Full disclosure - I'm not a Stones fan. Never have been. A few early singles aside, I've never seen the attraction. As far as Beggars Banquet is concerned, there's 2 tracks you're likely familiar with and that's because they're good (if not better than good). The rest, not so much. I always had the feeling the Stones were trying to be something they weren't. This album would support that hypothesis.
What can I say...? I don't understand a word they're saying, but listening to this makes sense of every terrible, hackneyed "groovy" movie soundtrack of the late 60s/early 70s. And that's not yo say it's bad. It's really not! It's just very much of its time. I quite like it (and I'd love to know what they were taking in the studio) but as more of a novelty or period touchstone. Not enough to have it on rotation, but I also wouldn't consign it to the bin.
Familiar with the hits on this album but had never gone further than that. It's a good album, I don't recall much else sounding like this in 1981, certainly not from an all-female group. Superior power pop riding atop a jangle guitar riff wave. Much to like.
Didn't think I was going to enjoy this and, to be honest, it's a bit of a mixed bag. The first w tracks were good, but after that the tracks that are all repetitive phrasings are just dull for me. So, pluses and, well, not pluses.
Didn't do anything for me tbh. Some echoes to the Byrds, Burrito Bros, etc (which Uncle Tupelo did better anyway), mixed with more contemporary sounds as if trying to be determinedly "different", it just comes across as a bit schizotic to me. Not one I'd return to.
Very cool, very chill, very...wallpaper tbh. I mean, it's good (if not great) at what it does. It's just that what it does isn't really anything close to my cup of tea. So, it's a No from me.
If you like it, you like it. But to me? Unlistenable garbage.
A slightly curious, stitched together mix of big band swing standards, and piano-led ballads that Charles would become known for throughout his career. The recording quality is not good - yes, it's 1959 but it should've been better than this - and the arrangements throughout are pretty well by the numbers. But that Ray Charles voice overcomes.
Everything good and recognisable about Buzzcocks is contained here, even if their most famous song isn't. Definite period piece, but has aged better than most imo in no small part thanks to Martin Rushent's production.
Peak Madge. That said, I'm pretty ambivalent. The hits (and there are plenty here) are all great pop music. The rest? Meh.
Always had a low tolerance for "Britpop" back in the day. Still do. Ok in small doses, but an album end-to-end? Not for me, thanks. Tiresome.
Not had much exposure to Nick Cave previously. Did like this though. Would definitely give it a spin in future, and I'll look into other albums too. So that's got to be a win, right?
Too much of this album is set to what can only be described as a Yamaha Home Organ arrangement. Personally, I'd rather listen to John Shuttleworth for that kind of material. And I do.
The best, albeit imperfect, way I can describe Richard Hawley's music is a Northern English blue collar pastoral take on the romanticism of the classical American Mid-West. It's a genuine love affair for Hawley. He doesn't try to imitate, or pastiche. Once you understand that, I think it helps to appreciate what he does.
Definite period curiosity piece.
A very easy listen. The Cat Stevens most people would be familiar with.
One I remember from my youth... Sounds a little bit dated nowadays, and Scoundrel Days is probably a better album all round.
Another quality blast from the past. Always amuses me that Dexys are a one-hit-wonder in the US. Too Rye Ay has most of the band's big hits, though personally I prefer the rawness and energy of the first album.
Underrated album, something of a sonic dead end/wrong turn. The arrangements sound like someone trying to come to terms with what was then "new technology", so at times they're not what you tend to think of as "Paul Simon". But it's definitely Paul Simon. Sitting between his multiple 70's solo successes and the gargantuan "Graceland", it's little wonder that "Hearts and Bones" gets a little lost, but "Rene and Georgette..." and "The Late Great Johnny Ace" have become beloved mainstays of Simon's live sets and they stand up strongly amongst more commercially popular items.
Wasn't a Kings of Leon fan before.
Still not a King of Leon fan.
Just not my "thing".
Pretty good, actually. Can understand why she didn't "break through", but certainly impactful in a good way
Was surprised that I quite enjoyed this. Still not a Doors fan tho.
I've generally been quite agnostic about Japan, even though I loved Mick Karn's playing and David Sylvian's voice could be very effective at times. So I was a bit agnostic about listening to this album, and hence I enjoyed it more than I expected. Could definitely give this a spin in future.
Thought I'd enjoy this but, other than a couple of obvious highlights.... Meh. Comes over as quite self-indulgent, which I guess shouldn't be a surprise. Would've benefited from a producer, I think.
I never took to the Psychedelic Furs, back in the day. Turns out, I still don't.
90's rock? No thanks. Might be almost listenable if it were sung by a different voice, but it's not so....
Decent. Very listenable. Terrible cover art.
Not a fan, never got the hype.
Style over substance, mostly.
Decent. A little dated now, some of the songs perhaps a little simplistic, but that sound is still iconic.
"The Vice" was a cracking TV show, and Sour Times was the perfect theme song for it. But that's about all this album has for me.
Didn't like it at the time. Don't like it now.
Never got Cheap Trick tbh. And this sounds like a poor live album.
Folk-jazz? It's very of its time. It should probably stay there.
I've no idea what it sounded like in 1975, but it doesn't sound good 50 years later.
If you don't even as much as like this album, then you have no heart, no soul, no being. 10 stars out of 5 for me.
Better than I perhaps expected. Bits of Bowie-like idiosyncrasies mixed with early Roxy sensibilities.
Like all John's solo work, it's uneven. His status gave him opportunity to record and release whatever he wanted. Can't fault him for taking that opportunity with both hands.
Very good album. Not quite Blood and Chocolate, but not far off.
Loved it. I've had a go at it before, some years ago, but for some reason it just didn't click. This time it did.
Not bad. Not great, but not bad.
A follow up to Thriller was always going to be tough, but this is also below the level of Off The Wall (another great album btw). Bad appeared just as chart pop music was becoming homogenised and bland, and did nothing to arrest the trend.
90's lo-fi rock? I'll pass, thanks.
When you consider the millions of albums that have been recorded and released since, say, 1955... To be included in a list of 1001 "must-listen" albums is a significant achievement, signalling a rarified level of artist merit.
Then you come to this album, and you realise it's completely subjective and simply means someone somewhere likes it.
There's nothing here to commend it. Unless you already like it, in which case you'll learn nothing new. It's just very, very average. But by dint of being on this list and therefore having had that expectation of quality established, very, very average is actually just straight up poor.
