I've never listened to Christina Aguilera before but I should have done! I'd mistakenly assumed her genre was disco or lightweight teenpop, but I was wrong.
She has a great and strong voice, for example on Walk Away. There's a mix of styles on the album, some of which don't particularly appeal to me, but there's nothing truly awful that I couldn't listen to.
I won't Walk Away if she appears in my playlist in future.
Despite having seen the Rolling Stones once (Berlin Olympic Stadium in 1990) I've never been a fan. I'd never heard this album before but it's not changed my mind.
Musically it's good in parts, although I recognise the style from their other music that I've heard over the years, so it's a bit 'samey' to me.
What spoils it is Jagger's singing. It's too lazy, too indistinct and too mono-tonal for me. I won't be going back to listen to this again.
I had low expectations before starting to listen and the album failed to meet them.
The only redeeming "quality" is that it does eventually end.
I've never really listened to hip hop before 1001 albums. The bits I'd heard by chance weren't appealing so I'd not sought more to listen to.
Listening to two hip hop albums in two days has confirmed that I've not been missing anything.
Musically simple, I guess because it's more about the lyrics than the tune. My problem is that I come from the wrong time and place to interpret the lyrics in a meaningful way. Too many unknown words, possibly street slang, and the rest of the words spoken at pace in an accent that I don't find easy to understand. That makes it hard work to listen and get some sense from it. To me music shouldn't be hard work!
So I'm sure it means something to some people, just not me.
I hadn't knowingly heard any of The Strokes music before. I'd wrongly assumed from their name that they were a punk band - not one of my favourite genres. I was pleasantly surprised to find that they're a rock band
Musically this is a good album. It has the rhythms and guitar playing you'd expect from a rock band. Unfortunately not quite so memorable that as I write this 12 hours after listening I don't recall any stand out tracks.
What spoiled it for me was the vocals. The lyrics were fine, but their delivery was odd. I don't know if it's just this album or a band style, but the vocals on every track sounded like they were being sung through the inner sleeve of a toilet roll with the end covered in tissue paper. Not quite full kazoo but getting there. I found this fuzziness distracted me from fully enjoying the album.
This album was ok to listen to, but in my opinion not up with the upper echelons of the all time greats.
Caveat up-front. I've owned this album from it's release back in 1986 so I've played it regularly over the years.
This album was Peter Gabriel's move from a cult-ish following, including a lot of Genesis fans, to a more commercial style of music. Some of his earlier music was complex, both musically and lyrically, but this album is easier listening, probably to try to expand his audience.
All the tracks are great, but my favourites are Red Rain, Sledgehammer and Mercy Street with top spot reserved for Don't Give Up. The latter never fails to make me feel emotional every time I hear it. There's something about the combination of Peter and Kate Bush's singing coupled with the lyrics that gets me - particularly I guess because of the sentiment being expressed.
Musically, it's great, although more mainstream than his previous albums. That doesn't detract from it though. The album is very listenable.
I'd never heard of this band before, nor heard any of these tracks without knowing who played them.
They are said to be a rock band, I'd put this more in the punk rock genre - not a favourite of mine. I found nothing to really interest me on this album.
I found the music a relatively simple combination of a limited number of overdriven guitar chords which were so loud as to mostly drown out the drums a lot if the time. Perhaps it's best summed up as a wall of non-melodic sound.
There was little to redeem things with the vocals. Loud and raspy, pretty much overdriven too, lyrics shouted in a way that often made them indecipherable. Even when it was possible to hear the lyrics they seemed to be composed of simple repeated phrases that didn't seem to have any complex meaning.
I get it that this is often the punk style. I know punk fans like the style, but it's not for me.
Very much early 70's Sabbath style. Despite it being a pretty heavy rock album, there's still place for the Changes and Laguna Sunrise tracks, both of which I like.
Tony Iommi's guitar riffs are always top quality and bring a great melody to all tracks.
I'd heard tracks from the album before but never listened to the whole album end to end. In some ways I think that spoiled it for me a little.
There's no doubt that Adele has a great voice and she definitely shows it on these tracks. However, I felt that the tracks at the start of the album were a bit 'samey' to me. When the music is mostly about her voice then it seemed that the same style was used on multiple tracks. Listened to individually as I'd normally hear them this wasn't really obvious.
Compare that to the end of the album where on One and Only (my favourite), Lovesong and Someone Like You she showed her wide vocal range and differing singing styles.
Not sure I'll listen to the whole album again at one sitting, but I will still enjoy her songs on their own.
I've heard Little Richard tracks before but never listened to a whole album at once. I'm glad I have done and I appreciate what he did for Rock and Roll more now.
He's full of energy and puts that into his vocals, but it's not just the vocals. The whole band is exuding that same energy, from the banjo and trumpets to the boogie woogie piano. It all adds up to a high energy album which would have been odd for the time and still not completely usual today.
