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.

Heard Before? Well I haven't been living in a pit my whole life. Notes: - the beat switches on "The New Style" are still somehow exciting. - no shortage of inspired samples throughout the album. - "Paul Revere" made me laugh. - that said, Beastie Boys improved in every conceivable way after this. only "To the 5 Boroughs" is weaker. - the beats are as punchy and distinctive as ever BUT - of course, it needs to be said that no one should be writing incel anthems, even as satire. someone is always going to take it seriously and run with it. Verdict: For better and (mostly) worse, the ground zero of white rap. Listen Again? I don't think so. But I still enjoy later Beastie Boys.

Heard Before? That's the crux of the problem. The impact of the Beatles on post-1964 music is like the impact of the Bible on pre-20th century literature: inescapable. We are all born essentially having heard the Beatles already. But yes, I've heard it. Notes: - nothing that hasn't already been mentioned thousands of times. - I listen to music in order to learn and (occasionally) to be surprised. It's not the Beatles' fault, but there is none of that here. - I will say the sequencing stuck out this time, and I would always rather listen to whole Beatles albums than the 30 biggest songs over and over. Verdict: It's the Beatles. But if (like me) you enjoy self-indulgence and short songs, there is plenty of both here. Listen Again? Who knows? But it's a big world and there is so much I haven't heard a thousand times over.

Heard Before? Yup, but I remembered it all wrong. Notes: - two of the cheat codes to convince me a good band is actually great are multiple vocalists and 2 minute songs. this has both. - clever lyrics rescue the sometimes overly-simple songs. - so many fun basslines. - raw, bare-bones production keeps everything up front and exciting, but also casts a pall of sameness. Verdict: Too much of the time, "punk" still means "knucklehead hardcore" or "pop rock posers". X is here to remind us that punk has many ways and means. Listen Again? Right now? Yes! Later? Probably!

Heard Before? Only "Seven Seas of Rhye". Notes: - the production is probably the best thing about it - a bit muddy in spots but VERY dynamic, with great use of overdubs. - all the performances are committed and well-executed, if restrained by Queen's later standards. - while an interesting novelty to hear precious prog and proto-metal from Queen, it really suffers by comparison. - it doesn't help that there are zero great songs, although side two was silly enough to hold my attention most of the way through. Verdict: From this distance, it's a very well made fan-only curio. Listen Again? Nope.

Heard Before? Certainly Notes: - one of the most notable guitar tones of the era, if not ever. - this obscures the fact that the whole mix is quite lovely, with well- placed drums and warm yet punchy bass. - glorious harmonies and stellar solo vocals. - the title track is simultaneously one of my favorite covers and one of my favorite album openers. - and yet and yet. none of these wonderful ingredients can fully disguise the weak lyrics and cribbed-from-Lennon/McCartney songwriting of the "love" songs. - but at least those songs are short. the painfully cheesy "Chimes of Freedom" seems interminable. Verdict: A beautiful sounding record in need of more variety and better songs. Listen Again? Probably not. Give me "Turn Turn Turn" or "Sweetheart of the Rodeo" any day.

Heard Before? Yes. Many years ago a friend told me they were "the real deal". He wasn't wrong. Notes: - usually I judge music by how well it achieves its own goals. This album certainly succeeds on that count but the real magic of the Louvin Brothers is their total lack of self awareness. By treating tragedies minor (light nostagia) and major (brutal murder) with the same deadpan candor and deep melodrama, they enter an uncanny valley of emotional resonance. In addition, they completely avoid any inquiry into systems or causes, leaving the listener infinite room for interpretation. They would never themselves question God or country or patriarchy, but these songs boldly display the failures of these and other ideologies. It's downright transcendent. - the awkward everything-hushed-then-suddenly-loud production, zingy mandolin playing, and eerie harmonies only amplify the bizarre goings-on. - they also intuitively grasp the raw power of keeping everything in 2/4 or 3/4. nothing more evil than a murder ballad that's also a waltz. Verdict: Most appropriately titled album ever. Not for the faint of heart. Only those lacking in irony, or completely steeped in it, need apply. Listen Again? Yes. But if you want to hear the real batshit crazypants fundamentalism, drop everything and listen to their next and best album "Satan is Real".

Heard Before? Obviously. Notes: - chock full of his typical genre pastiche (or cultural appropriation depending on your outlook). this mostly works. - almost the archetype of a lyrics album. thoughtful, clever, subtle, emotional. - at the same time, so many cool sounds: the flutes on "Duncan", the dobro on several tracks, the cuica on "Julio", etc. - for me, however, the middle stretch sags heavily with unremarkable arrangements and hushed production. - I didn't remember "Paranoia Blues". it's a gem. Verdict: Lots to love and to learn from, but fails to fully embrace experimentation across the whole runtime. Listen Again? I can forsee a Paul Simon discography crawl sometime in my future.

Heard Before? Yes oh yes, my favorite album as a twelve year old. Notes: - forget for a moment what an irritating twit Jeff Lynne is. ok, a long moment. - also try and forget that the word "classical" was ever used in connection with ELO. whatever the sawbox brigade is doing here, it ain't classical. - the simple melodies and "insert-lyrics-here" help keep the focus on the overblown production. - I can't think of any other analogue album with this degree of production complexity that sounds so clear and beautiful. - part of that is the masterful arrangements that highlight just the right parts at the right times. - seriously I think the album started as a list of must-include studio tricks. I can’t imagine that these songs mean anything to anyone except jealous studio engineers. - so with nothing at stake emotionally, there's no real bad songs, only different flavors of cheese. - "jungle" did make me laugh, however. - more vocoder, Jeff. always more vocoder. Verdict: Glitz, glamour and excess. Too much of everything, which is here mostly a good thing. Disco-prog was a real thing, kids. Listen Again? Not the whole thing. A better pick for this list would be Discovery.

Heard Before? Yes. Notes: - production is warm and intimate - like a candlelit recording studio. - arrangements are restrained but varied. - excellent use of a slow 6/8. - lyrics are typical Nick Cave of the period - darkly sentimental. - that said, it truly suffers in comparison to his other work. I would much rather hear Birthday Party or even Grinderman. - also "Green Eyes" might be the worst song he ever recorded. Verdict: Why are we listening to the 8th best Nick Cave album? It's fine, but unremarkable. Listen Again? No, except I saved "People Ain't No Good" and "West Country Girl".

Heard Before? Sure have, although it didn't make as much of an impression on me as III or Bakesale. Notes: - I don't always go in for strum-and-hum sadboi ballads, but "Think" was lovely. - scummy, vivid, tape-hissy production is just right. - front half is a little guitar-wanky for me. I would rather hear song-experimentation. - multiple vocalists is always a magic secret for making a good band great. Verdict: Energetic stylistic-collage rock. Perfectly encapsulates the 90s dirty slacker ethos. Listen Again? Maybe. I saved a few songs for later.

Heard Before? Maybe? I've heard a lot of Elvis. Notes: - songs range from serviceable to brilliant, mostly ok. - arrangements are powerful and creative. - band is on fire and Elvis is in decent form. - but lord up in heaven, what is going on with the mix??? bass, snare, and ride waaaay in the front, everything else buried in mud and Elvis singing into what sounds like a grain silo. Verdict: Forgettable except for the truly awful mix. A sin and a shame. Listen Again? Yikes! No way!

Heard Before? Certainly feels like it. Notes: - more variety than I expected, despite having heard all these songs before. - multiple vocalists are always the key to my heart. - rough-edged production suits the material. arrangements are unremarkable but make sense. - in general I find this easy to admire but hard to love. it's truly great but I just don't care. - the organ on "Country Girl" grabbed me. Verdict: Hippy dippy baloney with cheese. Listen Again? Like so many in this list, I don't really need to, despite the obvious quality.

Heard Before? Yup. One of the several times I've tried to get into Bowie. Notes: - production is more or less perfect. great sounds, well placed. - so many ingredients i love: lots of keyboard work, cheesy sax, group background vocals, long vamps, false endings, compositional variety. - so why don't i care? - the problem, as often, lies in how despite my heart admiration for Bowie's stylistic risks, everything he did was done in a more interesting way by someone else. - i take that back about the long vamps. these songs are mostly underwritten and endless. kind of grating. Verdict: Bowie Bowie Bowie. And more Bowie. Your mileage may vary. Listen Again? Nope.

