1001 Albums Summary

I appreciate some of the Rolling Stones' best-known songs, but I've never been a fan. I tried to approach this album with fresh ears: it seemed moderately stylistically coherent, but unconvincing, the vocals annoying, I fidgeted as it trundled along in background. I concluded it is seven fillers, bookended by two iconic songs. Gimme Shelter and You Can't Always Get What You Want are imperfect but interesting songs, worthy of many a listen - without them, the album would be a 1, with them I'll say (having come back to recalibrate) it's Mix of Good and Bad, 5/10 = 3 stars.

I wanted to appreciate this album (which I'd checked out previously without "getting it") - I gave it a couple of listens, but still felt most of it is too cool to engage me. I far prefer the energy and warmth (together with interesting chords, rhythms etc) of The Royal Scam. The title track is "well made" but doesn't really attract me to play it again. Same for most of the other tracks. One stand-out, I like Peg from start to finish (faster tempo, nice funky riffs and hooks) - was chuffed to realise this was the song heavily sampled for Eye Know - interesting guitar solo, slapping bass - I'll listen to that song again, but without the rest of the album. Since each song in isolation is at least moderately interesting - I give the album as a whole a 3 rather than a 2.

I'd not been particularly interested in this album on previous glances, but I paid attention this time, and really enjoyed and appreciated it. There's a lot to attend to, in the music, arrangements, lyrics - it's intriguingly complex, without being deliberately difficult - I have strong impression it will repay repeated listens. There's a pleasing range of styles - one might skip particular tracks depending on mood, but none seem out of place. No-one should be put off by reputation as 'jazzy'. It's a "sit quietly and listen" album - I warmly recommend it in that space.

This was better than I had expected - quite rocky guitar tones, nice playing, particularly good soloing. The approaches to blues structure held my attention for the first few songs. (Lyrics repeating first line of a verse builds expectation for the twist - but then, they didn't deliver any great messages.) But then, the songs were pretty samey - had to wait till track 5 (Hot, Blue and Righteous) for a change of pace and it was a dud. So, why am I listening to this as an album? Then thinking the better test might be, if I walked in on some live band and these songs were their performance. I would have stuck round (more for the five piece band, counting overdubs, than notional three-piece with only single guitar line on top of much less interesting bass) - maybe I would have strolled out at track 9 (Sheik) as that was boring filler. La Grange was the most appealing musically (particularly hot solo) but when I focus on the lyrics it's yuck.

The instrumental components are kinda listenable (though mostly "why bother", verging on tedious/fatuous) but the vocals (lead and backing) are wildly off-putting, and the lyrics (unintelligible from audio, foolishly I looked them up) are IMHO shit. Too many songs I had to skip on first listen (couldn't make other people in the room put up with them), and found painfully tedious on second attempt. 1/10 is as low as my scale goes. (I hope the generator doesn't ask me to listen to anything worse than this ... fingers crossed.)

Well-made album I hadn’t heard before, the songs were congruent (recognisably Depeche Mode) but didn't seem repetitive, the patterns all sounded fresh (drums might have been same-y but didn't grate), some interesting harmonic progressions. Mood was rather melancholy but not forced. No particular song hit me as catchy or obvious hit single - intrigued to learn after listening that this was breakout period for the band. I could listen again without complaint - but not compelling. 7/10

Songs I don't recall hearing before but recognisably U2 (the voice, the guitar technique, simple but reasonably effective chord structures). Rich production (keyboards, overdubs, textures) - clearly a studio album. Lyrics seem a bit "oh I need to write some lyrics, they should be a bit catchy and a bit mysterious". It's Not Bad, 4/10.

This is an incredible album: not just a set of individually-satisfying songs ("heart-wrenching melodies" with "over-the-top arrangements" as two critics said), but a concept album, with public history themes, also engaging with Stevens' private history. Prolific/skilful singer-songwriter in full flight, tackling big subjects with engaging and challenging lyrics, looping catchy harmonies, satisfying orchestrations, great though apparently "lo-fi" production (home recording and Pro Tools), passionate songs, extensive dynamic range. Many standout songs. In contrast to what I know of his other albums, this is largely acoustic instrumentation, I have no problem with that. Came back to say I'm currently rating this 11 out of 10 :-)

I didn't know this band. (I had heard Brimful of Asha, music seemed so slight that I was not at all motivated to find out what it was about.) So I read a bit before listening, then found the album more pleasant than I had expected. Some fun glitchy riffs, danceable old school acoustic funk loops, punk style simplicity (reminded me of Happy Mondays), a bit of dub was nice; some of it was just inoffensive background music (ie couldn't hold sustained attention). Feeling generous towards the good vibes, I'll say Good rather than just Okay. My favourite song: Candyman.

I didn't take Duran Duran seriously when this was released. But there's lots to like here - solid rhythm section (bass is often funky), heaps of kybds, band playing as a unit. I/m reminded what a breath of fresh air everything more or less New Romantic was, after punk - you could dance with a smile instead of a scowl. The lyrics of Duran Duran were and are of not much interest - but the music stands up okay. Feeling generous again, I'll rate as Good rather than Okay. My favourite song: My Own Way.

I'd never have thought of putting on a whole album of Soundgarden (less attractive than Nirvana or RATM). Unappealing opening (first 2 tracks too slow and repetitive for my taste) but it got better. Tracks 7-9 (Black Hole Sun, Spoonman, Limo Wreck) make an exciting three-in-a-row. By the end of the album, I was impressed with strength/range of lead vocals (carried the words well) and variety of playing styles, as well as sheer grunge and grunt. But still very same-y. It's on the high side of 'Okay': 6/10. Favourite track: Limo Wreck.

Disco! For a whole album?? I remember dancing to "We Are Family", but never played the whole album. The songs are very repetitive, little content. Hmm, that guitar, is it Nile Rodgers? Why yes it is! But then - reading Wikipedia makes me wonder, should this really be known as a Sister Sledge album, or what?? Wikipedia says "Edwards and Rodgers would only show the songs to Sister Sledge once the sisters were in front of the studio microphones." - eeeeuuuuwwww!!!!! I wonder how the sisters felt about that! Makes the album seem like product just for the sake of $$. I rate it Poor (3/10).

I never listened to Can before. (Negative reputation outpaced listening experience?) Track 1 is great, would be fine as a contemporary recording (I'd be intrigued they didn't turn up volume/distortion) - good drumming, high energy, solid structures, fascinating. So I go read Wikipedia: "... Czukay editing the band's long jams into structured songs"?!?!? The following tracks (on disc 1) are funky and interesting - jazzy, negligible clangers - were they brilliant jammers, or is it all down to brilliant editing? (But he was only editing two-track tapes!) Then, disc 2 was tougher going, but quite listenable (after a break). In fact Aumgn grew on me (over three listens). Familiar curiosity from a groundling - did they have a plan for a given track, or how 'randomly' throw stuff in? Anyway, disc 1 is 8/10, overall 7/10.

I don't mind chamber folk, but found most of this album somewhat tedious. I'm mildly curious how it came to be made (what were those involved thinking, phenomenon of producer changing tracks without involvement from nominal artiste) and why/how did it get more famous over time. Track 3 would be more interesting if no strings/flutes, just guitar organ vox. Track 5 is already more interesting than others - sparse, folk with noise, much better dynamic range. In some other tracks I was somewhat engaged by Larry Fallon's string/flute arrangements - while feeling bit repelled at betrayal of artiste whose album it supposedly was. Overall 3/10.

I knew of Cocteau Twins but hadn't consciously listened to any. I expected more ethereal; I understand this is considered their more poppy/accessible album. It grew on me with repeated listens. (It's all about textures, so headphones or other hi-fidelity equipment essential.) Overall it's Good without any knockout attributes, 7/10.

Three deservedly-famous songs, some others reasonably catchy on first hearing, some tedious like middle of the road radio, and some with offensive lyrics/production: Jamaica Jerk-Off in particular, I also don't like Dirty Little Girl. Maybe 'Sir' 'Elton John' (and Taupin) are just smug gits who happen to have written some good songs. (At first I used past tense, but neither are dead yet - maybe one or both will apologise for these songs before they go? Taupin apparently told Rolling Stone he couldn't remember writing Jamaica Jerk-Off - did he say "gee it's embarassing, I apologise"? I can't tell because I don't subscribe to Rolling Stone ...) 3/10

Woohoo! Some songs here I already knew, are FIRE: 'Respect' is the stand-out. Some songs I didn't know, turn out to be mighty fine, eg 'Drown In My Own Tears'. Nothing here I don't like. 10/10 :-)

As Trouser Press apparently said, "cornball retro-moronic". If they were teenagers playing this stuff at my local pub, I'd say "okay they can play ... but why are they choosing to play this rubbish? and could the singer not find a better role model?" Will I ever choose to play this album for myself? No, never again. 1/10

Alright! Songs etched in my brain from long ago. The style, structures, guitar/bass/drums are FINE. Some lyrics are cool, some I could do without (eg Beat On The Brat). I was going to say the vocals are the weak point, but they are of course fully Ramones vocals, I'm reminded part of the point was not trying to be eg Ronnie James Dio. Now, what about the replay test? Because I never put this album on for myself. But, I always smile when I hear one of the tunes - and I could imagine putting it on for a road trip. So, it's GOOD. 8/10

Hadn't heard this before, found it very different from things I normally listen to, and very interesting, as well as pleasant/hypnotic. Intriguing trying to work out what I was hearing, so I read Wikipedia etc. I recommend the review at https://www.theguardian.com/music/2006/jul/14/worldmusic.shopping to help appreciate the album in context. Significant that the album combines traditional aspects and more varied aspects, also that Ali Farka Touré considered it his best. Interesting comments in that article about the lyrics - I had a quick try but no success finding lyrics for songs other than Savane. Fortunately the music works for me even when I don't understand the words. Rating was tricky, I decided it's 9/10 Quite Wonderful (regardless that it functions rather differently from other albums I've put at that level).

Kraftwerk! I didn't listen to this when it came out. 1978 seems early for "electro-pop". It's got the repetition and inoffensiveness of pop, but I did not perceive the zing and zip I associate with electro (thinking Street Sounds compilation albums). Is there something bad about this album? No. But will I play it again? No. It's OKAY. 5/10.

Hmm. There are parts I liked a lot, but also extended passages that left me stone cold - so it just doesn't work for me as an album. It might have been fantastic for some people, it's interesting that it came out in 1969, but it just doesn't work for me. 3/10.

Never heard of this band, so I had a quick read - some ppl don't like David Berman's voice? Start listening - I don't mind his voice, I wouldn't say Tom Waits, I think of Lou Reed and maybe Bob Dylan? "I know there's a tune, but I couldn't be arsed singing it" - maybe those singers want to be more like spoken? Anyway the guitar lines are often really nice (thumbs up for that) - and the lyrics are cool (interesting and not just weird). So it's good. Not rushing to hear the rest of discography. 7/10

Never listened to this before. First listen was as background, music is okay, I gather I ought to pay attention to the lyrics. So I go through again trying to do that. I could never have understood these just listening by myself or talking with friends, maybe before internet we needed music journalism to help explain? (Comparisons here with non-obvious lyrical depths of Sufjan Stevens?) First song, the music doesn't attract me, the lyrics subject is ick, unfavourable comparison with Sufjan's John Wayne Gacy, Jr. Second song, Atlantic City, I can't get the lyrics, discussion at SongMeanings.com was more helpful (as non-American I could never have worked out that stuff from just listening to the song). Overall: I'm just not that interested, don't think I'll come back to persevere. It's Okay, not much Bad about it - 6/10.

Pretty tedious, even bloated. Riffs aren't that good, some of the wordsmithing is a bit interesting but swaggering lothario singing about rock touring lifestyle is not appealing. This might be better than some other stadium rock of the era, that is very faint praise. I knew Walk This Way because of the cross-over, Rick Rubin had good intuition and remarkable ability to deliver, his version punches a lot harder than the original on this album. Could hardly wait for this to be over. (Favourite song: No More No More.) 1/10

Pleasant, though not as polished as the Eagles' songs I know best. Take It Easy is a strong start, no other song matches it. If I knew someone who could pick double-time banjo, and we could sing four-part harmonies, I might like to play something like this. It's Good - 7/10.

A band I'd heard of, and had an impression of what it might sound like, but never sat down and listened to. (I saw '2013' as year of release, and had no idea of chronology - didn't know this was released 20 yrs after their previous album - I've read more since then.) In summary I find the sounds/styles generally not unappealing, but some of the songs are misses, lightweight and/or tedious. Favourite song: "nothing is" (one-chord minimalism actually effective :-). Overall I'd say it's Okay, 6/10.

I knew Sultans of Swing when it came out, catchy but wasn't my type of thing. Pleasantly surprised and kinda impressed by this album: the lead guitar technique and lines are exquisite. (As for the rest of band, they play together neatly, but I find the chord structures, drumming and bass playing to be so-so...) I don't mind the singing but not a fan, I can see the Dylan comparison - lyrics didn't jump out, nothing about the singing attracted me to pay attention to them ... Was interested to learn that in 1978 Dire Straits toured as opening band for Talking Heads?! Anyway, it's good craft, I'll call it Good, 7/10.

Soul music! Looking at the list I see some songs I already know, some I don't. Hit play, quickly pick up on great singing, good playing, good tunes, great arrangements and production (Salaam Remi and Mark Ronson, mmm). Lyrics quite wild! I start reading more widely - oh dear - I knew she had AOD problems, didn't know it was that bad ... That sadness is now hanging over this record for me ... doesn't make the music any worse, but kills my excitement for the "wild vibe" - while leaving the tensions as mesmerising as ever. Went back for extra listens, particularly the songs I found most interesting - some very striking packages of music, lyrics, delivery, eg Tears Dry On Their Own. My appreciation deepens. Some songs are so-so, but overall it's Quite Wonderful, 9/10.

Never listened to a Sinatra album before. Playing this through, I was struck that he could certainly sing, but I didn't find the songs very interesting. So, I read some Wikipedia etc, re the album and Sinatra generally. I had had a strong impression of Sinatra from the cipher character in The Godfather , I feel after more reading that was probably not inaccurate take on the guy at level of character, eg unattractive aspects of Italian-American machismo. What about the album? I saw a comment that it had a broader emotional palette than was commonly 'acceptable' for mainstream men at the time. So there's points of interest, but I don't really want to go back and listen more, but I do recognise some quality in this Sinatra album. So it's Okay (Not Good), 4/10.

I have heard these songs quite a few times over the years. Six songs that are very good (I am happy to hear them and feel warmly about them, though reluctant to call them great); five good songs; one ring-in that is kinda okay musically but rubbish lyrically (Smackwater Jack). Lyrics generally 'work' but are not deep poetry. Overall she's a gifted songwriter, good arrangements, nice voice and piano playing :-) I'll say the album is Very Good, 8/10.

So, glam rock eh? Jeepster made a big impact on me when I first heard it (as a pre-teen). Later there was Gary Glitter - magnetic/appalling at the same time, then as we learned more about him his music became repugnant, unplayable, and besmirched the simplistic side of glam rock generally. (Was the simplicity just manipulation of teenie purchasing power?) Anyway, this album: T.Rex's 7th?? And it was very popular??? I'll grant that Bolan had a knack of getting down super simple verse/chorus hooks with minimal lyrics, and a lot of self-confidence to keep churning songs out. But Metal Guru and Telegram Sam seem like someone is taking the piss. And there are a few creepy aspects: the backing vocals almost always one octave up, over unison bass and guitar, is a bit psycho; the lyric fetish re cars (Jaguar, Buick, Cadillac) is yuck. (On the other hand, I will credit the two note guitar solo in Baby Boomerang, that was art ahead of its time.) I wondered whether Bolan might turn out to also be certified or probable creep - apparently is nothing on the internet to say he was a predator - but his fortune "variously estimated at between £20 and £30 million" was as of 2022 locked in a trust, not accessible to his son, hmm. I'm pretty sure life is too short for me to ever bother playing through the album again, so I'll say it's Poor, 3/10.

Solidly bossa nova - cool and smooth jazz. Nice clear sound, quite pleasant to listen to. Amazing that this was all recorded in one day - apparently in just three hours - presumably largely improvised solos. Percussion just goes and goes, imperturbably. Would I play it again? Yes - but only as background music. Does any of it rock my world? Not in the slightest. So, it's Okay (not bad) ie 6/10.

