1001 Albums Summary

the instrumentals are there. yes. and they are good. undeniably so. and yet and yet. even on my third listen, always back to the voice. that voice. none of my favorite Nina Simone songs are here, and to my ears, nothing really jumps out as a single. however, I think that's because of how the quality and variety combine. thrilling. will certainly revisit, despite having mostly avoided vocal jazz since childhood.

There was a lot going against this one. Three songs ("Sledgehammer", "In Your Eyes" and "Big Time") that I never wanted to hear again under any circumstances. Another song ("Don't Give Up") so embarrassing and cheesy I couldn't make it through. And one more ("Mercy Street") so dull that I couldn't pay attention. And every single song is underwritten and far too long. That's most of the album. So why three stars? Production, production, production. What glorious, perfect sounds, perfectly separated. While every song was too long, the repetitive vamps in each were by far the best part. Also I can recognize the quality of something outside my genre, and I'm good at ignoring stupid lyrics. I'm adding at least a full star for the Laurie Anderson part on "This Is The Picture", my favorite song. My friend told me there are no cymbal hits on the album, which made it a fun game to listen to the endlessly creative drum programming. Finally, my kid opined that "We Do What We're Told" sounds like menu music from a horror game. It does, and it's fantastic. Skip the singles, put on headphones and you've got yourself an interesting time.

I know someone who was an executive at K-Tel Records, the label that famously sold dull compilation albums via infomercial. Since retirement he only listens to Steely Dan. It's almost too perfect, but a true story. These are songs for people who've given up on music: pleasantly produced, blandly competent, limply avoiding the joy of discovery. Unlike most any other record I can think of, the more closely I pay attention to this, the less of interest I find, as though everyone involved were committed to a complete lack of curiosity. However I will say that the keyboard solo on "Do It Again" is nifty. I can dig it.

I'm not cool. Never have been. Never will be. But while this album is playing, I feel like I could be cool. Like maybe I should drive slow with all the windows down and the speakers all the way up. The production is slick in the best way, every song rolling along just like it should, making me forget that the album is too long. Snoop's voice is so smooth and his flow so effortless that I forget the sometimes clunky lyricism. The spell is broken as soon as I turn it off, but while this album plays, cool is within reach.

Maybe I should have guessed this ahead of time but I'm only a few albums in and already feeling like this list is actually "1001 overplayed albums that no one on god's green earth ever needs to hear again." I can see why Appetite For Destruction may once have had a reason to exist, but that time has long since passed. To be avoided, if only that were possible.

I hated this album when it came out, thinking it was a bland dumbing-down of somewhat more interesting music. Now I had a chance to revise my youthful opinion. Turns out the opening run of tracks is full of lovely and clever (albeit subtle) songwriting and production choices. "Don't Panic" is gorgeous, "Shiver" pulses with emotion, and "Spies" makes a convincing case that this lite version of sounds that were popular at the time could be the better one. Most surprisingly for me, I now think the real secret to the enduring appeal of "Yellow" is that it's more or less perfect. I should also mention that after several albums in a row of wall-to-wall misogyny, it was BEAUTIFUL to hear cheesy love lyrics without any hint of condescension, irony or secret darkness. He sounds like the boy your mom wants you to marry. Plus I honestly envy his voice. Sadly, the rest of the album, much like the rest of Coldplay's career, treads water in an abyss of the completely forgettable. It doesn't feel bad, necessarily, just doesn't feel like much of anything at all, and all the nifty choices that filled the opening half simply vanish. It's like if "Music for Airports" was unintentional. I'm feeling generous today and the re-listen actually surprised me, so 3 stars.

I've heard enough guitar wankery to last several lifetimes, so I was pleasantly surprised at how much actual songwriting there was to be found here. On top of that we have terrific performances from multiple vocalists and a heaping helping of fun psychedelic nonsense. I think "Blue Condition" is the real outlier here (besides of course the dumb joke of "Mother's Lament") and I enjoy it thoroughly - funny and catchy and truly odd. "Sunshine of Your Love" and "Strange Brew" remain untouchable, although no one needs to hear them again. My top favorite is "Tales of Brave Ulysses" - I wouldn't have guessed that over-the-top psych and Greek myth make the perfect pairing. Everything else is fun, occasionally exciting, and very much a time capsule.

