1001 Albums Summary

Solid B+; holds up pretty well; sounded very MODERN (and fresh), when it came out; 1st 3 songs very strong; song 1 (Good Times Roll) was the "class song" for my graduating class, in my senior year (1979-80); song 3 was a song that I remember my college friends and I talked about performing together (we never did, but I still think of that when I hear it, and take a stab at singing it); #4 less substantial (but ok, for an album); by around songs 5 & 6, I'm starting to wonder: do the songs start to sound kind of the same, after a while? I guess you could say that The Cars had a sound, *their* sound, and it was a pretty darn good sound, very much OF their time, but also at the cutting edge of their time; #7 is good; #8 is the "deep cut" that wasn't a hit, but I remember that some of my friends liked it a lot (I like it, too) - kinda trippy, and catchy, too; #9 is similar to #8, in being maybe a little deeper (less obviously a catchy pop hit song); together, 8 and 9 help to make the album a stronger ALBUM, and not just a string of catchy (but maybe a little lightweight) pop songs.

I've known about Kraftwerk for a long time (I think I remember JB - John Buchanan - who led a band at Notre Dame when we were there, and later played with the Soul Searchers and Chuck Brown in DC, saying, maybe in the later 80s, that Kraftwerk were cool) but, for whatever reason, haven't paid them a lot of attention, or been particularly drawn to them. I think they probably had an influence on many kinds of music, like, House, techno, and hip-hop. I do own 1 Kraftwerk CD (Trans-Euro Express), but am not familiar with this one. I did recognize "Neon Lights," though, because it was covered by a Georgia alternative band from the 80s that I like, Love Tractor (I think it was a minor hit for them). I would probably rate this one about the same as The Cars album (and, I'm guessing, a lot of the 1001 albums, lol), as a solid B+, which I guess will translate to 4 stars.

This is a difficult one to rate, for a couple of reasons: 1) it's in my DNA, since my parents bought it not long after it came out (late 1968), so I've been hearing these songs most of my life, and 2) there are so many songs, which run the gamut from great to filler. It's tempting to say that it would easily be 5 stars if they'd left a few off, although I'll admit that, as I look over the tracks, there aren't as many as I'd thought there'd be, of tracks that for sure I would have left off. So, I guess, I'm gonna go with a hesitant, almost reluctant, 5 stars, *even though* it's a messy, flawed, all-over-the-place album. But, I suspect, that was sort of the point.

Another difficult one to rate. I want to like this one more, because I've always been a fan of War, and I like their music. The (original) album, though (which I think is what we're rating), is just 6 songs, including 3 longer ones. Maybe if I listened a second time, I'd like it more? But still, it's not like I don't like it - on the contrary. I was gonna give it a 3.5, but then I realize that's less than I gave Cars and Kraftwerk, and in some ways I like this better than both of those (LOL). *Sigh* - I give it 4 stars (and kind of wish I could change Cars, at least, to 3.5).

Oh, man, this is so hard to rate! Before I started listening, I was thinking it could be 5 stars - but I'd forgotten how steeply it falls off, after the 1st 3 or 4. But: I sooooo love those first 3 (4?) songs! #4, Rock Lobster, is the beginning of my complicated relationship with this group, and this album (and that song, specifically), because, I guess, I was put off by the singer's weird voice, and puzzled by the crazy, weird (but catchy!) song, and so, I guess, you could say, I wasn't ready for "Rock Lobster," when it, incredibly (how did this happen?!) became (only) a minor hit, ca. 1979-80 (#56, in the US - though in Canada, it made it to #1). I also just confirmed my suspicion that they played "Rock Lobster" on Sat. Night Live (Google says it was January 26, 1980 - during my Senior year of high school), which I'm sure played a big part in the whole Rock Lobster phenomenon -- I'm also pretty sure I remember being at a party later in 1980 (I didn't go to that many parties, so this stands out, lol), and people dancing the Rock Lobster to this song. But, yeah, the singer's voice (and the band's whole shtick) were so weird, and I wasn't sure what to make of the whole Rock Lobster phenomenon . . . so it wasn't until (a year or two?) later, when I was in college, that I discovered that the B-52s had other, even better, songs, and were part of an exciting "new wave" of music, which included others (e.g., Talking Heads, Elvis Costello) who I was initially puzzled by, but soon came to love. Anyway, apologies for kinda getting sidetracked, but . . . CONTEXT, I guess. So, anyway, NOW? Today? I love the B-52s, and I LOVE the 1st 3 (4? 5?) songs on this album, plus I have to give props to the B-52s for helping to usher in a new wave of freedom and fun and creativity into popular music, and so I think I have to give this (unofficially) 4.5, despite the relative weakness of tracks 6-9.

Funny, I was just wondering this morning (before I saw today's album) when we'd get an album that I wasn't familiar with, and here we are! Jumping right to ranking: this would be a 3.5, if I could, and it'll be almost a toss-up to choose between 3 and 4. It's interesting to listen to music sung in a language you're not fluent in (or don't know at all). I know some French, but mostly, unless I really focused, it was just vocals as another element of music and rhythm. And, at that level, it's pretty good. It's a weird combination of old and new (for me at least; maybe different for you 2, since it's from before you were born): old (35 years ago), and yet, at least for me, there was a time when this would have been very fresh and new and groovy, and it *still* has some of that, at least to my ears, partly because I haven't heard it before, but also because the music itself feels fresh. It has a good vibe, and I'd enjoy hearing it again, so I think for that reason I'll give it 4 stars.

Oh man, so many thoughts . . . . Here's one: this album epitomizes the debt we 3 owe to Mombo. She must have bought this album around when it was first released (May 1971, a year before we moved to Florida), because I'm pretty sure I remember listening to it in South Bend. Anyway, safe to say, probably a pretty small minority of white kids growing up in the 70s whose mother bought this album. Thanks, Mom (for ALL the music)! I remember listening to this in the 80s (probably 90s, too), and feeling like it had been forgotten, but in the past 20 or 25 years or so, I feel like I've been hearing it (the hits, at least) more often. I bet this is one of the highest rated albums (by all the people who rate it here, I mean -- not just us). 5 stars (though, if I had the option, I *might* rate it 4.5 - but maybe 5).

Gonna have to choose between 4 and 5, here (wish I could give it a 4.5). 4 feels too low, but 5 feels slightly dishonest since (if I'm honest) I prefer (and have always listened more often to) the other albums we had when I was growing up, "Life" and (especially) "Greatest Hits." But, still, c'mon: this is Sly; I gotta give 5 stars (4 stars definitely feels too low)! Maybe this will help me remember to continue listening to this album (and also to read Sly's biography, which I have but haven't yet read).

If I were grading this by Ray's scale (the idea, I think, being that we should have about 200 each of 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, and 5s), I'd probably give this one a 2, but, on my scale, I'll give it a 3. I've never been a huge Bowie fan, but most of his stuff is solid enough, and this album is pretty decent. 2 of the songs I already knew (Golden Years, TVC15). The rest, after 1 listen, good enough, maybe a little forgettable. Actually, if I could, I'd probably give this a 2.5, rather than a 3. A little boring, maybe? Curious to know what you guys think.

I don't think I've ever heard the full album, though I do seem to recall hearing/reading that this was one of his better solo albums; I'm familiar with 3 of the 11 songs (Vicious; Walk/Wild Side; Satellite). I think I'll give this one 4 stars, which is higher than I expected. I've long liked The Velvet Underground, but always sort of shied away from Lou Reed's solo work, partly because of his ("singing") voice, but also maybe a little because he seemed kind of . . . dark and scary. I think, in a small way, he colored how I thought about New York City, when I lived there (1983-87); he seemed like a quintessential New Yorker. My first exposure to Lou Reed, I think, was hearing "Walk on the Wild Side" on the radio (released November 1972, a few months after we moved to Jacksonville); I think even my 10-year-old self was a little surprised that it was played on the radio, but the song was (and is) undeniably cool and catchy. So, regarding the other 8 songs (that were not familiar to me - although 1 or 2 of them did sound a little familiar), I'd again say: a bit better than I expected, with an impressive variety of styles, and a good overall sound. And the singing voice, while slightly off-putting, wasn't really a big problem. So, yeah, not a 5 (for me, anyway - though I'm sure it is for a lot of people), but not a 3, either, so 4 it is (for me). P.S. After listening a second time to the songs I didn't know previously, I liked them overall maybe slightly less, so would probaby go for 3.5, if that were an option, but still choose a 4 over a 3.

What can you say about Tom Waits, other than the obvious he's one of a kind, sui generis, in a category of one. And maybe: you either love him or hate him (or, possibly: you have to be in the mood - love him one day, hate him the next). All I can say is I'm glad he exists, and has persisted (for decades, now), and, although it took me a little while to get there, I've been a fan of his for quite a while now. Since he IS in a category of one, arguably, it's difficult to rate him: he's only competing with himself. But, anyway, I'll give it 4 stars. lol

The 2 songs I already knew, "Bang a Gong" and "Jeepster" are GREAT, and I'd picked up references, over the years, to this album being great, too, and very influential on "glam" rock (and beyond), so I was prepared to be . . . blown away (?) . . . but, unfortunately, I wasn't. None of the other 9 songs really grabbed me, at least on first listen (but I wasn't inspired to listen again). I'd probably do 3.5 (7 out of 10), but I think I'll have to go with 3, based on the relative weakness (at least on first listen) to the other 9 songs. But those 2 songs are still GREAT, and I'm always glad to hear them on the radio :)

Weird to think that this album is (slightly) older than you guys. Curious to know whether either of you were already familiar with it (and also what you make of it). When it came out, it was BIG, especially in the Chicago area, since it was at the forefront of the 90s Wicker Park scene, when Wicker Park was the epicenter of coolness (or at least thought it was, lol) - a lot of indie music came out of there (or with connections there) then, and achieved a fair amount of success, probably not matched since, in the Chicago area. Before I forget, I just noticed that the video for "Never Said" (track 5) was filmed at the Garfield Park Conservatory. Trying to think of which of the 19 (!) tracks stands out, I'd probably (without thinking about it too much) choose that track, plus Fuck and Run, and Stratford-on-Guy. Feels more difficult than usual to rate this one, but I guess I'll choose 4 (rather than 3). Not something I'd choose to listen to a lot, but every once in a long while it's just the thing -- but maybe this is partly (and this wouldn't apply to you two) as a landmark of a certain time in my life. Also, though, I think the album has an impressive overall cohesiveness; the flip side of this, I suppose, is that (you could argue that) after a while, the songs start to sort of sound the same, and blur together. Still, I'm sticking with 4 stars, for an album that's a good way to spend an hour (every once in a while), plus, for me, a milepost from a certain time in my life, just before my sons came along :)

God bless Paul Simon; what a blessing his music is! That said, I'm struggling between 4 and 5 stars, for this one (even though it's an obvious classic). I think my primary struggle isn't really the album's fault, and so should be discounted/discarded: I heard these songs so much, in the first few years after the album came out, that they've lost a tiny bit of their impact for me, maybe? The other strike against it, and it's very minor, is that a couple of songs toward the end of the album (track 9, plus the last track, track 11) struck me as (relative to the rest of the album) lesser songs. Still, the rest of the album is so great, and still (40 years later!) sounds amazing, so I think I have to give this one 5 stars.