I had a tape of Sabbath's second album back in the day, but never heard this one. I was interested when track 1 (title track) came on - impressed that four guys from Birmingham came up with this style, and impressed that the album was recorded in one day just by playing through their live set. But, as has been said by others,, the album gets weaker into the second side - 'Warning' in particular is half-baked and bloated, I think not good enough to be on any record. After a bit more listening and reflection, I concluded this album showed potential (interesting guitar tone, Osbourne may have been a creep but could sing, etc), but is mostly unsatisfying rather than satisfying. It's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

New album for me. (I had a later Jack White solo album, but no White Stripes albums.) Right from the first song I found it exciting. Seems like virtually all are fine songs, a mix of styles and energy levels but dominant impression is a punk tradition. (Reading about the album I see that it's often referred to as "garage rock", okay.) I liked the really nice (but not flashy!) guitar playing, neat use of overdubs (not too much). Songs didn't sound same-y even though using limited sonic palette - effective variety in riffs and feels. I think I will probably replay this over time as a straight through album. I may like it even better as I get to know the songs/lyrics better. As of today, I rate it Very Good, 8/10 :-)

One of my favourite albums! How to describe? Wikipedia hedges with "heavy rock / glam rock"; I can't see this as "glam rock" (because there's very little musically in common with say T.Rex or Gary Glitter), I'd rather say "heavy rock / camp cabaret", because there's super-high drama across a broad emotional range, including heavy rock and pomp and mawkish close-up sentiment. I could rave about each of the songs - almost all 10/10. Each instant knows where it's going, and is arranged and performed for maximum impact - the emotional journey is well managed - a tour de force!! It's Astoundingly Wonderful, 11/10 :-)

I'd not heard of this band or album. On first play-through, I couldn't get it: instruments playing busily (but to what purposes?), lyrics delivered strangely, did nothing for me. I went to Wikipedia, and what I read about Arthur Lee put me off, eg "Lee envisioned Forever Changes as a lament to his memory". Somehow got through the album. I came back the next day, in a more positive state of mind, to give it a second listen. I'm now more open to the feel of some of the songs. I still question whether the lyrics are relatively coherent (for a given song), like a reasonably well-constructed poem, or are they in some cases just assemblages of potentially catchy but only weakly-related phrases. (This phenomenon is of course by no means not unique to Love :-) I have noted that Genius annotations don't shed much light on these songs. Overall, I'll now say this album is on the low side of Okay, 4/10.

I knew only two of these songs (the very well-known ones). The riffing is semi-decent (crunchy texture), but there are almost no off-beat rhythms, why is it so square? And I'm soon tired of the vocal style - I am quite open to cathartic music, but this is almost always shouty/angry, boring. So, Nothing Else Matters is great (better dynamic range), some other songs could be okay as one-off workout songs, but I wouldn't play this again as an album. I will keep choosing heavy rock / metal (eg Living Colour, Agriculture) that doesn't have this tedious shouty tone. Feeling generous, I say it's "Mix of Good and Bad", 5/10.

Ray Price wasn't on my radar, I didn't know what to expect, but I've always had a soft spot for steel guitars sliding through comfortable chord sequences, and honky tonk chord structures turn out to be deep in my bones, so I liked this album! Singing is good - lyrics are tolerable for their period and varied - I like the lush strings, and also the country solo violin segments. The introduction is unusual, at first I thought it might be hokey, but decided it's not, because it's not pretending to be speaking to listener conversationally, it's very much the band leader speaking to audience at start of a show - ie the album listener should think of it as like a show, but make themselves even more comfortable. Favourite song: Night Life (the chord sequences and slide have a little bit of jazz in them so yum). Overall, it's Good, 7/10.

Dire Straits' fifth studio album. I was recently assigned their first album – found it better than I had expected. This one is what I had been expecting (or even worse). A 'polished' sound (not one but two keyboard players), but astoundingly bland arrangements, apparently aiming for middle of the road inoffensive put you to sleep. Money for Nothing does have a crunchy guitar line, but bass and drums are boring as batshit, and the chorus and video still offend me (lyricist won the music industry lottery, but outraged at idea he doesn't have to work for his money – digs at blue collar workers who happen to be distributing microwaves and TVs – what, lyricist doesn't use those products?). I kept hoping for something I could like. Your Latest Trick is more engaging – until vocals start. Why Worry, I would like if the plodding drums were just left out. One World has a bit of slap bass, which does lift the vibe, but not enough to get this album above Really Poor, 2/10.

Didn't know the album. I'm open to hip hop, but not listened widely, so interested to focus on a Wu-Tang album. I like RZA's production style; I'm open to Method Man's rapping. Bring the Pain is interesting, I'm reading the lyrics, then oh dear, what's this at the end of the song? "So fuck the ho, fuck the ho". Major turn-off. Dutifully (doubtfully?) I keep listening. Nothing stands out as good. The track Method Man at least gives me the phrase "southpaw style", as sampled by some dubstep thing long ago, that's mildly nice. I have no time for any man that chucks in a "fuck the ho" for the male bonding or whatever it's supposed to be, they can fuck right off, I would rather some positive hip hop. It's Bad, 1/10.

Didn't know what to expect, snuck a look at Wikipedia, okay maybe I know blues rock / "Southern rock". First two tracks were very disappointing, very meh. Track 3 (Stormy Monday) by contrast was very enjoyable and satisfying - slow blues with great jazz feels, rocking guitar solo working well with tight band, soul feel in the vocals, an excellent package. Tracks 4-5 not so memorable. Tracks 6 and 7, the extended jams, were high points, particularly guitar solo work in In Memory of Elizabeth Reed. So there is some great stuff here, that I would play again, but I would not want to have to sit through first two tracks again. So I won't say the album as a whole is Good, I'll say it's Not Bad, 6/10.

Well! I didn't know this existed, but it has easily become my favourite Metallica album! The symphonic arrangements are tastefully done, and lift the complexity and emotional engagement of every track; the mixes are well done, with varied balance/prominence of components. The original Call of Ktulu, for example, was IMHO overblown, an okay riff or two (hardly outweighing the irritation of mis-spelt title), but not going anywhere interesting or not quickly enough (just head-banging for longer than I liked). The orchestrated version by contrast makes a lot more out of the chord sequences and overall development of the song. So I am much happier with these versions of the songs I already knew, and happy to listen to new songs. It's Pretty Wonderful, 9/10!!

I know of this band (guitarist) but never listened to more than one song in a row. So off to Wikipedia. David Lee Roth rewarded roadies $25 for every woman who came to him wearing a pass with the relevant roadie's initials on it? Charming. Runnin' With the Devil: my id has free rein, fair warning!! Eruption: tweedle weedle going nowhere. You Really Got Me: not nice. Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love: ounds like they just want to dominate women. I'm the One: I can listen to this okay, it has some oomph, and gives a nod to doo-wop, this is my fave track so far. Jamie's Cryin': a date rape song. Feel Your Love Tonight: another rape song. Little Dreamer: decent riff and harmony vox. Zero interps volunteered as yet on Genius - I won't be the first. Ice Cream Man: not as good as Roth seems to think. On Fire: "Turn your radios on / I'll appear right there .... Lay your bodies down / I'm in your beds". Anyway, it's clearly Mix of Good and (very) Bad - 5/10. (Is that too generous for these schmucks? I do recognise that the guitar tone and tech were way influential, I'd just rather listen to music by grown-ups who have got over any testosterone high.)

Country rock is a thing, this album may have been influential, but it is is not appealing to me as a 'country rock album'. It sounds more like a collection of demos - band members knew the songs, including structures, but hadn't fully settled on who was playing what when. So the pedal steel for example has some striking lines, but they don't gel with what the rest of band is doing. A musically-knowledgeable friend was keen on Gram Parsons when I was 19 but I can't work out what record we listened to. I read a bit about his life: trust fund and drugs, not a happy tale. Had a look at the lyrics of "Hippie Boy", that is a painful embarassment. Overall it's Pretty Poor (3/10).

The music industry in '70s USA must have been quite something. So much wealth flowing through the economy, so many people buying records, the big record companies could fund singer-songwriters like Schmilsson to release multiple records, even ones with cry-for-help cover pics like this one. Who is he again? Oh yeah, he's the "Without You" one. (Not "Everything I Own", that was Bread, completely different!). The first two songs I Liked (ie enough to play again) were Without You, and Let the Good Times Roll, ie the first two songs written by others. (Coconut was kinda interesting, but I'm gonna need a ten foot pole to engage with anything sung in a "Caribbean accent" by a North American etc.) But then Jump Into The Fire was pretty interesting! So what do I say overall? The album is not uninteresting - the multi-tracking vocals is decent and apparently was kinda path-breaking. So I'll say Not Bad, 6/10.

Backing tracks are definitely interesting, singing is nice, but the rap lyrics are mostly shallow, tedious, witless - so not my scene. Overall it's Okay - 5/10.

I had heard of X, but somehow never listened to any. Really really liking this album - every song appeals to me on first listen or is at least very interesting: good riffs, structures, variety; very good singing (great tone/energy), lyrics not offputting! Mildly wondering how to describe it: definitely some punk vibe "but the guitarist can play" (and energy without aggression); I can hear a little rockabilly, but not too much; a bit reminiscent of no wave. "Punk rock" always seemed like a label used by people who weren't into it, but I get that it may be the best label here. It's Pretty Wonderful, 9/10.

I am not worthy to review this record, but today, that is my task. I am not a Beatles fanatic, but I was excited to see this cover pop up. In listening through, I was struck more than I'd expected – because of the amount of 60's music I've listened to since starting the project. Songs I already thought were amazing, stand out more than ever, as incredible achievements for their time. I felt like reading more – Wikipedia article is interesting but sad – life is short and the project's clock is ticking. Come Together: stupendous. (Evokes Lennon's later solo work.) Something: incredible. Yearning, reaching, not quite getting there? Maxwell's Silver Hammer: troublesome, I don't like 3:27 of disjunct between oom-pah nonchalance and story of violence. (Lyrics/music don't develop after the reveal in first chorus.) Oh! Darling: in isolation, seemed inconsequential, but in context, it works. Octopus's Garden: I always thought was light relief, but felt great in context. I Want You (She's So Heavy): stupendous. Audacious but it gets there. (Me in 1969: “what is that behind the band, how did they make that noise?”) Here Comes The Sun: okay. Because: in isolation, seemed like cod psychedelia, but in context it's bold and authentic. “The Long One”. You Never Give Me Your Money: this band could definitely play. Sun King: never heard it before, but style is familiar, must have been influential. (Tame Impala??) Mean Mr Mustard: somewhat know the music, no idea what it's about, wowed by fudgey bass line, time signature trick, suddenly it's over? Polythene Pam: didn't realise how creative this mix. (Queen?!) She Came In Through The Bathroom Window: well put together, lyrics intriguing. Golden Slumbers: gutsy singing, great orchestration. Carry That Weight: I always thought was part of one song with Golden Slumbers, maybe it's inseparable. The End: drum solo? Rhythm guitar that rocks out. Lead solo(s) – which I didn't realise were traded – Hendrix had already arrived in London, so work cut out for guitarists – recorded live in one take?!? Famous closing phrase – sounds like Yes? Her Majesty: what? They can spin out joke ditties, cutting off in the middle of a bar is striking, but I don't get it as a closer. (I understand it got pulled out from the medley, I don't get why.) Overall: a lot to think about. Clearly incredibly influential. Worthy of many a listen. Not perfect, but 10/10.

Never listened to much Kinks, maybe they're significant, let's see. Check Wikipedia: concept album, okay. Track 1, Victoria: I know this! Covered by The Fall, long ago :-) Songs roll on, they're actually pretty catchy! Vocals are not high in the mix, so lyrics are not impinging on my mind, so be it. Wait, there is a song called 'Australia'? Read the lyrics - it's a solid take on the image of Australia promoted in the UK (from Victorian era until time of the album, when the Davies' brother-in-law Arthur actually came to Australia as a "ten pound Pom"). Overall, I'd say the album is well-made and entertaining, not compelling to listen again but if someone (miraculously) suggested putting it on I wouldn't mind at all, so I'll (generously) call it Good, 7/10.

Ooh, stadium rock - before they hit the stadiums? We had a U2 "early big hits" compilation at our house but I don't know this album. I look at Wikipedia, not least so I can see what genre to put in my personal spreadsheet: the album page calls it "post-punk"?!? Let's give it a listen. Sunday Bloody Sunday, big tick. Then something unmemorable. (I go back next day and listen closely - it's got production values, but IMNSHO embarrassingly shallow/trite content.) Then New Year's Day - one of my very favourite U2 songs :-) Then "Like a Song...", I hadn't heard before, okay this could be called post-punk (and it's not totally bad - a 'good' voice with shitty lyrics oh well :-) Some other songs I listen to while I'm cooking, could hardly be bothered to play again. But I do, the next day - my body is keeping time - the musical pieces are passable but the lyrics let the music down? "40", I'm interested enough first time through to check the lyrics, but wow, mystic opacity, no thanks. In summary, it's two great songs, and some others that chug along. It's Not Bad, 6/10.

Never heard of them! Quick read of Wikipedia, I'm not optimistic. Start listening - actually, this sounds okay. (And yes, I do recognise Golden Skans.) Hey - it's actually good! In fact: I dig it!! Well-played, toe-tapping. Not sure about the overall concept-album aspect: the 'theme' is something to think about while listening, like "program notes", but nothing of the theme came through for me from just listening or looking at lyrics. Anyway, in summary it is indeed Good - 7/10.

Excellent, an album recently recommended to me in r/1001AlbumsGenerator. Weird that I've listened to Rumours so many times (playing through from start to finish) but never touched Tusk - weird but consistent with my whole "one album is enough to focus on" phenomenon. Quick look at Wikipedia - can I really credit that this album was influenced by post-punk, when it was released in 1979?? I would have said new wave was still in full swing at that time, I would have thought some way before post-punk. But TIL Gang of Four's Entertainment! was released in September 1979 - it's my listening taste that lagged a little. Wikipedia article says Lindsay Buckingham was "infatuated with bands such as Talking Heads"?? Anyway, back to Fleetwood Mac. Track 1 is nice. But production quickly goes sparse, and then musical inspiration and judgement go AWOL. By the second half of side 2, it's dragging ... (Some of the tracks are not unpleasant ....) In summary, it's a Mix of Good and Bad, 5/10.

Seen the cover graphic, never listened to the album: if I wanted EDM, I wasn't looking to Madonna for it. Look at the song list, I don't know any. ("Top 5 hits" or not - I wasn't following pop/sales charts.) What is the album like? "Just like EDM, only poppy!!" I have slight anticipatory prejudice against the degree of polish - but the production and arrangements really are all well done, credit to William Orbit's skills I assume. So in what sense is it a Madonna album, should it be called a Madonna/Orbit album? (He seems to get writing credit on every track - along with at least Madonna, and up to four other writers per song ...) 'Presumably' Madonna was involved in sound design choices ... She 'presumably' had a lot to do with lyrics? She doubtless did the singing - voice is of course not injected raw into the mix, it was maybe strengthened by training for Evita, it was certainly produced into as much depth and body as money could buy... Any songs stand out? Shanti/Ashtangi is interesting but yoga-ish lyrics unintelligible to 'average' listener, simply connote exoticism, eurk. (Personally I like yoga, but IMHO any 'magic' is in the practice, not recital of the words.) 'Frozen' is entertaining (eye candy video). How to rate overall? Orbit's work is neat, but overall still pretty meh. Feeling generous after some re-listen with headphones, I'll say it's "Good", 7/10.

Never heard of them, looks grim, glance at Wikipedia, hit play. Summertime Blues I know, but what is this version?? Not a good start. (As per some other groups' tracks, if they were teenagers rather than lank-haired 20-somethings, I would feel more indulgent ...) Rock Me Baby: now that is blues I can get around. Doctor Please: actually quite heavy - live feel. (Rhythm section hold the pulse while lead guitar rocks out quite personally.) The style and elements are reminiscent of many other artists - contemporaries who probably had shared tastes (like Janis Joplin vocals) or later groups who were perhaps influenced by this (early UFO live). Parchment Farm: yuck lyrics. "I've been sitting over here on Parchment Farm - Ain't ever done nobody no wrong - Oh Lord, I believe I'll be here for the rest of my life - All I did was shoot my wife - She was no good". Apparently it's a cover of a blues song, that's no excuse, fuck off with that, in the bin. It's Bad (and not in an LL Cool J way), 1/10.

