Hackney Diamonds

AHHHH MY SOUL HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED BACK ONTO THE MAIN LIST AHHHH And of course the first fucking thing I generate after the new book edition comes out is the SEVENTH Rolling Stones entry released in the year of our lord 2023 (their TWENTY-THIRD studio album) featuring 80 year old Mick Jagger. I've spent 668 days on the user list. It's not all sunshine and rainbow over there, but the user base has nicely covered almost all the big misses from the original list by this point - Weezer's "Blue Album", Pink Floyd's "Animals", Massive Attack's "Mezzanine", Louis Armstrong, Chet Baker, Neutral Milk Hotel, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, This Heat, the soundtrack to 2004 video game Katamari Damacy (very important) etc etc.... ....And of course the first thing Robert Dimery does when it's time to update his list for the first time in five years is to add another album by these rotting fucking geriatrics half a century past their prime. Actual music review: It's exactly what you'd expect a 60s band to release in the modern day. I don't know what's up with it, but it seems like this is exactly the sound every single "way past their prime" band grey goo's themselves into. The musical equivalent of an overfitted neural network. The Stones will probably release one more album in a year or two and it will sound exactly like this one again. Maybe that one will be "the last one" so it will be a slightly bolder footnote in musical history. Couldn't ask for a more poetic and fitting start to this return. Is Elvis Costello still releasing music as well?

Very high level rage baiting, bravo Dimery

1080 albums into this project, I've never been closer to rage quitting. Removed in 2026: Leonard Cohen - You Want It Darker (2016) Django Django - Django Django (2012) The Mars Volta - De-Loused In The Comatorium (2003) Jurassic 5 - Power In Numbers (2002) For THIS?!! Who hurt you, Robert? Why is Mick Jagger singing about his landlord in a bop about - checks notes - elder abuse? Good grief.

some wrinkled crypt keeper looking 80-year-old man singing about how he wants to be the only man for some girl... What the fuck is wrong with you, 1001 guy? Do you not have any sense of anything when it comes to music? who the fuck put you in charge?

It's so funny being on the user albums list with such a wide variety of stuff and then being dragged back to the main list and having to listen to... this. Here's 3 reasons why this is one of the worst inclusions on the list. 1. This album sucks. The production is awful and the bland, overplayed blues riffs make it sound like it was made as background music for a millennial burger restaurant. And while everyone plays their instruments fine, Mick Jagger cannot sing to save his life. All the power in his voice is long gone, and no amount of reverb/vocal distortion can save him. 2. Even as a legacy album this is a terrible inclusion. It isn't a final statement like Blackstar or You Want It Darker. (Which was removed from this list, what the hell!) It doesn't show the evolution of their style or songwriting like The Rising or For That Beautiful Feeling. It's just "good-old fashioned" Stones again! If anything, this only shows the Rolling Stones as dramatically weaker than their prime. 3. Seriously? No Olivia Rodrigo? No Chappell Roan? No Black Country, New Road? No Lady Gaga? (Her collab on this album DOESN'T COUNT!) This decade has brought so many great faces and great albums, but we're STILL getting oldhead white boy blues no one asked for and has had no relevance over the past decade. In conclusion, I am 99% sure this album was included for Robert Dimery and no one else. If this book gets any new editions in the future, please dear God give it to someone who isn't a senior citizen.

Great that these lads are still going but god this is awful

I’m a Rolling Stones fan, so I enjoyed this. It’s a good album, but nowhere near their prime and not exactly breaking new ground. Unlike Blackstar or You Want It Darker, it doesn’t feel like a late-career statement that adds something significant to their legacy. Enjoyable, but not sure it deserves a place on this list.

Not bad! This band's got a real future ahead of them!

The retirement age in the UK is around 67, just saying.

This album's inclusion on the updated list is kind of the final straw in destroying the very little credibility and integrity that these list makers were clinging to. Sure, The Rolling Stones are legendary mega stars who occupy an important position in music history, but there is no reality that an album released in their 7th decade rises to the level of being essential listening material. This album was fine, but come on, what are we doing here?