It's between 3 and 4 stars on this one, and I feel a little bad about this, but I think I'll give it 3. This brings to mind another general question about the ratings we're giving here: is it just how much we like it, or, in a broader sense (not just for us, but for everyone), how "good" we think it is. I guess maybe a mix of the 2, but with an edge to the former? Anyway, ELVIS. Yeah, it's complicated (for me, anyway). I think I picked up some of Mombo's . . . disdain (?) for Elvis, probably most of all because so much of his success was from covering songs that were originally done by black singers. Over time, as an adult, I've come to like/appreciate (but not love) Elvis. I was glad for an opportunity to hear this album, in particular, as it's mostly new to me, but I've long heard/known about it. The only songs I knew before (I think) are "In the Ghetto," and "Gentle on My Mind" (but that song I knew the Glen Campbell original, which I think I prefer). Might be interesting to ask Granddad about his take on Elvis: Elvis was most successful in the mid/late 1950s, when Mombo and Granddad were teenagers. In the 60s, he was overshadowed by The Beatles (and many others), but this album was part of his late-60s "comeback." (He died prematurely in 1977, at age 42.) Pretty good stuff, and tempting to give it a 4, but I'll stick with 3.

We're almost up to when you guys were born, lol. But, unfortunately (for me, anyway): pompous/pretentious, stressful/histrionic, unmusical/untuneful noise; no, thanks! Music by people who love theater (but not music)? I listened, dutifully (but with increasing dread) to all 12 tracks. I didn't like (hated, basically) all of them. It's difficult (impossible?) for me to like a band when I don't like the singer. And I don't like this "singer." Won't be (voluntarily) listening to any of this again. 1 star.

Most people only know this band (if they know them at all) for "Come on Eileen," which was on their *2nd* album, but this is their 1st album. For me, it's a little like Sly's "There's a Riot Going On" -- I've had the album for a long time, and this is a reminder that I should have been listening to it more (and should do so in the days ahead). This one is definitely between 4 and 5, and if 4.5 were an option, there's a good chance I'd go with that, but I guess I'll go (a little reluctantly) with 4 stars (again making me wish I could maybe lower a few of my early 4 stars ratings). The singer's voice is, umm, a bit *different*, but somehow, for me at least, it's not too offputting -- even, sort of, becomes part of what makes this band unique. Not sure exactly why that is, as weird (which often lies close to untuneful - if that's a word) voices often are offputting for me. Anyway, I'm pleasantly surprised to even see this album here in this list (although 1001 is indeed a lot of albums). Bonus points for a few of those song titles? (But 4 stars based on the songs alone.)

Who knows what I would have given this, if I hadn't heard half of these songs 1,000 times each, but, anyway, I'm gonna give it 3 stars, perhaps deducting a little for taking up too much of my music listening time. ;) Also, for Robert Plant's voice, which I used to hate, and still don't love. And also for stealing from blues guys (similar to Elvis). One of my all-time favorite blues songs is "Killing Floor," by Howlin Wolf, featuring the great Hubert Sumlin playing some killer guitar. "The Lemon Song" is lifted directly from this (but nowhere near as good). Two other songs are at least partially credited to the great blues musician and songwriter, Willie Dixon. Also, the lesser-known songs on this album are pretty mediocre.

5 stars. Don't even need to listen. Biggest albums for me (thx to Mombo & Granddad) as a kid were probably this, Sgt. Pepper, and Sly/Family Stone's Greatest Hits. But I will listen. I love these songs. They're in my DNA. And they exist as a cohesive unit in my mind and heart. 5.5 stars ;)

Not really my cup of tea. Track 9, in particular: who needs that? (lol) So, between a 2 and a 3 for me, and I guess I lean slightly toward 2. (As an aside, I like band member Lou Barlow's spin-off band, Sebadoh, somewhat better.) Trying to think of something else to say about this one. Was kind of a fresh sound, I guess, at the time. If they'd had a better Track 9, might have been a 3, but, as is, I'm sticking with a 2.

When this album first popped up, I was excited: Ray Charles! R&B deluxe! Eh . . . not so much. This is slick, formulaic, and schmaltzy. Ray's voice is still great, so I guess I'll give it 3 stars just for that. Maybe this is a generational thing: this seems like music for my grandparents' generation, but, to me, just slick, predictable, and not very exciting or interesting.

Another slick from one - from a more recent era, but sounds pretty dated to me, at this point (although I wouldn't have liked it in the 90s, either). It's almost as if AI had tried to make 90s pop music, it might have come up with something like this? I feel like I'm hearing echoes of bits and pieces of other things, but not adding up to much of anything. Doesn't belong in this list. 1.

5 stars. Great ALL the way through. "Living for the City" and, especially, "Higher Ground" have (unfairly) lost (for me) a *little* of their sheen, from having been played on the radio so much, especially in the early years. I think I love all 7 of the OTHER songs on the album even more than those 2 hits (actually, sorry, AI reminds me that "Don't You Worry Bout a Thing" was also a minor hit - but not as big as the other 2 hits, and I don't remember hearing it on the radio all that often). Anyway, back to the album: the first two tracks start off the album nicely with an introspective mood, and then the rest of the album just keeps laying down one great song after another. And, ok, you know, I HAVE to give loving salute here to my dear mother (Mombo), because she's why I know this album so well. She bought all of Stevie's great mid-'70s albums, and we heard them fairly often at our house, and came to know them and love them, thanks to her. So, thanks, Mom! :) Ok, I know I'm not saying a lot about the music itself. It's both complex and catchy; it holds up to MANY repeated listens, and gets better with time (like a fine wine, lol). The more you listen, the more you hear and appreciate Stevie's genius, the depth and variety and perfection, and the cumulative greatness of the songs on this album.

My life was not complete until I heard this album. And guess what - it's still not complete, cuz this album added nothing to my life. Ba-dum-bum! (which I just saw is apparently sometimes written ba-dum-tss! - which maybe makes better onomatopoetic sense). But, anyway, I guess on an *intellectual* level I can kind of appreciate what (maybe) they were going for here, I just don't have any interest in hearing this again. It's kind of like the old "Gong Show" on tv, where you'd kind of get the feeling that the really bad acts kind of *expected* - no, WANTED - to be gonged off the stage. Happy to oblige! Might (if it were an option) have given 'em 1.5 for, err, novelty and derring-do. But -- too bad! -- not an option: 1 star.

This music (that we get here every day) sure is all over the place, huh? This one makes me think of the recent Ray Charles (which I only gave 3 stars), but I'm inclined to give this one 4 stars, and not sure why the difference, exactly. I think because it doesn't feel quite so slick and formulaic? It's plenty *tight*, but it also really swings. This one and the Ray Charles came out around the same time (one 1958, one 1959), so both before my time, and at a time (though already fading a lot by then, I think) when people *danced* to music (often at live performances) more than they do today. I bet it was fun to dance to this music. Also, right now "Fantail" is playing (track 10 of 11), and that bass is really jamming :) - and then the sax, too. And now track 11, I realize, is familiar (it's a theme song for some program I hear on WDCB, I think), and it's killer, too. So, yeah, this is a solid 4 for me (and, if this is your jam, and you gave it a 5, I wouldn't argue with you). But, I guess, if it's not, and you gave it 3 stars, no argument there, either.

Wow, has it really been close to 20 years since this album came out? I remember, after having heard "White Winter Hymnal" (on the radio I guess, probably WXRT), and loving it, getting the CD from the library, and being somewhat disappointed in the album. I'm not sure why, exactly; possibly -- unfairly -- only because (after only listening once or twice) the other songs weren't as immediately great as WWH? And maybe a vague sense that the songs tended to sound kind of the same. I'm mean, no question, it's a great sound. But, I will say, listening to it again now (a couple of times), I liked the other 10 songs bit better than I remembered liking them/expected to like them. And, I think, I got more of a sense of variety, from song to song. So, maybe a little unfairly judged, the first time around. Anyway, now that I've listened to the whole album again (twice!), it's easier now to choose between a 3 and a 4, and give this album 4 stars, without hesitation. Curious to hear what you two have to say about it. One of the first albums we've listened to so far that's younger than you two.

Look at that photo - how can you not like those people? British (mostly Scottish, I think) hippies, late 60s, letting their freak flags fly freely. So, you know, I'm already disposed to like them. Which is handy (for them) since their singing is, um, not the most tuneful. (That's how you know they're folk singers, lol.) But not just folk - psychedelic folk; listen to all the groovy stuff going on, all of the exotic instruments (sitar, gimbri, hammered dulcimer, penny whistle, pan pipe, etc.). Because of when I was born, I'm probably overly inclined to think hippies were the coolest people ever, which might translate into me overrating this album. But I think I have to end on 4, because of the singing (and also, I think, the melodies themselves were, at times, sort of . . . meandering?). I think we're rating these albums based just on the music, but if we included things like influence on future acts, and strength of artistic concept and ambition, I might be slightly tempted to give them 5 stars. But, as it is, 4 stars, for me.

I listened to this once, about an hour ago, and should probably listen to it again, a little more carefully, but my motivation for doing so is not high. And that's sort of how I feel about Sonic Youth generally: not motivated to listen to them very often. I do have one of their albums (probably their best?), Daydream Nation (actually a double album), which came out in 1988, 2 years after EVOL. For me, once in a very long while, Daydream Nation is just the thing. They're good at what they do; it's just not something I'm particularly drawn to. After a second listen, I did like it probably a tiny bit better. Anyway, it's between a 3 and 4 for me. (Btw, this is another one where I'm curious to read what you guys think.) I think I have to go with a 3 - it's interesting, but hard for me to feel much enthusiasm for it, so, yeah, a 3.