I got a cassette of this soon after it was released, and listened to it many, many times. I have always been in awe at the precision and elegance of the arrangements - exquisite lead guitar work, lots of lovely keyboard work, everything fitting near-perfectly together. (The sound now makes me think of Steely Dan - in a good way :-) Amazing to me that Clover (uncredited backing band) apparently worked their parts out in just a few rehearsal sessions with Costello [McManus]. Song after song are so musically bright, lyrically charged. My favourite song used to be Mystery Dance (ultimate punk sexual tension song), these days I just love them all to bits!! It's Incredibly Wonderful, 10/10.

HOLY FUCK!! Who knew two guys "in recovery" (while still behaving quite naughtily) could put together such an album!! It's rather simple but still Good, 7/10. (Why do I like it? Energy - tunes - arrangements. Punk, without threat/aura of violence.)

I can kinda relate to this - if I can get into a Happy Mondays kinda vibe. (And suspend critical faculties: song '5/4' starts with a 5/4 guitar riff, but then puts 4/4 drums against that?) Small bonus point though for use of a melodica on a "dub-ish" album, yay! (Ersatz dub for pop people?) I find instrumental arrangements/production is often quite engaging, but the singing is generally a let-down. (Particularly when the singer tries to be serious, oh dear...) Overall, I'll say it's Good and Bad, 5/10. Also, I want to say, even though it doesn't exactly pertain to the original album: the idea that there is a "20th Anniversary super deluxe vinyl boxset" containing EIGHT different LPs is quite shocking to me. One cheeky, casual party album, gets turned into a bloated cash cow stretched over EIGHT discs? Emblematic that we can't have nice things / can't have a natural world any more / fall of Western civilisation - right there.

I do not know "the Buck Owens story" (if any, lol) - I am coming at this "totally uninformed" ("blank slate baby, Descartes me as you will"). "Tiger by the Tail - clean mix, harmony singing, kewl. Is there a double entendre here? Second half lyrics say the tiger drags him into the light, rather than into the dark, meh. Musically, second half of song adds almost squit nothing to the first half - just a quick flourish at the very end. Is this album going to be indescribably tedious? (Spoiler alert: yes.) La la la. 'Memphis' is exciting (from a low base) for the appearance of the 5/6/7 boogie. Is it going anywhere? No, plse die now. Overall, the mix is clear (grats to engineers); nice slide guitar, tick. The lyrics and musical arrangements, however, are consumately shallow, repetitive, tedious, like a nightmare of endlessness. The drums are twee to a painful degree. May I give (cue French accent) zero points?? No, minimum one star. Okay, it's BAD, 1/10.

Wow! This is pretty stellar!! Wikipedia notes are very interesting/useful, the music is super interesting. I don't know much about these styles, but I am up for the sounds, ready to dance :-) I enjoy my listen through (and some re-listen, it's Quite Wonderful, 9/10. That paragraph above is my main comment, this is my side whinge. Trigger alert: this paragraph might bring you down. My rage at Gorillaz' first 'album' and Damon Albarn in general can only deepen, when I read about what Ibrahim Ferrer did, and wrote, for this Buena Vista Social Club album. Then Albarn and co-conspirators just "plug him in" to their shitty "London dance music"? Goddam white boys from the "first world", oh wait, I guess I'm one too.

Where have you been all my life? I'd heard the name but not bothered listening because I was ‘busy‘?! It's got energy, it's frequently got the groove, it’s helter-skelter, the wheels come off sometimes but no-one's fallen off, and key point I haven’t spotted any bad vibes yet so SHAKE IT!!! It's Good - 7/10.

For me, the experience of listening to this album invited focus on the differences between "significant to music history so you should understand it" and "likely/worthy to be replayed". I also thought a lot about the opportunities for and expectations of a vocalist - who may be given almost complete imprimatur to express or perform the desired vibe - while "rhythm section" has to keep the pulse for the dancers. In some periods, the bass and drums might have to keep riff and pulse, while vox, gtr and other instruments can freak out with more or less regard for any other band members. This album by contrast sounds like gtr was obliged to stick with bass/drums, while vox had to show the wild child - and "electric jug" conveyed that we're not in Kansas any more. (I listened without pre-reading, so pretty intrigued/perturbed by electric jug, but feel no great desire to go there again.) Sections of the album palled (I felt grumpy that I was going to make myself listen to the whole thing) - but some later sections were reasonably entertaining. Didn’t relish going back to pick a favourite song, but not hard to pick “Thru the Rhythm” for its soul vibe. Overall, for me it’s Mix of Good and Bad, 5/10.

Amy Winehouse again! The singing is wow, and the backing is moderately engaging (while sounding a little bit like a professional jazz band got asked to do backing for songs they didn't care about). But the lyrics are (I would say unintentionally) depressing and off-putting. I'd FAR rather listen to Back to Black again. It's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

I don't know it, read top review. "mafioso rap"? Put in bin now to save time? No, I will listen, it might have music I like. (I don't automatically hate all gangsta rap - I can listen to eg drill when the music is good enough.) What I get hear seems like a lot of yelling in my face, without much music. This album is very, very rap oriented - I like my hip hop when music is a central part of the action (then lyrics I might like are a plus) - in this case I don't get much at all from the music, and the lyrics on this album are not remotely attractive to me. If you like Raekwon, you might like this, but for me it's Bad, 1/10.

Time is short, I'll just say that this album is gripping, in a good way. Big band jazz funk - Afrobeat seems a decent label (though v broad). It's (at least) Good, 7/10.

Amazing sounds. A time capsule, yes - I can believe (with awe) that this is what was played and sung at a performance in 1962. I can believe that MC5 and many, many others were consciously inspired by it. What strikes me most strongly is that these sounds and this performance would work so well today! It is far more contemporary than many much later recordings - hardly dated at all, in key elements. (Edit: but actually not very appealing for re-listens.) The songs themselves are somewhat overshadowed by the performances of them - they are not going to be my favourite songs ever. But the album as a whole is Good, 7/10.

Not sure about this. Supposed to be one of their better albums. I have very positive memories of Faith (1981?) but haven’t played it for a long time. This one had some nice moody bits but didn’t grab me. I felt a bit worried for Robert Smith - singing style great for a song or two, but building a career around it? Anyway, I’ll say it’s Not Bad, 6/10.

I knew of John Lee Hooker (of course) but had never focused on any particular album. Not sure what to make of this. I'm not allergic to albums made up of a range of collaborations, but it's weird that this is the one of his albums to make the 1001 list - it may have been his best-seller, but surely isn't the album that best represents his oeuvre and influence. The guest artists are ones I've heard of, but don't know that well, I still thought the guitar work was all pretty cool. I slide through untouched - I'm not as invested in "proper blues" as some other reviewers have been. I'll just say it's Not Bad, 6/10.

Hmm. I have zero investment in the Byrds' history prior to this album, so I'm not offended by all the country rock, just slightly wondering why. (Why this and not the Eagles?) Along trundles the album, strumming and crooning in my ears while I do some work. Oh, what's that, "Life in Prison" you say? "With trembling hands I killed my darling wife / Because I loved her more than life / My love for her will last a long, long time". All this over a jaunty, cheerful instrumentation. Narrator sounds a bit sad at the idea of not having received death penalty ie having to live with what he's done. Well fuck off Merle Haggard, Jelly Sanders, Gram Parsons, Byrds. It's Bad, 1/10.

I did not know much about Beck before checking out this album. I thought of him as strangely popular, in some left field way, but I didn't know what he was about or how to "get it". I knew the opener of this album (Devil's Haircut) because it was on a triple j hottest 100 CD. I read some of the reviews here, and that gave me hints. The album took me a couple of listens to get into (headphones good), now I'm liking a lot of the tracks, a lot. I dug around a bit more (wondering which riffs were originals that became famous, and which might be samples dropped in from where). If you (dear reader) would like to hear (read) Beck interviewed about his music back in 2005, may I recommend this: https://www.thebeliever.net/an-interview-with-beck/. The album? I think I'll rate it as Quite Wonderful, 9/10. (Rating might go up with more listens :-)

This is an album I used to listen to quite a bit. I include it amongst Rick Rubin's good works. It contains some songs I used to be really keen on (Power of Equality, Under the Bridge, My Lovely Man), one I always skipped over (Sir Psycho-sexy), and some I thought were energetic, iffy but maybe okay (eg Suck My Kiss). Recently I have learned that Kiedis has (by his own admission, in his book) done sexual exploitation that was not only illegal but (in my opinion, not his) very seriously wrong, and he has recounted such conduct without repentance. So, I do not want any actions of mine to enrich him, and I can't “simply enjoy” any part of his work in the way that I used to. There are versions of this album on YouTube that omit Kiedis' vocals – one even uses the cover graphic and whites out Kiedis' face. That is somewhat attractive to me. I wouldn't miss Kiedis' vocals, the bass/guitar/drums interplay was always the good stuff. (I could ask, "what if there is bad conduct by any/all of Flea, Frusciante, Smith" - I guess one distinctly bad thing about each of them, that I have to confront, is the extent to which they have kept playing with Kiedis, even after they knew or should know what he has done and how he writes about it...) This album was always at best A Mix of Good and Bad. I now find it difficult to unlistenable as a whole. But some of the songs still have significant appeal (from guitar/bass/drums aspect). So, while I was tempted to rate it extremely low, I am on reflection calling it Mix of Good and Bad (5/10).

I had no investment in this band, but it turned out I was familiar with a number of the songs. Unfortunately I didn't get particularly warm feelings from hearing them again. Some of those I hadn't heard before seemed like weak filler. I am no fan of this type of screeching vocals. One thing I found interesting was how distorted the lead guitar is, compared to how undistorted the rhythm guitar - feels like the lead belonged with a different band style - but this was not enough of a phenomenon to sustain my interest. I was also interested to wonder whether this album might be considered historically significant in terms of white American musicians playing blues pop, how were they influenced by black American musicians playing blues, and what else. I wouldn't really know about that. A third thing I found interesting was even more outside the album. I knew the song 'Proud Mary', had not known it was written by John Fogerty. I read a bit about how other versions of the song came about (Creedence to Solomon Burke, to Ike and Tina Turner), changes in style and changes in understood meanings, that was quite interesting. Signature, a barbershop quartet, won the 2019 international quartet championship of the Barbershop Harmony Society with songs 'including the Ike & Tina Turner classic “Proud Mary”, so there you go.) This album Bayou Country? Not a good name, not a good album, it's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

Soft Boys, where have you been all my life?? I had never heard of this band or album, but it/they are intriguing, inspiring, entertaining. Wikipedia highlights a 2025 quote that "it’s hard to understand how the lightly psychedelic pop-rock of the Soft Boys was ever considered anything close to punk" - I would just call this new wave, and we're done. I have no difficulty recognising the clanging tone and strident playing of the guitars as new wave, very much of the era of punk. The quote also mentions Elvis Costello, there's definitely Syd Barrett (Emily Plays era), a little bit of Lou Reed in the lyrics and the manner. The vocal harmonies are a bit Beach Boys ('Positive Vibrations' couldn't be more obvious as hommage), but also quite post-punk (again the stridency, eg in 'Tonight'). Some call the whole album post-punk, I could see that from some angles, eg 'Old Pervert'. In summary, the palette is delightfully varied, and all of these songs have unexpected but very engaging hooks, lines and/or vibes. It's not immaculately perfect - I was going to cite 'I Got the Hots', for core riff too long and not strong enough to hold up the whole song, but then on a re-listen it's better than I thought - so, I think I'm actually going to celebrate it as Incredibly Wonderful, 10/10!

Well, I listened to the album (lots of songs I knew) and then I read some more about Janis Joplin (because I was curious to turn my vague impressions into some sort of knowledge - possibly a kind of mistake from perspective of "listening pleasure"). So now I see this record as a curious artifact (I'm particularly curious about sexual politics of the era) and a sad one. I'm most interested in Joplin's singing - mildly interested in the arrangements generally - I guess Full Tilt Boogie Band is decent on this record (I'm interested in the organ playing). Move Over - I knew the song well from the album Slayed? (released 20 months after Pearl came out), I didn't know till now that Janis wrote it. Singing is very intense. Cry Baby - I knew well. Not written by Joplin. Encouraging the guy to cry, over loss of the other woman, is interesting to me. Half Moon - seems v familiar (and funky!) and I can't work out where I know it from. Me and Bobby McGee - not my favourite, but I get why it's popular :-) RIP Ms Joplin ... The album? It’s Good, 7/10.

Polished, to a fault. Maybe the 'best' backing band and production that money could buy - and someone told them to play/make banal radio-friendly filler. Supposedly Mr Michael had a good voice - did no-one suggest he should not just whisper it away, or he didn't take their advice? The vocal production is infatuated with his voice - beyond all reason. Maybe he did something right - he secured good chart positions. But, it all sounds fairly tedious to me. ('Monkey' is a little bit funky, but the lyrics are uninteresting, for a whole 5 minutes yawn.) If I was listening to this with someone else - I'd be twitchy, looking round for what's next. This album is Pretty Poor, 3/10.

I haven't heard this for a long time. I was introduced to it in the 80s, by a feminist of my acquaintance - I remember sitting quietly and istening attentively. I associate this album (and others) with my personal move out of punk/new-wave aggression/catharsis, into a world of music with a broader emotional palette, more subtlety, more delicacy. The album still sounds wonderful to me now. Armatrading has a beautiful voice; songs and arrangements are very well-crafted; plenty of soul, bit of funk, decent poetry. I get that particular rush of hearing songs I liked long ago and discover I still like now (a warmth at validation of previous experience?), at the same time as familiar feeling that the musical contents are more readily comprehensible than they used to be - since my ears are that many years more experienced at music listening, or something. Some songs I like a very lot, a couple not so much. Taken as a whole, for me the album is Quite Wonderful, 9/10.

Hadn't heard of this. Read Wikipedia and some reviews, listened to the album. It's interesting enough, reasonably pleasant to listen to, I don't mind the low but multi-tracked voice - but I don't get the hype. I listen again, try looking at some lyrics, ho hum. Start trying to pick my favourite song on the album - discover there's only three songs I'm sufficiently interested in to sling them a Like. I do like Ballad of Big Nothing (very balanced) and Cupid's Trick (a bit of rock thunder is refreshing, after so much down beat). The album overall - is Okay (Not Good) - 4/10.

Oh! This seems very accessible! Compared to Tago Mago, it's like they could have been aiming for increased sales - I hope they did well with any such ambition :-) Just four songs across just 40 minutes - but they're good songs. (Compare to the leisurely digital sprawl of Hayley Williams clocking in at 100 minutes for one 'album' - oh well.) "Future Days" is (at least) Very Good, 8/10.

Really nice album. The jazz context is very clear, the proto-Afrobeat harder for me to pick out. This is certainly not "trad jazz" of any type that puts me off. (Well there was a drum solo that slightly outstayed its welcome.) Mostly it was very nicely composed, very cool listening. I feel even more positive about it after a little pause, I've come back to say it's Very Good, 8/10.

EWF! A long-lived institution, coming soon to my town. Deciding whether to get a ticket, I read up on their many achievements, and recent concerts. I respect the endurance, the arranging, the hits. This album is still the first I'd ever listened to start to finish. There's a lot to like - it's generally "a lot" - the tracks are crowded. Interesting that reviews when it came out were not uniformly positive. I was curious about lyrics but better not to bother, they really are platitudinous. But the funk seems good :-) I'm fond of Shining Star - I may replay a couple of other tracks - but the album as a whole left me a little cool - I will say it's Good, 7/10.

I've listened to these songs so many times, I could almost review this from memory, but not quite. Impactful enough that I’ll comment song by song. (Done partly to help me reach/explain a rating.) Black Dog: offensive lyrics right up front. “Ah-ah child, way you shake that thing, gonna make you burn, gonna make you sting”. WTAF? Is he addressing a teenager at stage door, or addressing a grown woman as ‘child’? His best come-on pitch is not-so-veiled sadism? Mega-eurrk factor way outweighs any interest value in eg guitar riffs. Rock and Roll: at least gets some instruments playing before stupid lyrics start, not so flat-out offensive but still stupid - I’m lonely lonely lonely, my wife doesn’t understand me, how about a root. The Battle of Evermore: still musically interesting. Lyrics are not great literature, it’s pretty explicit Tolkien-homage (I just realised for 1st time that in amongst the wailing they directly refer to ring-wraiths), but who am I to judge. Stairway to Heaven: yes, it’s epic. Great use of recorders. Guitar lines and solo that ‘anyone’ can now play in their lounge-room, but he/they did it first. I’ll overlook the cod-mystic lyrics and sappy singing. It is truly a classic, also one we can joke about, so be it. (Mind you, actually listening to it, it is dragging quite a bit by the time the fanfare finally announces the wee solo …) Misty Mountain Hop: bangs. I always thought of this as being about a protest of some sort? But maybe that was wishful thinking, maybe it was just a Haight-Ashbury smoke-in? Four Sticks: has less plays than the other tracks on Spotify, but for me this was always a stand-out (musically). But, I never read the lyrics before. If it’s just druggy 70s guy saying “babe I’ve got to split because I can’t handle responsibilities” then colour me sad but not surprised. But I still like the multi-guitars from around 3 minute mark :-) Going to California: “Spent my days with a woman unkind”. Diddums, widdums. "Someone told me there's a girl out there with love in her eyes and flowers in her hair": girls in the UK not submissive enough? "Tryin' to find a woman who's never, never, never been born": look out ladies, this is one picky wanker. When the Levee Breaks: actually a good song. Probably helps that they didn't write the riff or the lyrics. Overall, it's Mix of Good and Bad, 5/10. And that's being generous!