I wasn't sure I had ever heard any of this, although I had been meaning to for years. Then "Walk On" jumped out of the speakers and I recognized it within the first two chords. What a fabulous opening. From there on in it's mostly dark and edgy blues-by-numbers, often interminable and sometimes sleepy. Although I shouldn't complain too much because the most standard issue song here ("Vampire Blues") was for me the best of the bunch. "For The Turnstiles" gave me chills, and reminded me that this is one of Jason Molina's favorite albums. Oddly enough, I'd much rather listen to Songs:Ohia than old uncle Neil most days. The album isn't so much uneven as it wore me down by the second listen. Very hard to rate something that starts so strong, is so influential and well beloved, but is in the end kind of meh.

I'm mostly familiar with Tina Turner's voice from her many live recordings; she's my partner's favorite singer. However I was not prepared for the variety of songs and production styles on this thrilling album. I assumed it would be heavily front loaded and all synth pop. Wrong on both counts. This is a rock album all the way, decorated to varying degrees with love- it-or-loathe it 80s synth textures. And it's a rock album with depth where Tina never fails to bring the fire song after song after song. "I Can't Stand The Rain" is now one of my favorite songs of any decade, "1984" is simultaneously ridiculous and ominous, "Better Be Good To Me" rocked my socks off, "Help" and "When I Was Young" transformed my understanding of those songs. Even the bonus tracks on the anniversary reissue were exciting. I'm officially a convert. (Note on the 1001 Albums list - I was beginning to worry there was some sort of ban on female artists...)

I love garage rock. I even love garage rock revival. I even appreciate the Hives. But this "album" (it is a compilation), even though I enjoyed listening to it, is completely inessential. Not the best of the Hives, not the best garage rock release of 2001 (that would be Ultraglide in Black by the Dirtbombs), not even the best single artist garage rock compilation (that would be Matador Singles '08 by Jay Reatard or The Mummies Play Their Own Records). Just a bunch of decent-to-great songs that don't really belong together. Underwhelming and just doesn't belong on this list.

I wanted to like this a lot more than I did. So many cool sounds and ideas, but ultimately the songs just aren't there for me. Maybe I'm more of a Graham Coxon fan rather than Damon Albarn. Maybe Blur is really more of a singles band. Maybe this is simply a lot of very promising filler.

no one involved in this project put time, effort or thought into it, so I'm not going to waste much of mine reviewing it. boring boring boring. not even in the top ten best uk punk albums of 1977. there are no interesting ideas. ps. the drums sound ok and "no feelings" is kinda funny the first time through.

For me, this really cements CCR's reputation as a singles band. Their blues-by-numbers with distinctive vocals succeeds by luck and alchemy on a select few songs across their discography, but mostly falls flat. The best thing I can say about this album is that they are one of the few bands of the era to really get the power of the two-minute song, instead of stretching one minute worth of ideas out to three-and-a-half. But then they blow all that time savings and goodwill on two endlessly bland "jam" tracks. Snooze. Maybe I just needed some relief after the dull ache of "I Heard It Thru the Grape Vine" but the last track was wonderful, and the keyboard parts were a much welcome touch. If you absolutely need to listen to CCR, stick with a compilation.

Feels good to get an album that I actually like and hasn't been played to death at every grocery store and backyard bbq. Listening more critically than I did as a teenager has dimmed a bit of the magic for me. I hear now how the arrangements are formulaic and a little crowded; sometimes it feels like the guitars keep playing because they don't know what else to do. All the little extra touches still have the same impact, though, and what's most noticeably consistent is the cleverness of the writing and the obvious delight of everyone involved. Also, my goodness heavens, is this the lightest drumming of the 90s? It sounds like they are being played by tiny elves. I love it. Some of their best songs are found elsewhere, especially on "Tigermilk" and "The Life Pursuit", but this is easily their best front-to-back album, with the only dud being "The Boy Done Wrong Again". Even "Mayfly", which I had completely forgotten, brought me a smile this time around. Five stars because the flaws are forgivable and the world is in desperate need of fey jangle pop now, just like it was in 1996. A pleasing antidote to so much of this list.