Having a bit of trouble thinking of what to say about this, and also how to rate it. Short version: I think I'll go with 4 stars. Quality-wise, I wonder if it might have been better if he'd left off a few tracks? Although deciding which ones to leave off would take a few more listens, lol. Anyway, there's definitely a lot of good stuff here. And yet, I have to say, not that many songs that *really* grabbed me? Maybe would grow on me, if I listened a few more times? Once again, curious to know your thoughts!

Not really my cup of tea. Music for angry teenagers? But I wasn't a particularly angry teenager. And I wasn't a teenager for long. I'll give him a 2nd star for . . . commitment to his aesthetic? And maybe helping angry (or alienated or disillusioned) teenagers. I guess this (album a day) practice upon which we're embarked is maybe good for . . . exercising our music-listening muscles? Although I think (if I do say so myself) that the 3 of us were already doing pretty well in that regard, and have earned our right to have opinions and preferences. ;) So, yeah, 2 stars . . . and I won't be coming back. But, worth checking out: right near the end of his life, Johnny Cash did a cover of the last song on the album, "Hurt," which is worth listening to.

I really liked Calexico, when they first came on the scene (that's a dated phrase, isn't it?), about 25 years ago, or so. I had a few of their albums, back when I was buying too many CDs, but I didn't have this one (maybe because, by the time it came out, I'd already bought 2 or 3, lol?). Initial thoughts, after listening through one time: it's good, very likely a 4-star album, but maybe not quite as good as one of the ones I have ("The Black Light"). Another thought is that it seemed like maybe it got stronger, as it went on (although the first song is good). About the music: they were cool and exciting, because they were doing something nobody else was doing, and doing it well: combining a number of different elements, to create *their* sound, which was atmospheric, complex, and somehow seemed to evoke where they're from (Arizona/the Southwest). I've started a second listen, and I think I'm liking it a bit more this time, as I better appreciate the complexity, the details, the cohesion, the atmosphere, and the music. Easy 4 stars, but I don't think I can quite justify 5, although it's tempting.

I kind of slacked off today, and only listened through this album once. I actually own this CD, but probably haven't listened to it for years. I'd forgotten what an awesome song "The Seed 2.0" is (5 stars for that one, for sure!). One thing this exercise will do, I think/hope, is remind me of some of the great albums/CDs that I own, but have been neglecting, so that can go back to listen to them again. Anyway, to not fall behind with the albums we're listening to together, I think I have to give this one 4 stars, and call it a day. But I will try to listen again soon, and see if I can come up with some more comments. I wonder if it would have sounded more unique when it first came out than it does now? It does have a lot of variety (among the tracks on the album), though. And good overall quality. And, I think, a thoughtful sequencing of the tracks, too.

"Jesus Walks" is pretty cool, but, for me, there's a pretty steep drop-off, after that. I guess the words are kind of interesting as poetry/theater/story-telling, but musically a close call between 2 and 3 stars. But I'll raise it to 3 overall for "Jesus Walks" plus the words (and a few Chi-town shout-outs don't hurt, either, lol). The "Spirit" songs, btw build off a great (duh) Aretha Franklin song, "Spirit in the Dark" (which I'd rather listen to than anything on this album).

I'll admit I didn't love this album, listening to it, just now (didn't hate it -- just didn't love it). But The Ramones were very influential, probably THE American punk rock band. And they were definitely a New York band, and I think I came to like them more when I lived in New York (1983-87), and probably heard them more on the radio. Trivial side note: I actually saw iconic (tall, skinny, long hair) lead singer Joey Ramone in New York, one time (I think it was in the 90s, on a return visit); pretty sure he was going into the famous comics/graphic novels/toy shop, Forbidden Planet. But, musically, listening today, I'd be hard-pressed to give this more than 3 stars. If I included their influence, and how their music, coming out in the mid-70s, when popular music had taken a turn for the worse (and boring), was like a splash of cold water in the face, I'd probably give them 4 stars (at least). But, since I'm just rating how I like the music on this album today: 3 stars.

Classic soul; such a great sound! Producer/engineer Willie Mitchell is often given a lot of credit for the great sound on Al Green's classic albums. It's between a 4 and 5 for me; I'd probably do 4.5, if that were a choice (if only to avoid giving too many 5s), but I think this one has to be a 5, even though I guess I could have deducted for it being so short (about 34 minutes). Back in the day, though, albums tended to be around 20 minutes per side, so I guess this isn't all *that* short. Anyway, for me, it's a near-perfect album, so 5 stars it is. Worth it to glance at Wikipedia (preferably before listening) to get a full picture of the (fairly extensive) musical personnel involved to create a deceptively simple and pure groove and sound.

This is a weird one for me, since this I'm not familiar with this guy. The only other ones like that so far were MC Solaar and Liars (and Robbie Williams was just a name, same with Pulp, basically). Anyway, trying to place where this guy fits in, and not having much luck. His voice (and maybe his music) remind me a bit of country singer Jimmie Dale Gilmore and of M. Ward (who's also half of She & Him). Country singer? Folk singer? Crooner? And here's also where I come up against: is it (i.e., how I should judge the albums here) "how much do I like it," or "do I think he's done a good job at what he's doing (even if the music doesn't appeal to me)? But, in fact, it's not that I don't like it; maybe more that I wouldn't seek it out very often? But I'm glad for the discovery, and might come back occasionally. 4 stars. P.S. I intentionally didn't look up anything about him until after I wrote this; am curious now to look him up.

My mind is a little blown that this album is new to me. I think I tended to dismiss the Beach Boys as lightweight, when I was younger, but then I started picking up hints that Brian Wilson was a genius, Pet Sounds a masterpiece, etc., plus, as I told Ray recently, Fred had an 8-track tape (!) of the Beach Boys Greatest Hits when we roomed together at FSU, and I came to love those songs. But, somehow, despite periodically reassessing the Beach Boys in my adult life, I never had any awareness (to speak of - I guess the album cover looks a little familiar, lol) of this album, or that it could possibly end up in this (1001) list. Also interesting that it came out 3 months before Sly's "There's a Riot Goin On" (which, as Ray noted, could be a response to Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On"). Just to take that a step further: Those 3 albums all came out in 1971 (Gaye in May; Beach Boys in August; and Sly in November), which was (obviously) a time of great musical creativity, and also a response to the Kent State massacre (May 1970), and the Vietnam War (and the draft) more generally, as well as growing awareness that humans were harming the environment. It just occurs to me that this album might reflect the end of Brian Wilson's innocence (if you want to be . . . poetic? . . . about it): no more light-hearted songs about girls and surfing - or, more broadly, the end of his generation's innocence. Ok, well, I still need to rate this album, lol. That's difficult, but I think I'll go with 4 stars. Not a 5; not a 2; possibly a 3, but I think it deserves a 4 (or at least a 3.5). At the moment, I'm listening a 2nd time, and there's this amazing flute (!) in "Feel Flows," so, yeah, definitely a 4, and I'll probably want to come back to this again at some point.

I bought this album (used), I think when I was in college, mostly from a vague sense that Traffic were supposed to be a cool n groovy late 60s band (and I liked the song "Feelin Alright" pretty well, although Joe Cocker's version is better known - and better). But listening again now, I'm reminded that, while it was perfectly fine, it was kind of a disappointment, and didn't really grab me. I went to look at the (my) album, and realized/was reminded that I must have given it away when I moved here from the house on Ridgeland, when I gave away a number of my less-preferred albums to WLUW (and to make my albums all fit in the cabinets built by Grandpa Dave). Again, not a bad album; good, but (for me) not great, and maybe not all that interesting or catchy? My favorite track, listening twice today to the 10 original tracks, was "40,000 Headmen" and, in particular the flute played by Chris Wood, who apparently also played "sleigh bells" and a "Coke tin" on the track (2nd album in a row with catchy flute ;) ). 3 stars.

This is a hard one to rate. What do you compare it to? And - for our purposes - is the prison setting relevant? (I'm tempted to say no, if only because, if the answer is yes, then HOW?) Actually, in some ways, the prison setting was just as a distraction, almost like a gimmick. But, on the other hand, I guess you could argue that, for *these* songs, and for Johnny Cash in particular, a prison kind of makes sense? Johnny Cash (and his wife, June Carter, of the famous Carter Family) come out of the American folk tradition, which tends to have a lot of tragedy, and morality tales, etc. -- so the songs that Cash played at Folsom Prison were (mostly) coming from that tradition, and maybe a prison audience was a particularly appropriate audience. But, still, for me: kind of a distraction (I'd probably have preferred a mix that left out most if not all of the between-song banter). I think what I'd say is that, if I just focus on the music, I'd give it 4 stars, so that's what I'm gonna do. Also, if you guys aren't really familiar with the Carter Family, maybe spend a few minutes with their Wikipedia entry (better yet, seek out recordings of their music, too). Once a dad, always a dad ;)

3 stars. Probably blew the minds of many white teenagers in the 1950s (not Mombo, though), but pretty . . . tame? bland? today (or even when I was growing up). Note covers of songs by Ray Charles (I Got a Woman) and Tutti-Frutti (Little Richard) - the originals are (not surprisingly) better. I admit that I only listened to this one once, but I'm not motivated to listen again. Not (at all) that I hated it -- just that I don't hear the need to hear it again. Regarding the music: it was competent, but possibly sounds a bit stiff, now? Historically, of course, this album was important: birth of (white) rock n roll, and all that. Possibly of slightly more interest for the two of you, since (I'm guessing) it doesn't sound quite as stale to you as it does to me?

3 stars (and I might have done 2.5, if that had been an option). I liked the bass clarinet, a couple of times, anyway. And some other stuff, too - some percussion, and some bass here and there, and Miles's trumpet. I'd probably like other specific things if I continued to listen, but something about this keeps me from paying attention to it (or wanting to listen to it again). I remember telling my mom that I didn't really like jazz (like this) where it sounded like they were all just noodling about, and (to me) it didn't add up to much that I could like or enjoy or relate to or make sense of. I do remember this striking album cover, anyway, growing up. I guess props to Miles for experimenting, and/or trying to stay relevant, to change with the times. But I would SO much rather hear his earlier stuff than this. For me, in terms of how much I liked/enjoyed it, even 3 stars is a little generous.