On a blind listen, it sounds like it might have been significant when released, but not of much interst in the present. Simple pop rock with a bit of 'different' production may have been "far out" in the day but now sounds a bit surf rock, a bit pop jazz - a little bit what Cramps did well. Reading Wikipedia, I'm much more sympathetic - the band had two hits and found themselves making a record where nine songs were written by professional songwriters. "Luvin'", the only new original (apart from the singles name-checked on front cover), is catchy musically, but the lyrics are juvenile. The singing generally is often too "yelling young man" for my taste. Overall I'll say it's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

I remember being very excited upon first hearing this (when it came out). But I haven't played it since. (Even being reminded of her part in 'LiveAid', I wasn't motivated to go and listen again.) And, while the album is 'worthy', it doesn't rock my world now. Lyrics are interesting in parts, but lots of repetition rather than development. Arrangements ditto. I’ll say it’s Good, 7/10.

Ho, hum. I am not overly invested in CSNY (more interested in Neil Young's work than the others). I am iffy on the lyrics: "'cause she's a girl and you're a boy" tells me the singer is only singing to other males and both persons are reducible to sexual identity, eurrk. On the other hand,, if I don't focus on lyrics, there are soul and funk vibes in some of this, that I like. Wikipedia article is mildly interesting - not for the social scene from which the album sprung - but for the stuff about Hendrix, fact he played on "Old Times, Good Times" was a good reason to listen to that song twice, trying to pick his parts. Overall I think it's Mix of Good and Bad, 5/10.

I'd heard "Pretty In Pink", never paid any attention to this band. It's labelled post-punk, but riffs, song structures and vocal tone sound a little bit punk pop (reckless, rude as though it's a virtue), a little bit pub rock (chugging along), generally pretty conventional. The lack of instrumental flourish made me wonder whether a lot of entertainment or merit might supposedly be coming from the vocals, but melody, lyrics and singing aren't that interesting or appealing ... Generally it's not totally bad but not at all special, I don't get why it belongs in 1001 anything (apart from 1001 whiny Brit 'hits'). A couple of songs are okay but overall for me it's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

Very, very excited to revisit some of my favourite songs, but within the “album experience”. Hugely excited just reading the Wikipedia article, with its detailed account of recording sessions, right up to the point where Chas Chandler takes a test pressing to some record company bigwig, who listens in silence, and at the end says “this is the greatest thing I’ve ever heard”. Now that is a big, big call - but certainly, as I start listening, it is knocking the socks off so much other 60’s rubbish I have had to put up with in the name of this project - and would stand up very well if released today. So I’m greatly enjoying the first few songs. But then quite shocked to realise that Hey Joe is another femicide song. (Briefly tempted by idea that having a dialogue is a bit of distancing, but “going way down south where I can be free” Is a way bad end of the narrative …) Then I’m shocked in a different way, to realise there are songs on this album that I’ve never heard! But they work fine on first listening, within broad category of “psychedelic rock”. So this album is a mix, some incredible songs (classics that are still fresh), some decent songs, some bad lyrics. I’m going to say it’s Incredibly Wonderful Though Flawed, 9.5/10.

When the first song (Mannish Boy) got going, I was wondering if I could call this hard blues (like hard rock), or heavy blues (like heavy metal). Wikipedia tells me it’s Chicago blues, and that makes sense (and educates me). Anyway, this sounds like it’s really well made, it’s quite listenable, but it’s not quite my thing - a bit too punchy. I can dig some blues - and respect whoever can keep their progressions fresh - as Muddy Waters and his band certainly did for this album. But not first thing in the morning. I’ll call it Good - because it is at least solidly Good at being what it is. 7/10.

I had high hopes of this album, after reading the Wikipedia article: one-time best-selling jazz album ever, hugely influential? Okay! The start of ‘Chameleon’ did not disappoint, famous bass line. But, over the rather long course of the song, I lost track of what was going on. (Is that why it’s called ‘Chameleon’? Hmm.) ‘Watermelon Man’ was again catchy at the outset but then I again lost the groove. And the next two songs didn't make much impression on me. Maybe I need to listen more times, and/or get more jazz-educated? The album just didn’t have the zing and oomph I like to find with my funk, hip hop, etc. I concluded it’s full of good playing, but it didn’t light my fire - I’ll say it’s Okay, 6/10.

I would have said I wasn’t a Who fan, but this is a really solid album. Great songs (Baba O'Riley, Won’t Get Fooled Again), zero filler or cringe. I respect the skills and control of all band members much more than previously. Also touched by Pete Townsend’s idealism (after reading Wikipedia). I may not listen again, but it’s fully respectable adult rock music. It’s Very Good, 8/10.

"The Smashing Pumpkins are one of the most iconic, and influential bands of all time, shaping alternative music and culture" - is what they say about themselves on Spotify, where they get 14 million listens a month, okay that's a thing. For my part, I didn't/don't get it. They're okay as some type of rock band - maybe 'alt' enough to be cool, while also mainstream enough to sell big. (Noting that "popular with Americans" =/= good.) Some songs on this album are pretty uninteresting. But I do give it credit for range of styles and moods, I like some of the grungier bits. Interested that Robert Christgau said '1979' is a good song, on an album not worth buying :-) (Also why is the singing so often so extraordinarily nasal? Do some ppl like that? Sits poorly with "grumpy teen" theme of the lyrics.) Anyway I'll say the album is Mix of Good and Bad, 5/10.

Thank goodness, this is actually groovy, funky, interesting to my ears. The lyrics are not totally where my head's at, but I will let them go. Erykah Badu's singing, and all the instrumentalists, are on point. I don't have a lot to say, it's Good, 7/10.

Interesting music, interesting vibe. If I hadn't read about the album, would I have picked up what it was about? Yes, there are enough plain indicators - eg inclusion of Reveille in Our Glorious Land (which is actually my favourite track on the album). I'm not satisfied this is brilliant or wonderful, but it's definitely interesting - it gave me pause, to spend more than a day on this before moving on ... Edited to say it hasn't drawn me to re-listen, I'm currently calling it Good, 7/10.

I'd heard about this artist only through discussion about the project. I found this to be a pleasant and nteresting album. with some very tasteful numbers on it. I was interested to see the Wikipedia article describe it as psychedelic soul. I had to go read up on what that might mean to people. I was also interested to see a review (on "Brooklyn Vegan"?!?) say that the album "sounds like a lost 70s soul classic". I could imagine playing this again - but the tracks didn't exactly grab me hugely. So I'll say it's Good, 7/10.

Oh!! Another album I listened to many times, when it had not been out for long. I rated it #39 in my top 100 'favourite' albums, for the poll in the project's subreddit, held at the end of 2025. It's got the title track (that rang out many, many a time in the main bar at my uni), Joe the Lion, plus those atmospheric tracks on side 2, and then Secret Life of Arabia .... I have a quick read of Wikipedia (long article), and learn things. I'm reminded re Eno, and Fripp. I had not known about impulsive improvisation of lyrics. Striking to remember that in the 70s we had the record, and we had the printed lyrics sheet (included with the record), and we would just discuss these things, trying to work out what was meant by the songs - we didn't always have reviews to read, we had little idea what anyone else thought about the album - we found out so much about the making of the album much, much later .... Anyway, now to have a fresh listen. Hmm. I know this album so well, that I enjoy listening to it very much. I think some songs are very catchy, super stylish, still entertaining and impressive - but is it Great Music? Bowie is a special category - so creative, the individual songs are striking, but are they Great? Well, YMMV. I think the package definitely works as a package - it seemed somewhat unique when it came out, still does - very recognisable and distinctive for what it is. So I was thinking it might be Incredibly Wonderful? But, my streaming service followed it up (unprompted) with Remain in Light (released in 1980 - just three busy years after 1977). Now that album is Incredibly Wonderful. So, relativity is a thing, I will say that Heroes is Pretty Wonderful, 9/10.

Seeing this album title and cover gave me a sinking feeling. I had never listened to a Smiths album. I think I was for a while mildly curious why the buzz, had heard song snippets and not been interested, particularly not drawn to the vocal performance, then I was put off by fuss and controversy, reaching the broad sense over time that Morrissey's life performance had become comprehensively annoying, for reasons I wasn't interested enough to inquire into (but suspected that it truly was yuck). It was quite hard to stand aside from all that baggage and just listen to the songs on this album. I found the guitar work to be attractive - I would have said it was "not unique" but I am assured by Reddit users that it was absolutely unique and trailblazing in its day, okay. The bass is often quite catchy, the drums okay, the synthesiser work pretty ho-hum. And then there's the vocals, undoubtedly quite mesmerising, while also keeping me at a distance. Anyway, the songs themselves were not offensive - except for a few bits of lyrics that stood out even for my non-lyrics-oriented brain. "Now I know how Joan of Arc felt" - seriously provocative even before I knew what he was referring to. Next, I did resort to Genius for lyrics help (which left me with some respect for the lyrics crafting, while also recoiling somewhat from the authorial perspective), and I read Wikipedia for accounts of the history of the band and Morrissey the 'celebrity'. The litigation history shows Morrissey in particular as misguided and pathetic, also reflects negatively on Marr (though he comes out of it all better than Morrissey). Morrissey's broader spiral of being smug and disagreeable, what a sad waste of human potential. I have thought a bit about how would the album stand up without vocals (like Blood Sugar Sex Magik without Kiedis), I conclude it wouldn't be that interesting. I did listen a little more widely, to a couple of Smiths songs not on this album - they did stay in my mind overnight, and merit a repeat listen - so I accept there is an estimable body of work. Still a challenge to rate this album, as a Smiths work and not (just) a pretext to judge Morrissey (and the others). I'm listening again while writing this - reminded that Bigmouth is particularly annoying to me - though maybe I should acknowledge it's kinda stylish/witty? But in that it reminds me of a few people I've met who thought that being smart and 'witty' excused rudeness. So how do I rate this album - it's highly regarded, it's more interesting than a lot of rubbish, but the appealing factors are for me outweighed by aspects of the lyrics, performance and baggage, and my respect for the album as an artifact/classic is overshadowed by my disapproval of Morrissey (someone whose special subject was apparently Being Annoying). But because it's significant, and held my attention, I'll go for Not Bad, 6/10.

I know some songs on this, but never thought of playing through the whole thing. Apparently this is the best-selling album of all time in Australia (where I live). So I better get with the program :-) Title track: definitely epic, merits the Thunder Road comparisons. You Took the Words Right Out Of My Mouth: over the top - the video (and reading Meat Loaf's bio) encourages me to think of the big band, big show, rock and soul scenes of the 60s and 70s :-) Heaven Can Wait: a bit schmaltzy, but could work fine in a musical, ie fits my image of the somewhat-hypothetical musical being passionately worked up by Steinman and Meat Loaf. Two Out of Three Ain't Bad: yeah I get why it's popular, but it does go on a bit .... Other songs: yeah yeah okay. Overall, it's Good at what it is, so 7/10 :-)

This is different! I knew Scooby Snacks (from a triple J hottest 100 CD) but never thought to listen to more. I'm liking it a lot - got the smooth groove, also rocks out well when it wants to (eg Bombin' the L). Lyrically it's a lot of gangsta rap, but over this soundtrack I'm not minding it :-) I really like the mix of samples and live playing, strong funk feel, energetic but not too pushy. Some tracks are a little weaker, so the whole album isn't unalloyed pleasure, I'll say it's Good, 7/10.

This was an eye-opener. I knew the song Tightrope, and thought it amazing, but never thought to listen to the album it's on. And here's suites II and II of an extended concept project - full of funk and sparkle and interesting bits, I like it quite a bit. It's genre-fluid - no unpleasant bits. I feel let down by the lyrics (very 'love' oriented, but without depth - gesturing at plot of a movie that doesn't exist - not unpleasant but not really engaging with actual people's lives), but the music is decent. The range of moods is a bit whiplash inducing, so I don't think the album as a whole is Wonderful, but I'll say it's Good, 7/10.

I knew Kool Thing (a classic, though not as impressive now as when I first heard it), but was never motivated to listen the whole album. It seems fine, particularly for its time - a bit noisy, a bit punky, a bit arty, a bit grungy. It's certainly got catchy bits, yay. (I note Wikipedia comments that this was significantly more accessible than their previous stuff - I like the accessibility, I'm not put off listening to earlier albums maybe some day :-) Some of these songs are fine as background music, but maybe not riveting if given full attention. (Some of the 'noise' seems to be "making a point" rather than making music? Experimentation not so hard to do given studio time? Maybe they did it early-ish.) Anyway I think this album is Good, 7/10.

I was on the road, so started listening without knowing or reading anything about it. What is this rubbish, I wondered? Seemed deliberately unappealing. After two songs, I reflected that I could kinda understand arranging a gig, maybe getting a support slot, and playing stuff like this, in order to confront an audience about their preconceptions of 'music'. Or maybe playing one song to shock your friends, aka "for a joke". But would anyone ever consciously put on this album, thinking "I'll just have another listen, that will be nice / good for me"? Some of the later songs on the album were more listenable - even There's Always Room On The Broom, noisy but in a good way. But the seemingly invariably dead/straight rhythms were wearisome. Compare Gang of Four, The Pop Group, Red Krayola - a bit of swung rhythm, maybe even some funk, goes a long way to getting people to stick around for your agitprop and/or sonic experiments, rather than ducking out the back for a drink, smoke, packet of crisps, anything rather than keep listening to the same 4/4 clatter. I read a bit about the group and the album. Experimental yes but why sharing it? Some of this album is okay to listen to, but to listen to the album as a whole would be a painful homework or penance. It's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

I knew of the Pogues (of course) but actually had hardly heard any of their music - even Fairytale of New York I'd never listened to properly. The idea of folk with energy is appealing, but the name 'Pogues' is overshadowed for me by sadness at the drawn-out train wreck of MacGowan's AOD issues. I get that Pogues were significant at the time for bringing Celtic folk into a punk environment, but listening to this album now doesn't really do it for me. Favourite song on the album - Thousands Are Sailing. Rating for the album: it's Not Bad, 6/10.

I was very young when I first listened to this (many times). How does it stand up now? Very well! It's long, but I find each song interesting and well-produced. The deep concept of the album is one I never unpacked in detail, but still provides a robust framework for lots of lyrical exploration. I didn't use to follow the lyrics (by ear), but some phrases stood out; on my second time through current listening, I did read the lyrics for a few of them (while listening to the music) and read some commentaries - I find the lyrics quite satisfying. (In contrast to another concept double album I was recently assigned, which also has interesting music, but the lyrics IMHO quite superficial.) Much of this album is still very familiar to my ears (after many years of not hearing it) - riffs and rhythm as well as lotsa kybd twiddling. There is heaps to explore, so I'm satisfied this album could repay repeated listens. (It would seem samey for some listeners but not all.) I conclude that it is Pretty Wonderful, 9/10.

I have loved this album ever since it came out, listened to it in full many a time. It has a rich and attractive sonic palette (pop appeal and also plenty of jazz feels, heaps of oomph in the rhythm department), great breadth of really serious themes, and really good lyrics (intelligent, sometimes very direct but often quite poetic and witty), that are very well voiced (clear articulation, strong punch, emotional but also cool, never at odds with what the lyrics can sensibly carry). Came across a Franti quote comparing Disposable Heroes with Spearhead: "The big problem with Disposable Heroes was that it was a record people listened to because it was good for them - kind of like broccoli". Personally I was always attracted to this album by the music, but at the same time felt relieved and excited that the lyrics were actually meaningful (in fine ways) about serious things, not shallow like lyrics of so much other music. (I could write a mini-essay about my relationship with broccoli but probably not here and now :-) Stand-out songs for me: Language of Violence, The Winter of the Long Hot Summer, Hypocrisy is the Greatest Luxury, Music And Politics, Water Pistol Man. Overall rating: it's Incredibly Wonderful, 10/10.