The lyrics are from a different time and place but despite that don't spoil what is a classic album.
Not really sure how to describe this. I'd never heard any Pixies tracks before and after this I won't be seeking any out in future.
Musically mostly fairly easy to listen to but also relatively simple - repeating chords and simple drums.
The vocals are where I gave up. Just too weird for me. The lyrics didn't make any kind of sense and the singing style was just too strange.
A classic 1980's female vocalist album. I don't know if she came before or after Whitney Houston but to me she's of a similar genre and similar time.
Anita clearly has a powerful voice and good lungs to keep the notes going for long periods. That was a style at the time, and whilst I don't find it in any way offensive it never was and never will be something I'm drawn to. It's listenable to if it came on the radio, but not something I'd seek out. I don't remember feeling different about that in the 80's either.
I'd never heard of Beach House before and after hearing them I'm not sure how they have been influential in the music world.
The music seemed pretty repetitive and for many tracks it mostly drowned out the vocals, often with a strange shushing echo tracking the vocals. As such I don't really know whether the lyrics were in some way influential, although I suspect not.
Not horrible music, just not one for me.
New music to me. I sometimes listen to Indian music and enjoy hearing the different sounds from the traditional instruments from that region of the world. I enjoyed this album for the same reason.
A difficulty I have with Indian music is that I haven't listened to enough of it. I find the tonal and rhythm changes as the music progresses jar with my western expectations. I guess I trip up when the next note or beat isn't what I was expecting and it takes a few seconds to get back into following the flow. That's not a fault of the music. That's how it's played. They just aren't progressions I'm used to hearing. I need to change the way I hear it to enjoy it more.
All said, I did enjoy the album and it's prompted me to try to find more of this style of music to listen to.
A bit of big band sound never did anyone any harm. I worked in a ballroom in the early 1980's where they had a big band on once a week and I always enjoyed that.
The same is true of this Ray Charles album - I enjoyed it. There's something about the beat of the music, the melodies and the vocals that's chill out relaxing from long before the ambient house chill out of the late 1980's to 2000's.
I don't go out searching for big band music when looking for something to listen to, but I don't skip it if it's suggested and hopefully having listed to this album I might get a few more suggestions in future.
I've heard Ian Dury songs many times over the years but have never listened to an album end to end. I think I've misjudged his style as being more punk rock than this album shows, but maybe that's just this album?
This felt like an Essex (Cockney?) music hall show. Musically varied but good with, in most cases, cheeky but clever lyrics. I'm not a great fan of an almost mono-tonal 'singing' style but it works on this album.
Overall, not really what I expected but in a good way.
I was introduced to Steely Dan by a friend at Uni 47 years ago and have listened to them regularly over the years since, so that's clearly a vote in their favour.
The album's music is a mixture of rock styles, not heavy, more soft and mellow. I think of the style as being Californian, but that's more of a personal distinction than anything formal.
The lyrics are complex and cryptic in places so difficult to analyse a meaning from them. That doesn't detract from the music though. The lyrics fit the music which is what's important.
Overall, an album I've listened to before and will listen to again.
A very obvious 1960's sound, for example the organ solo, from this album, but some of it still works in 2025. Break on through and Light my fire are well known classics and still good to listen to.
Other tracks, e.g. Alabama Song (Whisky Bar) are full of 1960's psychedelic rock mystery and a bit impenetrable nearly 50 years later unless you're a fan of psychedelic rock.
I'd heard of the band before but thankfully hadn't heard any of their 'noise' before.
Musically it might have been ok if the distortion had been kept under control, but it wasn't. The vocals sounded like they were being sung from the other end of a 100m long tunnel so I've little idea of the lyrics.
By the second side it was giving me a headache and I think this might be the only album that's ever done that to me.
Instrumentally pretty good in parts, but the vocals spoiled many tracks.
I've only heard one Foo Fighters album before and didn't enjoy it, so I had low expectations. I was surprised to find a lot to enjoy in this album. So much so that I might listen to the album again sometime.
Whilst there's a lot of distortion used on the guitars it's not overpowering and the melodies are pretty good overall.
The vocals are mostly a bit too close to punk style (loud and brash) for me but even so they worked well alongside the music so not too bad.
I've heard of the band before but didn't think I'd heard any of their music. I was Wrong - specifically. I've heard the track many times before without knowing who it was and liked it very much.
Not sure what style this is, there's bits of EDM, but not exclusively. All good to listen to, musically and vocally. I don't know if this is typical of their other music but having heard this album I'll definitely be searching out their other alnums now.
I've never liked hip hop and this album didn't change my mind. I assume the main point of it is the lyrics but I can't follow the accent and slang used so so it's a lost cause for me.
I'd never heard of Industrial Rock before and I won't be disappointed if I don't hear of it again. I'm not sure of how it's defined unless it's just making as much distorted noise as possible.
A Warm Place was the only refuge, but that take a lot of listening to noise to reach it.