Usually with these reviews, I focus on figuring out how the music works, and how certain elements excite or bore me. Today, I could feel the music repel my analysis. These are songs that listen to you and judge you. Will you be considered worthy? I'm not sure exactly what I mean except that for forty minutes at a time, the Wailers are in charge and I'm just here for the ride.

Stunning, powerhouse vocals; bloodless but competent arrangements; simple, charmingly candid songwriting. I appreciated this but didn't truly enjoy it. Rather surprised to see her debut on this list, given that the follow-up was a vast improvement in every way.

I never thought I would call something "too dumb for power pop". Maybe incel anthems were just cuter in 1980, but I was entertained the whole time, and even checked out their debut. But, yes, the charm wears thin quickly and I can't imagine revisiting this.

I would enjoy the Butthole Surfers so much more if I found them funny at all. Sadly, no dice. I appreciate their approach to songs: experimental in the literal sense - "let's try this!" On that count I would still give a slight edge to the album "Hairway to Steven" over this one. All in all my opinion hasn't really changed since I first discovered them: for a noise / comedy / shock band, they aren't noisy, funny or shocking enough to really grab me.

Unrelentingly gorgeous, murderously patient, proudly Canadian! It's unfortunate that some of the songs could pass for background music, because this is deep, dark and well- considered. Also unfortunate that the most popular track isn't nearly the best. There was more variety in these sombre arrangements than I remembered. This time around I especially delighted in the accordion and harmonica bits and even enjoyed the pedal steel although I find it overwhelms the other instruments. The vocals are stunning - like so many of my favorite singers, she embraces her limitations and doubles down on what she does best. Finally I should mention that more bands could and should make better albums by hiring songwriters or performing covers. This is a perfect example - the originals shine brighter surrounded by transformative covers.

Heard Before? - Yes, too many times, unfortunately. Notes: This list has WAY too many guitar albums for my taste, so it's nice to hear some decent keyboard work, even if it is on yet another overplayed classic rock thing. Production is lovely: drums have that wonderful 70s sound, vocals aren't too loud. The arrangements make the best of the individual talents of the members, even when the songwriting fails to deliver. Verdict: Prog-pop for normies. Still more interesting than most of classic rock radio, with deep cuts that are worth your time. Listen Again? Probably, but not for a long time.

Heard Before? - Only the singles. Notes: - I have a weakness for sunshine pop but usually only listen to compilations. I did not realize that this album perfectly captures all the conventions of the genre. - To me, the group vocals are stronger than any of the solo parts, except on "I Call Your Name". - "Spanish Harlem" is too cheesy even for me. Verdict: Let's run away to 60s Southern California with flowers in our hair. Listen Again? Yes indeed, but I'll try their next two follow up albums first.

Heard Before? Nope, only read about it. Notes: - Trying out different vocal styles while high as a kite sounds better here than it could have, but I imagine it's a divisive move. - As I often feel, the shorter songs are more consistently entertaining. - The wild and wooly mixing adds to the charm, but is certainly bad by any conventional measure. - Remember when country music wasn't automatically far-right propaganda? Verdict: Stay away from drugs, kids. Almost the definition of a cult album. Listen Again? Heck yes.

Heard Before? I'm a music snob in my 40s, what do you think? Notes: - the arrangements are glorious. I much prefer this to his skeletal sounding other albums. - everything is mixed just right. - the songs all have strong individual character. - his voice is the epitome of artsy melancholy. I've heard that the lyrics are good, but I've never paid any attention. Verdict: The Nick Drake cult is as easy as ever to get sucked into, with or without all the backstory. Gorgeous. Listen Again? Of course.

Heard Before? Only in passing. Notes: - make no mistake. this is a LYRICS ALBUM. thankfully it's endlessly quotable with dizzying variety in theme and content. - the same cannot be said of the music. very repetitive, with very few ideas stretched very far. - the hype over Dylan "going electric" is meaningless, especially now. the band simply chugs away, mashed at the back of the mix, just like the acoustic guitar does in the "folk" numbers. - harsh noise harmonica stabs. love them? hate them? there sure are a lot of them. Verdict: So many words, so many words. Belligerent, grating and glorious. Listen Again? Maybe. I have a feeling this list will put me through a lot more Dylan before I'm done.