Attractive, intriguing, catchy songs, neatly put together; a classic of its time, and influential long after - what's not to like? Okay, the vocals are 'different'. (Remind me of Dave Studdert of Tactics - which started around the same time as Marquee Moon came out.) But that's no problem in lovely songs like 'Venus' or the title track. Overall, it's Quite Wonderful, 9/10.

I had only superficial knowledge about The Temptations before being assigned this album. Listening to the album cold was not working for me, so I stopped, did some reading about the careers of the Temptations and Norman Whitfield, the recording and marketing of the album, and some of the particular songs, and then came back to listening. Papa Was A Rolling Stone was a focus for me. It's obviously a classic of soul, specifically psychedelic soul. But I was disappointed on listening to it, at how sparse the opening section sounded (bass guitar sound quite bare, hi hat pattern quite basic). After a quick browse, I realised my expectations of the song are derived from the Was (Not Was) version (recorded 20 years later) - the original leaves me waiting/wanting for more. (I noted that the 7 minute version released as a single added congas to the hi-hat line, hmm.) Other songs were only mildly interesting, didn't motivate me to give them a second listen. For me, it's only the presence of Papa Was A Rolling Stone that pulls the album as a whole up to Good, 7/10.

Intriguing! Jack White would appear to be something of a genius - and a prolific content producer. I by contrast am nerdy nobody record reviewer - oh well. Does this album hang together? Not sure. Definitely contains some interesting/impressive songs - but I feel a slight ennui, like he could turn in 5 songs a day without breaking a sweat, so does he really "mean it"? (Would he remember all of these songs to play them live in 10 years time? Yes, quite possibly.) Would I like these better if it was a concept album?? Side point time. "On April 1, 2012, Third Man Records released 1000 helium balloons attached to flexi disc copies of 'Freedom at 21'. Third Man Records described the stunt as 'an experiment exploring non-traditional forms of record distribution and a way to get records in the hands of people who don't visit record shops'." Not sure if I can sensibly hold this against the album as an album, but it's yuck. (Seems like Third Man Records was a Jack White show?) 2012 is a thoroughly late year to be so careless about putting detritus in the sky ... Overall, for the quality of some of the individual songs, I'll rate it Good, 7/10.

I didn't know about this album before being assigned it. I found the ways Bragg and Wilco arranged music for these Guthrie lyrics quite appealing - tender, slightly melancholy - reasonably consonant with the musical styles Guthrie used, but sensitively updated. I may listen to some of these songs again, probably not play the whole album, but I'll still say it's Good, 7/10.

Well! I knew some later Arctic Monkeys hits but not this album. I'm struck by how punk it is - in a good way. (The mixes are really comfortable and effective!) I even like the videos, eg showing the band just playing the song, or syncing live footage from shows to the recording. I like that this is a coherent album about Saturday night to Sunday morning, with a strong sense of people and place (in best punk traditions). The songwriting is solid (particularly lyrics), the songs have great variety, the album doesn't pall at all as it powers on through. It's at least Pretty Wonderful, 9/10.

The title track is a classic, still fine to listen to, I particularly like the guitar work. Other songs, well they're inoffensive but (no offense to anyone who reveres this album) I could do without them. For me, this album is Okay, 6/10.

I don't know much about jazz. (I know a bit, but know there's a lot more to the iceberg.) I thought I knew what hard bop meant (and that I wouldn't be able to follow it), but I was wrong (on both counts). The idea of fusing bop and RnB suddenly makes sense. Result, I'm listening to something educational (representing a whole swathe of music I've heard about but not focused on) and also thoroughly entertaining. I can't but see it as "of its own time" - but still eminently listenable now. It's a short album (only 43 minutes, only five pieces), but I like the range of styles and tones. After a couple of repeat listens: it's Pretty Wonderful, 9/10. Footnote: Bemsha Swing is my favourite track - interesting article at https://www.ethanhein.com/wp/2023/bemsha-swing running through and commenting on some of the many versions of the song that have been recorded, then talking about the chord sequences ...

I had a later album by this band, I didn't know these songs. They are pleasant, funky. Actually - some of these are very, very funky!! Full credit to Stuart Zender on bass. And I like the package with kybds, drums/percussion, heaps of horn lines. Lyrics are a bit silly but yes this is Jamiroquai - "heart is in the right place", like a Che Guevara t-shirt (equally impactful). I will rate the album for the music, particularly the stronger tracks, and I'll say it's Very Good, 8/10.

Hmm. Immigrant Song: I liked when I was 16, does not excite me now. Some other songs are okay but not ones I'm keen to hear again. Since I've Been Loving You, on the other hand, was actually rather good, happy to put that into a blues rock playlist. The background on what they were trying for with this album reads okay, my anti-Zep prejudice has stayed quiet, but still not an album I'll play again, I'll call it Good, 7/10.

I had this back in the day - though not right when it first came out, way back in 1981. It still sounds fantastic today! Great guitar/bass/drum combo, very well produced, with solid and so distinctive and interesting vocals. (I say distinctive, maybe she's not totally unique, but very recognisable - the forthrightness matched by Iggy Pop, B52s also come to mind ...) I like most of the songs a lot, I like the album as a whole very much. It's a bit goth, a bit pop, it's got noisy energy, it's stylish, it's Pretty Wonderful, 9/10.

Ooh, a young Leonard Cohen. No songs I’ve heard before, I'd better have a read as well as a listen. Lot of reverence in the reviews here. I tread carefully when ppl say eg “Famous Blue Raincoat” is their all-time favourite song. I realise from the reviews, that if my first pass is a background listen, I would be missing out. I manage to make myself stop and focus on one side, then later the other side. I respect what Cohen can do - not easy to hold an audience's attention while slowly reeling out words over such simple music. (Or maybe anyone can take an audience along with one slow and wordy song - but they may not stick around for the next bracket.) Anyway I respect it - but I don't exactly dig it. First listen alone wouldn't motivate me to wrestle with the poetry - but since there's so much reverence, I do some time with Genius - result that I respect it more, but still not motivated. And some of the lyrics grate on me. (Joan of Arc: a conversation between her and the fire? No way, being burned at the stake was a horrible way to die, no sweeteners.) So, no offence to the fans, but I'll just say it's Okay, 6/10.

Well, my listening journey goes from Leonard Cohen yesterday to Destiny's Child today, serious clash of listening cultures. Maybe a better connection/comparison for Destiny's Child would be RnB shows of the 70s (thinking James Brown and Temptations live recordings I've recently heard, thanks to the Generator), via Parliament/Funkadelic jams, into dance pop of the 90s and 00s? The sound here is busy, often catchy, particularly if I don't listen too close but just move my booty. The grooves are surely central - how quickly did they come up with the lyrics (were they really happy with them?) - did they spend more time on vocal lines or did they just pour out (from a lifetime of gospel experience?) - and were the vocal lines really sung that accurately or has autotune come to rule the roost? Bootylicious was already one of my favourite songs, I try not to worry about how fast the assembly line in studio sessions as revealed by the Wikipedia article. (18 different producers credited??) The filler part of the album (after putting the singles upfront) is not boring but not coherent, some of the lyrics surely a bit embarrassment. Anyway no-one needs my song by song comments, I'll say album as a whole is generally listenable, but I keep feeling nauseous like too much fairly floss and pop tarts. It's not unattractive, as pop, but not that good - one hot song doesn't make an album, I'm going to call it Okay, 6/10.

This is a questionable but interesting inclusion in the project. I say questionable because it doesn't seem to have been that significant when it came out, or praised by eg critics, seems to have been included only because it was later used by emerging hip-hop? I say interesting because I did like the sound of a lot of it, on first time through - I guess there's been a thorough remaster in the version I'm listening to - a lot of the original lines are very good, were session musos just that funky in 1973? A lot of the arranging is sweet (particularly Apache), much is rather tedious, pulling my impression of the album down. When I go back to decide which songs I'll Like for future reference, most of them aren't that solid ... Overall I'll say it's Okay, 6/10.

I’d never heard any Yeah Yeah Yeahs before. Listened attentively while driving - no chance to read anything about it. Couldn’t work out what it was trying to be: so much synth but still guitars chugging away? Singer aiming for what? Some sounded like they wanted to be U2 with bombastic stadium anthems, but they couldn’t write anything catchy. Some made me wonder if they wanted to be Siouxsie and the Banshees, but no energy in the drumming, nothing attention-grabbing in the vocals. Then I got a chance to look at Wikipedia. Someone seriously described this as synth-punk?? This album is practically the opposite of punk. Someone said the singer and guitarist are both amongst the greatest ever? Yeah, na. For me, this album is Pretty Poor, 3/10.

This is more Motörhead than I ever listened to before. I knew Ace of Spades (of course), happy with the live version. Track after track is solid, not blowing my mind with surprising chords, but rocking hard, very full sound for a live three-piece. After a read of their bio, I'm feeling positive about Kilmister's insistence that they were always a rock and roll band, not a metal band. I don't know if he or critics said they had plenty in common with punk bands, I certainly hear energy and attitude (do or die), as well as stuff that's pretty close to thrash. In short, I like it a lot more than I expected to, it's Good, 7/10.

I didn't know what to expect of this. First song got my attention in a good way, thundering bass and sparse arrangement on top. Next song didn't totally appeal, I started reading. Wikipedia included a link to a short negative review by Christgau, with this comment: "Intelligent, honest, and original ought to be enough. But in fact there are acres, tons, and years of bad art that share these virtues, especially if 'original" is interpreted generously, which it better be with the world's hundredth or thousandth guitars-and-loops outfit." While digesting that, I was still happy to be hearing tracks 3 and following – art grunge was a refreshing change from my recent listening. But track 6 was a shocker (awful acapella section, turgid second half), track 8 also half-baked, at least track 9 (closer on the original album) has a plan and some discipline (works as a song not just filler, not sure about the lyrics but they're not boring). Conclusion: this album is A Mix of Good and Bad, 5/10.

A very impressive album. Meticulously executed, played and sung with flair and passion - most of the instrumentation, particularly the bass lines, would be completely fine if released today, doesn't sound like 50 years old. (Puts most rock of the period to complete shame.) Three of the songs seem particularly strong to me (Too High, Living For The City, Higher Ground), the others did not grab me so strongly as songs (though none of them are just filler or problematic), so I will rate it overall as Pretty Wonderful, 9/10.

A weird album. The words are off-putting: embarrassingly unfiltered break-up rants mixed with horny pickup lines. The music is sometimes appealing (funky rhythm section), but often over-filled, even bloated - guitars and synths noodle without judgement, some ‘strings’ parts are sadly weak and dated. Where was his head at? "Why do I have to pay attorney fees - this is a joke - I need a smoke". A cautionary tale, and a disappointment. For me, it's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

This is my first Elvis album on the Generator, so I need to pay some respects. I see his life, music and performances as an astounding and extraordinary set of phenomena. (Even his after-life is extraordinary, eg 'earnings' by his estate...) The USA in which he started out is kinda hard for me to imagine (though it was not all that long ago), I try to comprehend what he stood for as his career took off, it is sadly too easy to comprehend something of how he ended up. All that said, sad fact is, I'm not that into his music in general. I tried to give this album an open-minded (open-eared?) listen, but it doesn't do much for me. I get that there's "Memphis sound" on this album, that's reasonably appealing, at least as far as the backing tracks go. But the recording and mix are offputting - the lead vocals would be mesmerising in themselves (that unmistakeable style), but are wallowing in heavy reverb, while everything else is crystal clear (but even the stereo separation is weird). And the lyrics are somewhat offputting (with the exception of In the Ghetto - where my little freakout is at the footnote that Presley was worried this song would put off his fans?!). The detailed account of the recording of the album is also offputting, for the number of erstwhile movers, shakers and grifters hanging around, apart from the talents of the composers, arrangers and musicians involved. Overall, this album seems a very long way from where my tastes are at. (The 'legacy edition' includes Suspicious Minds, which I do find appealing, but I put it to one side as not part of the album in question.) Overall, for me this album is Okay, 6/10.

An unusual record, in a good way. Full of sweet little mysteries, like why is it called Another Green World? (The title track is wordless, and just 1:40 long - in another world it could be a first exposition leading to a counter-phrase, etc etc, but not here.) This album sits at a pleasant and interesting point in a notional progression of Eno's albums and collaborations from art rock songs to ambient pieces - I say ‘notional’ because the sequence seems actually not so linear. Some of these tracks are quite hypnotic - I could wish that In Dark Trees and Sombre Reptiles might each go on much longer, even if they didn’t do anything different from what’s in those snippets. I wonder how many musicians have said to themselves (or each other) - let’s see if we can make music like that! Other tracks don’t stand out so much for me as individual compositions - but all contribute to a strangely coherent album. The whole experience is great, but not every song brings unalloyed joy, so I'll say it's Pretty Wonderful, 9/10.

I'd heard of the band but not listened to any. I like some hip hop a lot, but a lot puts me off, if the music is shallow and/or the tone is off. The tone here is mostly not off-putting (I get that they were alt hip hop), but the music rarely grabbed me, and little of the words stuck out enough to seize my attention. One slender positive exception, when they dropped in a recording of some dialogue with an Australian, hearing my local accent was amusing. One negative exception, I'd read that One Of Them was bad, so I focused on its lyrics, it's a non-alt diss track against unnamed MCs, questioning their masculinity and supposed toughness, I find it tedious and off. So it's a mix of okay and bad, I'll call it Pretty Poor, 3/10.

I knew some of these songs from when they came out, but I would never have chosen to put on a whole album of Morrisette. A quick read indicates this album was not only popular but also highly regarded, so I resolve to try to overcome some prejudices. The rock feel had never convinced me – guitar less integrated with the songs than even folk-rockers The Corrs managed – I think fondly of Melissa Etheridge. The not-always-in-tune voice did not attract me – was it somehow cool to be deliberately inexact? The shock-the-bourgeoisie lyrics did not convince, but the songs are not uninteresting – maybe the pitch between cynicism and candour really spoke to the young of the day? Maybe the brash and oomph was talismanic for young women in particular? I still find hard to imagine that anyone loved the yodelly yips quirk. TLDR, I can't feel it as great, I'm not even sure it's good, for me it's Okay, 6/10.

This album is on a whole other level, succeeds in many different ways. Outstanding as a concept album, apparently somewhat narrating the artist's own journey. Music hugely varied, mesmerising - works exceptionally well as hip hop on the non-obvious end of spectrum. Lyrics poetic and confronting. Delivery exciting for rap flow, filling out a dramatis personae. It's tough and bitter but uplifting rather than crushing. It's Astoundingly Wonderful, 11/10.

Oh dear. What is it about the Pixies? Preposterous claim on Genius: "In 1988, the Pixies sounded like no other band. By 1991, every band sounded like the Pixies.” Second statement is overstatement so crude I disregard it, I think first statement also ridiculous because there had been more than enough other bands that routinely 'found' simple bass and guitar riffs which didn't quite go together, and then did shouty on top. My bigger problem, this album does "ooh we're edgy" in a mostly charmless fashion. Simple songs with small ideas stretched till they’re see-through. Singer's tone is so posturing. Lyrics gesture at quirkiness but lack inventiveness. Putting words like 'whore' and 'sacred' into your lyrics isn't enough to make the song 'deep'. It's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

I didn't know what to expect of this - had to check chronology vis-a-vis Goo, which I reviewed not long ago. There are some great tracks here, I find it more entertaining than Goo, I see that critics tend to rate it more highly. It's very much a guitar album. At first I thought I would call it art rock (some bits are quite grating), but as it goes on I'm thinking noise rock (which is not a problem). A double album, it's a bit too long - the individual songs are effective but the whole starts to seem a bit same-y - I appreciate diversions like Providence. At the end, I'm left feeling positive, but length pulls against replay - I'll call it Very Good, 8/10.

I'm a bit of a Dusty fan. I'm also aware of views that this album was only slapped together to cash in on a single, and the 1001 should've included an OG girl group album, not a collection of rip-offs. Anyway. I like the versions here of You Don't Own Me and Twenty-Four Hours from Tulsa, and I like this Wishin' and Hopin' better than Dionne Warwick's, but the rest are disappointing (for songs I knew) or seem irrelevant. Some of the arrangements leave no room for subtlety in the singing. Conclusion: Ms Springfield can certainly sing, but this is indeed an incoherent album. It's a Mix of Good and Bad, 5/10.