I've heard some of these tracks before...who hasn't, but hadn't heard the whole album.
I can't say it's exciting, but It's not awful. It gave me the feel of being a Disney soundtrack (not that I'm a Disney soundtrack expert). That's all apart from the final track - Act of Contrition. How did that get there? It's just a bit weird compared to the rest of the album.
I'd never heard of Tim Buckley prior to this. The album reminded me of something else that I know, but I can't figure out what at the moment.
Tim has a decent voice and the music was OK too but there wasn't anything that really grabbed me and said "this is brilliant". So it's good to have heard it but it won't be in my playlists.
This is said to be influential to Brazilian music. If so then I guess I won't like Brazilian music.
I'd heard of the band but didn't think I knew any of their music, but then I discovered I knew Alright.
The album contains music in a number of different styles. I recognised The Beatles, Elton John and The Who influences but there were probably others too. Musically good and vocally OK too, but the vocals were too 'fuzzy' at times for me.
All said, I didn't know Supergrass but I'm glad I've heard them and I'll look out for other albums by them now.
I'd never heard of The Incredible Jimmy Smith before, so I wasn't sure what I'd make of this. As it turns out it was great!
Early 1960's jax with funky electronic piano and sax. What more could you ask for on a lazy Saturday evening. I don't know how this fits chronologically with other similar jazz musicians/albums. I definitely recognise the style so if this was influential then I guess it pre-dates the others.
Another hip hop album that leaves me cold.
I was around in 1995 but it's from a different place/environment/accent. Removing the expletives leaves few words I can understand/relate to. The music has a rhythm but without any vocals I can understand it's just way too repetitive.
I don't recall listening to Neil Young before but having now heard him I'm disappointed. Musically the album is OK but I found Neil's voice too weak, and even whiney at times. When harmonising with others it was ok, but he didn't sound good singing solo.
This is an album I know very well. To me it's a timeless classic. Whilst created in the 1970's it doesn't sound like a 70's album to me, although perhaps that's because I've listened to it so often in the decades since its release.
It's a great combination of styles, vocal and instrumental with meaningful lyrics, even more so if you understand the background to them. Stevie Nicks vocals on Rumours and Gold Dust Woman are distinctive and wonderful. Christine McVie's vocals, particularly on Songbird (my favourite song on the album) are great too. Guitars on Go Your Own Way and the end of The Chain (immortalised by Formula 1) are very special.
It's an album I often go back to and one I tend to listen to end to end, unlike others where I dip on for the odd song here and there.
I've heard of Captain Beefheart over the years but never heard any of their music.
It's difficult to pin a style on this. Best I could come up with is Blues mixed with some Rolling Stones and The Kinks, but even that's not close.
Musically it's not a bad album but I just found lots of the vocals, e.g. Electricity, and lyrics, e.g. Abba Zaba, a bit too weird. There was a lot of weird music in the 60's so perhaps this shouldn't be surprising.
I must have heard Patti Smith before but obviously not tracks from this album.
The album seemed punk-ish in places, which seems about right from the year it was released. I'm not normally a fan of punk, but this seemed to be a softer version of it, less out to offend than some of the later bands.
She has a distinctive and strong voice which came over well and fitted with the music. I set out thinking i wouldn't like the album but in the end it turned out OK.
I missed out on the rise of Coldplay. Busy with work, kids and life in general. That's a shame because they sound good. It's easy listening, which I prefer because I often listen to music when I'm doing other things.
I heard some influence from Pink Floyd (guitar and vocals) in at least one track, and found all tracks musically and vocally well built. I think my main criticism is that it's all a bit slow. A few more lively tracks would have improved the album.
I've heard it said that rap is music and hip hop is a lifestyle that includes rap. I can only assume that my liftestyle isn't hip hop.
This album isn't as bad as some rap albums, but it isn't my taste at all.
I hadn't heard of Blue Cheer before. It's said this was very early Heavy Metal. I can see that. There are numerous riffs and other sections of music that I recognise from that genre.
Whilst some parts of the album were pretty good I found other sections that were best described as disorganised dissonant cacophony. I'm sure that some would say that is what Heavy Metal is!
Overall, good to hear as an early example Heavy Metal but this won't be on my playlist.
This is probably sacrilege to many people, but apart from Station to Station and Golden Years I found Bowie's voice a little too flat. He has a strong voice when he wants to use it, e.g. on the first two tracks but elsewhere I was a little underwhelmed. That's a shame because the music accompanying him was good.
A classic 1960's weird album. Weird voices, weird lyrics, weird sounds and some weird music too.
There were some similarities to tracks from Pink Floyd's Ummagumma album from around the same time, e.g. "Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict".