Heard Before? Well, yeah. Notes: - like most Cure albums, it has only one idea, but it's a good one. - production is vague and foggy, and i mostly hate the drum sounds. - arrangements lack all the space that made their early albums so arresting, with lots of (i hate to admit) unnecessary synth pads. - at least we get lots of space (and extra emotional weight) with long instrumental passages and marvelous interplay between parts. - the album is too long. i get the long songs, but it would have more impact with fewer tracks. - that said, this is probably my favorite Cure record. i may get older, but my inner goth-poser sure doesn't. Verdict: Extra fun to sing along to if you replace all the lyrics with "I've got feeeeelings!" Listen Again? Well, yeah. I've got feelings too, you know.

Heard Before? Yup! Notes: - all the reviewers on this site are correct: there are WAY too many new wave albums on this list. sadly this sours the enjoyment of gold like this. - perfect production and balanced arrangements. almost too perfect because it gives the songs a sameness they don't necessarily deserve. - vocals (both solo and group) are an obvious highlight despite their obvious limitations. - i may have unconsciously played air bass several times while listening. Verdict: All fun, all the time. It's got beauty, it's got the beat. I feel like getting a stupid haircut, a ridiculous vintage outfit, and going out dancing. Listen Again? I don't really need to, but it might come up again next time the new wave urge hits.

Heard Before? Woohoo! Something entirely new to me. Notes: - clearly a producer album, and sure enough the production is mostly stellar. - the 1999 standard issue trip hop drums are lame but forgiveable once the other, cooler, percussion comes in on "homelands". - the samples and use of multiple languages really bring the whole album to life. - plenty of stylistic variety from song to song, although individual tracks usually have only one idea. - only "Immigrant" is a true clunker, sounding like a direct-to-video Disney ballad. Verdict: Never truly thrilling, but always intriguing. Like a survey of late-90s production styles. Listen Again? Most likely. Or at least I'll investigate their other work.

Heard Before? Sad but true. Notes: - it's almost amazing how every song can sound so meticulous and phoned-in at the same time. - horn parts on "My Old School" gave me a half smile. - some of the keyboard work is cute, but i wanted to stab the guitarists. - all in all, in the face of truly intense competition, this is the worst Steely Dan album. Verdict: Like when flipping through the Restoration Hardware catalogue, I get twinges of envy amidst the desperate ennui. Listen Again? Lord save us all.

Heard Before? Well I was alive in 2011... Notes: - the most famous voice of the 2010s. i can't really add anything to the conversation. - the instrumentals are shockingly simplistic, which works great on the high-energy singles, but drags down the already droopy ballads. - backing vocals really elevate the proceedings. they are sorely missed when gone. - slightly more technical songwriting than i remembered. I'm a sucker for a pre-chorus. Verdict: Tries but ultimately fails to transcend the singles+filler formula. Listen Again? The singles are, for better and worse, truly unavoidable.

Heard Before? Only a couple of songs. Notes: - the whole concept album schtick was completely lost on me with this one. i was absolutely not in the mood for the narration. - so many great drum sounds. - production as a whole stood out, even in a crowded era for innovation. - songwriting was fine; "Lazy Sunday" was a lot of fun. Verdict: Irritating concept album with some fun songs and fantastic production. Listen Again? Maybe when I'm in a more tolerant mood. But seriously, that narration is annoying.

Heard Before? Yeah. Notes: - as always with CCR, my enjoyment is inversely proportional to the song length, although on this album, none of the songs manage to justify their runtime. - terrible "let's all play all the time" arrangements, with every song immediately settling into a rut and going nowhere. - wonderfully recorded distinctive vocals. - the sole truly redeeming feature of this album is "Proud Mary", mostly because it was later performed by Tina Turner with stunning results. Verdict: Knucklehead rock suitable for all sorts of people, places and occasions that I'm delighted to avoid. Listen Again? If only it were so simple.

Heard Before? Yup. I was there. Notes: - has this aged well? it's just as ridiculous as it ever was, so yes? - what if i played a sample until you hated it, and then kept playing it until you loved it again? - i could write a thinkpiece about how dance music wonderfully subverts rockist concepts of "musicality" but I'm too busy, you know, dancing. Verdict: Big beat was entirely about dumb fun, with Fatboy Slim being the dumbest and funnest. Listen Again? I'll certainly watch the "Praise You" video again.

Heard Before? Yes. Notes: - golly gee is this production ever crisp and beautiful. i especially love the piano and the drums. - sadly it isn't matched with songs i care about. there are fine ideas, sentiments i largely agree with, and clever writing (ie the beat-switch on "isolation"), but nothing that grabs me. - seriously i would listen to a recording that kept the backing tracks, but with new lyrics and vocal melodies. Verdict: Some things, for example the Beatles, are much better when together. Listen Again? Not by choice.

Heard Before? Yup, but I'm more familiar with Psychocandy. Notes: - every production style has its place, but I really hate these drum sounds. all of them. in every song. - the Lou Reed of Scotland vocals are equal parts charming and annoying. I'm not opposed to them being buried in the mix. - that leaves the chiming guitars and root-notes-only basslines. they are fine! I've just heard too much similar music. - songs: they have verses! they have choruses! sometimes other parts! and..... you guessed it, mildly transgressive lyrics. meh. Verdict: It's brooding jangle pop that was influential on thousands of 90s bands. Just because it came first-ish doesn't make it great. Listen Again? Why?

Heard Before? Nope. Not a fan of live rock albums - the studio exists for good reasons! Notes: - the vocals, while excellent, suffer the most compared to the studio recordings. the bass sounds like it was played with a hammer and the guitars are mixed oddly and unevenly. - despite the many negative features of the recording, the drums sound good. - all the performances are top tier, competent and committed, although the ballads really sag compared to the studio versions. - sequencing is just right. - i think i finally understand Thin Lizzy's influence on The Hold Steady. - like all Thin Lizzy, they take tight, interestingly constructed songs and then splatter them liberally with twin guitar showcases. Verdict: All the problems of live albums of the period. Great for those who love crowd noise, lame banter, subpar vocals from great vocalists, and extra extra guitar wank. Listen Again? No way, but I'll revisit the Jailbreak album at some point.

Heard Before? I was born in Canada in the 80s. So yes. Notes: - Alanis is great. So great. Her much-derided vocal style and lyrics are perfect and every teenager needs to have a moment with this album. - most songs, and the album as a whole, are too long, but structure and sequencing is largely justified. - HOWEVER, this production is absolutely awful. I want to take a flamethrower to the studio. - those all-purpose 90s drum loops used on almost every song belong in the 9th circle of hell. - most of my least favorite guitar tones of all time are here in spades. - all the potentially interesting sounds and parts are deeply buried in the mix. Verdict: Still a knockout for its intended audience, criminally overplayed and horribly dated for the rest of us. Listen Again? Not by choice.

Heard Before? Yup. Notes: - a triumph of sequencing, especially the one-two punch at the end. - until this point I've always returned to "you're living all over me". but this might be better, for ill-defined reasons. more variety? Verdict: Loud at any volume. Mewling vocals, lyrics i don't care about, propulsive basslines, blunt force drumming, guitar squall. When I'm in the mood, it hits just right. Listen Again? I think so!

Heard Before? Yup. My parents were Columbia House members. Notes: - how can i criticize something that so perfectly achieves its own goals in the first three songs? everything i despise about this is exactly what it sets out to accomplish. - after those first three songs, it flattens out to become purely an embarrassing simulacrum of rockist ideals circa 1976. - but because everything is so gloriously recorded, i can still smile at the organ solo in "smokin" even though the song as a whole belongs in cringe hell. Verdict: I hate this album, but for the first three songs, i thoroughly enjoy hating it, spite and admiration perfectly balanced. After that I get tired. Listen Again? It would take a lot of convincing.

Heard Before? Yes, but I never gave it a careful listen. Notes: - if ever there were a songwriting album, this is it. so much interesting stuff going on structurally and lyrically. - unfortunately it's drowning in overwrought arrangements and claustrophobic production, even burying the vocals at times, which are clearly supposed to be the focal point. - long songs or short, albums should be 40 minutes. that's it. ignorance of this obvious rule makes 90s albums even harder to listen to. Verdict: Suffocatingly clever, with odd, overcooked and trebly production. Too much, too much, but fun and amusing in small doses. Listen Again? Unlikely, except for the title track. Didn't turn me off Pulp, though. I'll try another one of theirs that I haven't heard yet.

About the 1001 list: Big fan of this site, but the list itself is somewhat terrible. The easiest way to instantly and vastly improve it would be to impose a two-albums-per-artist limit. Beatles fans (among others) will cry, but they might actually learn something. About this album: Probably my favorite Beatles. Side two was especially nifty to me the first many times. BUT I NEVER EVER NEED TO HEAR THIS EVER AGAIN. The world is a big place, and there is so much interesting music that I haven't heard hundreds of times.