I'd not heard of Air. I start the album playing, enjoy listening through headphones while I read the Wikipedia article, which leads me to I browse the 2010 list of 100 essential albums of French rock (on which it appears), I went down some rabbit holes but then searched up more about Air, including a Mixmag interview from 2025 (when the "Blue Moon Safari" remake was released). When the album's finished, I watch a couple of the videos (which seem to help me gauge the intent) and then I replay the album some more. It's significantly more energetic than the 'chillout' or 'downtempo' labels would have lead me to expect. Also it sounds way more analogue than the label "electronic duo" would have suggested - more like multi-instrumentalists who had aimed for retro arrangements with drums, bass and plenty of keyboards (often given solo space), occasional front-and-centre space-bleep bits. (Quote from Nicolas Godin: "I wonder how we put all of this together, because they're all made using the same trick: one bassline, some pads, organs…") It seems very nicely produced - good for headphones, I dare say it would be good for coming down from over-excitement (while not nearly falling-asleep music). Largely instrumental, some tracks have singing/vocoder - chords and vibe in Kelly Watch The Stars quite suggestive of Daft Punk. A step back has me wondering what is the album saying, or (since it doesn't appear to be demanding attention) what does it want from us - is it happy to be a soundtrack to other activities, eg reading a book?? It's described as "dance music" - I wonder if people did or would dance to these tracks in a club context?? Whatever answers might seem good to these questions, I've decided that for me this album is Very Good, 8/10.

I'm learning a bit about Springsteen through this project, ready to give this album a whirl. It's very dramatic. Much of the singing is extremely dramatic, even overwrought (eg Streets of Fire) - there's so much inflection of the voice that it blocks my understanding of the lyrics. Fortunately I can access transcriptions. (Even listening while looking at the words, I wonder why he mangles them so much - reminds me of Dylan...) Anyway, the moods of the music (apart from lyrics) are still strong - passionate, with a hefty slug of melancholy, not bombastic. But the rock style (heartland rock?) is not really my happy place. So I am listening judgingly, waiting to be impressed by story-telling - which I just don't find easy to follow. I can tell the singer is overwrought, but not what it's about - maybe the first-time listener just interprets the angst in light of their own preoccupations and takes some comfort, or shakes a fist at the fates? I listen/read closely to title track, but it doesn't convince me. So I'm thinking it's respectable, but I doubt that I'll want to play it through again. So I'll say it's Okay, 6/10.

I recently listened to Lemonade (2016). and thought it was incredibly good, so I had high hopes for this 2013 album - but it just isn't really connecting for me. There are a range of styles on the album, 22 different producers credited (more than for any other album I've heard this year), but only a few of the songs appeal to me. I could try to analyse what disappoints me - or I could say perhaps I'm just not a fan of electro RnB? I had a read of the Wikipedia page about the album - strangely detailed, maybe written by a horde of fans who revere everything Beyoncé does? So I knew to pay attention to the lyrics - but I'm not really convinced by the pitch. Also from grouch corner, I didn't appreciate the features from Nicki Minaj and Kanye West, I was confirmed in my preference not to listen to either of them if I can avoid it. Overall, there's lots of impressive singing, but only 2 out of 20 songs work for me, so for me it's Not Good, 4/10.

I don’t know OutKast beyond some of the hits, but I'm excited for this. Speakerboxxx: full of engaging songs, with full mixes, lots of horns, catchy riffs. Lots of rap, which is hard for me to follow from audio only but that’s okay - the vibe is generally fine, and the features tasteful, eg Killer Mike sounds a bit aggro but I have established positive attitude to his work on the basis of Run the Jewels. If this is Southern hip hop (positive and conscious), I’m down for it. The Love Below: "experimental pop"? Prince is an obvious reference point, the comparison is not unreasonable - Andre 3000 not a genius guitarist but has no lack of musical imagination and conviction. Not every song is great but it's an interesting album, I could imagine playing it in full on another occasion. Overall, it's Very Good, 8/10.

I start reading reviews and Wikipedia, this is weird before I even listen to a note. I'm wondering was it the 1956 album that scored the entry into OG 1001, perhaps in conjunction with the hype about the gig, or maybe the exhaustive/exhausting 1999 album? Wikipedia page includes a narrrative of the original concert - says the 1956 album was only 40% live - says of the 1999 double CD that "the Voice of America live recording and live Columbia tapes were painstakingly pieced together using digital technology to create a stereophonic recording of the best-known Ellington performance of the past 50 years" - then gives a track listing for the 'complete' CD that doesn't match the concert sequence as narrated up the page? So I'm not sure if I 'have to' listen to the whole 2 hours. From reading reviews here, it seems many people think they should listen to all 2 hours, but quite a few people don't complete that .... I decide to listen to everything on the 1956 LP (the available artifact for most of the period when Ellington's career was boosted), and I'll start with the CD version of at least Diminuendo and Crescendo in Blue. Re the big band feel generally: I was pleased that Diminuendo in particular is a LOT jazzier than the big band style I was expecting. Re the big saxaphone solo: I don't find it as exciting as I was expecting from the write-ups. The big drum solo: I was not a fan. The festival showpiece (parts 1-3, studio version): listening to part 1 felt like a chore, old-fashioned and formulaic ("big band" that says little and goes nowhere); part 2 was a bit more interesting (but I couldn't pick a relation to part 1); part 3 was more with-it (I like an uptune and some crunchy horn chords). Jeep's Blues (studio version): this was my favourite track - smooth, but also enough flair in soloes and other band interplay to hold my interest :-) Overall, for me it's Okay, 6/10.

Yes, this is definitely synthpop. Competently assembled, low-key, some gentle tunes. It chugs along - many songs are not catchy for me. First big exception is Recover, which I remember from when it came out. Then on a re-listen to the whole album, I'm getting more of the oomphy choruses and hooks I expect if I'm going to be enjoying pop music. But there are also songs that seem almost minimal - like I could dance, but I'd get a bit bored, because not enough going on. I looked at some lyrics, and nothing rocked my world. Three songs I positively like, out of 16, is not enough for a re-listen. It's Okay, 6/10.

I was hoping for a heavy album today - thank you Generator for assigning me this sublime package, an album I think I have on vinyl or CD somewhere. I have a lot of respect for Living Colour as a band, and the contributions of all its members - particularly Corey Glover (my ideal of a rock vocalist) and Vernon Reid (awesome guitarist and apparently a very cool person). (OMG they look so young in the videos for this album - oh well, time passes for all of us, if we're lucky :-) (TIL Mick Jagger produced a couple of tracks on this album and played some tiny bits of harmonica?!? Okay...) This is a studio album but I can feel how they would have played it live, as an exceptionally vital and robust four-piece. (Also having benefit of many live recordings, thank you Living Colour :-) It's interesting that there are diverse views on categorising this album - I'll call it heavy rock with a healthy dose of funk. I love that it has political songs but I never saw Living Colour as straining to "be political". This album includes Cult of Personality (one of my favourite rock songs of all time), and five other songs I love. Then there are five other songs which somehow didn't get warmly stuck in my memory long ago, but I'm perfectly happy to hear them again, and with a listen or two I can warm to all of them - and I can now see stylistic breadth of the album as a plus. So overall, for me, this is Incredibly Wonderful, 10/10 :-)

I have listened as attentively as I could to this album (ie while getting bored to frustration with most of the songs). Looking at reviews here, I can see it has keen fans, as well as emphatic detractors, and lots of people giving it three stars - I wanted to see if I could get what others were appreciating. I give the album some credit for having a theme and wanting to do some story-telling, or at least scene-setting. I'm kinda signed up for critique of shallow consumerism. But I think the criticisms here are shallow, the characters one-dimensional, the lyrics ineptly expressed and overly repetitive. (On Genius, some of these songs with opaque lyrics have no significant commentary, suggesting there are no "hidden depths" to the 'quirky' phrases - eg Miss America "plucking hours from the sky" means what? no-one knows.) I'm not English, so I won't comment on the accusations of fake Cockney, but I will say the singing style doesn't appeal to me. I'm guessing these songs would like to be early David Bowie (eg Life On Mars), or The Kinks (eg Arthur or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire), but I'd far rather listen to actual Bowie or Kinks than this. The music is also frustrating. There are mildly noisy guitars, but like an advertising firm's idea of noisy guitars (that don't really intrude). Songs with one potentially appealing riff but no counterplay, no satisfying chorus. Very limited vocabulary of chord structures. Some studio effects and noises not integrated with songs. I searched in vain for a song I could consider my favourite: I was hoping to like Chemical World on a second listen, on the basis of the first half (decent riff, though goes nowhere much) but the piano-led second half really is rubbish - it's a twee piano line, the speeding up to crash is appallingly mishandled, no emotional impact and all too long. Why didn't someone tell them that it was maybe worth trying, but it didn't work out, so they should cut it from the song?? Overall, as there's no song I can comfortably sit through, I'll say for me it's Bad, 1/10.

Hmm. Everyone needs to know Le Freak, but do they need to hear the rest, will I like it? Well, this album topped the US RnB charts for eleven weeks, that suggests it's got something. But the track list is rather uneven. Chic Cheer is a stinker, then Le Freak has enough iconic elements that I'll excuse the lyrics, then the next three songs are decent/pleasant (middle of the road, but features like tasteful jazzy guitar, tasty horn and string lines), so at this stage I'm kinda positive. But oh dear, At Last I Am Free is 7:13 of pedestrian schmaltz. The two closing songs display precision playing, but they don't seem to have anything to say to me ... lacking the suggestiveness of eg much later Daft Punk lyrics. So, overall I'll say it's Okay, 6/10.

From the top it's very soulful. Some of it is very jazzy. The lyrics are solid - some of it is very loving and some of it is very political (of its place and time, but applicable more broadly). I'm quickly enamoured of Brian Jackson's playing and arrangements. The whole is tasteful and sensitive, varied but coherent. It's Pretty Wonderful, 9/10.

I was a Yes fan for a long time (periodic re-listens to Tales of Topographic Oceans), but have little memory of this album. I'm positive about "progressive rock" generally - first track on this album sounds like they wanted to rock, I think they failed to do so. What else did they want to do - I wonder if it's accurate that they wanted to show they were serious musicians, just like those classical music swots? After giving this album a sustained listen (trying to find and appreciate the good bits), I had a little browse, and was strangely led back to my favourite C20 avant garde piano piece, Fanfares by György Ligeti - which is both 'difficult' and 'accessible'. The comparison between Ligeti's 1985 composition and Yes in 1971 was most unfavourable to Yes. This album is not really serious, it's mildly pretentious, too many of the songs have multiple sections which really don't work together - it has some very mild inventiveness of riffs and conjunctions, but little apparent purpose, and very limited impacts. There's some good playing (Howe, Squire and Bruford doubtless talented), but IMO it is not good playing as a band, and this is Pretty Poor as an album, 3/10.

A very interesting album. I knew some earlier Tom Waits (more classic piano songwriter arrangements), I’m attracted to this cabaret of curiosities. Songs stripped to apparently simple cores. Instrumental arrangements (improvisations?) are intriguing and appealing. Waits’ voice seems very low in the mix, which unfortunately often made it difficult for me to follow the lyrics. (How many times would I have to listen while looking at lyrics transcription, to learn the songs well enough that I could recognise the words while they are being sung?) Familiar cast of drunk, forlorn, chaotic characters, is not unappealing. I could listen again, but short on time today. Points for revitalising the format and the range of vocal styles, so I’ll say it’s Good, 7/10.

Willie Nelson has already appeared in my Generator journey, but only as a session muso. This was his 22nd?! album, and it’s 10 popular song covers, recorded in 10 days?!? I know some of the songs, but felt no warmth for these versions. I could not detect any warmth in the singing or playing. If I was doing one of these songs, I would try to put some emotional intensity into the singing, even if the backing was left minimal. The Willie Nelson versions are just easy listening. I was trying to concentrate on the music (not just reading a book) but there’s almost nothing there to concentrate on! It’s Really Poor, 2/10.

This is my first serious listen to a Paul Simon album for quite some time. My parents had Bridge Over Troubled Water, the songs on which are etched deep in me. Much later I listened many times to Graceland - which I thought good, then cooled on. I had some suspicion of Paul Simon's craft, the easy flow of words, what was his relation to the stylish South African music he was putting his words on top of. But, before starting to listen to this album, I read about it and its themes, I read some more about Simon generally, and his approach to songwriting, and I found myself positively disposed to hearing some poetic songs. I was not put off by the smoothness of the music created by the long roster of musicians called in to play these tracks - it's inoffensive (does deserve to be called middle of the road), but I found it entertaining, even without surprises. Simon is very American, an archetype of an upper middle class New York music industry fixture, but I can kinda get past that. I can handle songs about songwriting - Song About the Moon is actually neatly done. I realise I actually quite like "René and Georgette Magritte with their Dog After the War" - I am comfortable with the idea that Simon's songwriting (ie drafting iteratively by feeling for what words match the music) is somewhat surrealist in its approach - I feel warmly about the invocation of "the deep, forbidden music" - I feel at the moment that this is quite okay as a way to accept and enjoy this album. There are weak spots eg Allergies (Al Di Meola solo a bit too much for the song), Cars Are Cars is poor. But he does have a really nice voice. After re-listening to songs I initially flagged as my favourites, and reflecting on the album in context of the world as a whole - I think it's Good, 7/10.

Quick tip, don't listen to track 1 first! (Unless you're already acquainted with length/breadth of Soft Machine (SM), and/or love noise jazz, or are extremely open-minded.) I'd heard of SM, without having any idea what they might be about. I made it through track 1, I did not immediately warm to the rest (while recognising various parallels in jazz rock, experimental and fusion scenes), but I have been re-listening at length - as well as checking out some later and earlier SM, and reading up. I'm quite interested in this album, the 'scene' and industry contexts in which SM emerged and gigged and in which this album was made/released (and sold quite well!), and the reviews here on the Generator (as well as other write-ups). It seems many Generator users would really like to give this album less than 1 star, and many others are happy to give it 5 stars - which is quite interesting in itself. 14 hours in, I still haven't decided how I'll rate it. I did have an early thought that this album shakes up my rating approach - apart from established aspects (ie do I like it, will I replay it, coherence as an album, professionalism and historic impact), I am likely to give this one some boost for innovation, and chutzpah. Before I comment on the four tracks (each one side of an LP) I will just note that they are definitely four suites, rather than four songs, okay. Also noteworthy that each suite was composed by one individual member, would have been interesting discussions about the selection and sequence. Track 1, Facelift - Live, is questionable on many levels. Smol quibble, it's live components but stitched together in studio, rather than one live take as per any specific live experience. Bigger question for me, why is it placed first on the album, when it opens so inaccessibly? Prog artists relishing being difficult? I think it evinces an expectation that anyone consuming the album should already be familiar with SM's earlier work and/or live shows. But given sales were higher than for previous albums - I think there would have been some shocked and dismayed living rooms. The organ-through-fuzz-box section is certainly striking, couldn't go much harder. (Saw a comment on reddit that [jazz fusion / prog like SM] is "why punk happened" - to which someone rejoined that SM "had a bit of a proto-punk vibe with their driving, unrelenting, and noisy sets", yeah :-) Track 2, Slightly All The Time, is much more familiar jazz rock. Familiar sense that bass and drums can hold a groove indefinitely and meanwhile soloists ?do noodling? but periodically two instruments play in unison as though to demonstrate that they had a plan all along - but why did they have that plan? No part of it is a 'song' to hum along with - it's a groove, and a workout for band as group and individuals. (What did their shows look like live? People sitting concentrating, or dancing as best they could? Well, I found a clip from 1968 that includes a handful of audience members dancing right in front of the band, plenty of busy drumming - reminded of SM supporting Jimi Hendrix tour https://youtu.be/RFDVTbLxBHA :-) Track 3, Moon In June: what is this trying to be? I learn that Wyatt not only composed and sang but also played all parts for the first half of the song, wow. But whimsy is out of control. Seems that he planned the music and then improvised the words?? Then the jam in second half of the song is pretty cool. Track 4, Out-Bloody-Rageous, composed by Ratledge, starts with (Terry Riley inspired) repetitive and layered tape loop minimalism (electric piano - no attacks or releases). Which would have been a lot of physical/process work in those days of analogue recording, shows depth of commitment to the 'experiment', or 'mode'. And it sounds fine! (Easy-on-the-ears build up and phrasing). Then there's a fusion movement - sounds like Frank Zappa and the Mothers, including v industrious drumming, also has fantastic (and long) distorted organ solo. Then after a recap of the fusion 'theme', there's a quite brief recap of tape loop piano, then a somewhat more conventional jazz section - which evolves into a heavier tape loop section (lots of speeding up). All of which leaves the question, why is the suite called Out-Bloody-Rageous? I guess jazz composers did not necessarily see song titles as a program to aid understanding of their compositional intent. After all that, how do I rate it? It's a very different type of album. In the spectrum of my musical experiences these days, it's less like a popular music album, more like a classical/art music concert. It's very estimable for depth (ie would repay repeated listens) while also off-putting, perhaps confrontational, in the intensity of its energies. So I'm not quite ready to say it's Incredibly Wonderful, but I'm comfortable to say it's (at least) Quite Wonderful, 9/10.

