O'Really?

February 1, 2025

One hundred albums you might enjoy listening to

Filed under: joshua tree,music,wikipedia — Duncan Hull @ 4:14 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

Any list of 100 best anything is going to be riddled with biases, flaws and omissions, but here’s a list of albums you might enjoy listening to from 100best.music.apple.com. I’ve posted them here because my family are listening to three albums a week throughout 2025, and discussing them as we go. The albums are listed in reverse order of “greatness“ below, as we’re starting from the top. The №’s link to music and listening notes on Apple, other streaming services are available. The rest of the links go to the English Wikipedia article for the album in question. What’s missing and what’s in the wrong order? What doesn’t deserve to be mentioned on this list? There’s a strong American bias, with 65% of artists hailing from the USA and 24% from the UK. There’s only 1% representation of artists from each of Jamaica, Iceland, Ireland, Puerto Rico, Sweden, Germany and France and a big fat 0% for many others.†

Public domain image of a One Hundred Dollar bill from 1862 via Wikimedia Commons w.wiki/Cwbe

When it comes to music, Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV), actually your mileage will definitely vary. So here’s an opinionated view from Apple Park on the ”definitive list of the greatest albums ever made” assembled with the help of ”artists and experts”. There’s plenty of bangers in here, amongst the clangers. Judge for yourself:

