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.