I get the appeal, but it got boring pretty fast for me.
I think it was corny and over the top.
Nice, but the songs are not as memorable as on Kid A or OK Computer.
It was a good listen. The songs are catchy and well-produced. It has some Nirvana sensibilities but also foreshadows the happy, skate-punk vibes that would dominate the 2000s.
I liked the vocals, except for when they veered into pretentious wankery, such as at the end of “Reasons to Be Beautiful.”
I promised myself I would listen to all the songs in all the daily albums from start to finish, but I failed here. I scrubbed through the last four songs: enough was enough by that point.
The vocals are truly unbearable. The pretentious affectation he carries throughout the entirety of the album makes the whole project an earsore.
The fear of music is truly the soundtrack of pseudo-intellectuals who get off on smelling their own farts.
I had a really good nap on the sofa while the album played. I fell asleep after a few songs and woke up to the opening notes of 'Money', which is definitely a highlight of the album. It's a cool concept and one of the most recognisable album covers. If there were a few more memorable songs, it would have been a five.
This must have been cool back then, but I think it sounds kind of banal today. It did not age as well as some other albums from the era.
Pleasant listen. They pioneered many things that are commonplace now in pop music. Unfortunately, the lyrics are kind of lame and overly straightforward by today's standards. A piece of history for sure, but not something I would listen to on a regular basis in 2026.
I listened to the first four songs, then I couldn't take it any more and just skipped through parts of the remaining ones. The album is a true display of low-shelf composition and musicianship. Psychobilly my ass, that's a made-up niche name for 'rockabilly by guys who are not good enough to play rockabilly well'.
I think it was all natural to make overly simplistic songs with the same I-IV-V chords in the 50s, as the music we know today was still in its infancy. But 'Songs The Lord Taught Us' came out in 1980. We're talking about artists like Michael Jackson, The Police and Prince laying the foundations for some of the coolest staples in musical history. And, just to bring us back to rockabilly, there was Brian Setzer, who was absolutely playing the shit out of the genre at that time. Compare him to these jokers, and it becomes evident how pathetic they were.
Nice listen, cool instrumentals. I think Vulfpeck borrows heavily from the Isley Brothers, because I could recognise many sounds and tricks. For me, however, the best Vulfpeck songs are more memorable and fun than the songs on this album, because they perfected this genre and combined it with modern pop sensibilities.
There are two things that I think 3+3 suffers from:
1. Some songs drag on for too long and become too 'jam-sessioney'.
2. Some instrumental parts (especially the guitars) are overplayed and take too much focus off the main vocals.
A run-of-the-mill 70s rock album with many ballads and emotional guitar work. I fail to see what makes this a must-listen.
Cool, driving funk. Not a big fan of the vocals, but the whole album is interesting and fun to listen to. A much-welcome addition to my journey after The Cramps (bleh) and the Talking Heads (bleh).
Not everyone will get this reference, but listening to this Zeppelin album after everything that has happened in rock music since then is kind of like playing dark souls one or demon souls after elden ring. You start noticing the quality of life improvements when you are faced with their absence.
This album by today's standards, unfortunately, is boring. The songs have absolutely no business being 6-7-8 minutes long. I found myself checking how much was left of them around the 2.5 min mark. They consist mostly of a single (or max 2) riff repeated over and over again like a neverending jam session. When I got too bored of them, I just skipped to the next one.
I thought it was a time thing. However, upon putting this 1975 record into context, I realized it is not just that. By that time, the Beatles had happened. Two great Pink Floyd records had happened. So many bands had demonstrated that it is possible to organise ideas into compact, hard-hitting songs. Led Zeppelin failed there, and made an album that overstays its welcome. 2.5.
I was torn between giving this album a 4 or a 5. Compared with my favourite albums, which I consider to be perfect masterpieces, it would be a low 4. However, Odelay is the 14th album in my 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die journey, and it was certainly the first album that was engaging and enjoyable from beginning to end. Its eccentric twists and unpredictability make it a great soundtrack for people with ADHD like me. After enduring The Cramps and Talking Heads, I'll do the honours of awarding Beck with my first five-star rating.
