Hackney Diamonds

"Vintage" sound, although deeply earned. Essence of the 70's with a rich fullness of time spent. First time hearing this for me, not going to be the last.

A new addition to the list, and I can absolutely say it was not needed. The stones are one of the most important bands of all time, they brought a bite to rock that was lacking a bit in 60s, this album though is so mixed up and bland, it doesn’t really define or stand out in the genre, compare this to another artist like Bowie who in 2016 pushed the boundaries of pop with blackstar while this just is there and is a decent example of a modern rock album, it would be nowhere near this list if it was any other band

#130 If this album was made by anyone other than the Stones it would not have been added to the list. It sounds fine enough, as soulless and generic as it is, but there is a plethora of more deserving albums that should have been added over this.

Their best since some girls. Actually it’s not bad at all. No charlie no stones though . And yes I know he’s on it. But … It’s not an album you’d play to show to someone how great the stones are. Yet it’s not awful. It’s just not those chords that in the words of Bill Wyman the journalist threatened the very foundations of society. 2.5 rounded up.

When the Bittersweet Symphony sampling of the Andrew Loog Oldham orchestra's mid sixties take on The Last Time erupted in 1998, Richard Ashcroft made the astute point that it was the best song Jagger Richards had written in 20 years. And that was in 1997. And in the most bittersweet of bittersweet ironies, Glyn Johns noted in his fabulous memoir (not as good as Mike Campbells but still great) that it was actually Brian who came up with the chiming riff that was sampled! The last Stones record I actually paid for was Emotional Rescue in 1980, I was in Year 12. And I didn't like it. That's a life time ago, and in that time I've never stopped playing them, all the stuff up to Some Girls. My friend who is more knowledgeable than me on these matters did steer me to their blues record a few years ago, which was immensely enjoyable. But listening to this I was reminded of that terrible Billie Holliday record we had to review a while back, which was made under duress. I think Mick and Keith have inverted the paradigm and are making us listen under duress. We are The Stones so you will listen and you will worship at our exalted status. This is so ordinary, it has nothing to speak of other than the always pleasant experience of hearing Mick sing. They have nothing to say.

I like listening to new Rolling Stones album, and I love that a band 60 years into their career are still making good music. I wouldn’t call their last few albums classics or absolutely essential, but they’re very good! And “Hackney Diamonds” is particularly fun. The songs are strong, the production is great, and Mick Jagger still has so much energy. He’s really fun to listen to. All around, they sound way younger than they are.

Excessive autotune ruined what would have otherwise been an extraordinarily average album.

This mostly made me sad. 2 Boolean: FALSE

"I used to be in a rock band". "Ok Great grand pappi, put down the guitar and take your pills" No need for this album to be on this list... at all. You think they are proud of this album?

Adding this to the list is a joke. Album full of generic blues rock with Mick's voice that doesnt pack a punch or carry a tune anymore. It's OK to hang it up guys.

This album sounds like a pretty decent modern tribute album to the Stones. If it was a new band, I'd compliment them on their modern production and 70's sound. But, given that this is the Stones....... fellas what are we doing?

Yawn

It's okay - The Rolling Stones are another band where all the songs sound the same.

There are some moments on this album that I really like, but in general, I could take it or leave it. Feels like maybe they should’ve stopped a while ago.

Early Stones' releases (like... the first 30 years) is something i still cannot dig, but the later are pretty solid. 4 out of 5, but since it's made by dudes 80+, that cannot be less than 5.

Okay, what are we doing here, folks? I think this is a fine, later day Rolling Stones album, but why are we still putting Rolling Stones albums on this list? There's so much wild stuff that's been created in the last decade, but it's like we're stuck in the past. I feel like it's the same impulse that is causing us to remake movies and TV shows from our childhood. This album didn't change anything for rock music. I doubt it even changed anything for the Rolling Stones. I haven't been doing the user submitted list for all that long, and I've gotten at least 10 albums that would be a more meaningful entry to this list than this album. 2/5 I don't think the album is bad, but this feels entirely pointless, and I'm mad it's on this list

Maybe the author got confused and thought it was 1001 albums to listen to before THEY die. In which case this pick from a band full of ~80ish year olds would make sense

I'm not a Stones fan by any stretch of imagination but this album didn't really turn me off like I was expecting.

This was better than I had expected for a 2020's Stone album. There were even a few songs that sounded very new wave-adjacent; Whole Wide World reminded me of a hornless, late-stage Oingo Boingo song. Probably not one I'll choose to put on, but I wouldn't be mad at hearing most of these songs again. 3/5

I thought I was gonna not like this because it's Rolling Stones in 2023. It turns out it was fairly varied and ok. I still am not reaching for this, like, ever, but it was fine. 2.75/5

Forgettable and a ridiculous addition to this list.

Remarkably low energy and lifeless for a "rock" album.

2.5/5

1.9 Jesus Christ. If this was a debut album from an unknown rock band in 2026 no one would be putting it in the top 10,001 albums never mind 1,001. Such a pointless inclusion to the updated book. Only redeeming thing is it somehow wasn't as bad as the Chemical Brothers' addition

Best Song: Sweet Sounds Of Heaven. Lady Gaga really does all she can to try to save this album. A valiant effort, making at least this track listenable, and reminiscent of the better the Stones of the past. Worst Song: Dreamy Skies. Ancient, past-his-prime Mick Jagger does a terrible impression of ancient, past-his-prime Bob Dylan. The worst of many worlds. Overall: This is awful. I don't like the Stones at the best of times, and them pumping out sanitized, octogenarian rock seemingly designed to inject directly into commercials is hardly the best of times.

I mean, it was fine, but why was this one added? It's probably the worst Stones album I've ever heard, but I haven't heard any made in the last 40 years.

surprisingly good considering it was released like 50 years after the last one anyone cared about. minus one star for robert dimery taking up one of 12 additions to the the latest volume of the book with an ok album from a band that already has too many albums on the list

I like this.

For a bunch of old hacks, the stones put out a rough cut diamond of an album here. None of the songs are great but none are bad either. They stuck to the formula they are known for and only lost a little step in the delivery. I kinda wish Mick and Keith would hang it up at this point in their 80s but when they are still able to put out decent work like this record, I guess keep it going till you're dead. I may have to now check out their newest release, Foreign Tongues, based on the success and overall competence of Hackney Diamonds. Jagger may still carry some swagger but he's also a creep for knocking up a woman half his age. I'm a big Richards fan though...dude been dead for decades and still living the rock star life. When asked why he doesn't stop partying, he said that he's had multiple doctors through his life that have all told him to slow down and he's out lived all of them. can't argue with that. I'm putting this release a head of Springsteen's late career attempt we heard earlier but it ranks somewhere in the middle of the Stones catalog...2.33 stars.

60 years in I think we mostly know what to expect from The Rolling Stones. It's amazing that they are keeping it going, but I've tempered my expectations more and more as every decade goes by. Hackney Diamonds was a bunch of just-alright songs which is surprisingly better coming from the Stones than I expected it would be. I can't really call it phoned-in, but Hackney Diamonds was about as generic of a Rolling Stones album as I can imagine. Admittedly, they sound pretty good for a bunch of geezers, but I can't shake the feeling that this entire album felt like an AI generated version of a bunch of Stones songs. It's all follows the same formula and feels like a collection of songs that could have been released by any old 90's adult alternative rock band. Outside of Jagger's accent nothing really makes it stand out from anything else. All things considered it's not a bad listen, it just has nothing that will have any lasting impact. This album was the equivalent of a frozen pizza. Fine in the moment, gets the job done, nothing to remember or talk about afterward. Sometimes I don't mind (kinda like) a frozen pizza but also not something I look forward to. 2.33 stars

fine. I liked it better than some of the rap albums I have heard...just okay for me.

Enjoyed this more than expected. Nice Lady Gaga cameo towards the end. God bless these guys for continuing the work.

Had no idea these guys were making new music, which speaks for itself. The guitar work was solid, but the vocals were iffy at times.

Sounded like the Stones, but nothing super exciting.

Why is this here? It's not a particularly good Rolling Stones album and not one of the best albums of the last few years either.

naturally, Robert Dimery would never miss an opportunity to subject his readers to a SEVENTH rolling stones album. even ignoring the practically unjustifiable insistence on hogging up yet another slot with this one stupid band, there's too much of this shit in the book from other bands; there's too much of this shit in the world, period. beyond that, we've all heard versions of this sort of thing that are just flat out better anyway, and i can't even imagine what the reasoning behind its inclusion is: that it was the first 'good' stones album in a while? who gives a fuck? i could rattle off like 10 rock albums that beat this in quality and/or influence from the last 5 years, but Mick gets another album in just because they stopped completely eating shit in the studio and managed to turn in an album that's corny, trite and boring rather than simply awful? highlights include some nice contributions from musicians that aren't in the band, lowlights include Mick Jagger's awful performance as some kind of sexy rock 'n' roll baby on Mess It Up, and Sweet Sounds of Heaven, which i think I'm supposed to read as an epic, grandiose, sprawling conclusion but is just a tortured, never-ending, meandering slog complete with a Lady Gaga vocal performance that feels like she's making fun of the band. thank god Fetch the Bolt Cutters got cut for this

Not sure why this was chosen. The music is "good" but it's the same old blues rock that's been overdone. 3.5