  1. 🇸🇪 № 100 (2010) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Talk_(Robyn_album)
  2. 🇺🇸 № 99 (1976) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_California_(album)
  3. 🇺🇸 № 98 (2018) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroworld_(album)
  4. 🇺🇸 № 97 (1992) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_Against_the_Machine_(album)
  5. 🇳🇿 № 96 (2013) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Heroine
  6. 🇺🇸 № 95 (2004) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_(Usher_album)
  7. 🇬🇧 № 94 (2007) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untrue_(album)
  8. 🇺🇸 № 93 (2016) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Seat_at_the_Table
  9. 🇺🇸 № 92 (2017) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Boy
  10. 🇬🇧 № 91 (1990) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listen_Without_Prejudice_Vol._1
  11. 🇦🇺 № 90 (1980) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_in_Black
  12. 🇺🇸 № 89 (2009) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fame_Monster
  13. 🇺🇸 № 88 (1965) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Put_a_Spell_on_You_(album)
  14. 🇬🇧 № 87 (1991) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Lines
  15. 🇺🇸 № 86 (1994) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Life_(Mary_J._Blige_album)
  16. 🇺🇸 № 85 (2018) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Hour_(Kacey_Musgraves_album)
  17. 🇺🇸 № 84 (1993) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggystyle
  18. 🇺🇸 № 83 (1975) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_(album)
  19. 🇺🇸 № 82 (2003) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Rich_or_Die_Tryin’
  20. 🇨🇦 № 81 (1970) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_the_Gold_Rush
  21. 🇺🇸 № 80 (2000) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marshall_Mathers_LP
  22. 🇺🇸 № 79 (2019) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Fucking_Rockwell!
  23. 🇬🇧 № 78 (1973) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodbye_Yellow_Brick_Road
  24. 🇺🇸 № 77 (1989) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like_a_Prayer_(album)
  25. 🇵🇷 № 76 (2022) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un_Verano_Sin_Ti
  26. 🇺🇸 № 75 (1997) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supa_Dupa_Fly
  27. 🇺🇸 № 74 (1994) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Downward_Spiral
  28. 🇺🇸 № 73 (1977) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aja_(album)
  29. 🇺🇸 № 72 (2022) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOS_(SZA_album)
  30. 🇩🇪 № 71 (1977) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Europe_Express_(album)
  31. 🇺🇸 № 70 (1989) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_Outta_Compton
  32. 🇺🇸 № 69 (1986) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Puppets
  33. 🇺🇸 № 68 (2001) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_This_It
  34. 🇬🇧 № 67 (1994) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_(album)
  35. 🇬🇧 № 66 (1986) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_Is_Dead
  36. 🇺🇸 № 65 (1989) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Feet_High_and_Rising
  37. 🇺🇸 № 64 (1997) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baduizm
  38. 🇺🇸 № 63 (1967) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_You_Experienced
  39. 🇺🇸 № 62 (1996) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Eyez_on_Me
  40. 🇬🇧 № 61 (1992) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Deluxe
  41. 🇺🇸 № 60 (1967) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Velvet_Underground_&_Nico
  42. 🇬🇧 № 59 (2013) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AM_(Arctic_Monkeys_album)
  43. 🇬🇧 № 58 (1995) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(What’s_the_Story)_Morning_Glory?
  44. 🇺🇸 № 57 (2000) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_(D’Angelo_album)
  45. 🇬🇧 № 56 (1989) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintegration_(The_Cure_album)
  46. 🇺🇸 № 55 (2016) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_(album)
  47. 🇺🇸 № 54 (1965) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Love_Supreme
  48. 🇬🇧 № 53 (1972) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile_on_Main_St.
  49. 🇺🇸 № 52 (1987) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appetite_for_Destruction
  50. 🇺🇸 № 51 (1987) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_o’_the_Times
  51. 🇬🇧 № 50 (1985) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hounds_of_Love
  52. 🇮🇪 № 49 (1987) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joshua_Tree
  53. 🇺🇸 № 48 (1989) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul’s_Boutique
  54. 🇨🇦 № 47 (2011) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Care
  55. 🇯🇲 № 46 (1977) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_(Bob_Marley_and_the_Wailers_album)
  56. 🇮🇸 № 45 (1997) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenic
  57. 🇺🇸 № 44 (1973) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innervisions
  58. 🇺🇸 № 43 (1980) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remain_in_Light
  59. 🇺🇸 № 42 (1986) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_(Janet_Jackson_album)
  60. 🇺🇸 № 41 (1998) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquemini
  61. 🇺🇸 № 40 (1967) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Never_Loved_a_Man_the_Way_I_Love_You
  62. 🇺🇸 № 39 (1994) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illmatic
  63. 🇺🇸 № 38 (1971) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapestry_(Carole_King_album)
  64. 🇺🇸 № 37 (1993) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enter_the_Wu-Tang_(36_Chambers)
  65. 🇺🇸 № 36 (2013) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyoncé_(album)
  66. 🇬🇧 № 35 (1979) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Calling
  67. 🇺🇸 № 34 (1988) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Nation_of_Millions_to_Hold_Us_Back
  68. 🇬🇧 № 33 (2000) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_A
  69. 🇺🇸 № 32 (1994) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_to_Die
  70. 🇨🇦 № 31 (1995) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagged_Little_Pill
  71. 🇺🇸 № 30 (2019) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_We_All_Fall_Asleep,_Where_Do_We_Go?
  72. 🇺🇸 № 29 (1991) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Low_End_Theory
  73. 🇬🇧 № 28 (1971) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon
  74. 🇬🇧 № 27 (1969) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin_II
  75. 🇺🇸 № 26 (2010) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Beautiful_Dark_Twisted_Fantasy
  76. 🇺🇸 № 25 (1959) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kind_of_Blue
  77. 🇬🇧 № 24 (1972) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Ziggy_Stardust_and_the_Spiders_from_Mars
  78. 🇫🇷 № 23 (2001) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(Daft_Punk_album)
  79. 🇺🇸 № 22 (1975) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_to_Run
  80. 🇬🇧 № 21 (1966) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver_(Beatles_album)
  81. 🇺🇸 № 20 (1966) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Sounds
  82. 🇺🇸 № 19 (1992) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronic
  83. 🇺🇸 № 18 (2014) wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_(Taylor’s_Version)
  84. 🇺🇸 № 17 (1971) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What’s_Going_On_(album)
  85. 🇺🇸 № 16 (1971) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_(Joni_Mitchell_album)
  86. 🇬🇧 № 15 (2011) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_(Adele_album)
  87. 🇺🇸 № 14 (1965) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_61_Revisited
  88. 🇺🇸 № 13 (2001) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blueprint
  89. 🇬🇧 № 12 (2001) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_Computer
  90. 🇬🇧 № 11 (1977) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumours_(album)
  91. 🇺🇸 № 10 (2016) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemonade_(album)
  92. 🇺🇸 № 9 (1991) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind
  93. 🇬🇧 № 8 (2006) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Black
  94. 🇺🇸 № 7 (2012) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Kid,_M.A.A.D_City
  95. 🇺🇸 № 6 (1976) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songs_in_the_Key_of_Life
  96. 🇺🇸 № 5 (2016) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blonde_(Frank_Ocean_album)
  97. 🇺🇸 № 4 (1984) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Rain_(album)
  98. 🇬🇧 № 3: (1969) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbey_Road
  99. 🇺🇸 № 2 (1982) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thriller_(album)
  100. 🇺🇸 № 1 (1998) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miseducation_of_Lauryn_Hill