Heard Before? Only "the song". Notes: - "the song" is nostalgia porn. yuck. - perhaps the ultimate 70s single-plus-filler album. - "Vincent" did remind me to listen to much better songs about Van Gogh by Jonathan Richman and Joni Mitchell. Verdict: It sounds like Gordon Lightfoot wrote this whole album while sleepwalking. Listen Again? Please, no.

Heard Before? Many times, but it has been at least ten years. Notes: - the thin, dry production suits the material, especially the uncompressed drums. - BUT why bury the vocals so completely? it might have seemed edgy and clever at the time, but it is just annoying. - all the guitar tones sound cheap, sometimes to the point of distraction. - and yet, and yet. such strong, varied, inventive songs, with fascinating interplay between band members. - if one cares to decipher them, the lyrics are also spot on, just perfect. - sequencing, pacing and use of space are exemplary. Slint's many imitators never quite caught on to that. Verdict: It sounds like a monochromatic polaroid of dissolute youth in an alley. Desolate, disconnected and doomed, but also beautiful. Listen Again? For sure, but in another ten years.

Heard Before? Only "Bitter Sweet". Notes: - yet more midtempo britpop. hurrah. - the deeply layered, complex and often gorgeous production is lipstick on the pig of these underwritten songs. - the worst sin of the CD era was pointlessly long songs and albums that don't justify their runtime. - all the players are supremely competent, if lacking in imagination. - I just could not bring myself to care about anything Richard Ashcroft had to say. He started to sound like the adults in Peanuts. - WAS THEIR METRONOME STUCK? Verdict: Mostly these are immaculately polished turds. I got lost in the lovely details a few times, but none of the songs meant anything to me. Listen Again? Nope. Not awful but there's just no reason for me to pay attention.

Heard Before? A couple of times when it came out. Notes: - way too long, massively front loaded. - yet another band that seriously underuses their superior female vocalist. - was anyone really hoping for midtempo subtlety from Arcade Fire? they are always best when over the top. - this is a wonderful and talented band, why the expensively-mushy production? - it all comes together on "Sprawl II", perhaps a career-best song, even if it sounds suspiciously like a Blondie rewrite. at least all the nifty sounds that got buried in the mix finally come to the fore. - I'm sure there are powerful lyrics here, but they just don't leap out like the best moments of "Funeral". Listen Again? Unlikely. Instead I'll go back to Funeral or the good-parts mix I made of Reflektor.

Heard Before? Only "TV Set" and "Garbageman" Notes: - the tinny, primitive, indeed cramped production suits this material perfectly. - I didn't know psychobilly and horror punk came together by 1980. wow! - delay pedals for everyone! - fun mix of covers and originals. they especially nail the Sonics' "Strychnine". - obviously they really only do one thing. but what a thing. Verdict: Get cramped! Ridiculous, over the top, fun as hell. Listen Again? For sure. At the very least, I've put a few tracks on my Halloween playlist.

Heard Before? Once or twice, many years ago. Notes: - Pleasantly surprised at the variety here, as I incorrectly remembered everything sounding like the opener. - Even Iggy stretches himself in an array of vocal styles. - "Penetration" is a real creepshow. - For me, the muddy production blunts the impact. Verdict: Shirts are for losers, makeup is for the bold. Listen Again? Unlikely, but you never know.

Heard Before? Yup, when it came out. Notes: - I appreciate a narrow minimalist formula, and I like the tiny tweaks they make to differentiate songs. - that said, simplistic arpeggiated leads, static pads, unvarying drumbeats and bored sounding vocals do not an album make, no matter how much they are recombined. - the entire mix sounds like it was filtered with a pillow, like post-punk drained of all edge and thrill. - yet another band blue-mixing their female vocalist for zero reason. Verdict: Beige music for beige people. Listen Again? Nope. There's just no reason to seek this out.