Another Metallica album. I listened to it, and made too many notes, so I stop and think, who might read my review? If you're a Metallica fan, wondering why I rate this lower than you do? Most of the tracks don't work for me as songs (the riffs don't come together), also I really don't like Hetfield's vocals. There are bits I do like (eg the thrash bits of Dyers Eve) so I gave it two stars rather than one. If you're future me, wanting to be reminded what's distinctive about this album and how did I arrive at my rating? The band put in as many riffs as they could - it could be considered prog metal, some music critics acclaimed its depth and complexity. What didn't I like? The vocals, the lyrics, the "full intensity all the time" approach, the weird mix, and the incoherence of the songs as individual songs. I don't like Hetfield's tone whether he's singing or declaiming, his vocals also lack rhythmic variety. The subjects of the song are reasonably meaningful but the actual words are not interesting. Lack of dynamic range is never good. But the biggest problem is that the riffs don't come together as songs for me. Occasional sections where something cool is happening (guitar 'tricks') don't make this an album I could enjoy listening to. For me, it's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

Oh, McCartney made a solo album before Wings? At home with a four-track? Home recordings are fun, and good to share with friends, but why was this released as an album? We can see that songs kept burbling out of McCartney, and he wasn't wedded to studio mega-productions, and the record company presumably thought anything by a Beatle would sell. I respect the Beatles' oeuvre, but I am not a Beatles tragic, I didn't need to hear this before I die. I don't detect any surprising musical or lyrical ideas, they're unobtrusive little ditties or tolerable-amongst-friends experiments (Kreen-Akrore). The existence of this as an 'album', with negligible replayability, is a bit of an insult. No-one should release every song they home record! It's Bad, 1/10.

Never heard of them before. This is their EIGHTH out of FORTY-TWO studio albums? I would say they'd fallen into "release everything you record", but I found out later that at one stage Pollard dug out 100 unreleased tracks for a box set – ha ha to the bank. After reading quite a fewe reviews, I gather that some people love the melodies and lyrics, but I'm with Christgau on this one, for me it’s a dud. Yes there are some catchy bits, but you shouldn't get a gold star for everything brought to show and tell? So many tracks to get through: I could pay more attention to the more popular ones? But the apparently-most-streamed song (Game of Pricks) is less-than-half-assed: if I wanted guitar pop with a bit of melancholy, I'd like it played properly (and I'd probably listen to Buzzcocks, not something "influenced by", YMMV). Some songs are awful, even the good songs are more like a demo tape than an album, and an ill-disciplined demo tape at that. But not much point in me making more negative comments about songs that offend me. Good news is that GDV don't have another album on the list, phew. For me, this album is Really Bad, I'll give it a new-for-me rating of 0/10 on my personal spreadsheet.

I knew of Gary Numan. back in the day but hadn't focused on his work (thought of it as more mainstream than I was interested in). I start listening, the tracks are somewhat minimalist (new wave arranging) but they do have lots of rich tones (chunky bass, electrosynth textures). The songs are not high impact, but have enough rhythmic content (and verse/chorus predictability) that I can imagine dancing to most of them - "almost disco" as one contemporaneous reviewer said. A bit of reading tells me there's a theme about technology and disconnection - but neither lyrics nor theme came through for me when I was just listening. (I look at some transcribed lyrics, they don't wow me.) Overall, nothing here impresses me much, but there's nothing particularly bad about it, it's Okay, 6/10.

I knew of Moby back in the day, but what I heard didn't incite follow-up. I put the album on, there were mildly appealing bits, but stretched thin, bland. It's not unpleasant, I zoned out for a bit, I wondered why was this music made? I started reading around. If this is 'electronica', why are the drum patterns so conventional? Songs were supposedly ubiquitous, but I recognise the styles more than the songs - some of them (eg Porcelain) do sound like they were written with the objective of being an inoffensive soundtrack for an ad - maybe I didn't see those ads because I avoided commercial TV/movies? I gather there are divided opinions on a few aspects, including the extensive use of long vocal segments from folk recordings - which I'm not a fan of. On a different note, I was interested by a comment that there's an album within the album - after all the 'hit' songs, the last eight or so songs have a different feel - I certainly noticed (and appreciated) that shift while playing through. But overall, it might be skilfully done but is fairly tedious, so I'll call it Mix of Good and Bad, 5/10.

In my early teens, I thought Deep Purple was the greatest band in the world. Listening now, the songs are familiar, and thereby somewhat comfortable, but I’m not exhilarated. I'd say Deep Purple were significant, maybe trailblazers of heavy rock, but they're not a band I'd play now for pleasure, more an object for study. Smoke On The Water in particular unlistenable (so plodding); I was looking forward to the chorus of Space Truckin', but the song is not fun enough to play the whole thing... Overall, there’s not much that’s good, and there are tedious bits, I am slightly surprised to say Not Good, 4/10.

I used to be very keen on Slade, had three of their albums but not this one. It's classic Slade - raucous, rocking, a bit of boogie, focused on hooks. I was thinking I'd class it as hard rock, with glam in visuals only - but after listening I could agree the simplicity of vocals and presentation of hooks is a bit glam. I like that they cover Joplin's Move Over, released not long before this album came out. Generally I think it's fun. The intensity of Holder's singing is weird but iconic, I don't mind it too much. I still like to hear Mama Weer All Crazee Now, other tracks are okay but doesn't really meet replayability because it's too much to play a whole album through. So I'll say it's Okay, 6/10.

Another 70s album I knew back in the day, it’s a sweet one. Band doing neat and subtle things around steady bass and drums, singing is very pleasant, lyrics easy to follow and nothing that troubles me (unlike a lot of other 70s music). I used to think this was classic reggae, I read now it was quite different from most reggae being played at the time, I live and learn. It’s very replayable, could be undemanding but upbeat background music. Comfortable rather than deep? But the smooth sound is a special achievement - delivering an interesting arrangement around a simple but unflagging groove (eg title track) is no small feat. Wondering how I should rate it, curious what critics have said - stopped in my tracks by datum from Wikipedia that Time magazine had called this the best album of the 20th century - it turns out the article in question was a set of bold claims (across many fields of creativity) without comparative discussion. The two-sentence explanation re this album: "Every song is a classic, from the messages of love to the anthems of revolution. But more than that, the album is a political and cultural nexus, drawing inspiration from the Third World and then giving voice to it the world over." Which is a long bow. I'll just note that this album is not consistently rated particularly highly by music critics generally, and go back to rating it as I see fit. I was prompted to consider whether my top ratings may be unduly reactive to what thrills or challenges me - can an album be Wonderful while also calm? Yes it can (eg Ichiko Aoba), but maybe I won't find it Wonderful unless at some level it is musically stimulating for me. This one is not quite there, I'll call it Very Good, 8/10.

My fourth 70s record in a row. This band were never one of my favourites, though I have some respect for length and breadth of their popularity. Title track has a certain effectiveness (good at what it does). It occurs to me that I should compare/contrast this music (which I would have seen as blokes' pub rock) with the guitar-y punk I was often hearing at the time (which was also often quite blokey, but not only). Both could have a lot of repetitive unison guitar/bass, and lots of shouty tenor vocals. AC/DC is definitely slower (sometimes plodding in pub rock mode), also its energy relies on accuracy of playing simple rhythms, where punk was frantic and desperate, and commonly energy and inspiration were more important than accuracy. AC/DC has swagger, but zero irony. AC/DC has lots of lyrics about sex, which sound braggart, whereas punk would be more delirious without claims of mastery. AC/DC has verse, where the best punk had poetry. Is that too harsh? Here are some stand out AC/DC lyrics: "Don't know what your name is ... I want to take you tonight ... Don't want no conversation ... all I want to do is make a meal out of you, 'Cause I'm a love hungry man". (And this is not a critique but an anthem.) First nine songs, I'd say negligible musical or emotional variety. Final song, Night Prowler, brings some dynamic range, but the lyrics (and total tone of music and delivery) are repugnant. So, such variety of emotional engagements as is offered, is not attractive. I am reinforced in my sense of "what AC/DC sounds like", but there is nothing here I would want to play again. It's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

My fifth 70s album in a row, and it’s one of my all-time favourites. I didn’t attend to it when it first came out, but my partner brought it into steady rotation and I love it. I don’t have comparisons with Young’s other albums (which I hardly know), I just anppreciate every song on this one. I love the space in the simple arrangements, the subtle sweetness of the pedal steel, the tones of the singing. I look forward to Words (Between the Lines of Age), which is one of my favourite songs, I’m wowed by the drive I feel through the shifting metre, and the guitar solo is one of my favourites too - it’s maybe naïf rather than carefully constructed, I respect craft but sometimes respond more strongly to what I feel as Dionysian passion. Overall I’ll call this album Quite Wonderful, 9/10.

I didn't know this album, I've found it challenging to assess. I looked at reviews here, and saw strongly divided reactions. Some carefully written reviews, celebrating complexity, encouraged me to give the album serious attention rather than make any early judgement. When I started listening, the extravagance of production was off-putting, right from track 1, Beyond Belief - I couldn't pick a reason for the variety of presentations of the vocals, shifting from phrase to phrase - this put me off what was otherwise a very engaging track. In the next two tracks, I found the rococo richness of composition, arrangement and production quite over-stimulating - too much to attend to! The tumbling changes and flourishes in the music distracted from the poetry in the words. Happily this settled down with The Long Honeymoon, Man Out Of Time, Almost Blue, a run of songs I liked (after a listen or two). But the feeling of excess complexity was a problem through the following tracks. (I was particularly irked by instances where I'd read a rhyming couplet but then the music would hugely draw out the second line - making the melody inaccessible to memory.) After lots of lyric readings and multiple listens, I'm left with 5 songs I like, but 10 I didn't like that much: I can tell heaps of work went into producing them, but I have no desire to hear them again now, can't think when I'd want to hear them again. (This is quite different from my engagement with Costello's first two albums - where I find the music very entertaining and never "too much".) I don't think any of the songs I don't like are actually bad, so taking the album as a whole I'll say it's Okay, 6/10. (I'm mildly surprised not to rate it more highly - it's possible I'll become more positive about it with further listening - if and when I prioritise such further listening.)

Phenomenal. Before being assigned this album, the only song on it that I knew was Pyramid Song. So I am at an early stage of getting to know the other songs here. Some of them have grabbed me quite quickly. I am comfortable to give the others more time. I can already say this is Incredibly Wonderful, 10/10.

I knew of Green Day but had not paid much attention, also dimly aware this was some kind of concept album. I listen to it while I read about it. The sound is often neat but not wholly appealing - they were maybe struggling with pressure to invent endless 'novel' riffs from a limited palette. As the album goes on, too many sections with limited dynamics, too many power chords, fortunately there is also some variance in styles. I read some lyrics but am wholly dissatisfied with the lyrical/conceptual side. As others have said, it strikes a vaguely critical (dissatisfied) pose but without any content or compassion, nothing about economics, class, race, gender or any real people - there is just a small number of gestural points but not joined up at all, lots of repetition. I was struck by this statement (indictment) from Wikipedia: "The album's story is largely indeterminate, because the group was unsure of where to lead the plot's third quarter. In this sense, Armstrong decided to leave the ending up to the listeners' imagination." That is a very weak base for an album, tour, musical and attempted film! So, I understand that this was popular with a huge number of people and feels like a shared experience of some sort of rebellious pose, but it doesn't work for me. The music is not hopeless but I have no interest to re-listen. It's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

I had a Run-D.M.C. album back in the day but haven't listened to them for a long time. This album has a very distinctive and very recognisable sound, and it/they were amazingly influential, but some of the tracks don't have quite enough going on to hold my interest. Most are listenable but I wouldn't rush to replay. I was going to give the album particular credit for being uncompromising (with drum machine beats so front and centre), but I am intrigued by reading about Rock Box. I found that track particularly interesting on my first listen through, for the hugely influential combination of drum machine, guitar tracks and unapologetic rap. Then I read that Run-D.M.C. didn't actually like the primary mix, since it had so much guitar - but public response to radio play lead to that mix taking off. So, had the track been compromised by producer interference? Is the track appealing specifically because of the independence of the guitars, the rap and the beat?? I do give the producers credit for a significant insight. Also interesting to read that Run-D.M.C. had been unconvinced whether rap could hold up a whole album - they were maybe right - but they went on to release and sell more albums after this, so good luck to them. Overall, given that I won't replay, but crediting that the album is so unapologetically what it is, and standing out so clearly from what came before, I'll call this album Good, 7/10.

I'd not listened to this before, but well aware of its reputation, even daunted. I am reasonably open to jazz, but no aficionado - I'm attracted to music with jazz aspects, rather than straight-up jazz, let alone hardcore jazz - so bop or post-bop are scary labels to me. I looked at some popular reviews here and then listened through, three times. Odd to see reviewers saying the album makes no sense, or is like "four people doing their own things" - it's quite clear to me that the band is playing together - though almost beyond me to sense, let alone say, how it is that they are playing together. The sax and piano are clearly playing in line with the strong rhythm of the drums - but I can't follow the relations of their playing to the pulse. There are chords/modes involved - but I can't follow the sequence - but it doesn't sound cacophonous (as it might if there was zero shared plan for chord sequence or zero responsiveness). I quickly appreciate that the players are incredibly skilled and educated in their specific way of playing - and I wonder whether I'm remotely equipped to appreciate it - but still I do appreciate it - it's mostly very engaging rather than offputting. (As Christgau said, listening through multiple times it doesn't get tune stale - though I didn't need to hear the drum solo more than once.) What to compare it to? It makes me think of 'difficult' but clever albums by Can and Soft Music that I've heard here on the generator journey - also classical composers like Xenakis and Ligeti - who can be highly impactful at same time as very difficult to listen to. It's phenomenal that the piano is playing recognisable chords but I can't follow them - while the sax reels out mostly intelligible phrases, but I can't follow the sequencing of lines, let alone their relationship with chords. They're deploying 'musical elements' that I can relate to, but I can't understand it at all - but at least I can be moved by energies and moods evinced by the playing. (I should say something about the bass - it's weird to me how low in the mix acoustic bass typically is - I couldn't 'get' the bass solo at all - a common difficulty for me with old school quartets.) In summary, I'm glad to have listened to it, and have an idea of what sort of thing it is. I respect it a heap, but am unlikely to go back to listening to it again. So as an achievement it could be Wonderful, but as an album for my listening tastes it comes out as Very Good, 8/10.

I know this album well, I've always been keen on it. The music is easy enough to follow, it's stylish, audacious, how did they get so much zing into such simple production! I read Wikipedia and learned some new things, I love to read the complimentary things critics said about it at the time and various people harking back to how influencital it was. I'm not fussed by anything like whether Bowie had too much input/influence, I just like the singing (and the words are okay), together with the guitar and all the noises, the moods, the total effect. I listened to this album earlier this year and rated it 10/10 because it was so exciting and fresh-sounding - notwithstanding a couple of tracks I didn't like so much. This time through, I'm cooler on a couple more tracks, and I've been listening to some great and serious music, I'm turning my rating down a notch. I'm still firmly of the view that Sister Midnight, Nightclubbing, Funtime and Mass Production are Incredibly Wonderful songs, exciting at first hearing and still satisfying - but that's not enough to make the whole album Incredibly Wonderful. Instead, I'll now say it's Pretty Wonderful, 9/10.

Oo, an album (that I don’t know) by a person who has become Very Difficult since it was released. Maybe I should just listen and only react to what I hear? I’ll read a little first. The album was inspired by Le Corbusier and the movie Holy Mountain? And it could have been called Thank God For Drugs? I start listening, I don't mind the abrasive sound, I'm open to the prominence of the rap/vocal interplay, I don't mind the tone of the delivery - but disrespect of women is prominent and off-putting to me. I listen and listen, don't really enjoy, it has me on edge and not in a good way. For me, being a little bit generous, it's Mix of Good and Bad, 5/10.