Man, I was so happy ending the list with the Hounds of Love, but now it ends with Hackney Diamonds. Tainted! :p Two other lists I've been "almost done" for at least a year now are Rolling Stone magazine's 500 Greatest Albums (all editions combined, of course) and the 100 Best Albums of the 2000s. The latter list is especially important to me because I had the physical copy of the magazine as a teen. Even though I wouldn't actually hear many of the albums in full until later, that issue certainly led to me paying attention to the artists they showcased, like MGMT, Arcade Fire and Radiohead. There's also multiple albums by Bob Dylan, U2, Bruce Springsteen and Johnny Cash. I guess looking back, it wasn't the cutting edge of modern music journalism I thought it was. It might have been the ONLY music journalism that got through to me for a time. How was I supposed to know the other teens weren't bumping U2's "Moment of Surrender" and Springsteen's "Radio Nowhere" on their iPod? (both good songs, btw). I guess there's nothing wrong with showcasing late-career highlights from legacy acts- they don't have to be swan songs, either, like Blackstar or You Want It Darker. Songs of a Lost World was pretty good. I guess when one is trying to encapsulate a time period, like the 2000s, or the 2020s, balance is the key. You put too many legacy acts, it kinda seems like you don't actually care about the music of said period. And yeah, R.S. also has Tha Carter III and The College Dropout, this list has Billie and Charli, but then they're put on a par with the Rolling Stones's TWENTY FOURTH studio album and suddenly the whole thing stinks. It stinks! The album is... good, I guess? I'd have a lot more thoughts about Hackney Diamonds if their return to the studio resulted in dogshit, but alas. They played it safe, and invited their rich friends to guest star, including at least two Sirs, a Lady, and Stevie M.F. Wonder. The results speak for themselves. I have a soft spot for when they go full cowboy, like in "Dreamy Skies". "Dead Flowers" and "Love in Vain" are already on albums on this list, though. They also kind of revisit the Some Girls era with "Mess It Up", and go right back to the source in the final track, "Rolling Stone Blues", harkening to their early days when they cut their teeth watering down the Delta blues. My main issue is the production, helmed by American producer Andrew Watt. I quote from the Apple Music blurb: "Watt kept it simple, bringing in vintage microphones and highlighting the interwoven guitars of [Keith] Richards and Ronnie Wood", and "Hackney Diamonds was indeed made like the old days- live, with no click tracks or glossy production tricks". Okay, so, my question is, why do songs like "Whole Wide World", and "Live By the Sword", and "Driving Me Too Hard" sound so GOD DAMN GLOSSY?? Even the COVER ART is glossy. I feel like I'm being lied to here! My gut, based on other Watt-produced albums like the recent Paul McCartney and Elton John/Brandi Carlisle collab, tells me he's a hack who treats almost every artist with the same bland, commercial, over-compressed treatment. But he keeps working with a growing list of acclaimed artists, both old and new (see: Paul McCartney, Elton John, Brandi Carlisle), who all have good things to say about him. Well, I'm sure that doing whatever it is he does bought him a nice house. Man, having this on the 1001 is top-level ragebait. Is it bad that I would still rank this album higher than their self-titled debut? HL: "Angry", "Bite My Head Off", "Mess It Up", "Sweet Sounds of Heaven"

And from the most deserving legacy artist album of the 2026 update, we go immediately to the least deserving. Why the fuck was this added to the list? I'm sorry, but this album being added is the biggest piece of bullshit that I've seen in a long time. In what fucking world did this list need a seventh Rolling Stones album from 2023? That's fucking comical! 6 albums was already plenty. Dare I say that it was already a bit too much. Then again, I feel like this list should have a 5 album limit for any given artist, so 6 albums is too much for anyone to have in my opinion, let alone 7. But to suggest that Hackney Diamonds, the Rolling Stones' 24th album, is more of an essential listen than literally any hip-hop album of the 2020s, any other album from 2023 that isn't this or the Chemical Brothers album, which is also a bullshit pick by the way, or any of the legendary albums from before 2022 that got shafted in previous versions of the book is baffling. You know what? I'm going to say it. This is the most pointless and absurd inclusion of the entire 1001 Albums list. Congratulations Robert Dimery! You somehow made this list worse and threw away any remaining credibility you once had. Are you happy? Are you proud of this list that you and your pals have concocted over the past 20 years? Ugh... I'm tired. Let's talk about this fucking album. I just listened to the Cure's most recent album yesterday, so I know what a good late-era comeback album is like. This is not it. Let me explain why. You see, one of the most exciting things about late-era albums in my opinion is that the perspective behind the album at large is often quite different from the perspective of the earlier albums. There may be things in common, but age should inform the making of a new album. Take Songs of a Lost World for instance. On that album, recent events in Robert Smith's life like the death of his brother informed the writing on the album, making it feel like a natural progression of the Cure as a band. It feels like the same band but after 35 years or so of aging. That's how it should be. It shouldn't feel like an attempt to relive the glory days mixed with out-of-place modern production. You wanna take a guess as to how I feel about Hackney Diamonds? I think it's an attempt to relive the Stones' glory days mixed with out-of-place modern production. I would've hoped that a Rolling Stones album from 2023 would have an aged perspective informing some of the lyrical themes. I'm not saying that Mick Jagger had to sing about playing shuffleboard or how much his bones ache, but it could've been cool to hear the Stones deal with topics like nostalgia or the current music landscape. Instead, we mostly get songs that rehash the same themes of relationships and troublesome women that the band have been singing about since the fuckin' 60s, except now it sounds like ass. Yeah, the production is kinda overbearing on this album, and it does not fit the Rolling Stones. I've complained in the past about early Stones albums aging poorly and being "offensive" in some ways, but this album has the exact opposite problem of being too inoffensive for the Stones. I might've been a bit uncomfortable with the misogynistic undertones of "Under My Thumb," but I'll admit that the Rolling Stones need some amount of edge to work. That's why Exile on Main St. is their best album! Andrew Watt's production just doesn't fit the band. But what about Mick Jagger? He's still alive and kicking... somehow. How has his voice aged? Well, I wish I could tell you, but the production just smothers his voice in effects to the point where I can't even tell if his voice has aged well or not. Now, I don't think that this album is actively bad. There are things that work. The guitar work is pretty solid. Keith Richards is still around, which is even more shocking than Mick still being alive. The actual musical compositions are one of the better parts of the album, with legends like Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney being involved! "Sweet Sounds of Heaven" has Lady Gaga on it, so that's neat. Of course, all this does is remind me that this album is on the list but not any of Lady Gaga's albums despite her being one of the most influential pop stars of the 21st century, but I'm fine with her feature on the album. The song is too long though. Look. I'm happy that the Rolling Stones are still alive and doing things. The Rolling Stones are legends for a reason. I may not care about some of their material as much as others do, but their prime material is some grade-A stuff. Unfortunately, they are now literal decades past said prime, and the music that they're releasing is just not great. Hackney Diamonds itself is probably a low 3/5 in a vacuum. It's fine, I guess, and it doesn't hurt the band's reputation in any way. But in the context of the 1001 Albums list, this album's presence is genuinely insulting. It just reeks of that boomer mindset of "old music good, new music bad" that really has no business being anywhere near a list of must-listen albums that goes up to the modern day. So, if the album itself is a low 3 and the inclusion on the list is a 1, I think I have to give this a 2/5 to split the difference. Do better next time. That goes to both Dimery and Co. as well as the Rolling Stones, by the way.

I listened to it at the time in passing but didn’t really c connect with it. On return, though, this is a great album. The old guys showing what it’s like to write a song with a chorus and a tune and a hook.

Not that bad but I obviously didn't need to hear it

adding this to a list called 1001 Albums That will Kill YOu

The “classic” Stones albums don’t do much for me, so this one…

Feels like trolling to add another Rolling Stones album in. The classic ones were shit, so I wasn't expecting the 2023 version to be better.

Its fine I guess but another Stones album is really unnecessary

I’m torn between ‘unc still got it’ and thinking this is soulless washed up overproduced rockstar fluff

Well shit. That was even faster than I thought it would be. As I’m sure you know if you’re bothering to for some reason read this, Dimery updated the 1001 Albums book for the first time since 2021 very recently, and I was wondering how long it was going to take me to roll something new. I’m still on my first go around with the generator, only on album 412 so far, so I’m still very far from experiencing the user submitted albums. Anyway, the answer to how long it would take me to roll something new, as it turns out, was 3 albums. It took 3 whole albums. So I get to be one of the first reviews for once. I feel tremendously honored. Of the 13 new albums added, ironically, this is the only one I had somewhat of a prior knowledge of beforehand. The other 12 I either don’t know or couldn’t even remotely care about just by name alone, but we’ll get to those when we get to them. For now, here’s the 7th Rolling Stones album on the list. This is the second I’ve reviewed so far, so still many more to come, following Let It Bleed. I gave that album a 3 and thought it was disappointing as a whole, but the gems on that album elevated it a lot. And that may be the problem I have with The Rolling Stones so far on this project. From the extremely limited selection I’ve heard so far, their albums just have so much damn filler. My parents are obsessed with this band, and generally speaking I share the exact same love for the bands they grew up with as they do themselves. But I’ve just never clicked with The Rolling Stones as much as they did. And I think it really is simply because only their hits are worth listening to. And let me tell you, this one probably ain’t it if you’re looking for hits. I think it’s remarkable they can still make music at 100 years old, but it wouldn’t be my first choice to listen to. Instead of adding a newer but still deserving band, Dimery adds the 7th Rolling Stones album to the list. 1964-1972 is a pretty good range in and of itself for the 6 albums that were already on the list, and even noting the popularity of the band, I think 6 albums is a lot more than is probably needed. But we’re really skipping from 1972-2023?? Are we deadass?? You couldn’t just add a single album that fans have been clamoring for?? That’s just crazy. Much like Let It Bleed, this album has 2 or 3 really good songs, and a whole lot of filler. My favorite of the bunch was “Live By The Sword” as it has both a fun singing performance as well as a pretty cool solo in the middle of the song. The thing I’m going to take away from this album more than anything else is that it’s actually kind of shocking how similar they sound from the way they did so many years ago. I guess you never really lose that talent, especially if you’re The Rolling Stones, and that is actually really cool. I think this album struggles extensively when it comes to having any hits, and I’m probably not going to be returning to it any time soon, but I’m going to give it 3 stars. And having 3 stars is pretty damn good for a band with a combined age of over 350. As a side note, my Dad told me to check out the 2026 album if I wanted more bangers, and I love that after all this time he’s still a big fan of the band himself. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Ok, that’s all for now. A lot of filler again, but a surprisingly good album as a whole.