Unlike Ummagumma there don't seem to be any redeeming tracks on this album. It's all weird and one that I'll characterise as "just because you can make music like this doesn't mean to say you should do"
I'm not a great fan of country music and whilst it was interesting to hear a little bit of this I found it far too repetitive. The lyrics changed - a little (there seemed to be a dark recurring theme of killing girls) but the music and vocals seemed pretty fixed.
Not one for my playlist.
I've listened to this a couple of times before and whilst it's not objectionable it's a little too bland for me. As music for an airport it's probably OK. If it's just background music to play for no other reason then I can listen to it but it's also something to tune out so if you're not deliberately listening to it then you don't notice it.
I like a bit of jazz but not if it's too jarring, e.g. with lots of sudden chord/key changes. I found this album a little jarring. The piano was great but the sax kept on breaking out of what I was expecting.
I'm sure some people will say, but that's jazz. If that's what you like then I'm not going to argue with you.
Overall, it wasn't awful to listen to, but probably not something I'd go back to look for again.
Repetitive simple music. Repetitive simple percussion. Repetitive fairly monotone simple lyrics. Not much to like for me.
I have no recollection of Coldcut from when this album was released. I found it an interesting mixture of different styles, including some that I wouldn't normally listen to. In small doses and put together the way this album was I enjoyed some of my normal 'avoid' styles.
I was pretty sure I wasn't going to like this having heard The Smiths songs fairly regularly in my younger years when my brothers binged on them.
I surprised (*) myself a little. Musically they're pretty decent which I hadn't noticed before. Unfortunately the musicalilty is spoiled by Morrissey's whining singing which makes my ears shut down so I miss the music.
Surprised - as in I'm rating it as 2 when I was sure it was going to be a 1.
I hadn't heard of The Vines before. The album was OK.
Musically it wasn't bad although it seemed as if at time they had a limited number of guitar chords that they knew how to play. Other tracks were more tuneful.
Vocally it was a mixture. On many tracks it was too 'harsh' for my liking, but a few, e.g. Mary Jane (my favourite), had decent vocals.
Some classic Bowie singles mixed with some slightly weird tracks.At least one track with Rod Stewart style and other styles of the time mixed in although I couldn't identify the other artists.
Musically a pretty good album with more of the classic Bowie vocals that I recognise than earlier albums.
I dislike Christmas songs because of the way they are incessantly played in so many places I go to from early November each year.
The 'original' songs are bad enough, but re-writes (usually American) that try to improve on the originals and then fail are worse still. I don't care if it's Phil Spector's Wall of Sound - all the fancy production techniques in the world can't improve the content.
Bah Humbug!
OK as background music but not particularly memorable.
A little too heavy for my liking. Musically not bad in parts but the vocals were too punkish with repetitive phrases and more about making noise than making music.
Might appeal to older French people, but as a non-French speaker it wasn't really of any interest. Even as a style it's pretty dated and not one for me.
I've listened to this album a few times over the years but despite that many tracks seemed new to me so I guess they weren't so memorable. There are of course quite a few well known classics mixed in.
It's clearly The Beatles style, although there's big mixture of track styles. I'd often heart snippets of tracks that sounded like some other group. I don't know if this is The Beatles borrowing from others ot vice versa.
Overall a decent album that I'll probably listen to again sometime, but to me not a blockbuster.
I'd never heard of Richard Hawley before but I think I've heard some of the songs before. He's a modern day British crooner and whilst I don't normally listen to that style of music some of it was good, especially the first track 'Coles Corner'.
It was easy listening but all the tracks were a bit too similar in musical and vocal style to really stand out from each other.
Kind of punk-ish which isn't a genre I like much, but kind of melodic and not too raucous vocals so not too bad.
SZA has a good voice and the music is OK too, but to me there isn't enough difference between the vocals on all the tracks.
Like many similar albums I have difficulty deciphering the lyrics. That's not a fault of SZA - they're just not in an accent I find easy to listen to, plus there's lots of slang which doesn't mean anything to me.
Some tracks had subtitles and it appears that the intent of each song is to insert as many sexual references and expletives as possible. If you want to that it's OK with me, but it doesn't do anything for me.
I've heard Joan's name many times over the years but never knowingly listened to her music. I wish I had done.
She's got a good voice and the music is good too. I'll try some of her other albums now (or at least any that don't come up in the 1001 list).
I've heard Aerosmith songs over the years but never listened to a full album before.
Overall a good rock album with decent music and strong vocals. I don't know this would make Aerosmith a favourite for me but I won't avoid their albums as I might have done in the past (not ignored for any rational or logical reason though).
Musically pretty decent but I didn't like the vocals at all. They sounded drab and often off-key which didn't fit with the music at all.
A bit of 70's soul never hurt anyone and this album is mostly OK. I didn't much like the high pitched volcals on Reasons but the rest was OK.
Musically pretty varied and easy to listen to. I don't think I've listened to an Earth, Wind & Fire album end to end before and quite enjoyed living some of the music from my youth.