I'm torn between a 2 and a 3, but I think I have to give this one a 2 (I'd probably be willing to do 2.5, lol). A lot of the songs seemed to sound kind of the same - and not all that interesting? Wasn't particularly a fan of Oasis when they first came on the scene, and I guess that's still the case. It's not terrible, just, like I said, (to me) not very interesting.

I hope we get some better music soon (lol). 2 stars (not 1), cuz I guess they're good at what they do. But I find so much of it pompous, stiff, grating, and musically uninteresting. This one really gets at the question I raised previously of: are we rating how much WE like it, or attempting a broader: how good/well done is it? And I think I have to go more with the former, at least with this one (but probably most of them?). This is also another one where I feel like it's music for and by theater people, and/or people who don't really love music, so much as they love spectacle or something.

It's an interesting (but impossible, lol) thought experiment for me to try to imagine/pretend that I'm hearing this for the first time: what would I, now, make of it? But, in fact, I formed, fairly early (by 20s, for sure, if not teens), a mostly negative opinion about this group, and this album in particular. Which a lot of people seem to love. Why didn't (don't?) I like it? Don't love the singer(s), for one thing. Plus, the whole thing is kind of . . . ponderous (like a big, dull beast), and pretentious. The other problem is that at least half of the songs have been played on "FM radio" (classic rock stations) so many times, over the years (only "Money" was a hit, but several others still get played regularly, too) - so the overexposure problem., But, ok, enough of the complaints. I can see that it was innovative, and there are a number of cool sonic elements. And so I would say that I do like it better, overall, now than I did when I was younger. So, I can for sure give it 3 stars. But I don't think I can give it 4. So 3 it is. Curious, as always, to hear what you 2 think.

Another one I'm not familiar with (other than a vague sense that I might have come across a reference to them once or twice). This sounds to me like classic mid-60s garage rock, such as you'd find on the classic (double album) collection, "Nuggets: Original Artyfacts from the First Psychedelic Era, 1965-68" (worth checking out, some time, especially if you liked this one). It's pretty good stuff, but I'm not sure that I see that it stands out that much from similar things being done around the same time, such as the tracks on "Nuggets." Still, for sure, it was an exciting time, of great musical growth and excitement. I'm not sure how to decide between 3 and 4 stars. I think the test of "would I want to listen to it again?" (answer: probably not?) suggests it should get 3 stars. But I'd probably do 3.5, if I could. P.S. I just read that they were included in an expanded version of Nuggets in 1998. So there you go.

Aw, man, these guys again? (lol) And still not even the album that I thought was supposed to be their best one (Daydream Nation). (I peeked at the book, and it actually lists *5* Sonic Youth albums; that definitely seems like too many -- but they always were critics' darlings.) I don't think my review of this one is very different from the previous one. If anything, this tends to solidify for me that I just don't love Sonic Youth as much as the critics do. The music just doesn't grab me, and is also maybe too full of, what, angst? dissonance? jarring noisiness? for me. Also, their singing isn't very good. I don't hate it, though, so I guess I'll give it a 3. Best track: "Purr."

Awww, yehhhhhhhhh! I've had this album since it first came out, and I'm tempted to say it sounds even better (to me) now. What an amazing outpouring of creativity and positivity. Also humor, and groovy cool(ness). Maybe what makes it even more . . . accessible (for me) now is that hip hop is no longer so new, and so I'm better able to appreciate it (I no longer need to acclimate)? I wonder if it sounds kind of dated to you 2 (since it's older than you both)? The way that you hear it must (I think) inevitably be a little different from how I hear it. And not just because I'm already familiar with it; also because hip hop was already here, when y'all came on the scene. The reason I bought the album, back in 1989? "Me, Myself, and I" -- I loved that song instantly, and still do. Other standouts: "The Magic Number" (of course I'd love that one), and "Eye Know." But the whole album is a happy, funky, groovy (in both senses) psychedelic trip. I even like the cover art. ;) 5 stars? yehhhhh, boy-ee!

When I first saw this album pop up, I thought: 1) here's the pro-British bias again, but 2) I'll probably end up giving it a 3, or possibly a 2. But, after listening to it, I think I have to give it a 1. For me, it hasn't aged well, and feels (but not in a good way) very much of its time. Which is a little surprising, because I still love their first, great hit, from 1984, "West End Girls." Both that song, and this album (from 1987) take me back to my NYC/Columbia years (fall 1983 - spring 1987), and the mid-80s in general, and synth pop, and the so-called Second British Invasion of the 80s (the first, of course, was ca. the late 60s, with the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Who, etc.). But, unlike "West End Girls," this album takes me back, but not in a good way, reminding me that, especially as the 80s went on, a lot of pop music was kinda crap. This included. If we wanted to make a case for this list of 1001 albums having a (misguided) pro-British bias, this album would be a good piece of evidence. Robbie Williams, too (lol)!

Aw, man, I kinda want to like this one more than I do. For one thing, a couple of Mekons (founding member Jon Langford, and Sally Timms, who joined right after this album) have probably been in Chicago almost as long as I have (they're from Leeds, UK; most in the group were art students at the University of Leeds), and I've seen them perform in various settings over the years. But, musically, there's no way I could give this a 5, and a 4 would be a stretch (although compensating factors *might* support it). This is probably one where my inability to focus on lyrics hurts my perception of them, since it's probably one of their strong points (but I wouldn't know, lol). I'm now listening to it a second time, and liking it a bit better, so I'm thinking maybe I could round it up to a 4. ;) Musically, they're kinda amateurish (but that's also part of their appeal, maybe? better art students making music, than theater students?), and it's hard for me to love a group where I'm not very fond of the singer, so, yeah, 4 is a bit of a stretch. Also, I just realized I own this CD (lol) - I thought I had at least one Mekons CD, but didn't remember that it was this one. Ok, now it's later, and I'm having doubts about whether I can actually, in good faith, give this a 4. And this also kind of gets back to what do the ratings mean: is it compared to the other 1000 albums on this list (which are supposed to be the best albums)? Or is more some kind of universal rating of the music (in which case, presumably -- since these are supposedly the *best* albums, there will be a lot more 4s and 5s than 1s and 2s)? Or maybe some subjective, slippery combo of the 2? Anyway, on further reflection, I don't think I can give this a 4, even though I'd like to (too many flaws, too . . . lacking in compelling musical quality? But, because of all the solid positive compensatory factors, it's a solid 3 stars for me (probably would've done 3.5).

I started off thinking this would probably be a 4 (outside shot at a 5) but, especially as I listened through it a second time, I had to give it a 3. One way of thinking of it is: would I want to own this? (Or, to put it another way: would I want to come back to this?) If it's a strong yes, then probably it's a 4, if not a 5. But this one (although it had some good tracks, and decent overall quality and concept) just didn't really grab me, so I think I'd have to rate it as a 3. Favorite track "Till the Cops Come Knockin."

Another one where I'll be curious to hear your thoughts. Goes back to my youth, of course. I definitely liked (and still like) some of their songs. On this album, of 11 songs, I'd say I like maybe 4? The other 7 (or so) weren't terrible, but were kind of forgettable, and also, I think, sound a bit dated. Not in a terribly bad way, but enough that it fails the 'would I like to hear it again some time soon?' test. Speaking of which, I only listened to this album once (though I've heard it before); the 4 that I liked are the 2 hits, "Our Lips are Sealed" and "We Got the Beat," plus "This Town" and "How Much More." But, of the 4, the clear standout (to me) is "Our Lips are Sealed," which (not coincidentally - that it's the standout, I mean) was co-written by the great, and undersung 80s hero, Terry Hall, who was a leader of The Specials, and later Fun Boy Three, and The Colourfield (all worth checking out - especially The Specials -- and I hope he/they show/s up in the 1001 somewhere). Oh, yeah, I still need to rate this one. Another 3 stars for me, I guess. But those 4 songs are carrying most of the weight. (Might've been tempted to say 2.5, but 2 definitely feels a bit too harsh, for me.)

This is really good stuff, either a 4 or a 5. The later 80s and the 90s were an exciting time for me, musically, as so-called "world music" (dumb name, obviously) became more popular, and I discovered more and more interesting music (musicians) from other countries, including many from Africa. I probably didn't hear of Baaba Maal until maybe the early 90s, and Mansour Seck is a name that is not familiar to me. But, anyway, this music is rich and deep and (after 2 listens) the music is high quality throughout, so I think I have to give this one 5 stars. Probably would have given it 4.5, but, choosing between 4 and 5, I choose 5 for this one. The music makes me wonder how much it is new and innovative, and how much is traditional; my guess is that a lot of it is traditional. Also, it has some of the same (seeming) resonance with American blues music that some of the traditional music from Mali also seems to have.

I have a funny relationship with this album (like a lot of albums from late 70s/early 80s, I guess). My first exposure was the song "Brass in Pocket," which was a hit, but I didn't love, at first. It stood out, for sure. But my teenage male suspicion of something that seemed *different* kicked in, I guess (just as it did at first with Talking Heads, Elvis Costello, B-52s, etc.). But then, in college, at FSU, I think, one of my buddies had this album, which explains why I never owned it: because I taped it off of him. Except I didn't tape the whole album, only the songs I liked the best. Which still kind of makes sense to me now. Because I REALLY LOVE a few of these songs, 5+ ratings for: "Precious," "Stop Your Sobbing" (a Kinks cover - I'm sure we'll get the Kinks, at some point), and "Kid." Next best song is probably "Mystery Achievement," and I've come to appreciate "Brass in Pocket" (mostly just that it's over-exposed, at this point), and "Tattooed Love Boys" is kinda basic, but fun. So that's 6 of the 12 tracks; the other 6 are kind of forgettable. But, as I said, maybe unfair, cuz those are (more or less) the songs that I didn't choose to tape off of the album. But, yeah, I'd probably do it the same now. Actually, though, "The Wait" isn't bad, and "Private Life" has a decent reggae groove (reggae was a big influence in the UK around this time, probably due to lots of Jamaican immigrants -- The Police, The Clash, etc), and provides a useful contrast to the other tunes. So, yeah, I think I can give this album 5 stars, even though a few of the songs are forgettable -- because the rest (8 out of 12) range from very good to really great.