Heard Before? Nope. And I quickly realized why. Notes: - There is absolutely nothing wrong with John Lee Hooker, or even his performances on this album. - Everyone else involved, especially the producer, seems dead set on opposing the vicious minimalism that gives him his powerful aura. - Why these collaborators? With the possible exception of Canned Heat, they all sound like they've never heard him before, never mind shared a studio. - The treatments on the vocals are especially egregious. - The sequencing is atrocious, although rewarding for masochists who can make it all the way to the best track at the end. Verdict: Even the Blues Brothers movie knew what to do with John Lee: He is shown off by himself, hiding in plain sight, mumbling and stunting away on the guitar, like an ascetic prophet. This album is just sad. Listen Again? I'm already trying to forget it.

Heard Before? Heck yeah! Notes: - I forgot the crystal clear production, odd but nifty use of stereo and the broken glass samples on "Back Against the Wall". It works so well, much better than the pointless reverb on Wild In The Streets. - It's nothing I haven't heard from hundreds of other bands, but the balance of speed, riffage, lyrics and moshpit energy is more or less perfect. - most importantly: SHORT SONGS. nothing worse than hardcore that drags on for no reason. Verdict: Essential. I may have failed to live fast and also to die young, but this still rips. Listen Again? I mean, there's a lot of similar hardcore out there. But probably.

Heard Before? Only the singles. Notes: - mostly strum-and-hum ballads. not always my thing. at least there is a strong attempt at variety. - the adult-contemporary production style is an instant turn-off, and the arrangements are bland. - not the strongest songwriting, structurally, or at least no surprises. - however, her performance is perfect and the lyrics are strong, if not subtle. it helps that i agree with her and anything that shows how the personal is political. Verdict: A fantastic vocalist and lyricist fed into the major label machine of the day. Listen Again? I feel like I always say this, but I'll certainly check out some of her other albums, if not this one again.

Heard Before? Only "Solsbury Hill". Notes: - I'm often a sucker for songwriting-as-wankery, but I'm not really in a prog mood today. - some tracks feel like a rehash of better ideas from "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway". - are these vocals all him? a terrible decision in either case. - "Waiting for the Big One" is flat out embarrassing and should never be mentioned. - i actually enjoyed the tighter rock songs "Modern Love" and "Down the Dolce Vita". Verdict: Despite the presence of "Solsbury Hill", this is maybe the 8th best Peter Gabriel project. Listen Again? Nope. Not even on a prog day.

Heard Before? Yup. Notes: - like most Cure albums, it takes one idea and runs it into the ground. - the bass, drum and synth parts are shockingly repetitive. this can drag songs pointlessly or act to drive them while highlighting the vocals and guitar. - i really enjoy the dissonant, off-time guitar parts, especially on "Short Term Effect". - production uses the reverby-yet-claustrophobic 80s sound to maximal effect. Verdict: Having not been a tortured teen for many years, this rarely suits my mood, but it certainly nails that sort of moaning desperation. Listen Again: Eventually I'll get around to it.

Heard Before? Yes. Notes: - SKITS = BAD. no exceptions. no excuses. - beats are stellar and sample selection is consistently amusing and often thrilling. i found myself using whosampled.com repeatedly. - flows lack variety, but that's true of all rap of this vintage. - lyrics are fun and clever, even if they rarely made me laugh. more attempts at seriousness than i remembered, and rather successful i think. Verdict: Arguably outdone by later De La Soul and some of their many imitators, but very much worth my time, as long as i skip the skits. Listen Again? Certain songs, yes! But a big no to the whole album.

Heard Before? One of my all time favorites. Notes: - cabaret as a genre is criminally underrepresented in English language music in general, which alone would make this album essential. - sequencing matters, and I can hardly think of a better example, clomping awkwardly yet expertly from one track to the next. - everyone who has ever been bored to tears by a standard drumkit can stagger to their feet and cheer here. - yet that's only the beginning of the clever arrangements, where the skittering guitar work bumps up against lurching trombone, seasick organ/accordion and tottering marimba. - the breadth of songwriting and vocal styles remains impressive, although outdone by Rain Dogs. - it's minor, but every song justifies its runtime, which also keeps the album to an ideal length. Verdict: Less pretty than Closing Time, less ferocious than Bone Machine, but still the ideal introduction to the world of Tom Waits. It's a party and all are invited, especially those of us usually banned from such events. Listen Again? Absolutely. Although first I should try Alice/Blood Money, which I've never heard.

Heard Before? Yes. Notes: - obviously a vocal showcase and the vocals are uniformly stunning, even if they can't really sell the lyrics of "Hobo's Meditation". - song selection could have been a little more daring, but these safe bets are still great. - the arrangements strive for variety but end up a little bland and formulaic. never truly awful though, and the performances are note perfect. - production is clear and lovely, only venturing too far into cheeseball adult contemporary on "Telling Me Lies". - for a vocal-focused album, they actually give the instrumentals a surprising amount of space to work in. - I'm always happy to leave rock music behind for any genre where triplet time signatures are normal. Verdict: One of the very few supergroup albums in any genre that's worth a serious listen. Listen Again? I'm not opposed. It's a highlight in each of their catalogues.

Heard Before? Not since it came out. Notes: - sequencing! it's an art, and one that this album exemplifies. everything in the right order, with a near-magical flow between tracks. - it helps that there is a huge variety of sounds and styles, with a well-curated guest roster. - "Water" is quite the centrepiece, with a huge glitch-hop coda. wow. - the conscious-rap lyricism certainly works and is clever and complex in all the right ways, although I'm more of a production person. Verdict: I remembered this as a second string Roots album, behind "Things Fall Apart" and "How I Got Over". But the more I listen to "Phrenology", the more impressed I am. Listen Again? Three times in one day is probably enough for a while. But yes.

Heard Before? Yes. Notes: - a flawlessly flawed live album where it's live nature and setting are the keys to the appeal. an ideal meeting of songs, performances and audience, with one of the most thrilling live performers i can think of. - unfortunately i heard the expanded edition of "at San Quentin" first, and both albums aren't needed on the same list. - i can understand why this one is more popular. there are more familiar songs, fewer guests, a more uplifting tone, and more even-keeled performances. Verdict: So it's basically perfect and I truly loved this album at one point, but it has been eclipsed for me. San Quentin Legacy Edition all the way. Listen Again? For sure, if only to play it for someone who has never heard it.

Heard Before? Many times, but not in years. Notes: - this is what people mean when they call an album "dated". - i find these beats refreshing, a reminder of a certain golden age of sampling and turntablism. and fun fun fun. - all the rapping feels like Sesame Street, in form and content. depending on my mood, that's wonderful or nearly unlistenable. - for an album so preachy, the instrumentals have a surprising amount of room to breathe. - my friend compared it to Gorilla Biscuits. I'm sure the two acts would volunteer at a soup kitchen together. Verdict: Shockingly sincere, irony-free, positive messaging party music. Smile or else. Listen Again? I'll give it another long break, but probably.

Heard Before? Many times, but not since high school. Notes: - there's definitely an argument to be made for one of their other albums to be included on the list instead of the debut, but I'm not complaining. - now when I listen to this I can only picture how Jello, while the primary songwriter, was also a complete non musician, and so would act out and sing the parts he wanted the others to play. Hilarious. - the mix varies distractingly from song to song. oh well. Verdict: It absolutely shreds, in the preachiest, most grating way. Chemical warfare, indeed. Listen Again? Well, I already listened to "Plastic Surgery Disasters" and "The Power of Lard" today, so it seems likely.

Heard Before? Easily one of the albums that has been the most important to me. Notes: - Because this album (and to a lesser extent, Sufjan's whole arc) is so integral to my own musical history, it is essentially unreviewable. - Anyone interested in a context for Sufjan's early career should watch the documentary "Danielson: A Family Movie" - "Illinois" is both deeply felt and well-researched, which must be horribly grating for many people. - Very excited to read all the negative reviews of this. Not because I think I'm somehow better than any of you folks, but I enjoy understanding the tastes of others, and what better way to learn than to honestly consider those who hate what you love? Verdict: Too much of everything, all the time. If you want your music to spill over with feeling and detail, this is ideal. Fans of the tidy and organized (or conversely the raw and rocking) should stay far away. Listen Again? I'll need another break after today, but yes indeed. These days, my favorite Sufjan is Age of Adz or Seven Swans.

Heard Before? Nope. Not at all. Notes: - bold move to unironically call your debut album "Club Classics". - sequencing is very odd. the second time through I found it made a lot more sense to start at "Back to Life" (obviously the best track) and then let it loop back to "Keep on Movin" after "Ambition" (which gives the album some valuable context). I just found it made a better and more exciting narrative than starting with an endless slow jam. - drum programming is simple but effective. - the mix is the weakest point for me. funky basslines and cool synth parts get buried under too-loud, repetitive vocals. this is dance music mixed like pop music, which makes the clichéd lyrics stick out terribly. Verdict: Good for a nostalgia-bait dance party and not much else. I preferred the remixes - this is music that you want to make something interesting out of, rather than just listen. Listen Again? Not bad, but no thanks.