Heard Before? Only "Take On Me". Notes: - like all great synth albums, the focus is on the wide variety of sounds they can coax out of the technology of the time. - but on top of that we get beautiful vocals and odd but resonant lyrics. - the midtempo ballads lose me a bit, but I'm just not into that sort of thing. - masterfully structured songs: intros, pre-choruses, bridges, surprise tonal shifts, fantastic builds. - honestly I thought I was over this sort of thing, but it hooked me. exactly why I signed up for this list. Verdict: Surprisingly emotional synth pop masterwork. Listen Again? I think yes - at the very least I'll play it for other people.

Heard Before? Only "Changes" and "Life on Mars". Notes: - what glorious perfect production. so dry and crisp with perfectly separated instruments. a masterclass. - every single use of background vocals was brilliant. - all the arrangements are well-considered and the songs are lovingly structured even when they lack hooks. - I'm not always much of a lyrics guy but I did notice that "Andy Warhol" was intentionally funny, and "Bob Dylan" was unintentionally much funnier. - this list has an embarrassing lack of several things, especially females and piano. at least we get lots of great piano here. - I much prefer the Tiny Tim version of "Fill Your Heart". - "Brothers Bewlay" was overstuffed and pointless. Verdict: Typical Bowie. Tries a number of new things, succeeds at most of them due to sheer talent and smart collaboration. I can see why people love him. Listen Again? Probably not. Every time I try to get into Bowie I listen to one album a couple of times, and then move on to other things. He could do almost everything well, but I always end up wanting to hear the people that did the same thing better.

Heard Before? Only the big single. Notes: - first song is deeply funky, but sounds recorded by a single mic in a school gym. - "Papa" is the obvious centerpiece, but also sounds very much out of place. - vocals are uniformly stellar, unsurprisingly, but the arrangements and production are too often motown-by-numbers. Verdict: Fantastic group, monumental single, uneven album. Listen Again? Nope. But I'll certainly investigate the Temptations back catalogue.

Heard Before? I knew all the songs but not this recording. Notes: - started off with the original release, then thanks to Allmusic, heard the legacy edition. - the revue format of the show is exciting. stellar performances from all the supporting acts. - some of the rawest, most thrilling versions of any of these songs. - production suited the material perfectly, gritty and almost overdriven. - one of the only live albums where I was happy to hear the crowd noise. - even the stage banter has replay value. I was riveted. - June Carter blew me away. Verdict: Original album: ho hum redux of "at Folsom Prison". Legacy edition: essential. Easily one of my favorite country albums and one of my favorite live albums. How did I not hear this before? Listen Again? Yes yes yes.

Heard Before? Nope. Notes: - lots of words, not many hooks. - lovely synths, subtle drum grooves, lots of nifty bonus sounds. - glassy production is pretty, but covers the album with a sameness that these songs don't deserve. - vocals that cast a spell; I feel like Bjork was listening to this and taking notes. - "Deeper Understanding" sounds like our current cultural moment. - "This Woman's Work" is an ideal album closer. Powerful. Verdict: This deserves more time than I'm willing to give it. It lacks immediacy and while I can tell it's a grower, tomorrow I'm moving on to something else. Listen Again? Unsure, but I will certainly listen to some of her other albums.

Heard Before? Yup, but never deliberately. Notes: - the best thing about any CCR album is the short songs and brief total runtime. - clear, dry recordings with a fantastic bass sound. - vocals are as distinctive as ever, powerfully emotive even when the lyrics are awkward or pointless. - rural sounds for city boys. nostalgia porn set to a jumpin' rhythm section. Verdict: Tight, energetic and occasionally fun. I just have a hard time understanding what these overplayed songs have to offer to anyone who's not stuck in 1969. Listen Again? I won't run away screaming if I hear it in the background somewhere.

Heard Before? Unfortunately. Notes: - 1990 pretending to be 1970, still listening in 2026? yuck. - some nifty piano parts lurking behind the bland riffage. - I love rock organ, but here it's only used to pad the mix. a sin. - vocals sound much better when propped up by the backing singers. - guitar solos are as plentiful as they are forgettable. Verdict: Elevator muzak for tailgate parties. Listen Again? Please no.