Not a big fan of the genre but I kind of liked it. The bass sound is iconic.
Not bad, not very good. I think it's a travesty that there are no Yello albums on the 1001 list, but this made it.
I grew up listening to Leonard Cohen thanks to my mum, who would always pick his albums as background music to make ironing more pleasurable. For this, his voice sits close to my heart. I'll give this album a 4 because I like his previous work better.
I liked the sound and vibe; however, too many songs sound like uninspired, never-ending jam sessions over the blues progression.
Ok. Didnt hate it but wouldnt listen again.
The album contained songs played by musicians. There were lyrics, mostly about goofy stuff. The singer was barely a singer, but still sounded kinda unique, like a drunk uncle telling stories at the function. I'm giving this a generous three.
Had to get to it several times to finish. The two hits are great, but it is difficult to listen to this album in one go. The sound, the voice, the everything, it is easy to have enough after 3-4 songs in one sitting.
Nice melodies, a pleasant listening. Not the most interesting stuff I've heard in my life, but good regardless.
Heavy-hitting pop songs, good instrumentals. A pleasant listen. I didn't know I liked Scissor Sisters, but now I do. A solid four, because fives are reserved four albums that give me goosebumps or get me completely hooked.
This is the first album where I felt that the 'got to listen to it before you die' part was 100% true. Enter sandman, sad but true, holier than thou, the unforgiven, then wherever I may roam. These are just the first five songs in succession. There are established bands whose greatest hits albums have fewer timeless classics than this. Peak.
Interesting listen. The hate is real, but I found myself much more bored while listening to the Stones or Led Zeppelin. I listened to it all with just one short lunch break in the middle, and it was kind of enjoyable. Swift as the Wind fucking sucks tho, it's an awful performance from everyone involved. I can't give anything higher than a 3, because I'll never listen to it again out of my own free will.
Your typical 80s runofthemill emotional pop album. Not bad, but no clue why it's on this list.
Cool retro music, high calibre singing. The 60s are not my cup of tea but I'd this any day over talking heads or the cramps.
Generational talent, god-tier singing. Im not much of an Adele fan but I gotta give props to greatness when I hear it.
The album is loaded with absolute hits. I knew like half of the songs just from existing. What suprised me was how ageless the instrumentation and production is. No gimmicks, the instruments sound natural and the mixing is proportionate, focused and timeless.
I feel this era and genre of music are wildly overrepresented in the 1001 albums. Unfortunately for me, I find this sort of music exceptionally boring and samey. 'That's all you need ' has some cool guitars and steel drums.
Experimental compositions, interesting sounds, unique vibes. If not for the vocals, I'd give a 4. But this is a 2, I absolutely loathe this style of singing. The mannerisms, pretentious overarticulation, I just hate it. There are moments when the singer forgets to do the mannerisms and just sings well, those parts are great.
I don't care for the Rolling Stones too much, it's a shame they have such a high number of albums on this list.
Radiohead without the interesting or good parts.
A nice listen.
Run-of-the-mill blues album. Not sure what it's doing on this list.
I've never been a diehard Black Sabbath fan. I only know the hits. This album was a surprise, as it's pretty far from what comes to mind when I hear the band's name. It was kind of bluesy and led zeppelinish. Not my favourite stuff, but I can appreciate what's going on.
Not my favourite genre, but I can respect it. What is interesting is that sometimes it sounds a lot like 90s rock/grunge, which was kind of revolutionary in the 70s. Unfortunately, the best I can do is a 3, because I don't like punk.
The instrumental few minutes made me very excited, especially after being subjected to so much 60s and 70s rock. The vocals weren't my thing, but I still found the whole album more enjoyable than the bluesy jams this 1001 list is full of.
Cool concept, but I don't really see why I should hear this before I die. The songs (and the album as a whole) grow tiresome real quick.
Much much better than physical graffiti, but still not my jam.