This is similar to the last one: of the 11 tracks, more than half (at least 6) are great (and, even though they're still heard on the radio fairly, I still enjoy hearing them): tracks 1-3, 7, 8, and 10. If I had to pick one album that my parents had, which set them apart from 99.9% of my peers' parents, it might be (even more than their jazz and blues albums) this one. Also, look at that album cover -- so groovy, so psychedelic -- and imagine being 5 years old (or 8, or whatever). I feel like maybe it stimulated my imagination and creativity (while also perhaps making me a little afraid of drugs - well, the latter more so because Jimi and Janis died from overdoses). Ok, sorry for the Dad tangents; yes, I know, the MUSIC! Of the other 5 tracks, after listening more closely, I do also like tracks 5, 9, and 11 quite a bit, leaving only 2 (to me) weaker tracks (4 and 6). (And, actually, I'm listening to tracks 4 and 6 for a third time, and they're sounding better.) So I think this one deserves 5 stars. Musically, it's just 3 guys, but what a full, rich (psychedelic) sound they have, much of it from Jimi. Ok, last thought: this album was released in May 1967, and guess what was also released that month (although I guess June, in the U.S.)? Sgt. Pepper! What a great 1/2 punch of great music (and pyschedelic art and creativity)! And me just turning 5, and taking it all in (not knowing that this wasn't normal but revolutionary), and figuring out pretty early that I liked it.

He sure says a lot of words. And plays a lot of guitar. The Canadian Bob Dylan. But not as good. To be a fair judge, I'd have to stop everything else and sit and listen to all those words, which I'm not inclined to do. I didn't hate this, not at all. Between a 3 and a 4. "Suzanne" I already knew, and it's a good one. I'd do a 3.5, but I'm struggling to give it a 4. So, 3 it is. Sorry, Leonard. I'm not your best audience.

Not sure what to make of this one (not familiar to me previously, although I've heard/been a little aware of Tim Buckley). I think it's another 3 for me. Very much a 1969 album, with lots of groovy influences, including marimba, vibraphone, and string bass. Definitely hearing Miles (All Blues), in the first track. Might be a 4 if I liked his singing better. And maybe if it were a bit more focused? I mean, experimentation and grooviness is ok, but it's a fine line between groovy and unfocused (and, here, possibly a bit ponderous and pretentious, too), maybe?

Like De La Soul's '3 Feet High and Rising,' this album came out in early 1989, and I bought it not too long after that. But I don't think it has aged as well (or was ever as good as '3 Feet' - so I don't think you'll be asking why I didn't play this for you more (but who knows?). (The answer to that question will probably always be: there's sooo much music! and I own too much of it!) It might be hard to imagine (but maybe not), but this album (before I bought it -- from maybe having heard 1 song?) seemed like the cutting edge of cool. And I'm pretty sure if you heard it in a London club in 1989, you'd have thought so, and so would I. But, although I do still have the album, I do also (vaguely) recall being (vaguely) disappointed in the album. Didn't hate it (not at all); just didn't love it as much as I'd hoped I might. I was pre-disposed to like it, I guess you could say. Curious to know what you guys think (as always!). I'll give this one 3 stars, and might sell the record -- unless 1 of you would like to have it, lol. ;)

82 minutes of Led Zeppelin? That's a lot of Led Zeppelin (and a lot of YouTube commercials to skip), and I'm not particularly inclined to listen a 2nd time, even though I'll admit that my attention wandered a bit, the first time. I generally liked this, and recognized a few of the songs -- most prominently Kashmir, which I do like. I think I'll give this 3 stars and be done. I don't hate Robert Plant's singing as much as I did when I was younger, but I still don't love it, so, anyway, yeah, 3 stars it is. I also suspect that if I listened again, I'd confirm my suspicion that a significant chunk of the songs (almost half?) are kinda meh (uninspired, not that interesting), so maybe it could have been a 4-star single album, instead of a 3-star double album.

I really did not like the first 4 tracks, the . . . violent nihilism? Any excuse I can think of for those tracks doesn't fly, and most of the explanations I can think of are cynical and self-serving and irresponsible. Ok, after that -- a number of the tracks sound pretty cool; the music/rhythm, I mean - the rapping is kind of annoying (to me); I don't even know what they're saying, half the time, but it SOUNDS like obnoxious braggadoccio, which really rubs me the wrong way. Some of the sound collages and beats and whatnot are pretty cool. So, like 3 or 4 (lean toward a 4) for that part, but 1 or 2 (lean toward a 1) for the "vocals" (and the lyrics). But, overall 2 or 3. I think I dislike the vocals (delivery, and lyrics, and nihilism posing as cool) so much that I'll give it a 2 overall. But I did like the beats and the samples and the bass and the whatnot -- basically, everything except the vocals.

I remember hearing (or reading) about this group, and this album in particular, when I was in college, and getting the impression that it was super cool, but somehow I never got it . . . and, well, I guess, good thing, cuz it kinda sucks, lol. Ok, maybe not exactly sucks, but just . . . not super musical or pleasant or enjoyable to listen to? I mean, I guess I can appreciate its creativity, and willful freakiness, but . . . life's too short? I have a slight feeling of failing, somehow (in not liking it more), but I think I have to give this 2 stars (an extra star, above just 1, in part for just being creative and pushing the envelope).

5 stars! One of my all-time faves. Still sounds so fresh (after 46 -- wtf? -- years), and bursting with creativity, and funk and . . . how did they do that?! It still sounds so original, and also so full, and dense (multi-layered) - but also tight. Never goes stale for me. The closest to doing this (i.e., going stale) is probably "Once in a Lifetime," which I still hear fairly often on the radio. As I recall, it was one of the songs that first grabbed me, but for much longer, now, it has been all of the other songs that I've really grown to love, and, even more so, all of them together as a group. I can think of few albums (if any) where I have a stronger sense of the perfect cohesiveness of an entire album; it's like entering a another (and fascinating) world. A world with satisfying, catchy, danceable rhythms.

British bias again, it seems. Another middling UK band from the late 80s/early 90s. Not terrible, but just kinda . . . forgettable?

Oh, look, another early 90s UK album! This one is maybe a bit better than some of the other ones we've heard (to me). Don't like his singing, but he's a decent bassist. The "world music" elements are a mixed bag - probably seemed pretty hip, 35 years ago; a bit clunky, now. But props for adding Sinead O'Connor and (especially) Natacha Atlas. And the Spanish and Arabic elements I think do more good than harm. So, maybe enough positives to just barely give this one a 3, rather than a 2. Without the two women (vocalists), though, it'd be a 2.

Well, this one made me think, anyway. Not a fan of violence or anger or braggadocio, and kind of wish he hadn't made this, or that it hadn't found success, because I don't think (though how to know?) that it made things better (except MAYBE for black Americans, especially young black men - but I kinda doubt it). And impossible not to wonder: how pure were his motives? Because anger as cool is an easy sell. But, even assuming his motives were good/pure (i.e., not just trying to get easy money), I have a lot of doubt about whether this album made things better - and suspect that it might have contributed in a small way to making things worse. Oh, wait, this is music? Right, sorry, forgot! Musically, it's catchy, some of it, but simple and repetitive, and definitely don't need to hear a whole album of it. I wonder (as ever, but here more than some) what you guys make of it. Maybe if I'd been 10 years younger when it came out . . . . But, nah, I don't think I was ever gonna go for anger or violence or braggadocio. As music - it's almost more like poetry with rhythmic accompaniment, plus sound affects and sound collage/dialogue samples. But his grating voice turns me off. I'm tempted to give it 3 stars, because it was . . . influential? . . . but that feels like an easy out. Gonna risk being an old man (a privileged older white male), and give it 2 stars, because, as a record album, as music, I did not enjoy it (other than the beats, which were catchy, although simple).

This is another one that I own, but probably didn't play a lot for you (sorry?). I guess by the time y'all came along, I'd kind of lost interest -- or, more accurately, there were too many other things to listen to, including new stuff. The first two songs, in particular, I've heard so many times that they've lost some of their luster and charm (for me); not really possible for me, now, to hear them "fresh.". Even though I know they're very good songs. The other thing is that, I guess, for me, I think Prince will always be a 4 (at best), rather than a 5, at least in terms of how much I like it, and probably also in terms of how I'd rate it. I recognize that his songs are clever and catchy and fun, but there's something about his music that I don't love, or that I think (some) other people love more than I do. He has certain stylistic (musical) tics, in terms of his vocals, in particular, which I don't love. Also, maybe his music is a bit too (and this feels weird to say) stiff? Sort of mechanical? I don't know, maybe that's dumb. Ok, sorry to be long-winded, as usual. I'll leave you with a Dad story: Freshman year at FSU, Fred and I were roommates in a dorm. In the room to 1 side of us (closer to my bed) were 2 black guys - forget their names (maybe 1 of them was Larry?), but I remember that 1 (or both) of them loved Prince's song "Head," which was from an album or two before this, and they played it all the time. All we could hear, coming through the wall, was the simple thumping bass line. Oh, wait, I have another story: "1999," the song, which came out in 1982, was about a year that seemed way in the future (lol). Now, of course, it's a) way in the past, and b) it's Sam's birth year! (Love you, Sam!) Ok, back to grading: despite all the pseudo-complaints, I recognize that this is a great album, so I'm pretty sure it's at least a 4, with a slight chance for a 5. First 2 songs: not their fault I've heard them so often - they're still good songs. Third song (Delirious), too, for a great first album side. And DMSR is maybe even better -- the funkiest one of all - except, wait, it goes on way too long. Automatic is too long, too (although some nice bass toward the end). Lady Cab and All the Critics also kinda long, even a little boring (maybe intended more for dance club?). So, for me, now, I'd have to say it's definitely not a 5, and I'm a little less sure about the 4. This might be another double album that might have been stronger if it's been a single album (either pick the best songs, or cut the long songs in half). But, in the end, I'll still go with 4, for all the creativity. I wonder, sometimes, how ALL of this music will sound in 20 years, or 50, or 100 - what will hold up, what won't? I guess I'm wondering that now because I have a slight sense that possibly Prince is starting to sound dated, even though, when it came out, he seemed, if anything, ahead of his time.