Ooit was popmuziek een ding voor jonge mensen. Maar de jongelingen van vroeger werden oud, en bleven maar iets maken wat op popmuziek leek. We hebben al eerder pensioensgerechtigden in de lijst gehad: Johnny Cash was 70 ten tijde van z'n laatste plaat, Leonard Cohen kwam op z'n 82e nog met You want it darker. En de Buena Vista Social Club natuurlijk. Maar bij die muziek kon je horen dat je met heertjes in de latere levensfase te maken had. Bij de Stones niet, al met al. Rustig aan doen? Waarom zouden we. Het is precies dezelfde muziek als vroegâh, sterker nog, misschien zijn ze wel een beetje schijterig geworden om eens een keer een langzaam nummer te brengen, à la Angie of Sweet Lady Jane. Nee, we gaan laten horen dat we nog helemaal piep zijn! Met alle ondersteunende middelen die daarbij komen kijken. (Mick Jagger was 80 toen dit uitkwam...) Dat is een beetje de makke van het album: het klinkt precies als al het andere wat de Stones al gemaakt hebben. En dat is op zich prima, er staat wel slechter in de lijst. Maar de grote vraag is... voegt het ook wat toe? Hoogstens dat je hoort waartoe krasse knarren op hun tachtigste blijkbaar nog in staat zijn. Aan de andere kant, de Stones gaan blijkbaar nooit vervelen. Dus vooruit.

Hoe ouder je wordt, hoe makkelijker je concessies doet. Dat maakt het leven makkelijker wellicht, maar de muziek niet interessanter. Op een enkel nummer na, is de blues dan ook uit de bluesrock verdwenen. Het nummer "(I-I-I-I-I-I wanna) Get close (to you)" wordt vrij standaard 60's gezongen; het nummer "Bite my head off" als een standaard punk-nummer. En een nummer als Whole Wide World had uit de keuken van een willekeurige radio-britpop-band kunnen komen. Komt er nog wat country en pop (bedoel ik niet eens dat nummer met mevrouw Gaga) voorbij. Het is allemaal niet slecht, maar het heeft de eigenheid wel verloren. Geef mij de ongepolijste stem van meneer Jagger maar. Al neem ik aan dat deze inmiddels nog een heel stuk ruwer is dan we kenden. Ergens waardeer ik het ook wel. De band lijkt 100% kwaliteit te willen bieden. Geen album met een paar hitjes en veel opvullers, zoals vroeger. En de hobbels om die kwaliteit te krijgen, kan je tegenwoordig vrij makkelijk digitaal glad strijken. Maar ja, dan is het ook echt glad. Zouden ze die concessie vroeger ook gedaan hebben? Helaas een vergeetbare 3 voor de Stones.

Allemachtig, we krijgen gewoon een plaat van een stel bejaarden. Om een beetje te presteren krijgt opa Mick nog dagelijks een bloedtransfusie, anders valt ie om. Opa Keith spuit waarschijnlijk iets anders in zijn aderen, maar ook hij is niet kapot te krijgen lijkt het. De drummer moesten ze als een duracell-konijntje opwinden, om er nog wat geluid uit te krijgen. En halverwege het opnameproces waren de batterijen helaas voor hem leeg (een studiomuzikant heeft uiteindelijk de drums ingespeeld zie ik). Om de muziek een beetje interessant te houden, gebruiken ze hier ook alle moderne technieken die voorradig zijn. Want alle elektrische ondersteuning is uit de kast getrokken. Micks stem wordt recht getrokken, de drums lijken uit een computer te komen en ik vermoed dat er gewoon lekker oude gitaarsamples uit de 60s en 70s herbruikt zijn. Ik snap dan ook niet dat we dit album hier nog moeten luisteren. Je kan dan beter kijken ipv luisteren naar Angry, waar het snoepje van de dag Sydney Sweeney de clip siert. Al heeft die inmiddels ook al overal en nergens haar twee grote pluspunten laten zien. Qua muziek ligt het op zich natuurlijk nog prima in het gehoor. Het is makkelijk behapbare poprock met een smakelijk country en blues-randje. Ze doen er niemand kwaad mee verder en ze hebben er waarschijnlijk nog lol in, dus ach. En ik moet eerlijk toegeven, ik heb er ook best lol in haha. Dit luistert zo veel fijner dan meer dan de helft van de 1001-snobalbums. Het is volstrekt overbodig en volstrekt irrelevant, maar ik ga toch een 4 geven.

In the words of neil young, “it is better to burn out than fade away”

Ha! As my previous reviews will attest, I think there should be fewer Rolling Stones albums on this list, not more. *However* my lukewarm review of Beggars Banquet from 3 years ago did specifically state that I much preferred their new one (Hackney Diamonds) to a lot of their old 'classics', so I guess I should honour that opinion here and give it a decent score - the generator has me bang to rights... It's not spectacular but it is full of songs with catchy hooks, a fun energy and not much flab.

*Hackney Diamonds* is the Rolling Stones' first album of original material in 18 years, and against considerable odds—including the death of Charlie Watts—it arrives as a surprisingly vital, focused, and often thrilling late-career statement. It is not *Exile on Main St.*, but it is far better than a legacy act's contractual obligation has any right to be. ### Lyrics and Themes The lyrical center of gravity on *Hackney Diamonds* is not mortality, as one might expect from a band whose drummer died before the record's completion. Instead, Jagger leans hard into petty romantic warfare, urban claustrophobia, and a defiant refusal to act one's age. "Angry" opens the record with Jagger as a lovelorn hoodlum, spitting "Don't just spit in my face" with a petulance that would be ridiculous from an 80-year-old if it weren't delivered with such conviction . "Bite My Head Off" continues the domestic combat theme, with Jagger snarling about being "f***ing with your brain" over a punky backdrop . The lyrics are not poetry—The Guardian notes that "Live By the Sword" strings together aphorisms ("If you live like a whore, you better be hardcore") with the air of a man who ran out of variations and boldly pressed on anyway . Where the album does touch on time, it is rarely nostalgic. "Whole Wide World" recalls the "dreary streets of London" not with fondness but as a prison from which the band escaped; the message is that the party isn't over . Keith Richards' solo vocal turn on "Tell Me Straight" offers the album's most direct confrontation with aging: "Is my future all in the past?" . The closing cover of Muddy Waters' "Rolling Stone Blues"—the song that gave the band its name—functions as a circular gesture rather than a eulogy, a return to the source without sentimentality . ### Music and Production Andrew Watt, the 30-something producer known for work with Post Malone and Ozzy Osbourne, was an inspired hire. His mandate, as several reviews note, was to make the Stones sound like the Stones while giving the recordings a contemporary punch . He largely succeeds. Watt keeps Jagger's vocals on an equal plane with the guitars rather than burying them in reverb, and he showcases the Richards-Wood guitar interplay with a flinty, aggressive clarity that has been missing from Stones records for decades . The rhythm section is the album's emotional core. Steve Jordan, Watts' handpicked successor, brings a heavier, more driving feel than Watts' jazzy swing—less finesse, more oomph . But the two tracks featuring Watts' final recordings, "Mess It Up" and "Live By the Sword," serve as anchors: "Mess It Up" is a slinky disco-rock groove built on Watts' unmistakable snare thwack, while "Live By the Sword" reunites Watts with retired bassist Bill Wyman and Elton John for a raucous, mid-70s Stones blast . The guest spots are, mercifully, functional rather than ceremonial. Paul McCartney's bass on "Bite My Head Off" is a highlight—a distorted, punk-adjacent line that Jagger gleefully introduces with "Come on, Paul, let's hear something" . Lady Gaga's turn on "Sweet Sounds of Heaven" inevitably draws comparisons to Merry Clayton on "Gimme Shelter," but she earns her place, pushing Jagger into a falsetto climax that is genuinely stirring . Stevie Wonder's keyboards on the same track tumble through the mix with a looseness that recalls the Stones' gospel-inflected peaks . ### Influence and Context *Hackney Diamonds* matters less for its influence on future music—no one expects a new Stones album to reshape the landscape—than for what it represents: a proof of concept that a band six decades into its career can still make a record that sounds purposeful rather than parasitic. Several critics place it alongside *Tattoo You* (1981) as the band's strongest collection since their late-70s imperial phase . That may be faint praise given the intervening decades, but it is not insignificant. The album also serves as a transitional document. It is the first Stones record without Watts for most tracks, the first with Jordan as a full participant, and likely the last to feature any contributions from Wyman. In that sense, it closes a chapter—the original rhythm section appears together one final time on "Live By the Sword"—while establishing that the Jagger-Richards-Wood-Jordan configuration is a viable creative unit, not merely a touring machine . ### Pros and Cons **Pros:** - **Energy and focus:** The band sounds genuinely engaged, not dutiful. Jagger in particular delivers a vocal performance that belies his age, yowling with conviction on the rockers and finding real tenderness on "Depending on You" . - **Guitar interplay:** Richards and Wood are front and center, and Watt's mix captures their splintering, conversational riffing better than any Stones album since the 70s . - **Guest spots that serve the songs:** McCartney, Gaga, Wonder, and Elton John contribute musical value rather than mere star power . - **A fitting close:** "Rolling Stone Blues" is a simple, raw, and emotionally resonant endpoint that ties the album to the band's origins without wallowing . **Cons:** - **Lyrical inconsistency:** Jagger has never been a consistently profound lyricist, but lines like "If you live like a whore, you better be hardcore" and the Instagram reference in "Mess It Up" veer into unintentional comedy . - **Loudness war mastering:** Audiophile listeners have flagged the album's heavy compression, with some measurements placing the CD at DR6. The dynamic range is crushed, which blunts the impact of Jordan's drums and the guitar attack . - **"Angry" as an ambassador:** The lead single is a by-the-numbers rocker that, as NPR's critic noted, initially made the album seem less promising than it turned out to be . The deeper cuts are stronger. - **The Watt effect cuts both ways:** The production's modern sheen occasionally feels at odds with the band's grit. The mix is clean and punchy, but some listeners may miss the murk and swing of the Stones' classic recordings . ### Verdict *Hackney Diamonds* is the best Rolling Stones album since *Tattoo You*, and it is not particularly close. That does not make it a masterpiece; it makes it a late-career anomaly—a record by a band with nothing left to prove that nonetheless sounds like it has something to say. The lyrics are often silly, the mastering is too loud, and no one will mistake it for *Let It Bleed*. But the guitars are filthy, the rhythm section is alive, and Jagger is having fun. For a band that could have coasted forever on "Satisfaction" royalties, that is more than enough.