Heard Before? Yup. This was big when I was in high school. Notes: - probably my least favorite Fiona Apple album. she just keeps getting better. - songwriting is clever, wise and deep, especially considering her age. comparing this to the debuts of other teen prodigies (Alanis, Adele, Lorde, etc.) is illuminating. Fiona all the way. - despite being mostly piano ballads, she fits in better with the likes of PJ Harvey and Liz Phair than the other balladeers of the era. - arrangements are near-perfect. so dynamic, great use of mallet instruments, decent drum sounds, and extended codas that cast a spell, instead of repeated choruses that exhaust me. - production is so competent as to be almost invisible. - the drum-free sections drag a bit, and this kind of melismatic singing, while impressive, wears on me. Verdict: A stunning debut by a major talent, and one that has aged well. I don't know how she made it through the gauntlet of industry exploitation, but this is already the sound of a singular artist. Listen Again? Eventually, yes. But I should really revisit "Fetch the Bolt Cutters" or "Idler Wheel" first. Those are brilliant.

Heard Before? Only the singles. Notes: - one of the best things about this list is knowing that thousands of old guys are going to be listening to teen pop. - that said, I'm also an old guy and I find this easy to admire but hard to love. - with so many songwriters and producers in the room, there's bound to be at least a few stunning moments. and there are plenty. - TOO MANY INTERLUDES. I'm so glad this trend mostly died out. - obviously a shockingly powerful voice that any reasonable person would barter their eternal soul for, even if it doesn't exactly resonate with me. but the multitracking on "Walk Away" (and several other songs) was wild - blew me away. Verdict: Delivering the opposite of its premise, I can think of several current pop stars who should be taking notes from this master class in genre-hopping melismatic maximalism. Listen Again? Not planning on it, but that won't stop me from recommending it.

Heard Before? My dad, who was sadly born without a personality, calls this one of the greatest albums. Notes: - love these drum sounds, and how the horns are recorded. - as I say with every one of their albums, the keyboard solos are far more tolerable than the guitar solos. - by this point they gave up any pretense of rock and fully embraced, hmmm... "schmaltz-core"? it suits them much better. - grateful for the long, complex instrumental passages. at the very least it keeps the smarmy vocals and embarrassing lyrics at bay for a while. - "Peg" is satanically catchy. Yikes. Verdict: In places, this raises the Steely Dan bar from "utter loathing" to "grudging admiration". Like the best possible version of being on hold with the insurance company for 40 minutes. Listen Again? Not by choice.

Heard Before? I vaguely remember it. Notes: - this seems like an odd pick. the Black Keys are certainly pleasant and popular, but I had no idea that anyone thinks of them as important or influential. - this particular album is one decent 2 minute song stretched out to 55 minutes. Verdict: Snore. Listen Again? This will be probably be playing in beer commercials until the heat death of the universe.

Heard Before? Nope. Notes: - With a list so over committed to the anglo-american rock canon, tokenism is going to be an issue. But one great Senegalese album is better than none. - Thanks to Allmusic, I also checked out the rawer, more traditional Baaba Maal album Djam Leelii. Fantastic. - i was expecting the glossy production to irritate me, but except for the heartily cheesy "Minuit", it serves the music well. - really enjoyed all the subtle percussion elements, the powerful flutes and lovely backing vocals. Verdict: Powerful, evocative vocals with constantly modulating counterpoint ride on a hypnotic undercurrent of repeated guitar figures and restrained percussion. Listen Again? Yes! And more Senegalese music as well. Rare though these moments are, I'm thankful when this list acts as a springboard.

Heard Before? Only "Greatest Dancer" and the title track. Notes: - I'm sure "smoothest disco" is a nightmare for some, but I dig it. - no truly remarkable performances here, but groove after groove, perfectly balanced. - arrangements and production are such archetypes that it's hard to think of them as choices. Verdict: These are the disco good times, folks. Get down and deal with it. Listen Again? Probably not, but kitchen dancing was indeed done.

Heard Before? Nope. Notes: - my tolerance for hippy-dippy baloney has always been high, but sorely tested here. - was this produced at all? or did they just have a ban on EQ and compression? were the faders stuck? demo-quality sound fits certain artistic goals, but it seems accidental here. - directionless songwriting can also serve a meaningful purpose, but i think both "meaning" and "purpose" got lost in the haze. - the performances are all thoroughly fine, which only reinforces the impression of competent people phoning it in. - as much as i want to completely hate this, side two is quite pretty, in places. Verdict: I finally understand the Dead Milkmen lyric from "The Thing That Only Eats Hippies": "then it chewed on David Crosby / but it spit him out". Listen Again? You can't make me.

Heard Before? No, despite listening to almost every other No Depression era alt-country act. Notes: - the spare arrangements work well, although the synth flourishes and random samples seem out of place. - vocals are close-miked, uncompressed, pitchy and mostly too loud. the melodies (and often the lyrics) sound improvised, and not in a way i appreciate. the superor female vocalist is criminally underused. - in general the songs seem underwritten and would benefit from more structure and polish. - lots of well-recorded, simple and pleasant drum parts and bass lines. - I just felt like I was trying to enjoy it, looking for something that just wasn't there. Verdict: I was all set to uncover a treasure, but despite a lot of digging, found mostly junk. The second time through was a bit better, once I lowered my expectations. Listen Again? Unlikely. I might try one of their other releases, but I'd rather revisit Calexico, Red Red Meat, Uncle Tupelo, Gillian Welch, Havalina Rail Co, Neko Case, or any number of similar, much more satisfying performers.

Heard Before? No. For whatever reasons (too popular? too prolific? too consistent?) I've never boarded the Costello hype train. Notes: - careful, smart songwriting with lots of structural variation. arrangements shift slightly and in interesting ways from song to song. - decent production, although a bit muddy in spots. - performances work well, although in general the guitar is perfunctory while the keyboards are exciting. - vocals sound smarmy even when I think they aren't supposed to. Verdict: Easy to admire, hard to truly enjoy, if for reasons I find difficult to enumerate. Listen Again? Not likely. I'm not against Costello, I'd just rather hear R Stevie Moore - same sorts of ideas, but rawer, riskier, more hooky and just bigger thrills.

Heard Before? Yes, sir. Notes: - song selection is not my favorite, but that's part of the magic. - "Georgia on My Mind" means nothing to me as a song, yet here I was holding my breath for the six perfect finger cymbal hits and the entire horn section brought into the studio to play three notes. - Willie serves as an inspiration to everyone by making the absolute best possible use of his very limited voice. - the arrangements (and to a lesser extent the production) are the real star here. so many careful just-right choices in every song. - it's a quiet album that I always want to turn up, just to revel in the simple-but-effective details. Verdict: Subtle, restrained takes on unfashionable standards in a country crooner style. This should be a difficult sell, a dull disaster. I love it. Listen Again? Golly gee, I just might. What a delight.

Heard Before? Yes. There was a firestorm of hype around this in 2008. Notes: - this feels like folky cosplay despite all the lyrics about landscapes. - yet this notion of what's "authentic" or not feels like a moot point when the songs are this gorgeous. - it's easy to hear how these vocals soared over their contemporaries in the indie-rock scene. it was the return of pretty. - arrangements are nicely varied from song to song, covering the whole acoustic to electric spectrum. drums are just right, disappearing at key moments. - production wise, everything is so lovely and balanced and perfectly captured. i could kiss the engineer. - lyrics are appropriately vague, keeping the focus on the sound. Verdict: Like the Byrds of the 00s, a lovely, chiming take on the folk-rock idiom. Style over substance, perhaps, but I love style. Listen Again? I'm sure at some point, at least something of theirs. Their discography is fairly consistent - it almost doesn't matter which one you put on.

Heard Before? Only the tracks from "Singles Going Steady". Notes: - there's virtually no variety here, just the same limited elements shuffled slightly from song to song, with bare-bones production. - that said I'm a sucker for all the elements: tinny guitar, busy basslines, rinky-tinky drums and snide vocals. - short, tightly structured songs with often amusing lyrics kept me engaged on the second and third listens. Verdict: Ground zero of pop punk. Have fun or else. Listen Again? I'll probably stick with "Singles Going Steady" but I'm very glad I finally heard this one.