This is one that 17-year-old me probably unfairly dismissed, a little. There were 2 or 3 clunkers, I think (the slow ones, basically), but what an amazing line up of musicians, and what excellent music, on the others. Just don't know if I can quite give it 5 stars - though, if I end up with 4, I'll have to wonder is it the music's fault, or mine? Louis Johnson (of the Brothers Johnson) on bass, for 9 of the 10 tracks; Quincy Jones; Rod Temperton, and with songs by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder (albeit , not their best). I think I'll stick with 4 stars, though. 2nd listen: last couple songs kinda meh, #7 too (sappy, boring) #8 Stevie - not his best, ditto #6 Sir Paul

How many Kraftwerk albums does one need to hear? I'll probably just give this one a 3, like I did the other one. Not bad music for having my morning coffee and biscuits and doing the NYTimes wordle and spelling bee ;) I'm glad Kraftwerk created this music, in Germany, in the 70s -- and, I suppose, that its influence rippled slowly out across space and time, man. And that we can occasionally (very occasionally?) still enjoy it, now.

Kind of getting tired of all these artist repeats. On this one, I don't think I can get past his voice (as an obstacle to me potentially enjoying it). And, since this album is more about the words, and I'm more about the music (and tend not to like music where I don't like the singer), well, I don't think I can go higher than 2. Somehow, a 1 would feel wrong, as I think there's some artistry here, but, since I don't appreciate (enjoy) it very much, 2 it is. I'm more annoyed, though, by there being 2 Leonard Cohen albums on this list, than by this album in particular (not that this affected my rating of this album). I know there are people who LOVE Leonard Cohen. I'm just not one of them. I liked the string quartet, on the last one, though.

I was glad to see this one pop up, both because I like Big Star, and because (even though I own it - on CD, with bonus tracks), I've tended to ignore this one, because I have a couple of other Big Star CDs (and 1, in particular) that I gravitate toward more often, so have tended to overlook this one. Maybe/probably because this one is not so listener-accessible. Which is why, though it's a little tempting to give it a 5, I'll give this one a 4 (4.5?). Big Star never received the popular success they deserved, but famously launched/inspired a thousand other indie bands, or so the saying goes (something like that, anyway). And, yes, as Ray remembered, your great Uncle Gary (and his band) met Big Star at Ardent Studios in Memphis in the early 70s, while Gary's band and Big Star were in the studio at the same time, or something. Except that there was a more specific connection, I think with Big Star member Andy Hummel (he -- or maybe his brother? -- was Gary's friend, maybe? - at Centre College, I think, where Gary later met Debbie).

Not previously familiar to me. It's nice enough, and also nice/refreshing to hear something a little different. But I'm not sure this one stands out, (amidst all of the music from Africa -- or even just Congolese music), or deserves to be on the list (my sense is that it does not belong). Actually, now that I've listened to the whole thing, I'm struggling to give even 3 stars, and tempted to give only 2. (Would go 2.5, if I could.) Probably meant more for dancing (?); for listening, it's pretty forgettable, at least for me. I guess I'll go with 3 stars, partly because I'm glad for the diversity on this list, but it's a close call, and I suspect (believe) there must be MANY other much better choices that could have been made. Side note: it's possible that part of my (personal/subjective) problem is with Congolese rumba, which (after, admittedly, not a lot of exposure) strikes me as kind of (tending to be) formulaic, and not super interesting, musically (?). Not sure I know enough to say that, though (probably not!). If either of you ever come across excellent Congolese music, please let me know. Actually, I can think of one: Konono No. 1, "Congotronics"- check it out, if you're not familiar.

Should I do it? I'm a little hesitant, but I think I have to give this one 1 star, giving full rein to how I feel about this music (without attempting to somehow be impartial), which is: I can't stand it; never could. It's the singer's voice most of all (WHY?!). But the music, too, is (for me) a bad combo of pompous and boring. I know some people like this -- including people whose opinions I respect -- e.g., Tom, Lucas, and Elliot Brandt. But, still, for me, it's a 1.

It's going to be difficult to choose between 4 and 5 for this one, but I'm leaning toward 4; 4.5 I'd probably go for, but I don't think I can *quite* go to 5. I have 3 Kate Bush albums, but not this one, although it's pretty familiar to me - I think maybe I have a tape of it from Rick (?). The biggest obstacle for me is her voice. I'm much more used to it now, and mostly am ok with it (even *kind of* like it), but I think that's the single biggest thing keeping me from giving this a 5. Everything else is excellent! And I think it holds up very well, after 40 years. As you may know, "Running Up That Hill" found a second life with the tv show "Stranger Things." I hadn't realized, until listening to this now, that she also has a fairly strong Irish connection, including several prominent Irish musicians on tracks 6, 10, and 11. I may come to regret not giving this a 5, but I'm gonna stick with a "high" 4. Update, after a 2nd listen: yeah, I'm pretty much used to Kate Bush's singing voice at this point, so it's not really that much of an obstacle. But I still stop at 4.5 (i.e., 4).

Ummm, . . . no. I'm tempted to say this isn't so much music as . . . confession? Or public therapy? He's sort of bleeding negative emotions, which isn't very interesting (interesting only in the way that a car wreck is interesting), and feels selfish and needy. I mean, a few bits are kind of clever, but, to get to them, you have to wade through mountains of sludge; it's SO not worth it. I just would never choose to listen to this; life is too short, and there's too much good music out there. 1 star. Catchy groove on 'Real Slim Shady.' But then it just keeps repeating, and gets old fast. Like the whole album. Had to force myself to listen to the whole thing.

Competent and inoffensive -- but kind of forgettable? I liked U2 more on their first 2 or 3 albums, in the early 80s; a bit more passion and excitement, maybe? I saw U2 twice, early in their career: opening up for the J. Geils Band in 1981 or 1982 in Tallahassee, and then headlining (The Alarm opened) at a mid-sized theater in downtown Jacksonville in 1982 or 1983. By the time this 1991 album came out (sooner, probably) I'd grown somewhat tired of them. Not entirely their fault: they were played on the radio so much, they were sort of overexposed. But I do also think that the songs on this album (like most of their music starting in the later 80s) are just not super interesting? Better as background music, than as music to seek out for its own sake? I don't know, maybe I'm being too hard on them. It's not like I think it's bad. I'll for sure give this 3 stars, but don't think I can go up to 4. 3 feels about right.

The first 2 songs were hits for a reason - they're good songs. After that, not much (another pro-British bias choice?), although the Cure cover ('Lovesong') wasn't bad. I started off thinking maybe I'd give it a 3. She obviously has an exceptional voice (a few times I didn't love some of her mannerisms, but that's a relatively minor complaint). But the music was mostly pretty forgettable, I think. So I think I'll have to go with a 2. Btw, it just occurred to me that I could be checking my 1001 albums book (after I've reviewed an album, to see what it says -- although I think there will be some where an album wasn't contained in my edition of the book). I just checked, and Adele isn't in my book. If you wanna know what the book says about any of our previous albums, lemme know. ;)

This might be another "Dad, why didn't you play this for us more often?" As often happens, I have a pretty good idea how I'll rate it before I listen to it again (since I own the CD), and just have to decide between 2 adjacent numbers -- in this case, 4 or 5. I'm listening to this while I'm having breakfast, and noticing that I have a tendency to lose focus, and let the music fade into the background. Which, I think, is part of why I'm leaning toward a 4. I high 4 (4.5 would be very tempting), but, I think, a 4, rather than a 5. Did I ever tell you my Common story? This was probably not too long before I retired, so maybe 8 or 9 years ago. I was going out to lunch (or possibly dinner) with a few female co-workers (so, attorneys). We got to the lobby of our building and were heading to one of the exits, and this tall black guy walks by. I didn't recognize him, but when we got outside the women were all suddenly like giddy, giggly teenagers, "OMG, that was Common! etc., etc." Ok, not a great story, but it was very amusing for me, to witness the temporary transformation of my serious professional colleagues into teenagers. ANYWAY, back to the music - a pretty amazing group of contributors, including Questlove, D'Angelo, Bilal, Jill Scott, Roy Hargrove, Cee-lo Green, Femi Kuti (son of Fela), and Pino Palladino (famous bassist). I like the way he incorporates a lot of different black music styles and influences, jazz and soul and funk in particular. There's a lot going on (in a good way); would probably justify (and reward) repeat listens. I think the biggest thing keeping me from giving this a 5 isn't really the fault of the album, but that I just don't like hip-hop/rap enough. At least this kind of hip-hop/rap, where the words are the primary focus, and the music is kind of background. (I'm thinking of DeLaSoul as a contrast, where the words are in service to the music, whereas here it seems more the other way around.) Still, it's hard to imagine a better album of its kind than this one. A (strong) 4 stars.

So (early) 80s, so British (Scottish). Definitely takes me back to that time. I remember being somewhat tempted to own something by them. Or possibly briefly did, but then later sold it? On this album -- their breakthrough, I guess -- I count 3 good tracks, 6 not so good. The good ones (to me) are 1, 5, and 6. And 5 and 6, especially (1 is less good), do a good job of conveying an early 80s feel (in a good way). If only the rest of the album were at that level. So how do I rate this? It's between a 2 and a 3. I really do like tracks 5 and 6 quite a bit (maybe it's just 80s nostalgia?), so I'm tempted to give it a 3 based mostly on those 2 or 3 songs. So, yeah, I think I'll give it a 3 (but it's really a 2.51 rounded up). ;)

First 4 tracks pretty strong, with decent variety of tempo and style, plus their trademark uplift. Was thinking I might have to give it a 4-star rating, if the quality continued. But, in fact, the other 7 songs (5 through 11) were pretty forgettable. So, in the end, a 3-star rating feels a little generous (as with the previous U2 album - and I won't be surprised if you guys go with 2 stars, again), but I guess I'll go with 3 stars again. I'm not entirely comfortable with this approach (and it's similar to what I did with Simple Minds, yesterday, too), where I give 3 stars, but it's mostly based on a few good songs -- but I guess I'll stick with that approach, at least for this album (and for Simple Minds).