Never heard of this album or artist. A quick read was helpful - "soundtrack to an imaginary film" was a very useful key for listening or I would have been thoroughly bemused as to intent. The music is accessible but quite engaging - not riveting. There are elements I really liked, specifically the vibraphone lines - I wondered who played those (was it someone who played for vibraphone for Bad Seeds?) but Wikipedia doesn't credit any vibraphone player, maybe it was just programmed?? There were elements I didn't like - recurring tendency to a "strings" sound that seemed like poor synth playing (weak arrangement, weak patch selected). I could be positive about how interesting the spoken word elements are, heard in conjunction with the music - but my comparators for praise are set at a very high level (now there is Boards of Canada, specifically Inferno). So, listening didn't feel like a waste of time, but I'm not motivated to listen to the whole album again, or recommend it to anyone. I'll say it's Okay, 6/10.

Yeah! I don't remember listening to the whole double album before, it's an enjoyable experience. Hendrix was special, no doubt. I love his guitar work, I really dig the groove and vibe across so many tracks, I appreciate the range of styles on show. Other musicians are also fine, particularly Mitch Mitchell, his drumming always on point. The whole effect is quite psychedelic - in a good way :-) There were some very high points but also some moderate points (not bad, but not as appealing). Being slightly generous (because of enduring appeal over many years, and how influential the best bits are), I'll say it's Pretty Wonderful, 9/10.

I didn't know much about ATCQ - I read only just now about the Native Tongues collective - I was into some other acts in that collective, I definitely liked the positivity, relaxed and good-natured rapping, eclectic samples and jazz influences. All of which I recognised as soon as I started listening to this, ATCQ's first album. There are some very nice funky grooves here, it's pretty enjoyable though without being earth-shaking. Extended use of small number of core samples and core beats for each track produces relatively simple tracks from musical perspective - less stimulating than eg De La Soul - but still interesting enough, not wowing me but not boring. The album is long but there is variety in the feel of different tracks so it's okay. I read some reviews here - was struck by a comment about how many people praise this album by reference to what it isn't (hip hop with aggressive rap, gangsta, misogynist etc). but really to be praised it has to be not just not the bad things, it also has to be good. I'm happy that this is good in itself - it's not just a relief (relaxing) to get the funky hip hop and not be put off by the rap, the rhythmic play in delivery of lyrics is part of the pleasure. That said, I'm not wild about the words, they don't do that much for me, that's okay by me, I'm happy enough with the musicality. Small coincidence from my Generator journey: my album before this was Electric Ladyland, I was touched to recognise sample from "Rainy Day, Dream Away" at the beginning of Go Ahead In The Rain :-) This album, overall, it's Very Good at being what it is, 8/10.

My second Run-D.M.C. album (and fourth hip hop album) within a week. I gave Run-D.M.C.'s first album credit for being so influential and so good at what it is. This one gets even bigger wraps from critics and industry figures, lots of superlatives, but it doesn't appeal to me so much. The rap delivery is expert level, uncompromising, but the tone and content don't appeal. I would rather listen to Native Tongues type of work. Walk This Way is something of an exception because it's not just a blend but works the contrasts - phenomenal that it's so much better as a rock song than Aerosmith's original. In summary I don't like this much, wouldn't replay it, but I have to recognise it's Good at being what it is, 7/10.

I had low expectations of this, based on ELO’s chart-toppers ("Evil Woman"). First half, I felt confirmed that it was too light for my taste, I didn’t like the strings (like disco pop). But then, a couple of songs in succession grew on me - I liked the rich arrangements, syrupy harmony vocals, sweet synthesisers as well as the string section. So I felt more positive about the album by the time it finished. There’s a couple of songs I’m happy to put into playlists. I rate this album on its fit with my personal taste - as I have no sense it merits particular respect for historic significance. So I’ll say it’s Okay, 6/10.

Culture Club! I warmly remember the first time I heard Do You Really Want To Hurt Me, spilling out the door of a clothes shop - I stopped in my tracks - it was a revelation, for someone drenched in punk, new wave and post-punk - I could also listen to sweet and sad music for Sensitive New-Age Guys!! But - this album is very slight. I know some of the songs but have no enthusiasm for them. I have no objection to Boy George as a singer but am not about to praise him as a blue-eyed soul singer. The band arrangements are busy in an 80s pop way but do not attract me to repeat listen. I don't object very strongly, but am relatively disappointed, so I'll say it's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

Never heard of this album or band. Review on Allmusic: "lavish, well-crafted pop songs". Yes, I can agree there's a lot here that's well crafted: the arrangements are mostly neat (not too many loose ends), the production is well put together, I like the sound of the lead vocals and occasional features eg slide guitar, distorted bass. But I'm left wondering why this album was made - seems like retro without much payoff. Same review: "one-dimensional repetitive lyrics" - yes, a major problem, and that phrase is still too kind. Some Americana is supposedly justified by meaningful lyrics, this album has tried to slip through with nothing (or very little) to say. Some of the songs don't even make it to one dimension, eg Santa Cruz (You're Not That Far) has lines that don't connect to anything else in the song (just fit on top of a musical phrase), and Your Love Is Like Las Vegas is just a gesture at a lyric, that doesn't have any internal connections. Maybe the making of any type of music is potentially admirable, but why pick American West Coast 60s/70s as your happy place? Did we need any more of this type of music than already existed? I'm not feeling it. I've listened all the way through, I'm rating it Pretty Poor, 3/10.

Never heard of them. It says "Southern rock opera" right there on the cover, but it is rockier than I expected - in a good way. Wikipedia says it also gets called alt country - there's a lot that's way moodier than straight rock, in a good way, does that make it alt country? Anyway I quite like the band's tonal palette, and the thorough melancholy on disc 1 (and most of disc 2), and the lyrics altogether are quite interesting enough to read or follow along. Like most double albums, it's a lot to take in one sitting, but the rock opera mode kind of hangs together, my commitment boosted by Christgau's relatively warm endorsement which I read at the outset, and some side reading on Lynyrd Skynyrd. The closing track is suitably dramatic to match its deadly serious subject - it's slow, spacious, starts quieter and gets noisy enough in classic fashion - motivates me to listen again to the tracks I liked best on the way through (but probably not the entire double album again, not in a hurry). Overall, this is an album I can say really does belong in the 1001 - it's serious, considered, sombre, and speaks to a span of place and time maybe even better than the bands they sing about. It's uneven - some wonderful songs and some are only okay, so on balance I'll say it's Very Good, 8/10.

Never heard of it, but after a quick read I'm looking forward to engaging with what was the biggest selling salsa record of all time. I'm right into it, from the first song - strong shift to salsa after disco intro, loving the clear production, jazzy arrangement, bright clear singing with heaps of lyrics, which I can see are not overly repetitive (I line up a translation, and they're actually good lyrics). Getting into second song, I'm thinking the music is richer than some other salsa (or salsa-style) that I've heard, the lead singing is really very nice, the harmonies solid. As the album goes on, I appreciate the arrangements and the chorus ensemble more and more. I also read a bit about the lifes and political trajectories of Colón and Blades, an interesting story. Overall, it's very well done, musically interesting, mostly catchy, but the lyrics are opaque to me, and general associations of intent are not quite enough to hold my interest. I value it as a definition of classic salsa, and respect that, but for my future listening it will be 'only' Good, 7/10.

I never got on the New Order train - I resented that they weren’t Joy Division, and they seemed to steer so hard towards shallow. Anyway I ought now shelve prejudices for a listen through. But quickly seems to me there are two types of tracks here: tacky clubbing tracks (jumble of robotic riffs and rhythms), and indie pop things (banal lyrics over weedy chord sequences, with various tinsel tweaks and bass burbles). This album certainly prompts memories of tacky clubbing, not something I was looking for. A struggle to get through. It's Bad, 1/10.

Hmm. I've listened to the whole album (and still re-listening), and looked at popular reviews here, before writing anything. I'm not sure yet how I'll rate, I don't endorse the strongly positive reviews but I don't have the conviction of condemnation of many of the popular negative reviews. Many of the individual songs sound somewhat appealing (gentle touches courtesy Del Rey and Antonoff), but somewhat portentious - does the spacious sound underline that the stories told by the lyrics are incredibly moving, or is it just easy-listening? The stories are interesting enough on a first listen but don't give any more on a second listen, don't have nearly as much depth or intrigue as the best singer-songwriter work I've had from the generator. Mentions of American place names is not enough to hold my interest in Americana. Nostalgia (for what? lost love?) can be cloying. So I didn't have huge expectations (I've previously seen Del Rey as pop chanteuse rather than deep) but am disappointed. But little if any of it is exactly bad, so I think for now I'll say it's Okay, 6/10.

Yeah! The Stooges album I know well and have long regarded as fully classic. (It's the Bowie mix I'm used to and prefer.) The guitar tones/riffs and rhythm section impact generally are the most notable aspects for me, the sound is incredible for 1973, album must have been super-influential to sound so ahead of its time - it's hard rock, with so much energy maintained in simple riffs, together with a happy leavening of punk insouciance. Iggy's vocals floating above the rhythm section, very clear (in a way that live mix front of house surely wasn't), are highly affected but also effective, win me over every time. (So many vocalists have since wanted to do/be Iggy, but he was right there and made it up :-) The tracks are kinda long, but they don't get tiresome. (Not remotely easy to keep such simple riffs so energetic through so many repeats!) My favourite tracks: Search and Destroy (love the guitar riff, the vocals are kinda funny but they work), Your Pretty Face (rhythm section thundering), Raw Power (riff almost too simple but it works), Shake Appeal (v danceable, hand claps and all), Death Trip (interplay of guitars). Overall - it's definitely 5 stars, but just how wonderful is it? It's got some range of moods and dynamics, not huge - I'm more negative about lack of variety when the core offering doesn't connect. It doesn't address the whole of the human condition. It's excellent at what it is, not an album for all seasons, but quite replayable. I'm trying not to boost my rating just because I think it's kinda cool to know and love this album. Looking at my other 10s vs my 9s, noting that this is roughly as great as (but I think not greater than) The Idiot, I think I'll say this is Pretty Wonderful (9/10).

Interesting record indeed. I was aware of PE in the day, knew some of these tracks but had never listened to the whole album. Christgau wrote in 1990 that Public Enemy had become not only "the most innovative popular musicians in America if not the world" but also "the most politically ambitious". Musically it could be called sampledelia with strong beats - high intensity, a bit chaotic. The rap flows are appealing, Chuck D and Flavor Flav a classic pairing. Lyrically, it was always interesting to me that PE was so political, the raps are fortunately more open-ended than the interviews and thinkers/writers cited. It's electrifying in small doses (makes a lot of other rap seem shallow, or other hip hop seem staid), but I don't think I'd choose to play through the whole album again, other than as an object of study. I get that it was hugely successful and influential, and a high-water mark of sampledelia before the industry developed sample clearance/payments processes, it's validly in the 1001, but for its alignment with my listening tastes, I'll just rate it as Okay, 6/10.

Never heard of it, but the conventions seem familiar - guess I learnt about (Country &) Western music, without needing to hear this album. It seems neatly made (recorded in one 8 hour session? they musta gigged a lot before hand), instrumental arrangements mostly v simple but at first seem okay, Robbins has a nice voice. I could question why the Western motif at all (and the cover photo!), there's a femicide song yuck. The simplicity, predictability and twee story lines start to get quite wearisome before end of side 1. I could see this album meriting a representative place in the 1001 (if there's no other C&W from the period), but I won't be replaying it. It's Pretty Poor, 3/10.

I didn't know about Fever Ray or the Knife, I'm certainly interested now. Intriguing (stands out as 'different') on first listen, makes more sense once I've read a bit about it, plenty to attend to on repeat listens. Lots of keen fans out there and I kinda get why. I get the Bjork references, also Laurie Anderson is I think a good call-back. I can see from discography the artist is very oriented to remixes, I gather attentive to EDM/IDM scene. This will take more than a day to get my head around. For now I'll rate it Pretty Wonderful, 9/10.

Another Smiths album, sigh. I’m mildly excited by track 1, the guitar complexity is really something, works quite nicely so I can focus on music and not have to bother with lyrics (which I look at and am not interested by). Unfortunately, the following tracks are not interesting to me at all, lyrics repetitive and do very little for me. Guitar bass drums do play well together, but Morrissey vocals float above seemingly without interaction? Title track could be interesting (album punchline) but statement value is limited. I don’t really get why so many ppl think the Smiths were wonderful? Maybe you had to be in the mood/market for wistful indie romanticism at the time? For me, this album isn’t offensive (putting aside Morrissey baggage), but I’m not very interested, I’m not so bored that it gets only 2 stars, I’ll say it’s Okay, 6/10.

Pixies again. Rhythm guitar very basic, supposed incongruities of counter-melodies that are unsatisfying drones, some occasional pop sensibilities. I am not impressed to read about lack of preparation for recording - why did they think they should record - just because they could? I listen to the album, it seems very slight, nothing pleasing, nothing that makes me want to hear it again. Closing song Havalina seems particularly insulting because there is almost nothing to it, so much repeating of song title as though that meant something…. This is not for me, I find it hard to get why anyone likes it, this is Bad, 1/10.

I'd heard of the Everly brothers, but didn't know much about them. It's rock'n'roll (and boogie) alright, set me on a little spree checking out some other rock'n'rollers etc. I had to put a lot of the lyrics well to one side (right from the first song) while digging the classic stylings, particularly the prominence of vocal harmonies - great combination of vocal ranges there. I really liked Baby What You Want Me To Do, it's got classic (vanilla but tasty) blues structure, the simple lyrics interplay sweetly with the blues harmonies, and more. I also liked hearing the original of much-covered Love Hurts, and their take on Lucille (a Little Richards song, but I'm okay with the Everly Brothers version). And then Cathy's Clown put me on a browse of early Beatles. Anyway, how do I sum up this short and swee) album? It's quite enjoyable, I could believe it's exemplary of a period of popular music, it can stand for some very influential trends. But none of the songs are deep, compelling, revelatory or anything like that - things I would normally seek out and appreciate are totally absent - so I'm not going to over-praise. I'll say it's Good, 7/10.

I see Lennon as a songwriter often "touched by brilliance" (something that seems like a gift or mystery rather than achievement through calculation or incremental effort). I expected to like this more than I did - I found mostly filler and zero thriller. Actually listening to the whole of Imagine was surprisingly unpleasant - I've heard it too many times, the slow repetition dragged - I used to somehow be open to the lyrics' simplicity, but I can't appreciate them now, too much irony. So I started reading to refresh my sense of context - the music was swiftly overshadowed by looming myth, legend and commerce of 'Lennon' (and the Beatles generally) - which includes clay feet of the actual man. Having some special gifts as a musician of course did not infuse his whole being with virtue. He had flashes of insight, wanting to take critical and even activist positions, but often misspoke embarassingly - eg statement on returning his MBE because of British imperialism but also because his latest album wasn't charting well?! Anyway, what about this particular album? Title track has undoubtedly been impactful, but now, in 2026, I find it to be a drag. Next few songs were unconvincing arrangements. I remember Jealous Guy, the lyrics are short, it could come from self-awareness that goes with real commitment to change or it could be too pat (going along with self-excusing), a short song might but shouldn't be expected to 'reveal' whole truth of a person. I expected I Don't Wanna Be A Soldier Mama to be very powerful but my inaccurate memory of the song had invested something in it that I couldn't hear when I actually listened to it... How Do You Sleep? was mildly interesting musically, I'm no fan of diss tracks, this one seems like a 'normal' misjudgement. Oh Yoko! I didn't mind. Overall, once I put aside any idea that the album somehow invites a judgement of Lennon in general, and any sense of special occasion because this is "a Lennon album!", I realise there's very little here to hold my interest - it is insignificant as a phenomenon, relative to any of the Beatles albums I know relatively well. I'll say it's Not Good, 4/10.

I was aware of Japan in new wave days, from browsing record stores, but never listened to any. Wikipedia: "one of the key early British synth-based pop/rock albums", or maybe "a very European form of detached, sexually-ambiguous and thoughtful art-pop"? What do I think when I'm listening: it's competently made, yes it's synth-based, could definitely be called art-pop, but the first few songs are not very interesting on first listen (sometimes ponderous). As the album goes on, more of the songs are more engaging musically, there is solid variety of mood and pace, and some interesting stylistic reaches, but I'm still not impressed with singing or lyrics. Reading a bit more, I can see that Sylvain had an interesting musical journey - I feel more positive about the present album while listening to the last three tracks. And on a re-listen, earlier songs (other than title track) seem more engaging. My summary is that it's Okay, 6/10.