Heard Before? It seems everyone has a greasy uncle who "shows you real music" when you are ten years old. Notes: - it's not the fault of these songs that they are criminally overplayed and thus meaningless. - although it IS the fault of the lyrics for being so silly. - I've known too many drummers who could "play like Bonzo" by which they meant "hit the drums pointlessly hard". - i forgot how many pretty acoustic segments there are, and how lovely Plant and Denny sound together. Verdict: It is an album which exists. If I could somehow unhear it and then start fresh, I may actually enjoy it. Listen Again? Unavoidable. It will be echoing in subterranean caves long past the time of human extinction.

Heard Before? Only "Stay With Me". Notes: - if Rod Stewart is in your band, why are you also trying to sing? Not that I've ever truly enjoyed a Rod Stewart song, but I'm amazed at how he sings them. - actually loved all the organ and piano parts (harpsichord on "Love Lives Here"!), but that's my usual jam. - tried to tune out all the wanky blues guitar, but again, that's my usual feeling. - awful lyrics, competent song structure. - production very typical of the era, which is, for me, a big plus. great sounding drums, good use of stereo, everything separated but not too dry. - side two really fell off for me. Verdict: It's classic rock, folks, no more no less. Great if that's your thing. Listen Again? I'll pass.

Heard Before? Yes indeed. Notes: - the mix bothers me a bit. vocals way too forward, no low end. - it's too bad because the arrangements are so fantastic. for me the key feature of this album is all the extra stuff, from the strings and synths to autoharp and finger cymbals. - most drums sounded awful in the 80s. these are just fine! - i don't really care about the lyrics, and they mostly seem to function as mood-setting. - many very similar vocal melodies. - more dynamic than I remembered; i like all the space in "Thorn of Crowns". Verdict: Not as essential as I remembered. But intermittently glorious and probably their best album as a whole. Listen Again? I'll probably go through all their 80s albums again at some point, although there's a strong case to be made that they are best as a singles act.

Heard Before? Nope. Notes: - the awkward and ridiculous intro narration got me instantly. - production very typical of its time, with strong stereo separation, muddy drums, weird low end and vocals so loud they peak. the studio must have just bought a big expensive plate reverb, because they use it on EVERYTHING. i choose to find this all charming rather than irritating. - arrangements are simple and effective. they unequivocally sound like a dance band hustled from the nearest honky-tonk into the studio to capitalize on recent success. - for better and worse, an extremely narrow songwriting formula. but with certain genre conventions i feel if you are going to lean in, you may as well fall in. - songs and album are the perfect length. Verdict: I've never wanted a Nudie suit more than I do right at this moment. Listen Again? Maybe? Or maybe I'll listen to yet another of the many very similar country albums of the era. I love this, but it's not exactly a singular achievement.

Heard Before: No. For whatever reason I stopped following YYYs after "Fever to Tell". Notes: - I kept waiting for the interesting part of every song. Mostly it didn't arrive, despite some nifty sounds here and there. - monstrously talented and emotive vocal work, especially given the limited melodies and filler lyrics. - the mix was fine. it did exactly what it was supposed to do. I'm just not crazy about this 'everything loud and hyper compressed' thing. - it seems like the only way they know how to move a song forward is with a big swell, which becomes a game of diminishing returns. Verdict: No-surprises dance-rock with fantastic vocals. Oddly reminds me of Coldplay. Maybe this is just what happens when buzz bands run out of ideas as they start playing stadiums. Listen Again? I'd rather hear their first EP, or just "Maps" on repeat.

THE THREE TYPES OF JAZZ REVIEWS ON THIS SITE: 1. "I know nothing about jazz, but I know I hate this." 2. "I know nothing about jazz, but I kinda like this." 3. "I know everything about jazz, and I'm going to teach you fools whether you like it or not."

Heard Before? Nope. Notes: - Slick production would work better if the arrangements weren't so crowded. So many instrumental parts that add nothing to the songs, it feels claustrophobic. - the ballads kill what little momentum the album has, but I did like the beach sounds hidden deep in the mix of "Deckchairs and Cigarettes". - Breathy, nasal lead vocals sound out of place. - only Mumford and Sons could make the banjo sound less earthy. - the lyrics are California-postcard, but the song structures are tight and well-considered. - performances are so competent as to be unnoticeable. Verdict: Overproduced ersatz Americana. For the person in your life who pretends to enjoy things they don't understand. Listen Again? No, thank you.

Heard Before? Duh. Notes: - I'm not surprised that the least interesting band of the 00s dance-punk revival became the most popular. What does surprise me is that anyone is still choosing to listen to this 22 years later. - worst possible production. everything too slick, too loud and hyper compressed. I would much rather listen to something actually incompetent. - someone forgot to tell the keyboard player that the whole point of a synthesizer is to make interesting sounds. - yet underneath all the posturing, embarrassing lyrics, rookie songwriting and sanded-down performances, there are some undeniable hooks. somehow that makes it worse. Verdict: Trite, fill-in-the-blanks dance-rock where the big sell is a douchebag frontman. Yuck. The only fascinating part of this album is how it is a populist slap in the face to elitists like me. The people have spoken, and they love polished slop. Listen Again? No one on earth ever needs to hear this again, but that doesn't seem to stop them. Oh well. There's always tomorrow's album.

Heard Before? Yes, although I prefer the "New Amerykah" albums because I'm a weird snob. Notes: - like most every album from 1991-2002, it's too long. the CD era was a bad idea. - like many r&b/neosoul albums, it's a love letter to vocal multi-tracking. bold choice to sing through a phaser on the opening track. - give me this era of neosoul production anytime. the drums are pristine, the mix is spacious and balanced. - arrangements are subtly varied, with nifty surprises in nearly every song. clever restraint rewards careful listening. - more or less devoid of hooks. not a pop album. but the lyrics are mostly worth your time. Verdict: At low volumes, it risks being background mood-fodder. Pay attention and the whole thing comes to life vividly. Listen Again? I'm not opposed, but an Erykah 'best-of' would suit me better.

Heard Before? No. I listened to "Cast of Thousands" when it came out, then ignored them. Notes: - mallet percussion, layered background vocals and sudden horn stabs had me right from the intro. - dense, complex and subtle production with near-constant little tweaks to the arrangements. someone in the booth really cares about how these songs sound. - lots of 6/8, which makes me happy. - personally I'd rather not have pretty-crooning-guy lead vocals so far forward in the mix, but maybe that's just my singer's envy. - front-loaded, too long and at least half the songs, while lovely, go absolutely nowhere. Verdict: While obviously a member of the Radiohead-Coldplay axis of excess, they lack the preening pretentiousness of the former and the starry-eyed sentimentality of the latter. Cause for some celebration. Listen Again? Just maybe. I really wasn't expecting to enjoy this. I'm even interested in hearing more of them. Thanks, 1001!

Heard Before? Sad but true. Notes: - thankfully this isn't as obscenely overplayed as "The Color and the Shape". - my initial impression (when i first heard this at 14) was these are watered-down versions of better songs from the underground scene that birthed them. I wasn't wrong. - and yet, what's so wrong with a clear mix? with hooks? with conventional pop structures? nothing, really. listening again, these are fine songs. - everything just sounds so tired. tempos are all the same. these guitar tones were stale by '95 and even more so now. the vocals sound unintentionally bored and phoned in. - only the drums are an exception. yes, he's hitting too hard and frequently rushing, but he at least sounds alive. - none of the lyrics stood out in any way, which is fine by me. Verdict: Competent edgeless normcore. There are worse things. Listen Again? Glad I tried it one more time, but no.

Heard Before? Yes, but not for many years. Notes: - drum programming, sample selection and turntable work among the most interesting of the era. lots of variety between and inside every track. every song has a hook, which is a feature for us non-heads. - posse cuts are intrinsically more exciting for me than solo raps. bring it on. - wordplay is minimal, but the rhymes are tight. flows are innovative for the era - at least things are always changing up. - lyrics are too much for me. unpleasant, not entertaining. but THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. they do exactly what they set out to do. "we make hardcore jams / so fuck respect". mission accomplished. Verdict: The iconic gangsta rap album, repulsive and fascinating in equal measure. Listen Again? Maybe. It's not my jam but it's awfully effective.

