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'

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.