1001 Albums Summary

Listening statistics & highlights

38
Albums Rated
2.95
Average Rating
3%
Complete
1051 albums remaining

Rating Distribution

Rating Timeline

Taste Profile

1970
Favorite Decade
Soul
Favorite Genre
UK
Top Origin
Critic
Rater Style ?
1
5-Star Albums
4
1-Star Albums

Breakdown

By Genre

Top Styles

By Decade

By Origin

Albums

You Love More Than Most

AlbumYouGlobalDiff
The New Tango
Astor Piazzolla
4 2.88 +1.12

You Love Less Than Most

AlbumYouGlobalDiff
Rum Sodomy & The Lash
The Pogues
1 3.25 -2.25
Le Tigre
Le Tigre
1 3.14 -2.14
Spiderland
Slint
1 2.97 -1.97
Kenza
Khaled
1 2.59 -1.59
1999
Prince
2 3.59 -1.59
Achtung Baby
U2
2 3.3 -1.3
B-52's
The B-52's
2 3.3 -1.3
Mama's Gun
Erykah Badu
2 3.25 -1.25
Fetch The Bolt Cutters
Fiona Apple
2 3.2 -1.2

5-Star Albums (1)

View Album Wall

Popular Reviews

Khaled · 2 likes
1/5
Kenza is the exact soundtrack that starts playing the second you step into a questionable phone shop or climb into a Pakistani uncle’s taxi at 2 a.m. that hypnotic, ultra-polished, zero-personality oriental raï-pop that’s been scientifically engineered to make you scroll TikTok faster while smelling shawarma. It’s basically like if George Michael from the 90s had been born African, kept the mustache for life, and decided to drop raï bangers instead of soul-pop ballads. Same seductive driver pose next to the car, same “I’ve seen things” vibe, just swap the London minicab for a tuktuk and some oriental synths. However, production is clean, mix is good and master is crisp. That I can appreciate (at least it doesn’t sound like it was recorded inside a washing machine). 2/10
The Who · 2 likes
4/5
My first listen to Who’s Next left me oddly cold. I understood its reputation, but it didn’t immediately feel like the untouchable classic it’s often described as. On a second listen, however, the album revealed itself more clearly, not as a flawless masterpiece, but as a record with very high peaks and noticeable structural issues. The opening is almost unfairly strong. “Baba O’Riley” isn’t just a great song; it’s a statement. The iconic synth loop, the slow emotional build, and the explosive release make it one of the most powerful album openers in rock history (shoutout to all the House M.D. fans who can’t hear it without thinking of that final scene). The problem is that this level of impact sets expectations the album struggles to maintain. For the next four tracks, Who’s Next enters a stretch that is perfectly competent but largely unremarkable. The songs are well-played, well-produced, and structurally sound, yet they lack distinctive hooks or moments that truly stick. They function more as solid filler than essential statements, which is especially disappointing given how strong the album begins. Nothing here is actively bad, but very little demands to be remembered. This exposes the album’s main weakness: pacing. Who’s Next often relies on sheer power and texture rather than consistently strong songwriting. When the band is inspired, the results are massive and emotionally direct. When they aren’t, the record coasts on volume, attitude, and reputation. The midsection, in particular, tends to blur together, creating a sense of imbalance between legendary highs and merely decent album cuts. For this listen, I played the Steve Hoffman CD master (MCAD-37217), and it deserves specific praise. It’s an excellent mastering job, easily one of the best masters I’ve heard. The dynamics are intact, the instrumental layers are clearly separated, and the album breathes in a way that modern remasters often flatten. The clarity and depth of this version significantly enhance the experience, even when the material itself isn’t at its strongest. In the end, Who’s Next did grow on me. Out of its nine tracks, five genuinely worked for me, while four landed firmly in “meh” territory. And since an album has to be judged as a whole, I can’t justify giving it more than an 8/10 (and even that feels quite generous given its inconsistency).
Slint · 2 likes
1/5
Spiderland is the biggest piece of dogshit I’ve ever listened to, and I say that with full awareness that actual effort went into it. Someone had to think these ideas. Someone had to rehearse them. Someone had to record, mix, master, and at no point did anyone say, “Maybe this doesn’t need to exist.” For that alone, I can't grade it a 0/10. Musically, this album sounds like a band actively trying to remove pleasure from rock music. The guitars creep around like they’re afraid of being noticed, the bass sulks, and the drums show up only to remind you that time is passing and you are not enjoying it. The vocals are half-spoken, half-muttered, as if the singer is embarrassed to be heard but insists on talking anyway. Nothing resolves. Nothing satisfies. Every song feels like it’s building toward something and then decides not to, out of spite. It’s tense, awkward, and emotionally cold, like being trapped in a conversation with someone who insists this is “about the atmosphere.” And yet, here’s the annoying part, I didn’t completely hate the experience. Not because it’s good, but because it’s committed. Spiderland believes in its own misery with absolute sincerity. It’s not accidental garbage; it’s carefully constructed, intentional discomfort. You can hear the thought, the labor, the decisions, even if all those decisions led directly to boredom and irritation. So no, this is not a masterpiece. It’s not genius. It’s not even enjoyable. But it is the result of people working hard to make something this unwelcoming, and I respect the effort more than the outcome. 3/10. I won’t recommend it. I won’t defend it. But I acknowledge that someone suffered to make me suffer, and I respect that.