Heard Before? When it came out. I didn't really remember it. Notes: - tight grooves, classic beats. so many fun production details. - fantastic array of guests and features. - common varies his flow just enough to keep things moving and exciting. - lots of dated, prejudiced lyrics that are best ignored. - at the same time, a number of poetic moments and plenty of honest exploration of social issues. even occasional humor. - like virtually every rap album of the time, too much filler, on both the song and album level. Verdict: I'm clearly not the target audience for this style of rap lyrics, but I could listen to these instrumentals all day. Listen Again? Not the whole thing, but I put some tracks on a rap playlist.

Heard Before? Yes, indeed. Notes: - nice to see a few token jazz albums on this list, although I'm guessing it will all be safe, predictable choices like this. - that said, it really is a phenomenal album. five highly varied, complex, swinging and emotive compositions. - the title track sounds labored, and I read that the recording had to be stitched together. makes sense, it's brutally tricky. - more celesta everywhere! it's a gimmick, but a glorious one. - the bass is unremarkable, the alto sax sometimes seems lost and Max Roach plays it safe except on the solos, but who cares? this is Monk's set and he nails it. - even the comping is thrilling - I found myself ignoring a great Sonny Rollins solo just to pay attention. - this version of "I surrender dear" is my favorite, and one of my top solo piano jazz ballads. Verdict: Easy to love. Compositionally innovative, while staying grounded in accessible solos. Put in on in the background at your peril. Listen Again? There's a lot of Monk to go through and a whole universe of jazz beyond. It's a rare album that I revisit and I'm not sure this is one, as good as it is.

Heard Before? Yup. Notes: - subtle, gorgeous, highly varied production. and I'm always a sucker for the drum sounds of this era. - these arrangements! even on the third time through there were surprises in structure and instrumentation. "Down to You" is a stunner. - as far as songwriting, it's a grower, like virtually all her albums. not exactly hooky - every song is like a puzzle inside a maze. - some odd sequencing - the two most similar songs stuck together on tracks 2&3, then unfortinately finishing with the brief and goofy (almost Andrews Sisters sounding) "Twisted". - some of my favorite Joni vocals for sure, lots of swoops, and impressive use of her lower range. Verdict: Based on my memories, I was not expecting to give this a five. But today I got lost in it and didn't want to be found. Listen Again? I didn't think I needed to until I tried it again today. So yes, I will return.

Heard Before? Nope. I thought "Lust For Life" was the debut. Notes: - massively front-loaded. side two felt endless. - rhythm section solid and interesting throughout, guitar work very uneven, synths used almost exclusively and pointlessly as pads. - seriously, did Bowie just go home after side one? - also, was side two recorded while Iggy was asleep? Verdict: Go directly to "Lust for Life". Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Listen Again? Yes to the first two tracks, hard no to everything else.

Heard Before? Nope. Notes: - I'm happy to live in a world where vocals like this get coded as masculine. Oh lord, give me the voice of Curtis Mayfield. - Was not expecting a full-bore gospel soul number. for me, a pleasant surprise. - potentially the driest, most spacious production I've ever heard, perfectly fitting with arrangements that thrive on restraint. - love the hand drums! - seven patient, drawn out songs that nonetheless take on a wide variety of moods and themes. impressive. Verdict: Supremely soulful, yet not a note out of place. Tight but with serious flair, like some sweet 70s bell bottoms. Listen Again? Oh yeah. And I've already queued up Super Fly.

Heard Before? Yes. Notes: - unremarkable production that perfectly suits the material. - lots of fun percussion parts. - great piano work - my favorite part. - someone needs to make a rap song from the outro of "Stray Cat Blues". - I would watch an animated video for "Street Fighting Man" where the band was played by characters from Street Fighter 2. Verdict: An excellent rock and roll album about which I have no feelings. Listen Again? Not on purpose.

Heard Before? Yes yes yes. Notes: - over the years I've shifted my allegiance from "make lots of weird noise at once" to "make weird noise with lots of space". this fits the bill perfectly. - the bass is a little lost, but everything else sounds raw, crisp and direct. - they wrote better songs later, but never quite matched this feeling of odd metronomic discomfort. - this album is a gift for people that usually hate rock lyrics. - the world needs a new wave revival. Verdict: Both celebratory and menacing. Will you join my B52s tribute act? I play keyboards. I can lend you an outfit if need be. Listen Again? Yes yes yes.