This Pop Rock album feels like standing outside in a light, steady rain that never develops into a proper storm. Everything is there, but nothing has much definition: the guitars chime, the drums keep a familiar beat, and Mick Jagger's voice moves through the songs without creating much contrast. The bluesy riffs and big choruses come and go, yet they blend into one continuous grey backdrop rather than leaving distinct impressions. There is no real discomfort or excitement, just a gentle wash of sound that keeps falling at the same intensity. I listen as the rain settles over the landscape, waiting for a change in the weather, but the album never gives me a clear horizon or a memorable shape to hold on to.

Generic and geriatric blues rock from a band that passed their sell by date decades ago. One star.

Why

It's fine.

Det här imponerar inte på mig. Kanske skulle lagt gitarrer och trummor på hyllan för länge sedan. Dimery är åderförkalkad tycker jag.

It was ok nothing noteworthy. Sounds like almost every other Rolling Stones album.

Not many albums grind my gears with their presence on this list, but ya know this one does really grind my gears! Did we really need ANOTHER Stones album? Like seriously, so much good music has come out in the past 6 years and yet we still MUST listen to this bland, safe, completely forgettable record? What is this adding to my life that other Stones or rock albums from the 80s hasn't? Rant over, imma go listen to Brat. 3/10

The last thing we need is a mediocre Stones album. I'd like to see some albums that are a little more adventurous. Tyler, the creator, kendrick Lamar... anything but an album by a band writing the same songs they wrote in 1969.

Pretty good.

I really hate how many albums of theirs are on this list especially since some were removed for this one. I think it should be tit for tat but, this album is actually just as good as anything else they put out and they did in their 80s like 50-60years runnin. Nuckin Futs.

"Hackneyed" indeed doesn't even begin to cover what's wrong with this addition to the 2026 edition of *1001 Albums Your Must Hear Before You Die*. Fortunately, there seems to be a general consensus in this review section about how downright moronic the inclusion of the 24th Rolling Stones album is. A legendary act such as this one getting a 2.86 mark for the global score speaks *volumes*. Legacy world-famous acts are rarely as panned as they are here. I hope the news reach Robert Dimery and his stupid collaborators, and that deep inside, they feel the unpleasant heat that shame brings to people who don't do their job right. This is not merely a matter of subjective tastes about what it is that makes music good, by the way. This is the line that separates genuinely enthusiastic music fans who are still in touch with the pulse of culture from total frauds who are definitely out of their depths. Dimery is one of these frauds today. Whoever selected this album -- if it wasn't Dimery himself -- is a fraud as well. The "system" used to add contemporary acts to the original list of 1001 entries -- and also retract them from it -- was already extremely flawed from the get-go. But with this one selection, Dimery manages to make that system look *even worse*. Congrats, Robert. You're destroying whatever shred of credibility you had left. When The Rolling Stones released this dud -- which was so *heavily* marketed towards boomer and gen-X target audiences when it came out in 2023 -- you could still forgive them because they had the absolute right to remain active in their old age. But there's no reason we can forgive *you*, Robert. First because you're not that old. And secondly, because The Rolling Stones didn't dismantle their legacy, which is pretty much untouchable when it comes to their sixties and early seventies output. Whereas you, Robert, are just ruining your life project. It is *this* pathetic. About the album per se, I have two or three things to add to what has already been said elsewhere in this review section. One thing that I haven't read was the mention that Andrew Watt produced this record. Within the modern music industry, the man is like a general surgeon specializing in geriatric care. He doctor-frankensteins his way into studio sessions attended by legacy artists in the twilight of their lives, such as Paul McCartney, Ozzy Osbourne and Iggy Pop, takes salvageable bits and pieces from those sessions, sews them together, and applies a cynical digital treatment to them if need be -- supposedly subtle, but not so subtle for attuned and perceptive ears. The main impetus behind this "craft" draws from marketing charts and performance indexes internally used by major labels, without a doubt. And if only for this, I want to smirk at said "craft". The most obvious result of the use of those methods for this particular album is its opener "Angry", a song already pestered by a very underwhelming main guitar riff, and a track that sounds so frigging fake you'd think AI would be involved in its production values had it been released this year. The use of auto-tune for Mick Jagger's vocals is especially maddening. Here it's not intended as a sheen layer that shows itself for what it is ; it is rather a discreet shroud whose main objective is to cover the probable warts in the original vocal performance. Likewise, the legendary and very distinctive dynamics between Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood's guitars seem to be digitally reproduced here. "This will fool the plebs" is the rationale behind every production choice. This won't fool *this pleb*, though -- as well many other plebs like me, at least if I take a look in this reviews section. Just as the underwhelming and flat composition itself won't fool many other listeners three years after the manufactured hype. The Rolling Stones routinely churned out lame hit singles such as this one during the eighties. Guess this dud can also serve as a tribute to that particular era of their long career, just as the equally limp and streamlined-to-a-fault "Whole Wide World" and "Mess It Up" do -- the latter being one of only two songs drummer Charlie Watts contributed to before his passing (rest in peace, Charlie). Those supposed highlights are actually the worst that *Hackney Diamonds* has to offer. And unfortunately, it's not as if most of the supposed "deep cuts" are bearable enough to become at least endearing in comparison. "Bite My Head Off" is too linear and devoid of real dynamics to become the raucous number it is intended to be. "Dreamy Skies" and "Live By The Sword" slumber while the band is set on honky tonk or classic rock automatic mode. Worse, "Tell Me Straight" sounds like an outtake from the most terrible LPs among those the Stones released from the mid-seventies to the the mid-eighties. Jagger's voice is absolutely dreadful on it -- I'm not even sure if it's because of digital treatment or because the bad vocal performance has been left as is, but why should I care? You can barely recognize the man, and it hurts. Now are there salvageable songs in the tracklist? Yes, there's a couple of them, all co-written with Andrew Watt (just like "Angry" is). "Get Close" uses vocal harmonies you could swear you have already heard in "Wild Horses", but twenty-four albums in, it is unavoidable to repeat yourself, I guess. And "Depending On You" is a more-than-decent ballad. Oh, and "Driving Me Too Hard", right in the middle of side 2, doesn't sound too bad either. In an alternate universe, I could have added "Sweet Sounds Of Heaven" to the good cuts, but that's an alternate universe where the song is shorter, and where Lady Gaga doesn't ruin it with unnecessary, over-the-top vocal adlibs -- Andrew Watt is said to be very firm as a producer with the artists he works with, but it turns out he can be as self-indulgent as them. Being firm doesn't prevent from having shitty tastes, as competent as you are in your field. I get that through this song exploring feelings related to the end of your life and the legacy you leave behind you, the idea was to wink at the equally long and *nicely* bloated, legendary sixties song "You Can't Always Get What You Want". Which was a nice idea *on paper*... The problem is, the execution is simply ridiculous here. That's life. You can't always get what you want indeed. The thing is, I want NOTHING from the Rolling Stones in the 2020s to start with. And when I see their overall output this decade, I certainly won't change my mind. The inclusion of this album in the 2026 edition of the book doesn't merely take up a slot that could have been better used. It also reveals the conformism and lack of musical imagination of its authors today. I can forgive the Stones themselves for doing their thing in their old age, even if the results are very often more than questionable on an artistic level. I won't forgive Dimery and co., though. 1/5 for the purposes of this list dedicated to essential albums. 6/10 for more general purposes (4.5 for the musicianship and production values + 1.5 for the artistry) ---- Number of albums from the original list I find relevant enough to be mandatory listens: 465 + 1 (addition to the 2026 edition of the book) Albums from the original list I *might* select for mine later on: 288 + 5 (additions to the 2026 edition of the book) Albums from the original list I won't select for mine: 336 + 7 (*including this addition to the 2026 edition of the book*) ---- Number of albums from the users list I find relevant enough to be mandatory listens: 124 Albums from the users list I *might* select for mine later on: 142 Albums from the users list I won't select for mine: 319

When I saw another Stones album was on the list, I was in the minority, as I was very excited to listen, to see how time has treated the Stones. I'm pretty shocked, that besides some Jagger vocalisms, and some guitar-play, how much this just doesn't sound like them. It's a cool album, especially for the Stones, but there's no way in hell this album should be on the list. I've already complained about it, but some of the albums removed, are miles better than most of the new albums added in the 2026 edition. I don't think I've ever been so baffled at an album given the full context of it's placement on the list.

just very boring

I thought I had to be almost done and I was only on track five. We did not need more Rolling Stones put on this list in the year 2026.

Where to start with this one? It's going to be remembered as the biggest fanboy submission by Dimery for the '26 edition. Knowing that Exile, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Beggars Banquet are all-timer, untouchable classics, and knowing that they haven't made a great album in decades, I tried to go into this with an open mind. Several listens in, Sweet Sounds of Heaven is a straight up banger. Lady Gaga is a certified badass and takes this track to the next level. Dreamy Skies is reminiscent of the old style loose and swampy Stones I like. Tell Me Straight is pure Keef, you can't go wrong with Keef. Rolling Stone Blues is paying homage to Muddy and is a great closer. The rest was a little more polished than I'd like but still solid. Pretty good outing for a bunch of geezers who have no business releasing an album this good this late into the game. I dig it, but I dig the Stones. Though I don't think it's in any discussion of an album you need to hear before you punch the final timeclock, I also don't require bands to be making the same quality of music they did in their 20's and 30's when they're in their 70's and 80's. Time is fluid, take it for what it is.

I really don't want to listen to this album. I didn't like the "prime time" Stones from earlier in this list -- how could geriatric Stones possibly be worth a listen? I'll be honest, this doesn't completely blow. The production sounds decent and for some septuagenarians they actually sound reasonably energetic on record -- or at least Jagger sounds good. That said, I still struggle to understand this album's inclusion here. The Stones made some great hits, sure. But none of them are here. Instead we are getting a victory lap (i.e., soulless cash grab) that lacks any signs of ambition, maturation, or meaningful contribution to the human race. The best thing I can say is that it doesn't completely suck. But each of the songs, outside of cleanliness of production these sound like fodder dredged from the vaults, dusted off and given 2023 studio treatment. Pretty vacant listen that I wish I could take back.