A bit of a weird album but having said that I listened to all of it and found it strangely interesting. I like instrumentals so perhaps that's what attracted me to it.
I heard elements of Pink Floyd in at least one track and another sounded like music that wouldn't be out of place in the Dwemer ruins in Skyrim.
I've not heard any Nick Drake music before, perhaps it was a little before my time where I started to listen to music.
I enjoyed this album. It was very 70's in style, but I like a lot of 70's music. The guitar work was very good and whilst somewhat melancholy his vocals suited the music. It reminded me a little of Anthony Philips (The Geese & the ghost which I also like) although this album is a little louder.
Sounds quite dark in places and also African style beats at times. Interesting to hear for the first time but Not something I think I'd seek out to listen to again.
Not the best Led Zeppelin album but still pretty good. Who can't like Whole Lotta Love. Ramble on is also one of my favourites.
Their music is always good with some great guitar playing and drum work. Not quite a 5 star forme but getting there.
I've listened to this album many times. It has a beat that attracts me and Holly Johnson's singing adds incredibly well to the hard hitting rythym and music. It's a great album to listen to with headphones on and the sound turned up to 11.
Very 1960's but still OK. I heard elements of The Beatles and Pink Floyd, and there were other tracks that I seemed to recognise the style but couldn't figure out exactly who I was thinking of.
Interesting to listen to but not one to add to my play lists.
Decent 60's soul although the near 10 minute backstory at the start of By the Time I Get to Phoenix didn't do anything for me. I also prefer the original Walk on By.
Musically OK although a little repetive at times with chords repeated seemingly ad infinitum. I know it's their style, but I just don't like the almost monotonal, slurred vocals.
Good to hear some older music. There were a few good tracks, although they are probably the better known ones from the album so perhaps that's just familiarity?
Some great guitar work on some tracks, in particular I'm Looking for Someone to Love.
Reasonably listenable electronica. A little repetitive at times, but OK as background music to listen to whilst doing other things.
I remember Without You from when it was originally released but had never knowingly heard any other Nilsson tracks. They were mostly quite melancholy and a bit depresssing, or occasionally just plain weird (Coconut).
I'm sure I'll only remember him for Without You because I won't be seeking this album out again.
A little too simple, repetitive and discordant in places for my liking.
Way back this was an album I listened to a lot. I haven't listened to much Yes in recent years so listening again is a little surprising. I still enjoyed the music but I'd forgotten how tinny/high-pitched it was and not just Jon Anderson's singing. This is even with Chris Squire on bass.
I'll listen again (and I'm going to see what remains of Yes in a few months) but I'll have to acclimatise myself to the lack of bass!
I've never really listened to Van Halen, apart from the well known songs, so this was a first to listen to a whole album.
Overall, it's OK. Decent music and vocals. I didn't pay much attention to the lyrics though. Having said that, and this is probably sacrilege to Van Halen fans, I didn't feel that it was strikingly better than many albums of their contemporaries.
Musically not bad but it's hip-hop which doesn't do anything for me.
A weird album - full of prison and gallows 'humour' folk songs played in front of prisoners. I'm not a real fan of folk rock music but this album isn't too bad to listen to.
Psychedelic rock from the 1960s which has a lot of similarities to other psychedelic rock from the 1960s. Unfortunately that means there's not a lot to make it particularly special.
Any album with Free Bird on it can't be bad!
I've never listened to Lynyrd Skynyrd because I always assumed they were at the heavy end of rock which I don't like much. However, this ablum has shown that they're OK so I won't avoid them so much in future.
Some tracks were a bit repetitive with guitars and rythym but there were more that weren't so on average the album was pretty good.
The Undertones are musically and lyrically OK, but I just can't get on with Feargal Sharkey's high pitched warbling singing. I know it's distinctive and probably what others like but it's not for me.
I ended up listening to this over about 3 days which isn't good for remembering and good/bad points!
Overall it was an interesting and listenable album. I detected elements of Talking Heads, Pink Floyd and U2, but not to the point of copying them exactly so I don't know the elements were just in my imagination or real.
The album was good enough that I'll try listening to some of their other albums.
I've listened to this album many times over the years so I know it well. I was surprised to see it's from 1987. It feels modern enough to be a much more recent album.
The big hits are obviously well know, and fantastic, but the rest of the album is great too. The music and vocals are good to sing along to, although mostly in my head - it wouldn't be fair to inflict mt singing voice on others!
Unmistakably Steely Dan! I think I have this album on vinyl so that probably gives a clue about whether I like it.
Very nicely composed, smooth played jazz rock and very easy listening. I particularly enjoy Deacon Blues and Peg, possibly because they were two of the singles that get played more. All the tracks are good though.
I had low expectations of this album and it met them. I don't get the glorification of guns, drugs and expletives.
I've not heard of Hole before. Musically a little repetitive with little chord variation but made worse by the vocals that sounded partly stoned and mostly strained by trying to sing/shout too loud. Probably intended to make it seound heavier but to me it didn't succeed.
