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.