U2 · 1 likes
2/5
I went into Achtung Baby knowing it’s supposed to be that U2 album. You know, the bold reinvention, the artistic leap, the one critics keep bringing up like it personally changed their lives. Unfortunately, I didn’t make it to the end. Not because it’s bad, nothing here is offensively awful, but because it’s painfully, relentlessly uniform. Track after track blends into a grey musical smoothie. The songs just… exist. They pass by politely, shake your hand, and leave absolutely no memory behind. The obvious exception is “One”, which is genuinely great and fully deserves its legendary status. It’s emotional, well-written, and actually feels alive. Sadly, once that song ends, the album goes right back to sounding like Bono is singing from inside a fog machine. Production-wise, the whole thing has a very lo-fi, murky feel that becomes tiring fast. It’s not raw in a cool way, it’s more like listening through a slightly broken speaker. I listened to the original 1991 CD (314-510 347-2), and the master itself is fine but completely unremarkable; because the sound is already so lo-fi, it barely feels any different from today’s ultra-compressed streaming or modern CD versions. I wouldn’t even put this on as background music while studying, because I’d either get bored or slowly fall asleep on my notes. So yeah, I can’t fail it. There’s nothing terrible here, no musical crimes committed. But there’s also nothing that makes me want to come back, either. Competent, historic, and deeply unexciting. 5/10 Not bad enough to hate. Not good enough to finish.
Pink Floyd · 1 likes
5/5
The Dark Side of the Moon is not merely an album, it is an experience, a meticulously constructed journey through the anxieties, contradictions, and quiet terrors of the human condition. This is not the first time I listen to it, and that fact only reinforces its greatness. Even after multiple listens, it refuses to fade into familiarity. Instead, it deepens. Every return reveals new emotional textures, subtle details, and lyrical resonances that feel as relevant today as they did in 1973. What makes this album extraordinary is its cohesion. The lyrics explore time, mortality, greed, madness, and alienation with a clarity that is both intimate and universal. Musically, it is flawless in its restraint: nothing is excessive, nothing is accidental. The production is pristine, yet never cold. Synths breathe, guitars ache, and the rhythm section moves with a hypnotic patience that pulls the listener forward whether they intend to follow or not. Even the simplest interludes, heartbeat pulses, cash registers, snippets of human speech, carry weight. They are not filler; they are connective tissue. These moments give the album its cinematic flow and emotional continuity, proving that depth does not require complexity, only intention. Few albums can make silence, space, and repetition feel this profound. At times, the music doesn’t just sound good, it sends chills down your spine. Criticism of The Dark Side of the Moon often says more about the listener than the record. Those who dismiss it as boring or overrated usually approach it with the attention span of a goldfish scrolling TikTok at 2x speed. This is not an album designed for passive consumption or shuffled playlists. It demands focus. It asks to be heard from beginning to end, as a complete conceptual work. Judging The Dark Side of the Moon as a loose collection of individual songs misses the point entirely. If taken apart and evaluated track by track, it might lose some of its magic, but that’s like judging a film by watching random scenes out of order. Its true power lies in its continuity, in how each piece feeds into the next. As a unified whole, it is greater than the sum of its parts. In the landscape of modern music history, The Dark Side of the Moon stands as one of the finest albums ever created. Not because it tries to impress, but because it understands exactly what it wants to say, and says it with haunting precision. I listened to the "MFQR 1-017" Ultra High Quality Record pressing release by MFSL, and in my opinion it is a marvel, quite possibly the best master and pressing of this album. 9.5/10

1-Star Albums (4)

All Ratings

Critic

Average rating: 2.95 (0.42 below global average).