Some artists have had an actual late stage album that they actually reinvented themselves and made something sweet (Looking at you, Blackstar). This isn't that. But I will say I went in with pretty low expectations and it definitely was better than I expected. Nothing really stands out compared to previous work. Never even have been a huge Stones fan outside of the hits and an occasional random song, but this one has neither. I would've been totally fine dying without hearing this one. Weirdly I really like the one song Mick Jagger doesn't sing on. This was alright. High 2

I was honestly very impressed with this album, because it sounds pretty fresh while still retaining some classic rock and roll approaches. I can't imagine they didn't have some amount of ghost writing or other writing input or at least heavy producer-influence, as it just is hard to imagine they would be that clued into such a modern take on the pop rock genre. However, whether I'm right or wrong, what came out is something that is upbeat, fun, and sounds like something worth people's time. However, I still don't think it belongs on this list, as it is not anything greater than a thousand and one other albums out there that did something more original at the time of their release. This just feels like an impressive late release / comeback from an older band that are past their "revolutionary" rock days.

Not dad rock, but nearly dead rock. Still, i like it.

It's not bad and retains the 'Stones' sound. Jagger does well for an really old guy although I don't know if any studio trickery came into play to produce this. These guys must really want to keep going and I can only tip my hat to them. It's nothing special though- if it didn't have the 'Stones' name behind it maybe this would be a middle of the road Rock album.

This is not an album that needed to be on the list. Even if you want an end-of-career Stones album on here, their 2026 endeavour is a lot better. This album would be completely forgettable if it didn't have the name Rolling Stones on the cover.

recycling is old hat now

I can't lie - this is both a bullshit album and a bullshit album choice. There is no place for more Stones on the list, and if there was, it it shouldn't be this, which is tepid rock at its best and shitty country-ish rock at it its worst. Sure, props for being octogenarians and still rocking - but fuck off Dimery, you're way off base with this.

Didn’t sound how I expected it to

Main positive is after 50 years Mick Jagger actually practiced singing better.

Be so fr Dimery this was NOT worth ditching Little Simz and Fetch the Boltcutters for LMAO. Overproduced, auto-rock that feels so sterile and mechanical it has no personality to it. This shit blows.

Unacceptable.

Nope

Better than I expected - a low bar to clear!

Ugh this was actually super disappointing. The highlight was Lady Gaga and if there’s one takeaway from this it’s that she should be in a rock band. This is not the Rolling Stones I know. This is some weird overproduced mellowed out non rock version. Honestly, because I expected this to be so much better than it was simply because of their name, there’s a chance I could have liked it if it was another band. But this does not deserve to be on this list.

Goddammit how. Why. Why is this here. Should this be in the book - fuck no; why not put another Bowie or Costello while you're at it jfc and pushing out some great albums for another Stones album makes no sense. I couldn't wait to skewer this blues-rock-by-numbers hack ersatz nonsense. .... Fuk. the problem is that it isn't actually that bad. I mean yeah I still stand behind everything above, and Mick's heavily-processed vocals are an immediate trigger right from that first single. I don't know what the Apple Music bio is on about when it says this album dispensed with a lot of modern production LOL seriously did they even listen to it??? But even if the Stones are what they are and rarely venturing anywhere outside their bluesycountryboogie ... putting distracting and sterile modern touches aside this honestly isn't that far outside the 70s output, at least nowhere near what i had expected. I suppose even for a non complicated band having your own sound is the goal and even in instrumental passages this is so very Stonesy. So I'll eat a little crow and say it's at least better than any stones album I've heard since Tattoo You. 🤷 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? LOL.

Profoundly disturbing experience. Like walking through a haunted house. You know, when the Simpsons made the “Steel Wheelchairs Tour” joke, it was 1995 and they joked the Stones would still be touring in 2010. Way off. Way more grim. What is this? Look at the song titles. Who’s Angry at Mick Jagger? He’s in his 80s. Live by the Sword? He’s in his 80s. Mess it Up? He’s in his 80s. The only day sunshine is that it’s funny that his voice sort of sounds like Joe Strummer’s now. That’s new. God this was depressing

I LOVE the Stones. But. . . these boomers should have retired years ago.

For a legacy act well past their prime, this album was fine. I don’t think it should be added to the list. Especially since they already are well represented.

This was absolutely shocking to me. These men are 80 years old. And it's pretty good.

The funny thing is that all things considered, this is actually a somewhat decent late in the career effort from such a veteran band. Other than this, The Rolling Stones actually have one of the best selections of albums on this list. All the most important one are there, and you're generally not made to listen to any of the other pointless crap they made in their lengthy career. I'm still giving this a 1/5, because even though the album itself isn't absolutely awful, I can't even begin to explain how undeserving it is of being on this list. Anyway, now I'll present to you a list of all the albums I have rated on my Rate Your Music account from the year 2023 that deserve to have a spot on this list, but don't; King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard - Petrodragonic Apocalypse Billy Woods and Kenny Segel - Maps Kara Jackson - Why Does the Earth Give Us People to Love McKinley Dixon - Beloved! Paradise! Jazz!? MIKE - Burning Desire Paramore - This Is Why Sufjan Stevens - Javelin 100 gecs - 10000 gecs Boygenius - The Record Cary Rae Jepsen - The Lovliest Time Caroline Polachek - Desire, I Want to Turn Into You Electric Enemy - Electric Enemy Foo Fighters - But Here We Are Jeff Rosenstock - HELLMODE Jessie Ware - That! Feels Good! JPEGMAFIA and Danny Brown - Scaring the Hoes King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard - The Silver Chord Model/Actriz - Dogsbody Romy - Mid Air Shame - Food for Worms Tigercub - The Perfume of Decay Depeche Mode - Memento Mori Geese - 3D Country Polaris - Fatalism Slowdive - Everything Is Alive Spanish Love Songs - No Joy Swans - The Beggar

7/10

I hate doing the 'why is this here when [album that I like] isn't, but I'm going to. I cannot for the life of me work ojt why this stone cold slice of nothing from a bunch of geriatrics who are already well represented on the Project is here, while hugely influential figures from the current scene miss out. Yes I'm talking about Punisher by Phoebe Bridgers, but I could just as easily be talking about Geese, MJ Lenderman or Arlo Parks. Anyway, short review: rubbish and boring.

Man, do I need another Rolling Stones album? I really love Let it Bleed and Sticky Fingers, but there’s no way this album will come close to those, right? The Stones are legends, but I’m not sure I want an album from any group of 80-somethings. But hey, at least it’s only 48 minutes. I’ll be darned, but I thought this was a solid album. Do we need another Rolling Stones album on the list, much less this one? No, Hackney Diamonds’ inclusion is pretty silly in my opinion, but it’s pretty impressive that rockers this old are still kicking out music, albeit with what I assume to be some heavy help in the studio. The overall sound of this album is not what I would expect from the Stones, as their signature blues sound has been dialed down a bit, but it’s interesting hearing them make something that fights for rock relevance in today’s world. Nothing on this album reinvents the wheel, but the guitar hooks are catchy, and the production puts the best of the band’s sound at the forefront. The guest stars are pretty good too, and none of them take anything away from what the Stones were trying to do on this album. There wasn’t a bad song on the album, but “Angry,” “Get Close,” “Whole Wide World” and “Mess It Up” are all great songs. “Whole Wide World” was my favorite song on the album though; it reminded me of The Killers in the best way possible. The guitar and keyboards sound excellent together, and it’s just an awesome pop rock bop. “Mess It Up” was really good too though, with an excellent guitar riff and some really snappy drumming. Like the rest of the album, it wasn’t anything fancy, but it was really catchy and well executed. While I think this album’s inclusion on the list is unnecessary, I had a good time with it, and I’d probably listen to it again.

No way that another Stones album deserves to be added, representing the 2020s ahead of many more representative releases. It doesn't help that Foreign Tongues released in 2026 is a much better, much more contemporary Stones album. 1/5 for inclusion on the list 3/5 for the album itself.

2.6 2x SLC to ATL. Not great but not awful

An absolutely bonkers inclusion. Like, I think you can even make more of a case for the Nova Twins than this.

A lot of the reviews on here seem upset that this is on the list at the expense of other artists And that is an argument that does have merit (no Olivia Rodrigo!) but if we judge this on it's own merits, it's a pretty great album Just a fine collection of very very good rock songs Reminded me of Bowie's New Day album in that regard It doesn't really need to be on the list considering there are more than enough Stones albums on the list anyway, but I can't pretend I didn't like this

Hackney Diamonds is a desperate attempt by the Stones to make some more money when they really don't need to, and has no business on their list. Their singles got massive airplay on Planet Rock and whatnot so I've heard them to death, and they have that annoying habit of being catchy earworms even though they're entirely unremarkable songs, but really this is cheap, overproduced, not a patch on their best work (that I wasn't a fan of generally speaking anyway), and you can't just put an act's entire back catalogue on the list because of longevity. A wrinkly 2/5.

I wish Bowie was still around so we could get interesting albums by aged rockstars

7/10. Ah yes, this is what I was looking for in a 2026 revision of this book, more Rolling Stones, a very relevant band to the current music scene. It's a good enough album, I guess, but doesn't need to be on the list

An unnecessary addition to this list. For the most part this came across as pretty stale and generic. The auto tune was particularly rough in some places. I did like the song with Lady Gaga decently enough and it wasn’t offensively bad, just way worse than a lot of things that came out in recent years that aren’t aimed at old farts. 5/10

Noooooo! This is a user contributed album, right?! Right?! Oh no, no, NOOO! I love the Rolling Stones in their prime and all, but the last thing we need on this list is another late career comeback record by some heroin embalmed geezers.

This begs the question, who asked?

no thanks - not very interesting. what got left out so this could be included?