Heard Before? Not at all. Notes: - impressive variety of sounds and ideas. most post-punk and synth pop of the era tends to zero in on a narrow idea. - accordion always gets me. - somehow i guessed before reading the credits that this is a solo album. not sure if that is good or bad. - some songs lose steam, running out of ideas before they actually end. - vocals sound like a guy complaining. relateable, perhaps. Verdict: Almost danceable, but little in the way of real hooks, it's an album that can't quite make up its mind, and one I can't easily characterize. Listen Again? There were pleasant surprises here, but I'd rather hear Mind Bomb again. I should really give it another try, though

Heard Before? Nope. Although I've heard at least a dozen other Fall albums. Notes: - The Fall is too much. too many albums, too many songs, too many words, too many notes, too much repetition, too much Mark E Smith, too many musicians playing with too few ideas. - but that's the whole modus operandi. it's like hating cats for scratching your furniture. all this is just part of the deal. - hard to know what to do with an essential band that has never released an essential album. Verdict: Is this better or worse than any other Fall album? I neither know nor care. I just put it on and let it take over, another visit to a singular world. Listen Again? Well, there's always more Fall, so why repeat? Maybe if I make it through the whole discography I'll come back to this.

Heard Before? Yes, indeed. One of my top albums of that year. Notes: - a double album of late work from someone who coasted through the 90s on thinning goodwill? a tough sell, but then i put it on. - the mix can be a little muddy, but mashing things together for the most exciting parts works for me. burying key details also rewards multiple listens. - the arrangements are stellar. so many wonderful sounds, with surprises in every song. special mention should be given to the organ parts, the backing vocals and (especially) the auxiliary percussion. - performances are absolutely committed throughout. everyone sounds thrilled with these songs. - vocals especially - Cave manages to sell even his clunkiest couplets with verve. no lyric is too cringe for him not to lean into. - structurally, this is a songwriting masterclass. so much variety, so many nifty change-ups and choices. - sequencing is perfect, and I'm totally sold on the two halves approach, although for subsequent listens I have started with "Lyre of Orpheus" and then looped back to the start. Verdict: My favorite Nick Cave album. Over the top in all the best ways. Listen Again: Certainly.

Heard Before? Just the title track. Notes: - one of the oddest categories in this list is "albums famous for only one song". - I feel like our pal Dimery took a "Hip-Hop for Beginners" course and just barely passed. - this is where electro-rap started. as fun as it is, I'm glad it didn't stay here. Verdict: i love drum machines. i love synths. i love samplers. i love rapping. my tolerance for cheese is high. but this might be a bridge too far. Listen Again? Interesting, but not worth it.

Heard Before? Many times. Notes: - i can live without interludes on any album, although these aren't particularly egregious, and "Why Hiphop Sucks in 96" gets a giggle from me every time. - extremely bass-heavy mix is great for cars or huge stereos, but sounds a bit odd in headphones. - drums drums drums. my favorite part of the album is the frequent and unpredictable beat slicing. "Organ Donor" forever. - the platonic ideal of sample selection and arrangement. - this album put me on to David Axelrod, which dimmed the magic a bit (Shadow took more than a little inspiration), but my goodness, those are wonderful records. if you have yet to hear "Song of Innocence", drop everything and spin it right now. Verdict: The archetypal cratedigging album, and still exciting. Listen Again: A good one to revisit every few years.

Heard Before? Yes, many times. Notes: - the mix is crisp, with lots of space. - arrangements are ideal, with the right parts given just the right attention. - the writing is powerful and the lyrics spot-on. - picking a two track album for this list is insulting to Fela. c'mon! Verdict: Hugely significant and undeniably powerful songs. But still just two songs. Skip directly to "Best of the Black President". Listen Again? Of course, but in context with more Fela.

Early in my teens, my terminally boring parents decided to grow up and "get into jazz". Spotting a chance for me to secure more time with certain albums than I could get just borrowing them from the library, I hastily made a list of excellent, historically significant recordings that I thought they would be able to tolerate. No Cecil Taylor, then. Of course "Kind of Blue" was one of their first and favorite purchases, and I've now heard it hundreds of times. So yes, the mix is ridiculously crisp, spacious and balanced, the songs are mind-melting, and the performances are so well-considered yet forcefully restrained that it still boggles me. Perhaps there are some people on earth with an interest in jazz that still haven't heard this. By all means, indulge. Let it soak in. But please don't let the awful tokenism of this list infect you. If you get anything out of this, let it be a springboard to a world of wonders. All this is to say that this album is indeed a masterpiece, but I never need to hear it again.

Heard Before? i went through a very brief KLF phase. Notes: - typically i avoid discussing the context of albums, but i should mention that i find the KLF's performance art antics far more interesting than any music they ever produced. - i have a low tolerance for certain types of irony, and here all the lyrics strike me as mockingly vapid, especially given the empty, anonymous vocal performances. not interesting. - drum programming and sample selection have decent variety. - songs are carefully structured, with great builds and interludes. - i could potentially groove to an instrumental version of several of these songs. Verdict: Sneakily snarky, deliberately blank, fan-trolling but thoroughly competent dance music. The KLF dares you to enjoy this so they can despise you. Listen Again? Not a chance. I don't even enjoy hating it.

Heard Before? Nope. Notes: - yet another case where this list would be instantly and vastly improved by having a two-albums-per-artist limit. - live-sounding reverb-y production works great on the sparser numbers, but gets a bit claustrophobic as the arrangements get busy. - performances ebb and flow in exciting ways. - vocals lack the variation in delivery of his later work, here it is all stentorian pronouncements. - some clever interesting stories in the lyrics, while never leaving the Nick Cave wheelhouse. Verdict: Few surprises here for fans, but a solid effort from all involved. Listen Again? I'll pass. There's still plenty more Nick Cave to be heard, though.

Heard Before? No, although Sarah Vaughan is my mother's favorite singer, so I'm familiar with her. Notes: - the recording (or at least the version I heard) is not good. tape hiss, often inaudible bass and kick drum, various weird inconsistencies. audience banter during a piano solo is funny, but doesn't help appreciation of the music. on the other hand, the whole thing is almost uncomfortably intimate, which is fascinating. - i love a piano trio, even one as restrained and tasteful as this. the comping in the piano is especially noteworthy - light and full of motion. much better than having her backed by a giant orchestra. - the drums are played with such precision and care that i didn't notice on the first listen. - song selection is near-perfect, especially on the twenty track extended version. - obviously the main draw is the voice, and what a voice. wow. still amazes me to this day. her pitch control, vibrato, rhythmic sense, and emotional range are unparalleled. wonderfully versatile. - still i feel like this is more jazz tokenism on this list. perhaps Dimery didn't actually listen to any jazz, but relied on other sources. Or maybe he just ran out of third-rate rock albums and thought he would cram in just a few random jazz recordings to make it look more comprehensive. Verdict: Marvelous performances of great standards in an intimate setting by one of the most intuitive and thrilling jazz singers of the era. Listen Again: Probably not this recording, but it was wonderful to be reminded again of her amazing voice. I'll be back for more Sarah Vaughan.

Heard Before? Yes. I've tried and failed multiple times to go through the whole Zappa discography. Notes: - "Peaches en Regalia" is still my top favorite Zappa song. It's got almost everything I like about him (endlessly clever composition, counter-intuitive hooks, horns, synths, acrobatic basslines, powerful drums) and nothing I hate (unfunny lyrics, stupid dialogue, meandering too-long solos, jokey genre-parody). - "Little Umbrellas" is a gem. I could just as pleasurably sit down and study the score, get up and dance, or just let it wash over me. - all the bass and drum parts on the whole album are thrilling, so even when i lose the plot of a guitar solo, they carry the day successfully, except maybe on the samey and endless "Willie the Pimp". Verdict: An iconic fusion album featuring all lot of the best (and a bit of the worst) of both rock and jazz. Thank goodness it's almost entirely instrumental. Listen Again? Most likely. I can imagine a future where I try to make my way through the dozen or so Zappa albums I have left and just spin this instead.

Heard Before? Only the title track. Notes: - these beats are fantastic. the drums are dusty, the bass is funky, there's (for the era) lots of variety between tracks, and the beat switches, drops and modulates enough to keep things moving and interesting. - his flow is fine, if dated, and he at least attempts some different styles. - i don't know how to describe the lyrics except as a goldmine of unintentional comedy. whatever he's going for comes off, most of the time, as the complete opposite. hilarious as that can be, i just end up feeling bad for him. did people ever take this seriously? for real? - but i should give Todd some credit, because the one posse cut is truly awful. he's at least better than his crew. Verdict: Cheesy rat indeed, but with sick beats. Listen Again? Nope.

Heard Before? Only "Child in Time". Notes: - rock organ is one of my favorite instruments, so I was instantly sold on that. - this album's reputation as the heaviest thing going in 1970 rings true, especially on something like "Into the Fire". - once things get underway, there isn't much in the way of surprises, but there is just enough variety to hold my interest. - lyrics are perfectly ignorable. - the mix matches the performances perfectly, with all the instruments just distinct enough, but still blending as things get heavy. vocals are half-buried, which is ideal. Verdict: Organ-heavy hard rock wankery. If you have long gray hair and a leather vest, this is the perfect soundtrack to thinking about your glory days. Listen Again? Probably not, but I'm very glad that I heard it. I'm fine listening to something once out of curiosity - that's how I can make my way through this list.