Heard Before? Yup. Notes: - massive, glossy production crammed with overdubs. probably the style that suited Queen best. - I forgot the inpressive extent to which Freddie tries on different vocal styles here. - front to back silliness, but so many kinds of absurdity I can't help but admire it. - all of the performances show absolute conviction, which is key to pulling off something this ridiculous. - a monument to excess, but still keeps to a 43 minute runtime. musicians of the CD era failed to take note. Verdict: Certainly an essential release, with most of the charm in the deep cuts. Too much of everything, mostly in a good way. Listen Again? I just might. It's quite the experience.

Heard Before? Yes but not since it came out. Notes: - I'm a sucker for big beat, and this is the perfect expression of that historical moment. - formulaic as hell, but it's a formula I can dance to. - every song too long, and there are too many of them. but that's part of the point, I think. plus this is the height of CD era excess. - a great example of how (for me at least) music is about curation more than virtuosity. so many good choices here. - dynamic and thrilling mixing here, mashing together different fidelities, and exaggerating different components across songs. Verdict: I was never a raver, but this makes for a terrific kitchen dance party. Listen Again? Probably not. The Brothers are represented best by the "Brotherhood" compilation, but this did increase my desire to revisit their other albums.

Heard Before? Yes, oh yes. This was EVERYWHERE. Notes: - all the critics are right. there is no reason this album should work. - the hipster posturing, faux lo-fi production, moaning karaoke-megaphone vocals, boneheadedly simple guitar and bass parts all count against it. but that's also the appeal. - is there a single drum fill on this whole record? perhaps not. but the drums sound fantastic. - I don't care about the lyrics, but they serve their function of vaguely connecting with twentysomething record-collector dudes. - the songwriting, however, is hands-down magic. every song is hooky, has just the right amount of distinct parts, and tinkers with the formula just enough. nothing ever goes on too long and there are little surprises everywhere. - even the worst song ("New York City Cops") is fun as heck. - I would give "Room on Fire" a slight edge as the better album. Verdict: Maybe you had to be there, but this derivative garbage is nearly perfect. Listen Again? Oh yeah. When I first heard it I thought I would forget this album by 2002. But I have been coming back to it and "Room on Fire" occasionally since their release.

Heard Before? Yes, but not for a while. Notes: - like all their 90s albums, the production here is an AM radio sounding trebly mess. - there are many guitar tones here and not a single one I like. - so many cool and exciting sounds in dense complex arrangements, except nothing can be heard clearly. - consistently clever writing with little surprises around every corner. - wonderful use of backing vocals. - a remixed version has the potential to be one of my favorite albums of the 90s. Verdict: I've never liked an album more that was this poorly produced, except their next album (Radiator). Listen Again? I'd rather revisit Mwng or Phantom Power, but I'm glad I heard this again.

Heard Before? Yes. Notes: - well at least this is an improvement over The Idiot. - backing vocals on the title track make me smile every time. - it is entirely plausible that the whole history of rock music is a grand conspiracy to normalize pedophilia. (see "Sixteen" and "Fall In Love With Me") - truly I never thought of Iggy Pop as a total cheeseball until I heard "Success" and "Turn Blue". Verdict: "David Bowie helps Iggy Pop cosplay as Lou Reed" sounds like an Onion headline. But here it kind of works, if you like your rock stars embracing their silly and creepy sides simultaneously. Listen Again? Besides the title track and "Tonight", I'll be very happy to never hear this again.

Heard Before? Duh. Notes: - dazzling guitar solos sounds pasted in from a better album. - ham fisted drumming and crawling tempos really help the stupid lyrics and overwrought singing stand out. - dull, obvious production accomplishes the "let's blend in with the worst of rock radio" goal. - yet another album on this list entirely bereft of interesting sounds. - I love metal and hate Metallica, but at least Master Of Puppets meant something to someone, unlike this dreck. Verdict: What if Metallica but bland riff rock? Listen Again? If only it were avoidable.