I don't know what these wrinkly old fuck still have, but they still got it, CAPITAL I & T. Stepping into Hackney Diamonds, I expected a pathetic, overproduced cash grab from a bunch of octogenarians well past their prime, but somehow, they actually delivered. Sure, Mick Jagger's vocals get a bit of modern studio polish and the lyricism occasionally flirts with unintentional comedy, but the sheer, raw energy of Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood tearing through those guitar riffs completely won me over. While its inclusion on an essential listening list feels like a baffling, nostalgic meme at the expense of far more vital modern records, I can't even be mad at the music itself.

There's something so endearing about an 80-year-old singing about spending the night at your house. Also really fucking creepy.

Hilarious that this album is on the list. Of all of the new additions that could’ve been made, in the entire music canon, we got the twenty-sixth Rolling Stones album. It’s perfectly serviceable for a group of rockers in their 80s, but is mostly forgettable compared to their best work, and truly has no business being a part of the new edition of the book. The only real purpose is to give even more credit to the Stones than they’ve already received through the other six albums in there. This is pretty easily the worst of those, but it’s a nice meme, and it’s ultimately fine.

Correcto

I love the Stones and they’re one of my favorite bands and Charlie Watts was one of rock’s best drummers. But this album just felt all over the place. I blame the producer.

Assumed this was an auto 1 star. In now way saying this one of the greatest albums of all time, but as a marker on what can be accomplished after 7 decades in the music business, sure. Why not. Most enjoyable Stones album i have heard since the 70s

1. angry - 0 2. cloze - 0 3. depend - 0 4. bite - 0 5. uuide - 1 6. zkiez - 1 7. mezz - 0 8. zuuord - 0 9. hard - 1 10. tell - 1 11. heaven - 1 12. bluez - 2

Perhaps their best album. It's at least better than their old stuff from the 60s and 70s. They managed to modernize their sound while still maintaining their musical identity.

It’s nice they’re trying new things, but this should’ve stayed in the studio

Jeg kan godt forbarme mig til 2 stjerner for nok deres bedste album siden 1978

Klart det her er et af de absolut essentielle albums fra de sidste ~5 år...

50 years past prime... Just the first songs auto-tune was so off putting for me. Hopefully I'll never have to hear this album again, but it's not like I had THE WORST of times ever.

The first song gave me some hope of a four star album, then the rest of the songs were worse.

I mean, this sounds like the Rolling Stones. Did they need to make this? Did we need to hear this before we died?

I mean I suppose I'm impressed that they can even play music this well in their 80s. Like it's a medical miracle. Giving this an *extremely generous* 2 stars because it wasn't actively offensive to my ears

Slow, dumb dad rock.

can your little fuckin squirrel brain fathom the amount of BETTER SHIT that dropped in 2023 that has been excluded from this list? From Paramore's This is Why, to Chappelle Roan's debut, to Angel Du$t, to Caroline Polachek, to Narrowhead to a grip of a whole bunch of better stuff than this BOOMER SLOP. So many artists dropped dense and meaningful albums that had so much to say about the mid 2020s and you add this fuck ass say-nothing garbage to the list. FUCK YOU. This is so horrifically shite for the Stones, let alone for rock in general. The vocals are tacky and have like fuckin elements of pitch correction on them? Holy fuck Bite my head off is so ass. That shouting with the autotune is so fucked. It's fucked. The pianos and guitars are so tiresome and compressed, the songs themselves are so middle of the road and subpar for Stones standards. I'm done man I'll leave it at that "Don't get angry with me". I'm fuming lmao, it's the worst thing to see a spot taken on this list by actual slop.

Surprisingly good for a band that has been around for so long. Is it a classic Stones record? No. But it does have a few good straight to the point rock songs. 3/5 Might listen again

First impression - The Rolling Stones weren't good fifty years ago, what are we playing at?

NO, there are better Stones albums.

It's not their best but it's still good.

Enjoyed this.

Still rocking. Not the best but serviceable.

One or two decent songs, but otherwise they all sound much of a muchness. As much as I cherish the Stones older catalogue, there really isn't a need for this one to be on the list.

Album 355. Hackney Diamonds — The Rolling Stones (2023) The list has been updated with a new revision of the book and here we are…a new The Rolling Stones album. Listening to this is like watching a new season of a beloved show that was bought by Netflix and spoiled This fucking british monkey deleted this from the new revision of the book, but added this? Nuts The Rolling Stones belong back in the 60s, not in the 21st century. The Stones aren’t Bowie and their attempts at music past their prime sucks 1/5 No liked songs

Album #1092 (1,001 challenge): "Hackney Diamonds" by the Rolling Stones (2023) "Hackney Diamonds" is the 24th British and 26th American studio album by English rock band the Rolling Stones. Blues rock rock is the sole Wiki-listed genre. It was their first album of original material since 2005's "A Bigger Bang" and since the death of drummer Charlie Watt. The album was produced by Andrew Watt who also played the majority of the bass parts. The core bandmembers included Mick Jagger (vocals, guitar, percussion, harmonica), Keith Richards (guitar, bass, piano, vocals) and Ronnie Wood (guitar, backing vocals). Also, Charlie Watts played drums on two songs and Bill Wyman played bass on one song. Steve Jordan played the majority of the drums. There were 23 additional musicians, vocalists and arrangers including Elton John, Lady Gaga, Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder. Commercially, the album reached #1 in the UK and #3 in the US, and, critically, it had positive reviews and won a Grammy for the best Rock Album. The first-released single "Angry" opens the album. Pounding, loud drums with a rock beat and melodic guitar riff. Jagger stretches his vocals asking "why the anger." Bluesy guitar fills and a chorus of backing vocals. Off to a good start. The next song "Get Close" is more subdued with a shuffling beat. Guitar riff slashes, a harmonizing chorus and an added trumpet. Another solid song. "Bite My Head Off" cranks it up a bit with the guitar and a faster beat. They get a Stonesy groove going as Jagger takes on the aggression. A good deeper cut is "Whole Wide World." It's even faster. And a down-and-dirty guitar riff. An urgency to this song that I really liked. Elton John plays the piano and Paul McCartney is on the bass in "Live by the Sword." More bluesy with the guitars sounding like the 60's Stones. The biggest and busiest song is the gospel-tinged "Sweet Sounds of Heaven." Piano, organ, sax and trumpet. Lady Gaga is over the place with backing, co-lead and harmonizing vocals. This sound like the Stones imitating the Black Crowes imitating the Stones. Straight-ahead rock, bluesy rock, ballads, punk, bluesy country, gospel and blues. Rich choruses and harmonizing backing vocals. Very nice production with, maybe besides one song, nothing over the top or cheesy. The guitars riffs, solos and interplay are solid and not cookie cutter. The band sounds energized. I have no idea why this was included in the 1,001 (if albums like "Some Girls" weren't) but this is a very decent album and recommended for any Stones' fan. 3.5 out of 5

Not bad for a rock album made by octogenarians but ultimately there is no reason for this album to have been added to the list.

They are talented and there is good work here, but it was also just ok

Mid

Unexpectedly sprightly Sanatogen rock.

Really good. Not as good as old-school Stones, but definitely reminiscent

This was added as a joke, right?

62 years later, the Stones can still throw down a commercially viable album. Still showcasing their blues roots, the boys from Britain may resemble smiling shar-peis, but they can still jam, and haven't lost any of their delight in scantily clad women or people getting their comeuppance for stupid decisions (see the videos for Angry and Mess It Up respectively).

Have the Stones ever made anything less than a four?

Es zeigt die Stones als routinierte Überlebenskünstler: solide, professionell, aber selten wirklich überraschend. „Angry“ liefert den vertrauten Gitarrenbiss, „Sweet Sounds of Heaven“ glänzt dank Jagger und Gaga mit großer Geste, doch vieles wirkt wie gut gemachte Selbstzitation. Das Album hat Energie, aber wenig Risiko – ein spätes Lebenszeichen, das mehr respektiert als geliebt wird.

Ah, today I get the privilege of reliving this disappointment from a few years ago. Don't get me wrong, in a bubble this album is not bad. But it's the Rolling freaking Stones. The bar for a good album is a lot higher for these guys and they fall pretty well short here despite contributions from some huge names.

Not a bad album but it was very "safe"

Nah. 2. Only about 2 songs i liked. Collab witb Lady Gaga more.

Solid album by a band that has long been a legacy act. Like many other late career albums by legends it does not tread new ground and instead relies on familiar styles from what worked previously. This year’s Foreign Tongues is better. The vocals here clearly had a lot of help. Favorites were Mess It Up, Sweet Sounds of Heaven, and Rolling Stone Blues.

[Copied and pasted from my review of The Cure's "Songs of a Lost World"] "Legacy act makes a comeback album that holds up against their old stuff." Remarkable? Yes. Essential? No. A wasted opportunity to introduce something unique to this list.

Good

Not bad for a bunch of octogenarians

They should have quit waaaaaay earlier.

OK

OK, I'll hold my hands up: this was a lot better than I expected. Really pretty good, all the way through. I particularly enjoyed Mess It Up; and I'd happily listen again.

I am impressed that a group of 80 year olds can still make decent sounding music.; That said, this could be any Rolling Stones album from any time. There's nothing that's required listening here.

Surprisingly great for a late era Stones album. Really energetic and had some fun moments. 3.5/5

The Rolling Stones in 2023. Their 24th album in a 61 year-spanning career. Mick Jagger, about as old as my grandfather, is belting these songs with the energy that remains in his weary soul. The rest of the band, sounding just fine. The group is spit-shined with plenty of elbow grease thanks to Andrew Watt producing the album. I actually Andrew Watt's story might be a little more interesting here than the Stones': Watt started out as your run-of-the-mill pop producer for the likes of Post Malone, Dua Lipa, and Lana Del Rey amongst others. However, starting in the 2020s, he started working with older rock legends like Ozzy Osbourn, Iggy Pop, and Eddie Vedder in order to help revitalize their careers with modern rock production over their usual schticks. The problem, by my meter stick, is that modern rock production is largely bland and lacking in any discernable personality. So while Hackney Diamonds sounds perfectly fine for the most part, there is no part of it that stands out as an exceptional or noteworthy album. The most interesting part about it is that it is a Rolling Stones album in 2023. In a vacuum, I do not believe that the Rolling Stones are doing anything that is worth hearing on this album. There isn't a bad song on here necessarily, but there are plenty of albums like that. Are we giving the Stones extra credit for making it this long? Are we really that desperate for albums that this had to make the cut? I can only think to remark on the 7-minute "epic" Sweet Sounds of Heaven which was pretty good. That's all I can really say about that. In the years since the last edition of the book, we've had landmark rock albums like Ants From Up There, Getting Killed, Romance, and Manning Fireworks just to name a few. Did we really need to pass up those for another Rolling Stones album?