This is a new genre for me. Rap lyrics sung (shouted/screamed) in a metal style to metal music.
Some of the music was OK, but I don't enjoy rap lyrics nor metal screaming so this album barely ticks any boxes for me and I won't listen again.
I don't recall hearing Chvrches although I recognise the name of the group. I perhaps should have checked them out because the album is pretty good. Not stellar but definitely listenable.
Not sure what genre it's classified as, perhaps electronica, but it's a style I enjoy for background listening so I'll probably look at their other albums now.
I've obviously heard Layla many times before but didn't realise that was quite different than the other tracks on the album. Most tracks are quite bluesy. Thorn Tree In The Garden is also quite different. Not sure why they had such varied styles.
Good guitar and piano with strong blues vocals so a pretty decent album.
I don't know why I've never heard this album before. It's from a prime time when I was listening to music but it somehow passed me by. It's unmistakably the Police with Sting's distintive voice.
The album is OK, but I didn't find it exceptional. Musically reasonable although the percussion seems boring and repetitive at times. The standout weird track is Mother. It doesn't fit with the rest of the album but at least it's not a 17 minute epic that some bands at the time would have made.
Very 1960's psychadelic with elements of Pink Floyd and the Beatles. Not quite as weird as some similar albums of the genre.
Pretty good to listen to, probably helped by Jeff Beck's guitar playing, although arguably he went on to play better tracks in his future.
I remember 10cc as being OK back in the day, but probably more based on chart singles rather than on their albums. This album is a mixed bunch of tracks. Wall Street Shuffle (single) is great. Hotel and The Sacro-iliac are just plain weird. I'm not sure if they thought they were good tracks or just didn't have enough material to fill the album.
Ignoring the weird tracks leaves a just about OK album but not one I'd go back to unlike some of their later albums which I have listened to multiple times in the past.
Never heard of Mercury Rev before. It's a bit of a hit and miss album. A number of tracks have vocals that seem to be sung out of tune - not by much but enough to be jarring to my ears.
Endlessly seems to contain snippets of the Christmas Carol Silent Night tune. I don't know if that's deliberate but it doesn't seem to fit with the theme of the track.
Then there are good tracks like Opus 40 (sung in tune), Hudson Line and Goddess on a Huway (musically good).
On average the better tracks seem to outweight the poor ones.
Classic Beatles that's hard not to enjoy, probably because there are some well know tracks on the album. It's from a 'romantic' period for the band rather than some of the odd (but still good) albums of later years.
This is a LONG album!
I don't normally listen Algerian music but it made a pleasant change to listen to this. Difficult to comment on lyrics as much of it is in French or Arabic. The music is good - lively.
I was surprised to hear Imagine (John Lennon) on the album!
Good to hear some well known 'oldies'. I've not really listened to Human League apart from the hits so I was disappointed that some of the other tracks weren't as good.
Musically pretty good, but distinctly lacking in the lyrics/vocals on some tracks. I know part of that is the New Wave style, but repetitvely chanting a couple of words in a monotonic style doesn't do anything for me.
I thought I knew CS&N but this album has made me think that I must know someone else!
I listened to this over about 4 days so specifics are difficult to remember. Overall it's a pleasant album to listen to, but nothing stunning.
Partly psychadelic 60's style (OK but nothing special) and partly headache inducing noise (not OK and I was glad when the album finished.
Not one to add to my future wishlist.
I think this is technically post-punk but it retains much of what I don't like about the punk genre. Repetitive drum beats with little variation and what I describe to myself as the 'bored punk singing style'. Flat vocals with little tonal variation sung in a way that sounds like the singer is bored with life and just wants to get the sone over.
Not really sure what this was intended to be but it's mostly low energy, repetitive and discordant. No appeal for me at all.
My only previous experience of Icelandic music is Bjork. So I was kind of expecting something a bit unusual. Some tracks lived up to that expectation! Lyrics in Icelandic language doesn't help with understanding, and too many 'lyrics' just seemed to be dreamy floating sounds. Where the lyrics were sung that helped. The music was fairly dreamy too. Probably would have been OK as music to fall asleep to.
Don't think I'll be seeking Sigur Rós out again though.
A bit too 'samey' for me. I wasn't paying much attention and found it difficult to discern how each track was different to other tracks. A lot sounded very much like music for crazy car chases in cartoons. Not for me.
Not heard of the Black Crowes before although a couple of tracks sounded familiar.
A good bluesy rock album with a variety of different styles but a good rock base to all tracks. Probably something I'll listen to again.
It's Elvis and pretty much everyone knows Elvis. That doesn't mean I listen to him. The rockabilly style has never really appealed to me so whilst I know the common songs they aren't something I seek out, although I don't run a mile and turn them off.
This album lived up to my expectations - it's Elvis in Elvis style with Elvis music.