Heard Before? Yes, borrowed from my uncle during my blues phase when I was twelve. Notes: - did you know they are from Texas? - why is the bass so loud? i don't know but i don't mind. - simple, clear arrangements showcase the weak, derivative vocals. - more range than i expected. contains every kind of song that one could reasonably expect to hear in a 70s biker bar. - I'm clearly not the target audience for this. I've never drank beer or raised hell (mostly read books and made music). - "Master of Sparks" jumps out at me for it's story and the ghostly guitar line during the verse. Verdict: Great soundtrack for polishing one's Honda Gold Wing. Listen Again: No, but it was amusing enough this time.

Heard Before? Yes. Notes: - I have a soft spot for the Abba formula. Pop structures with midtempo disco rhythm section, bombastic piano and group vocals? Sure! - maybe I'm just old now, but I appreciate the grown-up themes of the songs. truly adult contemporary. - I didn't remember "Tiger" and it amused me greatly. Verdict: Consistent, dependable, well-crafted. More like furniture than music. Listen Again? I'm not sure anyone on earth needs more than Abba Gold.

Heard Before? Yup. Notes: - front-runner for "Most Ironic Album Title" - forgot what a snooze this is. - there are certainly some interesting ideas, but you can see them coming from a mile away and then they get driven into the ground. Verdict: This dead horse has been flogged enough. Listen Again? Obviously not, but it did give me a desire to listen to actually exciting electronic releases from the same year. Iaora Tahiti, here I come.

Heard Before? Only "Tiny Dancer" and, oddly enough, "Rotten Peaches". I know the greatest hits album, but I've always been too snobby to really dive in. Notes: - I'm not always a lyrics person, so my first impression was that every song is too long and wordy, except the charming and mandolin-featuring "Holiday Inn". - but on my second listen, I was with my partner, who danced and sang along to every song. this greatly increased my appreciation. although we both agreed that "Indian Sunset" is a must-skip for obvious reasons. - the mix is servicable, wisely foregrounding the vocals and compressing the orchestra far to the back. - arrangements are busy and often overcooked, but i can tolerate the gooey cheese. - the proggy title track is worth extra listens just to let it soak in. Verdict: Appropriately piano-heavy campy storytelling from the master of such things. Theatrical! Unlike many famous-for-one-hit records on this list, the deep cuts are worth it. Listen Again? Maybe I need to give Sir Elton a better chance.

Heard Before? Not at all. Notes: - hard for me to get past one of my least favorite production styles. too much compression, pointless reverb, everything too loud all the time. almost completely lacking in dynamics, and everything is midrange. - arrangements are similarly unrestrained, in the sense that everyone needs to play all the time, while seemingly not listening to each other. - the songs seem not to have been written but to barely coalesce, while still not sounding like a proper jam. could be the near-complete absence of hooks. repeating the same stupid non-melodic line twenty times ("i want to die alone in bed") doesn't count. - the endless caterwauling of the whinging man-child vocals also repels me. - at least all the performances are spot on and committed. they all truly believe in this music, even if i don't. - and yes, it's 1995, so every song and the album as a whole is waaaaaay too long. - but wait? what's this? did i actually enjoy "Life's An Ocean"? I think I did! Hard grooves, use of space, an actual verse melody, fabulous bassline. - "Reprise", while completely unnecessary, makes a virtue out of its meandering. No vocals really helps. Verdict: Marvelously competent lads grooving away in a hall of mirrors. Must be great to be them. For me I was mostly waiting for it to get interesting, and then just waiting for it to end, and then I was suddenly somewhat invested. Listen Again? Lord save us all, but I did queue up "Life's an Ocean" for later. We will see how it fares out of context.

About the List: To me, the whole point is to expand one's musical worldview. It NEEDS a two-albums-per-artist limit. Sorry, Dylan fans, but it's true. Heard Before? Yes, but I wasn't paying close attention. Notes: - as with most Dylan albums, the mix is atrocious. thin, trebly, too many instruments given too little space in the back of the mix, while the harmonica cuts swathes of destruction in front. - but of course this is a lyrics album. song structure gets subsumed beneath the desire to get all the words in. for poetry, there's very little compression of thought. - even with these severe limitations, there is brilliance here that rewards close listening. although i personally find it difficult or even exhausting to pay close attention when the instrumentals are so secondary. - "I Want You" is a pop gem which left me very much wanting more of the same. Verdict: A goldmine for people who care about what Dylan has to say and don't mind nodding along to the ho-hum ebb-and-flow tunes for an hour. Listen Again? Meh. I'm really happy to hear all these Dylan songs once, but I prefer music with more going on musically.

Heard Before? Only "All Good People". Notes: - the mix is pristine, exactly suited to the material. - arrangements are excellent, and the solos don't go on for too long. - vocals are quite lovely, and mostly stay out of the way. lyrics are forgettable, which is a good thing in prog. - I'm a synth fan, so I would prefer to hear a bit more keyboard. Lucky for me, Rick Wakeman steps in to remedy this on later albums. - not earth-shattering, but a pleasant and interesting warm-up for Fragile and Close to the Edge. Verdict: Prog at its most light and fun. Listen Again? Saved the opener for later.

Heard Before? Yes. Notes: - in my memory this was the "dance-pop Bjork", but there's certainly variety here, and very little of either of those things. - I've listened to her whole catalog, and the critics are correct: she can't write a vocal melody. but for the most part the idiosyncratic vocals work for me. - the lyrics are well-considered if you want to pay attention. i mostly don't. - songs are adequately constructed, enough to make the fantastic arrangements shine. - so why do I love Bjork? her ears, mostly. album after album she successfully explores a wide range of interesting ideas, with an ever fascinating and expanding range of sounds. - horns, harp, vibraphone, piano, hand drums, synths, drum machines and so much more. all these get used in ways that pushed the envelope for the time and still capture my interest. Verdict: I think it fails as pop or dance music, and it's too demanding to play in the background. But this sound world is still worth some deep listening. Listen Again? Entirely possible. I haven't given up on Bjork yet. I would put Homogenic on this list instead.

Heard Before? Too many times. When it came out I was working at a coffee shop with my best friend and he would play it constantly. Notes: - I understand why this is their most popular album, but it still sounds to me like a re-tread of The Soft Bulletin with weaker songs. - the mix is glorious and the arrangements are fantastic. so many cool sounds and ideas, although most songs are too long. anything with a chorus gets repeated too many times. - more slower songs than I remembered. - the crowd noise motif irritates me. - i could happily listen to just the drum tracks from the whole album. Verdict: The Lips at their most gorgeously overproduced and poppy. It's faux-naive stargazing music for people who don't want to grow up. Listen Again? Probably not, although it was fun to hear again after so many years. I will, however, put on the rawer, weirder and more exciting Embryonic right now.

Heard Before? Finally, a real surprise from the list! Completely unfamiliar. Notes: - instantly sounds like it was released exactly ten years too late. - dirty, claustrophobic, buried-vocals mix perfectly suits this kind of noise and aggression. bass tone is monstrous and the drums are a blur of cymbals. i love it. - songwriting just isn't there. I'm not necessarily asking for pop structure, but some hooks would be nice, or a dive into mathy complexity. instead we get an endless barrage of forgettable riffs. - i was expecting the surprisingly enjoyable nine-minute "Getting Bright at Night" to close the album, but it just keeps going after that for no discernible reason. - there's a sax solo somewhere, and a noise coda on "Seasick" that mixed things up a bit, but too little too late for me. Verdict: If your two favorite ever songs are "White Heat White Light" and "Raw Power", this is your album. Listen Again: Probably not. I gave it a good twice over today, but I know too many similar-but-better albums.

Heard Before? Too many times. At first I resisted it, then it became my favorite album of the 90s, now I never need to hear it again. Notes: - while Beck is certainly in top form here as a songwriter, vocalist and lyricist, make no mistake - this is a Dust Brothers album, and their finest moment. - from start to finish, a glory box of exciting sounds, quotable nonsense and genre-mashing. - the Deluxe Edition is completely unnecessary, but worth hearing once if only to look behind the curtain. Verdict: "Silver foxes lookin for romance / in the chain smoke Kansas flash dance ass pants" Listen Again? I'll need another long break, but yes.