Decent album but the Stones did not need this or another album on this list.

Rating: 8/10 Best songs: Angry, Depending on you, Whole wide world, Mess it up

Strange one this. I can't stand the Stones but I really enjoyed this.

I saw a myriad of complaints online about the removal of Jurassic 5’s Power In Numbers for the inclusion of Hackney Diamonds, and I say to that: good. It sucks if you’re a J5 fan but I’d take Jagger over 2na any day. This was pretty solid & rocking. I enjoyed it. Not the best Stones output but it’s far from their worst. A high 3.

the usual stuff you expect

How silly it is to remove newer stuff and add more Rolling Stones. How silly it is to try and sing the same way you have done for years and have all the mixes compressed beyond comprehension to compensate.

I enjoyed this when it came out. Nice Stones record. I don’t think it belongs on this list. I get putting a late stage record but I don’t think it has a staying impact. Beria what came off like Fiona Apple. Doesn’t seem like an appropriate swap to me.

3 I like it

2.5

I have never been a Rolling Stones fan, but I'll admit I didn't hate this album.

We can all agree that the Stones didn't need a seventh album on the list, right? And even if they did, it should be Some Girls or Tattoo You or Goats Head Soap, right? ...Right? Regarding the release date, it's far too recent for one to genuinely hold the opinion that it made a huge impact on the music world. I have the same problem with all these new album additions. Apparently not. Though Angry starts off explosively, slapping us senseless with a generic yet catchy guitar riff and a Sydney Sweeney music video. A huge, full, stadium-worthy sound, particularly in the latter half. You can almost hear the crowd cheering as the riff plays for the final time. Side note: first time I've ever heard somebody try to rhyme "me", "pain", and "you". (It almost works.) Get Close consists of only one memorable part – its repeated chorus line, "I wanna get close to you", which does little in the way of poetry. Still, the song is groovy enough. Depending On You is exceptionally generic as the Stones go, but I kind of dig the slide(?) guitar solo with soft strings and piano backing it. Also, the Beatlesque backing vocals (Jagger's gonna crucify me) are pretty good. Nice biting energy in Bite My Head Off – I hope the album continues with this sort of energy. Definitely the best riff so far, too. The muffled harmonising in Whole Wide World... a bit less cool than some of the earlier backing vocals. Reminds me of Taylor Swift's harmonising. And that's not a good thing. At least the guitar is fantastic here. Closing side 1, we get our first semi-ballad, Dreamy Skies. I don't have much to say. The reverb-y guitars are cool. First appearance of harmonica here, and I like it. Mess It Up revitalises the album, with exceptionally similar energy to Angry from side 1. Jagger sounds ultra-solid here for an 80-year-old dude. The "reallywannaheareh" part slaps. From a boring melody, Live By The Sword creates a surprisingly interesting rock track. Again a key line stands out, this time the intended hook: "I'mmm gonna treeeeat youuu righttttt". (Mick's been drinking.) Not a huge fan of Driving Me Too Hard, but it has just enough glow and Stonesian charm – helped a lot by the softer background instruments – to see it through. Richards's voice doesn't quite convince me in Tell Me Straight – he sounds roughly his age – though again the song gives you a warmth you'll be hard-pressed to find in a lot of modern pop music. Sweet Sounds Of Heaven: the artists work well together. Would've preferred a shorter track, though. And more than just the I, IV, and VIIb chords. Still – great build-ups through the track. I adore Gaga's voice. In the finale, Rolling Stones Blues, Jagger desires to be a catfish. Nice back-swamp blues going on here: a genre done to death, but it's that way for a reason: it's soulful as heck. 3/5 Key tracks: Angry, Mess It Up, Live By The Sword

I mean every rolling stones album after Exile on main Street isn't it? Just say it might be the best thing they've done since exile on main Street and then accept that it is just mediocre drek. I mean there's never been a drop off quite like that the most vital band of the world up to that point and so that you can quite happily ignore them apart from maybe occasionally making jokes about how old they look afterwards. The one thing worth listening to post Exole on main Street is miss you which might be the best rolling stones song. Miss you is absolutely brilliant and you'll notice that I haven't talked about the album in question once that's because it's boring so I have nothing to say on it. It sounds like every rolling stones album after exile on main Street. Not really worth your time unless you're an obsessive

This album is really good. Hard to believe at 80 the stones sound better than so many young bands. Track four “bite my head off” is my favorite so far. This reactors still sounds like the stones without sounding dated. This is one of the best stones albums in years.

Was the 2023 Rolling Stones album really that culturally relevant or important? It is a fine colleciton of songs, but doesn't really help define the band in any special way, or speak to the times when the album came out (other than a bunch of 80 year-olds can still make a good sounding record). It lacks the weigh of something like Blackstar by David Bowie, the songs don't really offer any interesting perspective and are mostly, well, just run of the mill Stones' songs. "Now I'm too young for dying and too old to lose"

I honestly didn’t know they still had it. This was great, and even my 8yo asked me to turn it up in the car.

I’m really impressed at Jagger’s voice at - checks Wikipedia - 80yo?!?!? Holy crap.

Eh this was okay. Nothing was necessarily bad, but nothing was that good either.

There's something a bit unsettling hearing these guys on such high quality recording equipment. It's fun but it's decidedly not essential

Really?? How can you justify adding a 7th... SEVENTH Rolling Stones album to this list. And removing Cohen, The Mars Volta, and Little Simz doing so? All this for a shitty Stones from 2023. This list is so pathetic, I don't even know how I even managed to finish it in the first place.

24 albums and 1001 decides we need seven of them in our lives. I wasn’t 100% sure what this was going to be like, but the guest contributions piqued my interest. A bit more enjoyable than I was expecting. Angry really sets the stage with a bit of a "hey, remember who we are" feel. Bite My Head Off is a standout, along with Whole Wide World and Sweet Sounds of Heaven.

Better than it has any right to be

2.75

Not good and not bad. Not good because it’s some grandpas making rock, not bad because it could have been way worse.

(New album) Hackney Diamonds - Rolling Stones Went into this so angry that important albums were being removed to make room for ANOTHER stones album. But about 30 seconds into it, I had completely forgotten about all that, and by the time the sax solo came in in track 2, I was just enjoying the album. I actually enjoyed it far more than 2/3 of the stones albums on the list. Maybe my expectations were low or something, but I really liked it 4(?)/5

File this one under: "Aging rock stars who can still make a decent album." And it was surely an exciting release for Stones fans. Unfortunately I'm not a big fan myself. I've always found The Rolling Stones to be the kind of band that can make some great songs but generally boring albums. Personal opinion, but it applies here too. "Mess It Up" is the highlight for me but the rest is just... OK. I feel like if you didn't know who made this album, you'd assume it's just a cheap Stones rip off. I don't mean to take anything away from fans though. I get how this would be exciting if you love the band and like a kind of return to form. But beyond the fandom, it's sort of bewildering that the book devoted yet another space to The Stones. [In the interest of fairness, I can imagine that other people felt the same way about The Next Day being in a previous edition of the book. As a Bowie fan, I can't pretend to have absolutely hated that but I appreciate people's frustration]

I'm surprised by this album's quality and the rock and roll that it embodies. Yet, in the end, it feels like a played it safe formulaic collection of songs. It doesn't need to be on this list when they could've just pulled one of the Stones classics.

I don't now why we needed another Stones album

I am not a massive fan of the Rolling Stones, that is to say that I haven’t listen to a lot of their back catalogue nor have I felt the inclination to. Still my heart sank at the thought of a “new” album from them. I was pleasantly surprised - still had the x-factor, felt modern but still authentic.

What. The. Fuck. Is. This. Doing. Here? Bland, over produced octogenarian rock anyone? I mean, it's not bad but there is absolutely no reason why it should be included. It's like the writers aren't even trying anymore, if they can't be bothered why should we? Best Tracks: Angry; Depending on You; Mess It Up

01) Angry - 9,0 02) Get Close - 7,0 03) Depending on You - 7,0 04) Bite My Head Off - 6,5 05) Whole Wide World - 6,5 06) Dreamy Skies - 6,5 07) Mess It Up - 7,5 08) Live by the Sword - 6,5 09) Driving Me Too Hard - 6,5 10) Tell Me Straight - 7,5 11) Sweet Sounds of Heaven - 9,0 12) Rolling Stone Blues - 6,5 TOTAL: 7,17 (72/100) And here we go again. You add 13 new albums, and then one of them turns out to be an album by the centenarian Rolling Stones. Even they wouldn’t have included it on this list.

Meloodiad on head, aga sõnad on küll naljakad vahepeal. 80 aastane vana laulab nagu ikka armulugusid. Ei sobi nagu täiesti.

These guys aren't retired yet? (Just because Bowie and the Cure can release good albums well last their prime, doesn't mean every album by an old artist needs to be included)

The album was alright. I always enjoy when the Stones lean more into their blues side, and there's some tracks on this album that do just that. All that said, not sure this really needed to be on the list. For my taste it's bang average.

This wouldn’t be on the list if they didn’t have 60 years of notable discography that preceded it. They had a couple harmonies in Bite My Head Off that were classic Rolling Stones, but for the most part this doesn’t ring a bell to their early stuff. The other part is they’ve influenced so many bands that they start to sound like who they’ve inspired. And did he turn the English accent up to 11? Maybe he’s just Flanderized himself into that character. Most of the songs sound like Jimmy Fallon doing his impersonation.

Better then i was expecting from a late era Stones record.

I don't think the list needed another Rolling Stones album and this one wasn't good enough to change my mind. It was fine.

I listened & yep it's The Rolling Stones.