This is a little tough, choosing between 4 and 5. It's often mentioned, I believe, as one of the GAOAT (greatest albums of all time), but, listening to it now, it's not immune to the double album danger, where it's hard not to think that maybe, if they'd have cut out a few songs, it could have been a really GREAT 5-star album. And yet, here, even some (most?) of the lesser songs are, I think, mostly still pretty good. I have to confess I didn't really recognize the name of Bobby Whitlock, but, looking at his Wikipedia page, it seems like I should have. I think he tends to be overshadowed by Duane Allman's famous contributions to this album - especially the dual guitar interplay on "Layla." "Layla" is a great song, of course, but does (for me) suffer a little bit from over-exposure. By contrast, "Bell Bottom Blues" (a lesser hit) and "Why Does Love Got to Be So Bad" (should have been a hit) still sound great, and "I Looked Away" isn't far behind. This album was produced by famous producer Tom Dowd, and I do think it has a good overall sound (Mombo gave me a dvd about Dowd). (After listening a second time, I was noticing even more how good the overall sound is, including maybe especially the - often dual - guitars. Songs like "Keep on Growing" and "Anyday" aren't great, maybe, but the production and guitar work and vocal harmonizing take them to a higher level.) 4 of the 14 songs (5, if you count the Jimi Hendrix cover) fall into the dubious category of white guys covering blues/r&b songs, but these are better than average covers, so not too much of a reduction for that. I think I'll give this a (weak) 5.

This one reminds me I was just thinking the other day that I also have the book 1001 SONGS to hear before you die (maybe there's a One Song a Day app, too?). Famous Village Voice rock critic Robert Christgau called the closer on this album, "Waterloo Sunset," the "most beautiful song in the English language," and I certainly agree that it's a lovely, excellent song. The rest of the album is quite good, too, and has good variety, and is another 4 or 5, but I'm leaning toward a 4 for this one, I guess because the other songs don't really stand out all that much (even though they're good -- also very British, and very 60s, and kinda quirky). As I'm listening a second time, though ("Afternoon Tea," at the moment) I'm hearing some interesting stuff (instrumentation/arrangement), and I suspect that this might be the kind of album that takes time to grow on you (but probably would). Still, I think, somewhat reluctantly, I'm gonna stick with a high 4.

Ugh, do I have to (listen to this)? What an unpleasant, unenjoyable waste of my time. Does this make the world a better place? On the contrary! Selfish, self-indulgent, repugnant, uninteresting, and boring. Does not belong anywhere near this list. 1 star (is 0 an option?).

From the ridiculous (the previous album) to the sublime. 5 stars. I'd been hearing about Nick Drake for quite a while (in the 80s and 90s), but didn't actually discover his music, I think, until maybe around when you guys were little (early 2000s), when I started getting his CDs from the library occasionally (as I still do), and discovering how good they are. So amazing. I listened to this 3 times through today, and enjoyed it just as much, each time. Just learned from Wikipedia that, on this one, he had some help from some of the members of Fairport Convention (a group I've long liked, which included Richard Thompson - guitar on track 2 - who went on to success on his own, as well), as well as John Cale, a founding member of the Velvet Underground (and violist!).

Pro-Brit bias again? When I first heard The Smiths ("This Charming Man") in 1983, I think it was, I thought (still do) that was a great song. I didn't particularly like Morrissey's singing, though, so wasn't too surprised that I didn't particularly like his solo stuff. This is between a 2 and a 3, and I think I'm gonna go with a 2. Kinda boring. And feels kind of dated (even though, when it first came out, it had at least a whiff of being cutting edge.

Another one that sounds fairly dated to me (although I don't think I'd ever have been tempted to buy it, even when it was fresh and new). Has some decent samples, and some catchy beats (repeated endlessly), but they're pretty basic, and don't really go anywhere. Not terrible, so for sure a 2, possibly a 3. But, by another metric (which I just invented) -- would I want to listen to it again, some time? -- I think it has to be a 2, because I'm not really interested in hearing it again. Feels a little harsh, maybe -- it could be a 2.5, if you will -- but 3 feels too high, to me, so 2 it is. The other obvious factor at play here is my relative lack of interest in lyrics as the focal point of music, since this one is really so heavily about the lyrics (with minimal - and that a distant second - musical accompaniment). Indeed, I'd be tempted to argue that this one feels more like slam poetry with a beat than music. It's not like music that makes you want to sing (or rap or whatever ) along with it -- it's more like poetry being performed AT you.

Never heard of her before, so glad to know of her. Sounds a bit like someone who wishes she had been in Stereolab (one of my all-time fave groups; I hope they make this list). (I note that the singer from Krautrock band Can -- an influence on Stereolab -- makes an appearance on track 9). As usually happens, I knew pretty soon after I started listening which 2 numbers my rating would likely fall between (which, again, makes me think they should allow a broader rating scale -- from 1 to 10, or maybe 0 to 10, instead of just 1 to 5). This one is between 3 and 4, and I guess I lean slightly more toward 4, even though it feels perhaps a little generous. But I do tend to like stuff like this (psychedelic pop? dream pop?), so I think I'll give it a 4. ;)

I remember when this album came out, there was a lot of buzz about it from the critics. I used to have a copy, but appear to have gotten rid of it (or possibly a babysitter nicked it, lol -- I remember a few CDs went missing, one time). Anyway, it still sounds pretty good, I guess -- although I'd say that I like it, more than I love it. So a 3, or a 4 - but I think I'll go with a 3. Still hear "Someday" and "Last Night" on the radio; I like "Someday" better. Second-best song "Hard to Explain," maybe? A lot of the songs seem to sound kind of the same, though; it's a good enough sound, but . . . not a lot of variety? So, yeah, a 3, rather than a 4.

5 stars, of course. But this one has an unfair advantage (for me): it came out in January 1965, and I'm pretty sure Mombo got it not long after, because I remember hearing it (more than once!) when I was little. I still have Mombo & Granddad's copy of this album. This deeply spiritual album, per Wikipedia (I've heard this before, too) is the "central text" of the Saint John Coltrane African Orthodox Church, in San Francisco. It feels funny to rate this in comparison (or, anyway, using the same scale that we used) with, mostly, various forms of pop(ular) music. But, anyway, I do love this album, and am happy to have had the excuse to listen to it again, and be reminded of how great it is, and also how grateful I am to have grown up in a house where I heard this.

I remember hearing them in concert at Dominican University in River Forest (and possibly another time, too -- Orchestra Hall, maybe?), and thinking a) all of their songs sound (to me, anyway) kind of similar, but b) oh, what a glorious sound it is! If I could sing in a group like that, I would probably do that, too. ;) 4 stars.

This is the one I mentioned, that was (like many of Dylan's 60s albums) given 5 stars in my dog-eared copy of The Rolling Stone Record Guide (1979 edition - probably purchased by me in 1980 or 1981). I think the best I can do for it, though, is 4 stars, because I don't find the rock n roll tracks (1, 3, 5, 6, and 7) very interesting or particularly good, musically. Once again, if I gave more weight (paid more attention) to lyrics, it might be different. The other tracks (2, 4, and 8-11) are excellent/very good, and do the heavy lifting for me giving the album as a whole 4 stars.

A very short album, under 28 minutes, I believe, but I give it 5 stars. It's a rainy early Tuesday morning here now in Oak Park, and this album is perfect for this weather (although I suspect it would be perfect for many different kinds of weather). Teenage me disdained Sinatra - ditto Dylan, and country music -- but I came to appreciate them more starting in my 20s. Do you two have anything like that? Or maybe you're more open-minded than I was? I still don't really like opera all that much, lol (although I do like some more than others). I wonder if you guys might think this would be better with just Jobim (without Sinatra)? I can see that argument, but I think it works very well, Sinatra singing Jobim.

It's not always completely bad when an album sounds dated, or very much "of its time." This album (which I still have, on CD) takes me back to the late 80s and early 90s. It's solid throughout, a solid 3, at least. Not sure I can quite give it a 4 - though it's tempting. In a roundabout way, it's a testament to the strength of this album that I like it at all, since I generally don't like this kind of music (romantic ballads, I guess). A solid 3 stars, for a solid album.

My ("original release") CD of this only has 15 tracks, for what it's worth. Anyway, I'm struggling a bit with how to rate this, but I think I'm going to go with my heart, and give it 5 stars. Not all of the songs are great, but most are either great or very good, plus I love the Irish-ness of it, and Shane MacGowan's voice (it took me a little while to get used to it - but that was a long time ago), and the mix of traditional and modern music and instrumentation and styles. And the stirring, and fun, tunes. At the time (when this came out, and when the Pogues first started to become known), I really hadn't heard much of anything like this (the blend of traditional Irish music with a more modern - almost punk - edge). This also came out around when Granddad started leading tours in Ireland (I went with a group -- which also included Gary and Debbie -- in 1990), and was thus part of me starting to become more aware of modern Ireland, and Irish culture. 5 stars!

3/2 = 1 . . . 3 parts annoying to 2 parts boring = 1 star.

So British! And, somewhat less so: so late 60s! Seems more like a novelty record, than a (musically) serious candidate for one of the top albums of all time (although, since we still haven't quite yet reached 100 albums listened to, I have a better sense now that 1,001 albums is actually a LOT of albums). Anyway, I *did* mostly like it - and so it's definitely (at least) a 3, for me. But I don't quite think I can give it a 4, although it's close (I have a soft spot for quirky British). So, 3 stars, for me.

This is another late 70s album that was too weird for teenage me, but which I came to like later - although, unlike (e.g.) Talking Heads and Elvis Costello, I still felt ambivalent toward Devo into my 20s; I think I like them slightly more now. Maybe now I care even less about weirdness? Plus, maybe now, with the passage of time, I can see that something truly different and original doesn't come along all that often. Also, kind of like with the Pogues, I give them a small bonus for just making me happy that they exist. So, rather than 3 stars (a few of the songs are kind of forgettable), I'll give them 4 stars. (I say forgettable, although, I suspect, if I heard even one of the weaker songs on the album by itself -- without ever having heard anything else by Devo -- I'd probably think: hey, that's kind of cool, kind of different. A small bonus, too, for the videos -- I was only half watching them, but what I saw seemed funny and cool and different (in a good way).

About a third of the way in, I was thinking: probably a 3; feels kind of dated (and possibly cultural/artistic appropriation issues?), but I have to admit it grew on me, as it went along and, while I'm not entirely willing to discard the negative thoughts, I think I'm still willing to give this one 4 stars.