Heard Before? Only "Me and Bobby McGee" Notes: - I lost interest in classic rock a long time ago, so this list can be irritating to slog through. However, it has also led me to gems like this. - perfect sequencing, which to me is an underrated art. - i get tired of song after song about toxic hetero relationships, but it comes with the territory. - the band is on fire, so much so that it doesn't bother me that he arrangements are crowded and the mix is a bit muddy. - especially enjoy the piano/organ interplay. "Woman Left Lonely" is gorgeous. - obviously this is a vocal showcase, and she delivers completely on every song. electrifying. Verdict: The songs have nothing much new or interesting to offer, but who cares with these stunning vocals, and the best kind of undiluted rock energy. Turn it up. Listen Again? I just might. It wasn't so much a surprise as a reminder of the power that this genre can still summon.

Heard Before? Duh. Seriously the biggest struggle I have with this list is separating the art itself from its cultural context, especially the dominant mainstream. Who on god's green earth wakes up in the morning and wants to hear this album yet again? Notes: - so pleasant that it hurts. it truly hurts. - song after song it features many musical elements i enjoy, bludgeoned into a bland paste and lacquered with a thousand layers of dull familiarity. ugh. Verdict: Of potential interest to twelve year olds and dudes who peaked at that age. Listen Again? I doubt the lord will be kind enough to spare me.

Heard Before? Many times when it came out, but not in the last 25 years. Notes: - many tricks are employed to make the best use of very limited vocal ability. i can relate. - maybe the most dynamic mainstream album of the 90s. - unlike most industrial acts, these songs are structured like rock songs, rather than dance music, and are so much the better for it. not only that but the songs mutate constantly, with no two verses ever sounding the same, and choruses that stretch and grow. lots of other cool sections, too, without ever sounding proggy or overcomposed. - production production production. he's the best sound designer of the whole industrial scene. synth patches and drum sounds are different on every song, there is shockingly creative use of samples, and a gear list that would make Hans Zimmer blush. the mix is deep, wide and wonderfully varied. wow. - the only production mistake is the use of shitty electric guitar tones, but all the great industrial acts made the same mistake around this time. - the biggest flaw by far, and it can't be overstated, is the lyrics. i get that he's playing an unsympathetic character, but i have zero interest in anything this character has to say. yuck. we just don't need another portrayal of permanent adolescent toxic masculinity, no matter how accurate. Verdict: I don't like this album at all, yet my admiration for it is boundless. Best leave it to the incel audio engineers. Listen Again? Maybe as a production study piece. It did remind me that I should give The Fragile another chance.

Heard Before? At this point I think we are all born having already heard this album. Notes: - before listening carefully this time around, i was intending to write that there is nothing wrong with this album except its odd cultural dominance. - instead i found plenty not to like. multiple vocalists is great, but here we have the umpteenth group to underuse their superior female singers. not a surprise, but still a disappointment. - "Don't Stop" is quite limp. there's no build, drive or variation, and those lame synth pads throughout really don't help. - "Songbird" is completely forgettable, a beige wallpaper ballad. "Oh Daddy" isn't far behind, despite the lovely vocals and terrific bassline. - too often, the arrangements are static and just plunk along. so much midtempo, midrange, undynamic porridge. it would be harder to notice, but the undercooked songs sit right beside the brilliant ones. - on the positive side, the drums and bass sound fantastic throughout. - "Dreams" and especially "The Chain" were two of my favorite songs of the 70s until i heard them ten thousand times. Verdict: Why at this point in history anyone decides to purchase and play this deliberately is beyond me. Listen Again? Ha! Not by choice, but i don't have much choice, do i?

Heard Before? Only "Buffalo Gals". Verdict: Ignore the name on the cover and all circumstances of the album's production and it becomes a fascinating relic of the early sampling era. Talk about plunderphonic, but the beat of Soweto is, in fact, indestructible. Listen Again? Unlikely, but I'm glad I finally heard the whole thing.

Heard Before? Nope. Notes: - one of the key reasons i started this project was to find new music. less than 200 albums in and I'm already leery of things I've never heard of, most of which are bland UK acts, often new wave. - typically i use this part of the review to make observations about various elements that jumped out on my first listen. but honestly I'm tired and nothing really stood out. - it's too long, but it gets weirder as it goes along, which is for me a good thing. "Reward" and "Strange House" actually held my attention. Verdict: Pretty much for UK new wave completists only. Listen Again? I'll give it another try to hear what I missed the first time around, but I can't see seriously returning to this over the many other new wave albums I enjoy.

Heard Before? Yes indeed. I was after all alive during the 90s. Notes: - typical list-fodder. universally acclaimed and overplayed. but does it interest me? - midtempo, midrange, not very dynamic. - the lyrics sound meaningful, but i didn't bother paying attention. - subtlety is the main theme here. slight variations in mixing, arrangements and songwriting, along with some masterful sequencing, keep things moving along quite nicely. i really appreciate how the ebb and flow of instrumentation props up what are very simple songs. - for me "ignoreland" is the strongest and most interesting song, while "star me kitten" is the only real dud. - a second listen revealed lots more fascinating subtleties, especially in the drum and keyboard parts. truly stellar production. still don't really care about the lyrics. Verdict: This strikes me as "mature" music, for better and worse. Much to admire, little for me to love. Listen Again? I'm only getting older, maybe it will appeal more later.

Heard Before? Not since it came out. Notes: - Kanye from the before-times. what a producer. and also Dilla?! the beats are varied, bright, beautiful and exciting. can this please be an instrumental album? - honestly i remember Common being a better rapper. his flow is fine, but the rhymes can be awkward and his lyrics too often oscillate between forgettable and embarrassing. - "The Corner" brings me back to why I love rap in the first place, but then "Go!" leaves me itching for the skip button. Verdict: Fabulous sounds paired with occasionally clever raps I can live without. Listen Again? Nope.

Heard Before? Once, a long time ago, when i was working through his whole discography. Notes: - i can't think of an artist i respect more yet listen to less than Cohen. maybe it's the minimal (and often cheesy) arrangements, or the lack of vocal ability. as I've said about Dylan, i prefer my music with more going on musically. - at the same time, Cohen wrote a number of my all time favorite songs (The Future, Tower of Song, You Want it Darker, Bird on a Wire, etc). - of course, not every song hits that level of genius. lots of them are either a moderately clever mashup of faux-transgressive religion/sex/death musings or a dark and difficult story darkly and obtusely told. - "Diamonds in the Mine" is actually awful, borderline unlistenable. I love it. - as for the other tracks, they need more listens than I'm willing to give them just at this moment. too bad, honestly. it's part of a larger problem with this list - any album worth five stars is going to benefit from and perhaps even require serious listening, spread over a few days. I'm starting to think that listening to a new album every day for three years is teaching me less than i thought it would, or at least isn't the best way to approach the best albums on the list. Verdict: Poetry fans rejoice. Everyone else, be patient. Listen Again? Probably!

Heard Before? Several times. I've gone through more than one prog phase. Notes: - the lyrics are always cheesy (sometimes outright awful) and the concept is stupid. so what? - what does bother me is the try-hardy vocals which utterly fail to sound heavy and edgy. much better on the acoustic songs. - I'm in the minority surely, but i could go for less vocals overall, and maybe more piano or organ. or other winds? - all the flute parts remain a highlight, even the extended solos. - that said, the focus here is on the songs themselves and not on wanky solos for their own sake, which i very much appreciate. - sequencing is wonderful and the album really hangs together as a whole, getting more cohesive with every listen. - i adore how these songs are structured. yes i want to take notes and analyze, but at the same time they are still fun and exciting. it never feels academic or overcooked. Verdict: The proggiest prog, with lots of folk influence and a ridiculous but ignorable story. I love it almost as much as Harmonium's "Les Cinq Saisons". Listen Again? Next time I feel the prog urge, certainly.

NOTE ABOUT THE LIST: I know it's pointless, but here I am once again advocating for a two-albums-per-artist limit. Yes, Bowie fans, your precious David is preventing us (and you!) from expanding our musical horizons. Heard Before? not at all, despite several attempts to get in Bowie over the years. Notes: - I appreciate the tribute to Nina Simone. it's certainly well-sung and a nice change of pace to have a well-written song with decent vocal melodies. at the same time, it doesn't touch her version. - the title track has parts i enjoy, but all of them go on too long, and the awkward melodies are awkwardly sung. it's bad when the auxiliary percussion and electronic noise are the most exciting parts. - "Stay" is fun, full-bore disco although why anyone thinks these vocals work is a mystery to me. - i can appreciate every song. i get what's going on. but i kept feeling like it was just about to get really good and it never did. - seriously, are these vocals post-ironic? Verdict: More Bowie, more persona, long songs, no reason to care. At least it was better than the atrocious and endless "Young Americans". Listen Again? Nope. I still find myself wishing i liked Bowie. I would have so much more to talk about with people.