An album I'm very familiar with having played it myself many times and also heard live by both Genesis and more recently Steve Hackett.
This takes me back to my late teens and it's been one of my favourite albums from that time. It's classic prog rock and, to me, as good an example as you'll find.
Musically it's very good, showing off the great musical talents of the band. Lyrically the ballads can seem strange, but they're a bit of fun, and in one or two cases cover societal matters from the time.
I've heard some of this music before but never listened to a while album at once. It's OK, but a bit samey. Maybe if I listened to it multiple times I'd start to see the differences.
I find his vocal sty;e a little irritating. He sings with an American accent even though I know he's English. Mick Jagger does the same sometimes and wonder why they do this.
Musically it's OK and the vocals don't grate too much despite the accent.
An interesting album with mostly good tracks. Many Indian in style which was good to hear.
There was a rap track which sounded very out of place compared to the other tracks. There were a couple of other 'strange' tracks (Serpents was one and I think Nostalgia. Not awful but again seemed a bit out of place compared to the other tracks.
Overall a pretty good album and another artist that I'll look for other albums from.
I've listened to Rush regularly since the late 1970's so know this album well, although it's not one of my favourites.
The first three tracks and The Camera Eye are good solid Rush tracks, the others less so. Geddy Lee vocals might not to be everyone's taste, but the percussion and guitar work is great, as usual for Rush.
I only wish I could play these at the volume they were intended for. I saw Rush a couple of times way back and they were the loudest concerts I've ever been to. My ears were still ringing the following morning!
1960's psychadelia which seems a bit dated. It's clearly from the time and was popular but it's not new and interesting now. The lyrics took a bit of research to understand too. I now know the background to David Watts and what a Harry Rag is.
That was unexpected. I had an opinion of Paul Weller formed many years ago that wasn't reflected in this album at all. I had him as an angry young man but if he once was it wasn't reflected in this album.
Great guitar playing and his vocals were excellent too. Definitely an album to listen to again.
I've never really listened to Guns N' Roses other than their hit songs so I was pleased to hear that they're good head banging heavy metal.
It's not a genre I normally listen to a lot but it's good for an occasional dabble. Good solid guitars and drums with screaming vocals. The screaming vocals don't do much for me but again once in a while they're OK.
Light jazz to while away a few minutes. Take 5 is obviously well known, but the other tracks are interesting to listen to. I'm sure I've listened to this album a few times over the years and I probably will do again sometime.
Headache inducing noise. Heavily distorted thrashed guitars and screamed nonsense vocals aren't for me.
Dusty was a 1960's institution and her songs are still being played today. Powerful voice and classic pop from the early 60's.
I've listened to this a number of times, but not for many years. It sounds a little dated now, showing it's late 60s/early 70s style.
I never rated this album as highly as other Yes albums, but there are still good tracks - Yours is no disgrace and I've seen all good people.
Happy west coast pop from the 1960's. A couple of well known tracks but the rest were new to me. Still reasonably listenable to even after 60 years.
I'm not that familiar with Kiss but this album didn't seem to be as heavy as I was expecting for them. Doesn't seem particularly dated despite being 50 years old.
Takes me back to late 1970's disco! I must be showing my age because it doesn't sound dated.
I'm not a dancer and certainly not this style. Despite that it was interesting to hear some lively Cuban style music. Not unpleasant but not one I'll be adding to my playlist.
It's not going to make my playlist but it's still interesting to hear music from different cultures from time to time.
Some of this was familiar but much was new to me. I'm probably being unfair on the band, but I played this whilst working on something fairly complex so wasn't concentrating. To me the tracks blended into each other with little to discern between most of them. That's not to say the album is boring. It was OK to listen to and I didn't skip parts.
I must admit when I saw the name I thought this was a more recent album not a late 60's one.
Sort of OK but nothing special. There were a number of places that sounded/were out of tune which gave the impression of a slightly amateur production.
I'd previously ignored Massive Attack, wrongly assuming they were some ultra death metal group or similar. I was therefore surprised when I listened to this album.
I've learned a new genre - Trip Hop. It seems that I should look for more of this type of music. Whilst it's got roots in hip hop (which I detest) it's a much more subtle UK flavour without the stream of expletives and gun/sex references that hip hop often includes.
Smooth music with good vocals and very listenable. It's the first album of the 1001 that I played a second time immediately after the first listen.
Not great. Each song seemed to have its own relatively simple rhythm/guitar theme that just repeated alongside droning vocals. Then it was time to change the rhythm/guitar a bit for the next track for some droning vocals.
Not one I'll go back to.
I've not really been a fan of Elvis Costello over the years, but listening to a full album from years ago makes me think I've been a bit unfair. It's not a bad experience. Musically and lyrically good. I still don't like his vocal style, but it is what it is.
Elton John is an institution. He can do slow stuff (Candle in the wind), ballads (Danny Bailey), high energy (Saturday night's alright for fighting) and pretty much everything in between.