It must be Celebrate all things quirky and British month! I'm probably (?) slightly more susceptible to this than you guys, because I discovered Ian Dury when I was at FSU, and a few of his songs were played on the college radio station there, from the albums that came out just after this one. The songs I remember hearing (and liking) are "Hit Me With Your Rhythm Stick" (probably my favorite), "Reasons to be Cheerful, Part 3," and "Spasticus Autisticus" (and, probably, his possibly best-known song, "Sex and Drugs and Rock n Roll," which is on this album, too). I have one of his albums (not this one), plus he's one of many artists on the 4-CD Stiff Records box set, which I also have (Stiff Records was a -- probably *the* -- British label for punk and new wave, back in the late 70s and early 80s). But, I have to say, I didn't love this album, after one listen. Ian Dury is hard to categorize -- the missing link between disco and punk, maybe? Or just: file under quirky British? Anyway, because of my fondness for Ian Dury, and because the songs did have their moments, and I mostly (kinda) liked it, I'll give it 3 stars. (But, for the record, I'd still count this as another: a) pro-British bias, and b) doesn't belong on this list, i.e., not a legit candidate for one of the greatest albums of all time.

This album makes me think of Granddad; he was a fan of Linda Ronstadt and Emmylou Harris (and Dolly, too, I think, though perhaps not as much), and I think he had this album, or at least albums by the 3 artists. At the time (later 1980s), I was still dismissive of country music, but it wasn't long before I started to reconsider, and I think some of these traditional (retro?) country albums that came out starting in the 80s might have helped me to appreciate (traditional) country music more. Certainly can't fault the singing and harmonizing. Well, except that I don't *love* Dolly Parton's singing, but it's good, and the other 2 are great. As for rating it, I guess it's between a 3 and a 4, but I think I'm going to go with a (high) 3 because, while it's nice enough (indeed, very nice), it doesn't really stand out to me as exceptional or particularly memorable or notable. Except maybe in helping to extend/expand a broader appreciation for country music to people like me. ;)

11 songs -- I like (quite a bit) the 4 songs that, to varying degrees, I've occasionally heard on the radio, over the years; the other 7 songs, though, are (to me) not as good. The best 2 (for me) are Suffragette City and Starman, followed by Ziggy Stardust and Moonage Daydream. But, as I say, the other 7 songs seem less interesting (I did go back and listen to at least parts of them again, to make sure). Hard to know how to rate this; I think it's between a 3 and a 4. I do have a vague sense of this kind of marking the end of the 60s, and noticed that Chicago Tribune Greg Kot (quoted in the Wikipedia article about the album) said something similar. So, I guess, kind of significant in the history/development of rock/pop music? But, just focusing on the music, I think I'm leaning slightly more to 3 than 4. The only song I REALLY like is Suffragette City (and some portion of that liking might just be nostalgia). Well, and Starman (which I became familiar with much later than with Suffragette City) is good, too. It's possible, of course, that if I continued to listen to the album, I'd grow to like the other 7 songs more. In that sense, I suppose, albums that come up here that I already know (the whole album) have an (unfair?) advantage - assuming I like the album, of course. ;) Anyway (!) . . . 3 stars.

Ugh, do I have to? I guess I am kind of surprised that so many of these albums are . . . not that good? And/or unpleasant to listen to? But, I suppose, a reminder that taste is subjective, beauty is the eye of the beholder, etc., etc. But, still . . . this sucks (lol). The only thing I need to decide is between 1 and 2 stars, which gets back to the old (and -- as it applies to music like this - not very interesting) question of how much weight do I give to how much do I like it (i.e., not at all), vs. trying to be more ... objective (?), in terms of their skill, or originality, or whatever. Eh, f**k it, that's too hard; 1 star.

Happened to see in Wikipedia (I don't usually read Wikipedia before listening, but I do use it to see how many tracks there are on the album, as it was first released) that Thom Yorke said that this album was influenced by the "incredibly dense and terrifying sound" of Miles Davis's "Bitches Brew" album. Huh. Not sure I hear that, but kinda/maybe/sorta? Anyway, an interesting thought to chew on. Anyway, the album came out almost 30 years ago (!), in 1997 -- i.e., before Sam, and Ray just a baby. Has there been anything as good, since then? (Not thinking of anything, off the top of my head.) I will admit that, while about half (6 of 12?) of the songs are familiar to me, and all-time greats, the other 6 are not as familiar. But, still, even those lesser-known (to me) songs are good to very good, so I think I can safely give this a solid 5 stars. Also, doesn't sound dated to me at all.

This makes 2 excellent albums in a row - for me, anyway. This came out in 2001, when the "alt country" (or "Americana") backlash against slick, shallow, over-produced modern/contemporary country music was in full swing, which played a big role in me becoming (even) more of a fan of a broadly-defined country music (or an even broader category of "roots" music, including not only country, but also blues, folk, bluegrass, etc.). Certainly, the music on this album draws on deep roots of country, blues, and folk music, and (for me, anyway) -- using only guitars (or a guitar and a banjo) and vocal harmonies -- effectively captures and conveys timeless music that is anchored in those roots. I saw Welch and Rawlings perform together at the auditorium at Dominican University (back when they used to have good concerts there), and I recall that it was an excellent show. It might be on the lower end of 5, but I give this 5 stars. I enjoyed very much hearing this again today (a couple of times), and know that I would enjoy it equally on future listens.

Loud, but not very interesting. Seems like maybe it *should* be good (has, in a superficial sense, all the necessary - or at least sufficient - elements?) - but isn't? Don't really like the singer's voice, either (loud, but not very musical), which is never good. The music almost seems like pop music created by AI - a little soulless (2 days in a row for that word, lol), or by the numbers, or something? I don't quite hate it, but it's forgettable and not very satisfying or catchy; guess I'll go with a low 2 (though 1 is tempting).

This one's a little difficult to rate. This album came along at a funny time (for me), since I mostly wasn't living at home anymore (except summers and Christmas), but didn't yet have money to buy that much music. But I was taping music, and Mombo & Granddad had this album. ;) But, the funny thing is, I didn't tape the whole album, just a few songs (maybe I didn't have room on the tape, but - more likely? - maybe I thought some songs were better than others. And, I guess, I still think that. Although I guess you could argue that the songs I taped had an unfair advantage. But I've listened to this twice through, and I still think the first 3 songs are sub-par Paul Simon. The songs that I taped, which I still think are the best, are "Song About the Moon," "Train in the Distance," and (especially!) the (GREAT) "Late Great Johnny Ace," with that brilliant Philip Glass finish (which I love). "Think Too Much" is good, too, especially the one that's listed as (a), but, confusingly, comes after the (b) version. This version - (a) - has the great Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards, from Chic, on guitar and bass. Track 8 (Magritte) is pretty good, too, while Track 9 (Cars Are Cars) is kinda forgettable. So, like I said, a sub-par Paul Simon album, so can't do 5. A little unsure about a 4, too (I wouldn't argue much, with a 3 vote), but I think I'll go with a low 4.

Funny that this is Piazzolla and Burton (together), as they're both, I think, musicians who I've always wanted to, or at least kind of thought I should, like more than I do. Burton is someone I was aware of growing up (from Mombo, of course), playing with Chick Corea (and, I think, Keith Jarrett, too), among others. Piazzolla was trendy in the U.S. starting around the late 80s or 90s. It's not like I hate their music - not at all; just that I don't love it. Their music is not particularly interesting or compelling to me, and just doesn't inspire me to want to listen to it. Again, it's not terrible, and it's interesting to hear them together. But, unfortunately, I can't say that this is one where 1 + 1 is great than 2: it's just 2, meaning I feel about the 2 of them together about the same as I feel about each of them individually: it's ok, and somewhat interesting, but I just don't love it. But I can definitely give this 3 stars, so that's what I'll do.

This one came out in 1976, and was very big that year. My impression was (and is) that it was very popular with people 10 or 20 years older than me. Along with The Eagles and Fleetwood Mac, it sort of epitomized (mid-) 70s music -- ok, but kinda lame (and a big drop-off from the excellent popular music of the late 60s and early 70s). Over time, I've come to appreciate them a bit more, but still mostly feel the same ("no, sir, I do NOT feel like you do"). And it's a double album, which is more than I want. 3 of the songs were hits, which would make me want to change the station -- Show Me, Baby I Love, and Do You Feel -- and that's pretty much all I knew of Frampton until now. So, how to rate? It's not a 1 (it's not TERRIBLE), and it's definitely not a 4 or a 5. I think I have to go with a 2, rather than a 3, because a) it's too long (and kinda boring), b) it represents/epitomizes the suckificaton of popular music in the mid-70s, replacing the excellence of the late 60s and early 70s with this pabulum ("bland, unoriginal, or simplistic writing [or MUSIC!] that provides very little real substance"). (But, ok, I'll admit, once in a blue moon, I wouldn't mind hearing "Baby, I Love Your Way," lol.)

How to rate this? Although I've never owned the album, I'm plenty familiar with most (all?) of the tunes esp. on side 1. However, I've only just learned/realized that the singer duetting with Plant on 'Evermore' is the late, great Sandy Denny, who I like quite a bit, esp. from her work with Fairport Convention (speaking of whom: I hope we get one of their albums). And, unlike tracks 1, 2, and 4 (which have been played to death on the radio, over the past 55 years), I've only occasionally heard 'Evermore' - so, for that reason, and because of Sandy Denny, and the mandolin on it, too, it's easier to appreciate that one. The biggest obstacle to me liking LZ, always, has been Robert Plant's voice. I've made my peace with it (more or less), but I still don't love it. And then, deep down, there are still some vestiges of my initial/early dislike, due not only to Plant's voice, but also to hearing LZ on the radio so much, plus maybe some sort of tribal reaction against the (very white and male) tribe of people in middle and high school (and "classic rock" dj's) who were LZ fans (i.e., thinking, subconsciously, that if *they* like it, it's probably not for me). Ok, anyway, to rate this: extra points for mandolins, and Tolkien (?) references, and Sandy Denny. Deductions for Plant's voice, and over-exposure. And -- trying to set aside my longstanding aversion (which I've mostly already discarded) -- 4 stars seems right. Favorite tracks are Evermore, Misty Mountain, and Going to California (note that Evermore and California both feature mandolin). And the last track, Levee, is good, too. So, yeah, a solid 4 stars. Would I have given it 5 stars, if I'd never heard it before? Who can say?! (But I'd still have had to grapple with Plant's singing. ;) )