† NOTE: Some artists don’t fit into a neat singly rooted hierarchy, for example, are Fleetwood Mac British or American? Is Alanis Morissette Canadian or American? etc

Cite this post using DOI:10.59350/sf65z-3fc66 provided by The Rogue Scholar rogue-scholar.org

July 3, 2013

Manchester Digital and Higher Education in 2013

xkcd good code

Writing good code is often harder than it looks via Randall Munroe at xkcd.com

Manchester Digital is the independent trade association for the thriving digital sector in the North West of England. Last night they held their AGM and elections for new members of their council. I was encouraged to stand for election, and alongside 19 other candidates, had to give a two-minute  “manifesto” in a hustinglightning-talk format. Here’s roughly what I said, from the perspective of software, hardware and developers, with some added links and a bit more polish:

The success of Manchester’s Digital economy is dependent on educating, recruiting and training a pool of talented developers to work in the region. As identified in the Manchester Digital skills audit, developers are often the hardest roles to fill, as many graduates and potential employees are drawn to other high-tech hubs like London, Silicon Fen and Silicon Valley, California for employment.

Addressing this issue is an important for Manchester Digital and requires closer collaboration between Higher education, Secondary education and employers. As a tutor at the University of Manchester, with responsibility for managing internships for students in Computer Science I am in a strong position to enable more collaboration between educators and employers. As a council member I would do this in four ways:

  1. Encouraging students to consider employment in Manchester as their first job, by promoting internships and graduate vacancies with local organisations alongside traditional graduate programmes at larger multinational companies
  2. Listening to what employers in Manchester want so that students can be better prepared for the workplace, while balancing the competing needs of training and education.
  3. Challenging local employers to raise their game to compete with larger employers and attract graduates to work for their organisations
  4. Inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers by extending current work with schools and supporting undergraduate students doing outreach work involving Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). For example: through the STEMnet ambassador programme, Code Club, Animation FestivalTeenTech and related work.

These are key activities that will enable the continued success of Manchester’s Digital Economy and I ask Manchester Digital members to vote for me if they agree. Thank you!

Whatever the outcome, the AGM & hustings were great fun and it was good to catchup with old friends and meet some new people too. Hope to see some of you again the Manchester Digital BBQ on 11th July…

May 11, 2012

Journal Fire: Bonfire of the Vanity Journals?

Fire by John Curley on Flickr

Fire by John Curley, available via Creative Commons license.

When I first heard about Journal Fire, I thought, Great! someone is going to take all the closed-access scientific journals and make a big bonfire of them! At the top of this bonfire would be the burning effigy of a wicker man, representing the very worst of the vanity journals [1,2].

Unfortunately Journal Fire aren’t burning anything just yet, but what they are doing is something just as interesting. Their web based application allows you to manage and share your journal club online. I thought I’d give it a whirl because a friend of mine asked me what I thought about a paper on ontologies in biodiversity [3]. Rather than post a brief review here, I’ve posted it over at Journal Fire. Here’s some initial thoughts on a quick test drive of their application:

Pros

On the up side Journal Fire:

  • Is a neutral-ish third party space where anyone can discuss scientific papers.
  • Understands common identifiers (DOI and PMID) to tackle the identity crisis.
  • Allows you to post simple anchor links in reviews, but not much else, see below.
  • Does not require you to use cumbersome syntax used in ResearchBlogging [4], ScienceSeeker and elsewhere
  • Is integrated with citeulike, for those that use it
  • It can potentially provide many different reviews of a given paper in one place
  • Is web-based, so you don’t have to download and install any software, unlike alternative desktop systems Mendeley and Utopia docs

