhythm which you can immediately pull from memory and instantly craft a new song from. It's the intensity and intent of the performance which makes that garbage tolerable. The majority of the songs aren't interesting in the slightest - the best ones are either the big Cash hitters or the Carl Perkins songs. But again, the performances are great and the banter is solid. Throw in the circumstances and it's worth the four stars. Normally this would be a three star album, but for cultural significance you have to throw in that extra star. I never need to hear the whole thing again, but I'll slap a couple of songs on my rotation.

In the early 2000s, there were so many 'The' rock and indie bands that this fact alone led to the downfall of rock music itself. That and the fact that 80% of those bands were balls. I have never heard of this one though. The Bees. In fact, I have no idea if they are even a rock band. Soon find out... But first, here are some actual, important, good 'The' bands who do not feature on this list, it should - The Gathering, The Music, The Delays. Also, why are there no albums by Sia or Lady Gaga? U mad bro? Alas, this album is a far cry from those by the artists I mentioned, and therefore I am obliged to question its inclusion here. In order to be considered one of 'must hear albums before you die', an album must meet certain criteria. Let us walk through them. Historical Significance and Innovation: This album barely charted, same for its singles, and has received no significant airplay. Very few people have ever heard of it or the band. It appears to have zero historical significance. In terms of innovation - how innovative can you buy with yet more white boy reggae and plinky plonky bollocks? Internal Cohesion and Journey: I'll allow this one. I mean, when every song is filler, it's still coherent. Timelessness and Endurance: It doesn't sound dated but it also doesn't sound like it was recorded at any point in the last 20 years. It feels like a lost album from the 60s that was only recorded because the singer was the dealer for a bigger band. Emotional and Social Impact: Zero. It seems to have influenced no-one and held no emotional impact for me. So, an album which didn't sell by a band no-one has heard of which influenced nobody, had no wide impact, and sounds like any number of artists from decades before. Plus the album artwork is a hate crime. Some people who don't like music will probably like this. It's well made. The best thing I can say about it are that the first ten seconds of roughly a third of the songs are 'nice'.

I saw these guys at Glastonbury after there Pink Elephants or whatever album came out. A lot of people raved about and them at the time, but I was more interested in the exploding but ignored Euro Metal scene. I didn't pay much attention to that gig and remember nothing about it. I seem to have photos of it though. I believe this album came out before that one, and I believe I have not heard any of it. Till now. Song titles are cool. Lyrics are naff. Music is good. Vocals are bad. Great production. Don't like the drums. So that all works out as a three for me. Imagine if this had been sung by prime 90s Thom Yorke. It would have been four stars.

My second Peewee Gabey (Peter Gabriel) album on this odyssey (journey), and the first (first) to feature songs by him that I know (bro). When I was a lad I didn't like that Sledgehammer song, or the video. All that jerky, smiley stop motion stuff gave me anxiety. Anxiety that a Gabriel was going to leap out at me from behind the sofa, juddering, grinning, and possibly nude. Plus I preferred the song Sledgehammer from the show, Sledgehammer. But I've always loved Don't Give Up, the song and the video. I recorded the song onto cassette from somewhere and used to sing both parts, hoping that Kate Bush would leap out at me from behind the sofa, dancing, doe-eyed, and possibly nude. The rest of the album I don't believe I was familiar with. It features the best and worst of the 80s, along with a dose of weirdness. In total it feels like a three star album to me, but I like it more than the other Peetay Gabe-ree (PG) album I heard, so I suppose that makes it a four (4).

Oh no. I had to live through this balls at the time, and everyone loving it. You could not go anywhere or do anything in the late 90s without a song from this album invading your personal space without consent. If it wasn't ol' saggy britches boning Zoe Ball and her gushing all about it, it was on the radio, and if it wasn't on the radio it was in your face at school, in the shop, blasting from the cars of steeks. And it was terrible. The summit and nadir of everything dance music had been steaming towards. So yes, it's wall to wall hits. The only good one is if course Right Here Right Now. By the very nature of the genre, each track only has about 1 minute of material, so you can get through the whole album in about twelve minutes and get the same effect as if you had listened to the whole thing.

ROTM is the AC/DC of the 90s, in that they are a band with huge popularity but every song sounds the same. Except where one band sings about bazoongas, the other sings about racism. They do one song and they do it well. Luckily that song is awesome and it'll pump you up to make a difference before remembering you forgot to send your OoO - after which point all you'll want to do is have a wee sit down and doom scroll. Anyway, you all know the song.

Merry Christmas to all - including murderers!

Ahh, I've been waiting to hear this one. For many a decade I've heard, mostly from Americans, that this is one of the greatest Rock albums of all time, flawless, a succession of hits, and one of the greatest all time debuts. Hopefully I'm not mixing these statements up with another album (such as this not actually being their debut), but you get the idea. Is it true, or is it US Boomer nostalgia. Given I only recognise the name of one of the songs - a great one granted - and given the US Boomer's odd predisposition for tight jean, sock stuffed, high-pitched love and pop songs (but with guitars) being associated with Rock, I can't say I'm fully onboard. But I want to be wrong. Truthfully, I was hoping to give this a four or maybe even a five given I am a Rock boy. But this feels more like Rock music for people who don't like Rock music. Sure it's dated now in the sense that it comes from a distant place and time which no longer exists, but it's also very twee. Boy band with guitars, no real emotion. The guitars are good but we've all heard better. And we've all heard better woven into better songs. More Than A Feeling remains a classic, but everything else is filler.

It has been nine years since I first listened to this in my initial journey to listen to every Bowie album. I remember it being a departure from his previous couple of albums, but thinking it was fine. I still think it's fine.

I have no idea what this is, but the album title, artist name, and artwork have already annoyed me. Is it going to be Country or folk or hipster twee? Or have I got it all wrong and this is going to be awesome? Twee hipster folk sounds right. You know how a great vocal can improve a crap song, or you hear a decent song and think 'this song could be four stars if only the singer was better'? The music here is nice and the vocals are more spoken that sung, but I don't think a better singer would actually improve things. It's that twee, bland niceness that is beyond help. It's fine if you like that sort of thing, or are in the mood for it. It's yet another album by some random American nobody has heard of which has zero business being on this list.