Musically great and he can vocally punch out the lyrics when needed. Many lyrics are social commentary from the time, although that's not always obvious.
I've listened to this album many times before and I know I will in the future.
Interesting music which I could identify numerous influences from other bands or which influenced other bands. A little repetitive at times, but I just couldn't get on with the vocals. Some was too drab and I just didn't get the spoken dialogue in The Gift at all.
Ride are a new band to me. The music was OK and interesting in parts. Unfortunately like many albums I'm not keen on the vocals spoiled it for me. They're too monotonic and droning to be enjoyable.
Early Led Zep which shows many early examples of what would become their own brand of rock blues. Not one of their best albums but they were only just beginning to work together. Still good to listen to from time to time.
Musically quite varied across the album and mostly pretty good. Vocals were OK but a little on the bland/droning style for me, but not awful.
Not my cup of tea. Too many short repetitive loops that never seem to evolve into anything other than other similar short repetitive loops.
Pleasant 1960's folk to while away 40 minutes but not special enough to make me want to return.
I've never been a fan of punk so haven't listened to much apart from the well known tracks. So listening to a full album was a new experience.
One surprise was that musically it was pretty good with some great guitar work. The vocals/lyrics are really what made punk rock different to what had gone before but they don't do anything for me. I get that they were supposed to be angry, almost shock lyrics, shouted out, but I wasn't an angry youth so that never appealed and they still don't.
Similar to other psychadelic/experimental rock of the late 1960's, for example Well of Destiny could easily be a Pink Floyd track (and in fact David Gilmour did play on a version of the album at one point).
I wasn't able to concentrate on the lyrics to see how well it fits with being the first (potentially) rock opera.
Overall not too bad - if you like psychadelia.
Unfortunately I could only find 9 of the 13 tracks available to listen to.
Lively Latin rock with good percussion and rhythm. Vocals are Spanish so it's difficult to comment on them. Overall a decent album.
Adele has a great and powerful and the music is good too so it's difficult to dislike this album. My only criticism is that the tracks are a little 'samey'. Perhaps that's what you get when it's a single artist with a particular singing style?
This was the second or third album I bought so i know it well.
Distinctive McCartney vocals and I hadn't realised until now that Paul played most of the great music himself due to other band members dropping out just before the album was recorded.
Maybe I'm biased but the album doesn't seem particularly outdated.
I wasn't expecting to like this and I'm not sure if I really do now. Some good music to sit alongside Reed's croaky voice made it fairly listenable, apart from the obvious depressing lyrics/storyline.
I can hear elements of the album in Pink Floyd's The Wall from 6 years after this so perhaps this was a seminal work.
Interesting album that I've not heard before that includes a variety of styles. Lively vocals and good music to go along with them. I'll probably listen to this one again sometime.
An interesting album that grew on me as I listened. I can hear musical roots in other music from around the same time but the vocals are different than anything else I know from that era. I wasn't sure about the vocals at first - deep almost rumbling tones - but they grew on me the more I listened. Not sure I'll seek John Martyn out again but I wouldn't move on if any of his music was presented to me again.
Another new album/artist for me although I have heard of Lenny Kravitz before. The album sounded familiar in places, for example I found similarities between the music and lyrics of "Does Anybody Out There Even Care" and Genesis' "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" from 15 years earlier. I don't know if he was heavily influenced by music of the past though.
An OK album. Not one I'll actively seek to listen to again but I won't reject it if it came up on a playlist.
The Gorrillaz weren't what I was expecting (Heavy Metal). It's surprising how much you can incorrectly read into a band name.
Having adjusted my expectations I found the album OK. The more of the 1001 albums I listen to, the more I realise how much value I place on good vocals. This was another album that was a bit mixed in that department. Musically pretty interesting and varied. The vocals were also varied but too many were too bland for me.
Kind of OK but it's a bit too ethereal to really enjoy.
A bit too punkish for me in some senses, e.g. overdriven guitars and repetitive percussion started to give me a headache. Vocals didn't redeem it much either.
Got off to a good start with Forever, but settled into a pattern of a reasonably decent track followed by tracks, e.g. Philosophy by Numbers, that were too jarring to be enjoyable. Overall only about a third were OK to my ear so I probably won't listen again.
I've heard the obvious 'hits' before and quite liked them, but have never listened to a full album before. Having now done so I'm a bit disappointed because there isn't as much variation between tracks as I'd have thought there would be. It's not awful and it is listenable, but just a bit samey.
Interesting album. I've not heard much White Stripes before so this was new to me - although I did recognise a couple of tracks. Kind of punky (post-punk?) and fairly heavy in places but very listenable.
Another new group/album for me. I was surprised to see this was from 1970. It didn't give that feeling - more like late 70's. Mostly good to listen to with some good guitar work, e.g. Street Worm. Something I'd listen to again.