Cons

On the down side Journal Fire:

  • Is yet another piece social software for scientists. Do we really need more, when we’ve had far too many already?
  • Requires you to sign up for an account without  re-using your existing digital identity with Google, Facebook, Twitter etc.
  • Does not seem to have many people on it (yet) despite the fact it has been going since at least since 2007.
  • Looks a bit stale, the last blog post was published in 2010. Although the software still works fine, it is not clear if it is being actively maintained and developed.
  • Does not allow much formatting in reviews besides simple links, something like markdown would be good.
  • Does not understand or import arXiv identifiers, at the moment.
  • As far as I can see, Journal Fire is a small startup based in Pasadena, California. Like all startups, they might go bust. If this happens, they’ll take your journal club, and all its reviews down with them.

I think the pros mostly outweigh the cons, so if you like the idea of a third-party hosting your journal club, Journal Fire is worth a trial run.

References

  1. Juan Carlos Lopez (2009) We want your paper! The similarity between high-end restaurants and scientific journals Spoonful of Medicine, a blog from Nature Medicine
  2. NOTE: Vanity journals should not to be confused with the The Vanity Press.
  3. Andrew R. Deans, Matthew J. Yoder & James P. Balhoff (2012). Time to change how we describe biodiversity, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27 (2) 84. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.007
  4. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Research Blogs and the Discussion of Scholarly Information PLoS ONE, 7 (5) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035869

July 8, 2009

California Googlin’

The Googlin' Gate BridgeSo, I’m going to San Francisco and on to the Googleplex in the heart of Silly Valley, California for Science Foo Camp (scifoo) 2009. As I put the Flowers In My Hair (what’s left of it) and confirm my booking at the Hotel California I’m not just California Dreamin’ but California Googlin’. Just how many American and Californian musical clichés it is possible to cram into one blog post and accompanying iPod playlist? Now there’s no shortage of lyrics to choose from, which is handy because it is a long journey from the UK to California and I’m extremely bored waiting for a flight westwards. So with a little help from a well known search engine and just like in the novel High Fidelity by Nick Hornby here is a (personal) top twenty-ish all time greatest hits:

    • Let’s start with The Beatles since they played their last ever gig in San Francisco (at Candlestick Park), so it seems appropriate. On Get Back Paul McCartney sings

      Jojo was a man who thought he was a loner

      But he knew it couldn’t last

      Jojo left his home in Tucson, Arizona

      For some California grass

      Get back, get back, back to where you once belonged

    • And what better to follow with than some Beatles-inspired rivalry in the shape of The Beach Boys who when they’re not Surfin’ USA they are singing about California Girls

      I wish they all could be California

      Girls, girls, girls yeah I dig the…

      I wish they all could be California Girls

      Are The Beach Boys possibly the band with the most cliches-per-album in the history of mankind?

      (more…)

April 2, 2009

Upcoming Gig: Science Foo Camp (scifoo) 2009

Google Classic: Please Allow 30 Days for your Search ResultsIn my inbox this morning, an intriguing email from Timo Hannay, Tim O’Reilly and Chris DiBona:

Duncan,

We’d like to invite you to join us for Science Foo Camp (or “Sci Foo”), a unique, invitation-only gathering organized by Nature, O’Reilly Media, and Google, and hosted at the Googleplex in Mountain View, California.

Now in its fourth year, Sci Foo is achieving cult status among those with a passion for science and technology. Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek wrote of last year’s event:

“SciFoo is a conference like no other. It brings together a mad mix from the worlds of science, technology, and other branches of the ineffable Third Culture at the Google campus in Mountain View. Improvised, loose, massively parallel–it’s a happening. If you’re not overwhelmed by the rush of ideas then you’re not paying attention.”

As before, we will be inviting about 200 people from around the world who are doing groundbreaking work in diverse areas of science and technology. Participants will include not only researchers, but also writers, educators, artists, policy makers, investors, and other thought leaders.