I'm not a punk fan. It was okay.
Okayish rock music, nothing special
Not a fan, but it was fine
Wow. This fucking sucked. Nobody can sing on this album, including the woman in the end. The songs are boring and pointless, and to top it all of, the record does not even sound too good.
Wannabe Oasis album. Not bad, just not captivating. Neutral feelings, hence the 3.
For an album to get a 5, I think all the following should be present:
- Display of exceptional musicianship
- Long-lasting influence, memorable songs
- Emotional effect
This album is fit for this. While Guns N' Roses might not be my favourite band of all time, the achievement is undeniable. This debut record sounds great. It is also played very tightly and is well-arranged. The vocal performance is extraordinary. Last but not least, it has a huge selection of songs that stand the test of time.
Very cool old-school hip-hop, but it didn't move me much. I think I'm too Eastern European for it to truly and deeply get it. Huge drums.
I felt pretty neutral towards it. I guess it's not my jam.
Well, that's a generous two, because it wasn't as insufferable as the Cramps, although they stem from the same branch.
Mixing and overall sound: shit
Songs: most of them are piss weak
Singing: honestly laughable and ridiculous.
Instruments: mostly fine, but there clearly audible slips of playing when the guitarist fell out of time.
Redeeming quality: there were one or two songs that had a cool groove going.
Spare me this shit next time, please.
It took me a few attempts to make it through. It was fine, but I didn't like it at all.
+Great production
+Interesting sound design
+Great playing and singing
+Heads Will Roll
On paper, this album checks all the boxes. It sounds interesting and artsy, yet approachable. To me, however, it lacks the emotional content that elevates an album from being good to great. It does not want to make me dance and shout, nor does it make me want to sit back, reflect and get goosebumps.
Why 4 then? Heads Will Roll is a banger, and I still enjoy this sort of music much more than the 60-70s whiteboy blues that this 1001 album catalogue is full of.
Cool grooves, some fun songs, but a bit bloated for an album with a lot of filler.
The album cover had me prepared for some old-school heavy metal, but I basically got a rock musical. I really liked it tho, much more than the Iron Maiden and Judas Priest albums I got a few weeks ago.
Listened to the first half, skipped the second. I almost always force myself to listen to the whole album, but I realised it has no point if it's just a chore I hate. Without merits.
This kind of sucked. It wasn't too bad; some instrumental parts were fine. But the whole album felt uninspiring and demo-like, especially with the mediocre singing.
Songwriting from a melodic and harmonic perspective: 4
The songs and the production themselves: 3
Whiny and irritating vocals: 2
Overall: 3
Dime a dozen 70s rock. For some reason, the author of this list loves that shit. I don't. I doesn't move anything in me and I don't really find it fun or interesting. I listened to it, and I didn't hate it.
Another 70s rock album. I barely get anything else from this list. Luckily, it was significantly more enjoyable than the others. Cool melodies, nice singin, stellar songwriting.
Give me a break. This was the 58th album on my journey, and the third Stones album I got, which is 5%. They don't make up 5% of all good music in the world. Not even 0.0001% actually...
Beggards Banquet was bland, uninspiring and boring. The songs really don't go anywhere. To prove my point, I encourage you to do the following experiment: take any song off the album and skip to 1/3, 1/2 and 3/4 of it. It's funny how it's the exact same thing.
I've never really been into Mick Jagger, but it took me 3 Stones albums and the song Factory Girl to find out why. The guy actually can't sing. He can't. Listen to how he's trying to struggle his way through that song. 'Hair', 'Anywhere', are waaay off pitch and sound all tensed up. He just does not have the proficiency to pull these lines off, because he can't sing high without tensing up and being off pitch as a result.
If this album were from some underground project, I'd give it a 2. However, the Rolling Stones are hailed as one of the best rock bands in the world. When measured against this standard, I gotta round that 2 down to a 1.
Cool.
Cool songs, nice and varied instrumentation. I actually listened to this quite a lot when I was a child, because my dad is a big fan of the album.
