Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

I agree on everything u said, even your rate. Pos'd

Album Rating: 4.0

An excellent start to one of the best rock bands of all time. Not only that, but an astounding memory of the late, great Jon Lord's talents as keyboardist and a history lesson in Ritchie Blackmore's beginnings, whose guitar really seems to harmonize well with Lord's keyboards. The vocals in general aren't particularly outstanding but they still do a good job in welcoming the Blues and Psychedelic influences into the band's Rock style. 'Mandrake root' is brilliant in focusing fully on the enigmatic drum work and Lord's swirling keyboards, and opening instrumental 'And the address' is very memorable minutes after it's been played. Although the album may sound dated now, 45 years after its release, it is recommended to those who love 60's Blues/Psyechelic Rock, as well as those looking for an interesting start to Deep Purple's career.

Album Rating: 3.5

NA, NA NA NAAA, NA NA NAAA, NA NA NAAA

Album Rating: 2.5

gosh, how disappointing..

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

This one's for fans, really.

Album Rating: 2.5

Tell me about it dannyboy. I'll try to forget it and move on, probably with Fireball now that I'm done

with their classics.

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

Which albums have you heard so far? I've only heard this one once,

actually.

Album Rating: 2.5

Yeah, not a great album. Mandrake Root is good and the covers (Help, Hey Joe, Hush) are not bad too.

Album Rating: 3.5

Hush people, Hush!

Album Rating: 2.5

I don't think I've listened as much as I should have by now, but anyway here it goes.

Machine Head (Amazing)

Stormbringer (Pretty meh)

Self-Titled (Good album, I liked it at least)

In Rock (Classic stuff)

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

You listened in the wrong order. You were supposed to jam the first 3

Mk 2 albums first, and then Burn. The rest is tougher to get into.



Glad you liked the s/t tho, it's pretty underrated imo.



At some point you need to check MiJ hard, essential live album.

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

Opener rules.



This is better than a 2.5 imo.

Album Rating: 2.5

I know. I used to check discographies in chronological order but then I just ventured randomly, mostly

at what others say regarding determined albums. I'll take your advice on the live album though, maybe

I can redeem myself.

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

Don't worry dude. But yeah, this isn't really one of rock n' roll's most game-changing debuts.



Sabbath easily had the strongest debut of the Trinity imo.

Album Rating: 2.5

Best order for me is chronologically if you're up to checking a band's larger part of their discog. However, I usually listen to their most acclaimed album first and if it seems to me interesting enough then I go chronologically.

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

I rarely go chrono. Usually I go from most acclaimed/safest, to least acclaimed/unsafest. However, with Nine Inch Nails, for instance, I've opted to go chrono. Bands usually have periods that many consider their "golden ages" so I often go for those eras of the band and then work my way through the rest.

Album Rating: 2.5

↑ I agree, and that's probably the reason why I used to do so. Most bands start out awesome, and then drop their quality album by album.



"Best order for me is chronologically if you're up to checking a band's larger part of their discog. However, I usually listen to their most acclaimed album first and if it seems to me interesting enough then I go chronologically."



This is kind-of what I meant by my initial comment, not exactly their most acclaimed in my case, but the most discussed albums I guess. But this usually works with bands that have "bumpy" discogs such as this or even Floyd.

Album Rating: 3.5

I have to check NIN, everyone seems to love them

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

Rowan will set you up MSLG, he knows his NIN far more than me.

Album Rating: 3.5

Any similar band that I know to them?, so I can assimilate how do they sound?