The format is highly informal: all delegates are also presenters and demonstrators; the schedule is determined collaboratively on the first evening; and sessions continue to be organized and re-organized throughout the weekend. This creates a unique opportunity to explore topics that transcend traditional boundaries, and discussions are of a kind that happens at the best conferences during breaks and late into the night. Of course, there will also be time to have fun and relax at Google’s legendary campus.

Sci Foo 2009 will run from about 6pm on Friday, July 10 until after lunch on Sunday, July 12. Campers need to make their own way to and from the event, but Google will provide accommodation and meals, and there is no registration fee. For those who don’t have cars, there will also be free shuttle buses between the hotel and the Googleplex.

Please RSVP  etc

We hope to see you at the Googleplex in July!

Tim O’Reilly, O’Reilly Media
Chris DiBona, Google
Timo Hannay, Nature

About Nature Publishing Group

Nature Publishing Group (NPG) is dedicated to serving the information and communication needs of scientists and medics. NPG’s flagship title, Nature, first published in 1869, has now been joined by over 80 other titles, among them the Nature research journals, Nature Reviews, Nature Clinical Practice and a range of prestigious academic journals including society-owned publications. It also operates the leading scientific website, Nature.com, and a range of innovative online services, from databases to collaboration tools and podcasts.

About O’Reilly Media

O’Reilly Media spreads the knowledge of innovators through its books, online services, magazines, and conferences. Since 1978, O’Reilly has been a chronicler and catalyst of leading-edge development, homing in on the technology trends that really matter and spurring their adoption by amplifying “faint signals” from the alpha geeks who are creating the future. Whether it’s delivered in print, online, or in person, everything O’Reilly produces reflects the company’s unshakeable belief in the power of information to spur innovation. An active participant in the technology community, the company has a long history of advocacy, meme-making, and evangelism.

About Google Inc.

Google’s Philosophy – Never settle for the best “The perfect search engine,” says Google co-founder Larry Page, “would understand exactly what you mean and give back exactly what you want.” Given the state of search technology today, that’s a far-reaching vision requiring research, development, and innovation to realize. Google is committed to blazing that trail. Though acknowledged as the world’s leading search technology company, Google’s goal is to provide a much higher level of service to all those who seek information, whether they’re at a desk in Boston, driving through Bonn, or strolling in Bangkok.

About Foo Camps

The “Foo Camp” meeting format has been pioneered by O’Reilly (see when geeks go camping). In this context, “Foo” originally stood for “Friends Of O’Reilly“, but it is also a meaningless ‘placeholder word’ commonly used by computer programmers, rather like the term ‘X’ in algebra. The success of O’Reilly’s original technology Foo Camps has stimulated a wide range of similar events, from Science Foo Camp to Disney’s Pooh Camp.

Obviously I’m thrilled to bits to receive such an email, I’ve been to scifoo once before and it was a fantastic mind-blowing experience. This time, I’m invited as a consolation prize for being a runner-up in the international science blogging challenge 2009 which challenged younger scientists to get a senior scientist to blog. I managed to convince Douglas Kell and David DeRoure to start blogs, so thanks are due to them for entering into the spirit of the competition. This year, the first prize was won by Russ Altman and Shirley Wu at Stanford University, congratulations Shirley and Russ, it will be good to compare scientific blogging notes with you both.

Now, it would have been good to win this prize, but the invite above is probably one of the best runner-up prizes I’ve ever had. Thanks are due to the competition judges Cameron Neylon, Peter Murray-Rust and Richard P. Grant for organising the competition. Thanks also to Tim O’Reilly, Timo Hannay and Chris DiBona, see you in the Googleplex!

[More commentary on this post over at friendfeed]

March 14, 2008

Semantic Web? Yeah, Whatever!

Filed under: semweb — Duncan Hull @ 11:59 am
Tags: , , , , ,

(To be spoken in the best SoCal Valley Speak you can muster)

I went down to the beach and saw Yahoo
She was, like, all “semantic web
And I was, like, “whatever!”

(more…)

Blog at WordPress.com.