Hackneyed

A solid three stars. It's fine, but doesn't hold it's head above the back catalogue particularly.

The Rolling Stones now have 7 albums in the 1001 book. They are pensioners, been making music for 60+ years, and releasing a new album, sure that's an achievement in itself, but I'm unsure what this particular one has to offer that is so different?

Maybe the most controversial of the 2026 additions, a seventh Stones album? The list does have a bad habit of giving slots for middle-of-the-road contemporary albums from artists who hit their stride decades ago, but this was pretty fun, I don't mind receiving it Some of the lyrics can be a little "man, we just want to make rock music, not do poetry" but they serve their purpose These diamonds've still got a glimmer to them

Well, it happened. The new albums got added to this, like, yesterday, and because I’m so close to the end they now make up a large portion of what I still need to listen to, so I’ll be getting A LOT of them over the next couple months. And of course, the one I got yesterday was one I was least-looking forward to. A Rolling Stones album. From 2023. What new, important things could the Stones tell us in 2023, especially with, like, eight albums already featured on the list previously. Honestly, nothing. But the album is fine. There’s no reason for Dimery to have included this in this new edition. Either he seriously just loves the Stones that much, unthinkingly, or he’s lazy and just picked a famous band (I tend to think it’s the latter). The songs for the most part are fine. This trends heavily towards pop rock in a way their old albums don’t. It seriously sounds like they were trying to have radio hits off this album, which is hilarious to think. Production is one-note and just kinda loud, and they have done something hilarious to Jagger’s voice to get it on this record. It’s not just autotune, it’s cut, spliced, edited, filtered. It’s wild. He sounds inhuman. But the album is relatively short and honestly a couple good hooks on some of these songs. It’s a light three, but still has no business being on this list.

It seems like you are just adding random crappy album at this point since this is album #1048 out of 1001 albums… when will this end? Anyone, everyone, can die without listening to sub-par Stones album. Please cut down this list to 1001.

Spiritually this is the most 3.5 album imaginable, but since we can’t do half stars I will bump it up to four. A certain degree of grading on the curve has to be applied to an album like this, where the Stones had not released any original material in nearly 20 years. You’re just hoping initially that it won’t be an embarrassing capstone to a long and illustrious career. But, once you get past the “actually this isn’t half bad, considering” you can appreciate it as a fairly solid collection of songs that wouldn’t have sounded out of place on some of their ‘70s records. Nothing rivals the stuff they were making at their peak, but it’s a pretty good and fun rock record.

The chance to make a living making music is a privilege, especially for bands that have been more or less active since the 60s. I don't have a 2026 copy of this book, but I am really interested to see the logic behind putting this entry in there. As a Stones record, it feels like a collection of half baked or tired ideas/motifs. As a blues rock album that came out in 2023, it's generic and safe. I understand there were a lot of interesting, important names attached to this album, but that doesn't justify propping this up as one of the albums you need to hear before you die. I also get that musicians have been using their fame to push music for decades now, but names are the only notable thing I can even find about this album. There are actually interesting blues being played right now by bands that haven't been around since before women could have a bank account.

it's not a bad album, but considering the stones have a good handful of excellent albums in their "classic" period, several of which are not on this list, it's quite hilarious that this was even considered for the new edition of the list. in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty mid. a testament to their legacy that they are not pumping out drivel, but also surely there was at least one album that came out in the last 5 years IN GENERAL that was more deserving to be on the list.

I am very underwhelmed. It's wild to me that "Some Girls" isn't on the 1001, and they've added this record. Ugh. Is it terrible? No, but something that might be two stars is certainly not something that should be added to the 1001. Honestly, as I think about it, the name of the album might be a pun... this record is hackneyed, "a phrase, idea, plot, or expression that has lost its power, freshness, or meaning because people have used it too many times." Perfect description.

No. The rolling Stones such and this sucks.

Fuck you Dimery. We do not need a 7th Rolling Stones album. This album is so unessential it's offensive that it is included. Go to rate your music and look at 2023. Putting aside all their biases, there are 100s of albums that came out in 2023 that you should be listening to instead The music itself is bland and dull and nothing original. My hot take is The Rolling Stones have always sucked and once they die, people will forget them. They have some good songs but they didn't have the proper courtesy to break-up like The Beatles did and by still releasing bad albums they piss over their legacy. My personal rating: 1/5 My rating relative to the list: 2/5 Should this have been included on the original list? Absolute fucking no. It's a waste of an album to include on here.

Blues rock. Un 4 porque son los Stones.

Never been a big fan of the Stones. To me, they were inferior to the Beatles, always trying to copy them. But they've had longevity, I'll give them that. I did give this a fair listen, and was pleasantly surprised. For 100 years old (or whatever they were) they still sound decent. It doesn't sound like they're just phoning it in. Does it belong on the list? No. But I can't deny it's good to see the Stones still making vital music in the 2020's. 3 stars.

I don't follow the latter day production of any of these geriatric rock acts and greet declarations that this or that new album is the "best in years/decades" with skepticism. This is about as good as this kind of thing is likely to get. Very competently composed Rolling Stones style rock and blues, with Jagger sounding (doubtless with plenty of technological assistance) strong. But it all seems defined by its (mostly) denial of the reality that this is very rich dudes in their late seventies. Honestly no hate for this but its very much a product of the old mainstream hit machine.

I will admit to not being a big Stones fan. But I prefer their older stuff to their newer stuff.

Not very good.

Why?

This kind of sucks right? Like this is lame right? The Rolling Stones are incredible. They should be on the list. This is a waste to add and makes them come off worse.

This feels like the author just trying to upset people to talk about his book. What is the reason for this being on this list? The stones just put out another album in 2026, so maybe this is an advertising thing. This has some fine moments, but it's unnecessary.

Wow! Is this the longest run between albums? Almost 60 years! How does Mick Jaggar still sound like Mick Jaggar? I really enjoyed listening to this more than I thought I might. It felt like a visit through their past, but it also felt contemporary and relevant. Good stuff.

The Rolling Stones, sure. But I am not sure I was missing this album from my life.

If I didn’t already love them, this wouldn’t make me a fan. But I’m not mad at it.

Wow the 1001 judges are a tough crowd. I really enjoyed this album. Im not a rabid fan of The Rolling Stones but have listened to their albums thanks to this project. I thought they sounded great on this 80+ years old or not. No complaints here!

I like the Stones. But this latest album doesn't really do it for me. It lacks a bit of roughness. Still an okay listen

Alright, I think this is too new for the list, but it’s also one of the best Stones albums I’ve ever heard. So I don’t know. 4 I guess.

"Hackney Diamonds" is an album that was added to 2026 edition of the book and I am struggling to understand why. Putting aside that it's from the Rolling Stones for a second - it's a mid blues album and a mid rock album. Some songs are fine, but most are meh. But it's from the Stones, a storied band from the album era of Rock. Does this album reach the highs of their discography or even match the other 6 albums from the band that are already on this list? Not even close. I am truly struggling to see how the author of the book looked at "Hackney Diamonds" and said "Yep, this is on the level of 'Let it Bleed', 'Exile on Main Street', 'Beggars Banquet', and 'Sticky Fingers'". Like I started off, I'm struggling to understand the addition of this album. There are so many better options out there to include on this list. 2.4/5.

A really good modern era Stones album. Its not perfect as I think the production is too loud in a bad way, brickwalled dynamics and little sterile in some spots. But otherwise its got good songs on here.

I'm some 47 records into the User list (which seems to have been paused so I can enjoy the new additions) so I am rapidly growing used to some silly picks from artists already perfectly well represented, and the odd troll pick. This one feels like both. "some critics considering it the band's strongest album in decades" - is not the claim it may profess to be when we're talking about a band that haven't released a half decent record since the 80s. Also, what is that cover? it looks absolutely terrible lol. Ok press play finally. I had to take a 3 day break because generating this caused me actual psychic damage. First impression, is oh god, is that how Mick is choosing to sing nowadays? And yes, this first song is hack. Maybe the next song will be knee. And then...die? Ok we are saved, next song is not a knee. It's a close approximation to a half decent song. The album continues. Listening, I keep forgetting I'm not listening to a troll pick from the user list, and that I'm actually expected on some level to consider this seriously as one of THE great 1001 albums. Because it so obviously isn't that. It is an extremely standard rock n roll album which is in turn incredibly standard and then laughably silly. I mean it's nice for them they're just messing about and doing whatever, I'm happy for them. I don't really care though. A song called Bite My Head Off sounds more or less exactly how you'd expect it to if you only thought about it for half a second and were forced to write something. I don't look up metaphorically again until the voice changes late album, have we got Keef singing again? Yes. We do. Not bad voice actually still considering the miracle he's still alive. Sweet Sounds of Heaven does deserve a mention as the obvious stand out, which gives a bit of the old mid 70s epic Stones from 50 years ago (back when they had only just passed their prime) and really gets going when Gaga starts to let rip. A genuinely good song ladies and gentlemen. Justification for inclusion of the album as a whole? Oh, LORD no! Finishing off with a final song reminding us they started off pinching delta blues songs even longer ago than that. Which is a fair bookend, if it isn't a remarkable song. And we're done. That was basically what I expected before I was told I had to hear it. Were there many, many other more deserving records to include in the book from 2021-2026 before this should have been? - Yes, obviously.

If you just fed the Stone's back catalogue into an AI you'd get this. There's nothing here new, nothing compelling and nothing relevant. Poor poor choice to add another Stone's effort.

Estilo muy típico de los Rolling, con canciones con su estilo de rock suave, a veces un tanto sureño y con el punto correcto de sintonía y buen hacer. Sin destacar ningún tema especialmente en esta primera escucha, suena a más de lo mismo. Y eso gusta.

A completely unnecessary addition to this list. I love the Stones as much as the next guy, but the inclusion of this overproduced, overhyped, inconsequential record is yet another ridiculous decision by Dimery.

The album itself is great But did we really need ANOTHER ROLLING STONES ALBUM?

Favorite Track: Angry

The singles released for the radio were pretty good songs. It’s a solid rock and blues album.

Blues rock. Un 4 porque son los Stones.