Tribute albums, sadly, are the way many listeners are introduced to veteran artists, but 2003's -- released roughly a year after ' death -- is botched as an introduction and as a tribute or even just as a good listen. Pretty much everything that could go wrong with a tribute does, with songs sinking even if they're performed by colleagues ( on ) or designed as replicas ( 's ) or even sung by their songwriters ( ). And those are the good moments. Sure, there's no shortage of love for here, but the interpretations are by and large leaden -- takes the swing out of the guitar riff; is reinterpreted so there's no there at all -- and, occasionally, flat-out embarrassing, like ' infuriating lead-footed take on the title track. The problem is, was such a towering presence, giving everything he sang a stamp of authority, that having 13 of the 14 singers treat him with kid gloves or act too indebted to his legacy only brings out his own strength while sadly sapping the power out of the songs themselves. The exception that proves the rule? 's great version of Sure, the song may be disarmingly close to her battles with substance abuse and legal problems, but that may also be why she digs in and finds the heart of the song, giving the only performance that mirrors what did when he sang. And that's too bad, because , as one of the greats of both music and American popular music in the 20th century, deserves better from a tribute. ~ Stephen Thomas Erlewine