Heard Before? Nope. Finally something on this list I've never even heard of. Notes: - production is mostly bad - crowded, noisy, sometimes ugly. I get the retro idea, but has this engineer heard of EQ? - drums sound especially terrible, all cymbals with a muffled snare and inaudible kick. - similarly, the arrangements are ridiculously busy. the players are all highly technical, but do all of them really need to play the whole time? silence is a virtue. - vocals are lovely, though often buried. - bonus points for flute and guiro on "River to Consider", my favorite song. - I should be careful what I wish for; the more conventional songs are pretty but forgettable. Verdict: A mix of highly technical throwback rock and dull ballads. Listen Again? I saved a few tracks for later. I didn't love it, but I feel like I can learn from it and I'm always down to give things a fair trial.

Heard Before? No. Somehow it's the only one of her albums I've never listened to. Notes: - production not as stark as Rid of Me, but still raw and bold. - with no compression, her dynamic vocals can lurk in the mix and then lunge forward. it's a neat trick. - strings on "Plants and Rags" a terrific surprise. - plenty of lyrical zingers. - arrangements are competent but unremarkable. - "Water" is an odd closer, forecasting her much more daring moves later. Verdict: A victim of context: PJ herself, as well as Liz Phair and Scout Niblett, would take these ideas and sounds to much more interesting places later. Listen Again? Maybe not, but I've already queued up Let England Shake.

Heard Before? Yup. Notes: - one song doth not an album make. especially if it's the first track. - "Gutter Cats" is perfectly bizarre and over the top. Exactly what I love about Alice Cooper. I sent it to all my cat loving friends. - lots of unexpected musical flourishes and genre experiments. - a big, bold, ridiculous closer wraps things up, but fails to fully deliver on the concept album schtick. - Beatles/Stones mashup "Alma Mater" reminds me that Alice is a more exciting and versatile singer than Mick, John or Paul. Verdict: I love this, but why are we listening to the fourth best Alice Cooper album? For one song? Listen Again? Maybe, just maybe. But I'm willing to bet "From the Inside" is not on this list, and it's my favorite.

Heard Before? Yes. Notes: - ambition, virtuosity, dynamism. what's not to like? - well, "The Sage" is very dull and kills the momentum. and I've never found him to be a convincing singer. - the goofy Moog sounds haven't aged well. hard to believe they ever sounded less than silly. - the live production is fine, but almost too dynamic. I can live without the crowd noise. - still, I'm happy that for a good two years in the 70s, wanky keyboard players were rockstars before all these albums headed to the dollar bin. Verdict: Impressive on first blush but ultimately hollow and rather cheesy. Easily outdone by any orchestral recording of the pieces they are paying tribute to. Listen Again? Nope, but I've queued up a Harmonium album to remind me that I still love prog.

Heard Before? Nope, although it certainly seems familiar. Notes: - what if we formed a band after only hearing the first Strokes album and nothing else? - what if we saved learning how to write songs for later? - production is crisp but somehow hollow, as if the engineer couldn't find the interesting parts. to be fair, I couldn't either. - extra sadly, there's not even anything bad enough to be funny, although "Razz" comes close. Verdict: Why would anyone choose to listen to this over anything else? Shockingly derivative and amateur. I don't enjoy their later career, but they at least got more competent and gathered a few more influences. Listen Again? A resounding no. Life is short.

Heard Before? Yes, but not in forever. Notes: - starts with a bang, ends with a whimper, mixed results in between. - fiery, complex guitar, acrobatic, sometimes jazzy drums and rock solid bass. a power trio in every sense. - just-right production keeps things raw and wild, even (on "Wind Cries Mary") pretty. - sparse overdubs emphasize just the right things (like the background vocals that add horror to "Hey Joe"). - lyrically he mostly comes off as a teen creep, and his delivery doesn't help. - "Third Stone from the Sun" is the silliest, but by far my favorite - a mostly instrumental psych workout that lets all three players run wild. - where is the songwriting? I went looking and couldn't find anything to grab my attention. Verdict: From my memories, I expected this to be an easy five star. But this time around I couldn't find a single song that really did it for me. Listen Again? Nope, although it was at least interesting to revisit.