Oh fuck, no! This album only rates a place on this list as a demonstration of what went wrong with rock and roll, expressed in the history of single band. The Stones demonstrated how a rebellious posture can be marketed into a perpetual corporate money machine. This is yet another album in their series of souvenirs, an excuse for yet another profitable tour peddling over-priced nostalgia to aging boomers and their curious offspring. I know there are the usual excuses for this record -- "A return to form! It's the best Stones release since Some Girls!" -- but I think that is just a desperate wish that the Stones (as a metonym for the entirety of rock and roll) aren't just a twitching corpse, rolled out to squeeze more money from a gullible audience. Charlie Watts is the literal twitching corpse on this album. No disrespect intended, Charlie, you were an inspirational drummer. Bill Wyman (not that one, the other one) wrote an excellent analysis of the way critics twist themselves in knots to praise each subsequent Stones release (https://www.splicetoday.com/music/their-best-album-since-when). It's a malignant critical trope. Critics fall over themselves to praise the latest regurgitation from the increasingly irrelevant Stones, with an eye on maintaining their credibility by throwing the previous records -- the subject of previous fawning-- under the bus. It's pathetic. Will nobody speak out about the emperor's new music? This is over-produced and slightly embarrassing hackwork from a band well past its prime, unsuccessfully reaching for former glories with nothing new to say. The Stones were pivotal in establishing the textbook for rock (for better and worse), but we've all read it fifty years ago. What do they have to add at this late stage? Nothing new. This album won the Grammy for Best Rock Album! It pains me -- as a rock fan -- to see how moribund the rock genre has become. 1.5 stars, rounding down for the terrible cover art.

This is ridiculous. With all the respect I have for TRS, the inclusion of this record in the latest batch is preposterous

This is the least essential album on this list. UK music critics are a damn joke.

Believe it or not, we don’t need to place every Rolling Stones album on here. I don’t think this should qualify for a top 1001 album, not even because I think it’s not good, that’s not the point. But to flood the list with an entire discography of an artist I feel like is just a waste and there are potentially other artists getting snubbed because The Rolling Stones released a 26th album.

This is a Rolling Stones record. There are many like it, but this one came out in 2023.

I mean yay for not letting age stop you from creating but damn we didn’t need this gang

What the hell are we doing? What’s going on? Why is this here? Are we for real? Are we dumb? What the fuck? I am in disbelief. I thought this was one of the user submissions. I make that mistake sometimes. Disregard the fact that there are hundreds of other albums that would be better suited for this list. The Rolling Stones themselves have albums that should be on this list that aren’t. This isn’t even their best album in the last two they’ve released. Production is sloppy, lyrics and songwriting feel half assed, vocals and instrumentation are as expected from the octogenarians. They provided nothing new or worth listening to except “Sweet Sounds Of Heaven”. That song ain’t bad. Also worth noting that “Dreamy Skies” sounds like something off of Some Girls, so it’s alright. Otherwise, take everything back to the drawing board and start over. Waste of my damn time. Rethink your choices for the love of all that is holy. I’d give this a firm five out of ten. 2/5

Alright so obviously this is an indefensible addition to the book. There's albums in the Rolling Stones' own goddamn back catalogue that would have made more sense than this. Empty calories. Lady Gaga LARPing Merry Clayton is particularly dire. Out of context this would be like a 2 or 3 star "this is forgettable" from me, but I gotta drop it to 1 out of protest. Literally none of the 13 albums that they cut justifies this one. Calls to mind David Bowie's The Next Day, which was put on for likely similar reasons of "this old guy that we like has broken a hiatus with new stuff," and was then removed almost immediately because Black Star came out with actual substance to dig into. I even kind of liked The Next Day! but it was dumb to add back then, and it's dumb to put this one in the book now.

I think all that needs to be said has already been put in the reviews here, just sad to wait six years for an update to the 1001 and get the tired dregs of a band running on fumes well past their prime. They removed Leonard Cohen’s last album before his death, and somehow this is a suitable replacement?

Why did we need this album? Why is it on the list? Is there a limit to how many Rolling Stones albums we must hear before we die? So many questions. Unfortunately, 48 minutes of Hackney Diamonds provided very few answers. At least Keith Richards continues to defy medical science.

I really enjoyed it. Should this be one of the 1001 albums? No way.

Give it a rest, lads

Hell no. This seriously undermines the author's authority. The album isn't 1-star bad, and it has less filler than a lot of their other albums. But they were already well-represented in the book, this adds nothing new to their case, and it takes the place of artists who actually deserve to be here. In that context, anything above 1 star is an insult to other musicians and anyone who genuinely cares about music.

I suppose it's heartening to know that the Stones have gone from full-on unlistenable dreck to white noise music exclusively played in dentist offices. But I swear to god, if I ever see Dimery in person... I've said it before, I will say it *again*, it is on. Fucking. Sight.

The album itself is fine and certainly better than many I've heard on the 1001. However, it definitely suffers from "you could have added anything and you chose this?"

What the fuck are we even doing here? The Stones already had six entries in the book. Four comprise arguably the greatest four-album run in rock history, while the debut and Aftermath document foundational 60s British blues and pop culture, even if I don’t think I'll ever reach for them and marked them down accordingly. If the editors desperately needed another, Some Girls or Tattoo You proved the band could absorb contemporary trends and keep their bite. And even by modern Stones standards, 2016’s blues cover collection Blue & Lonesome was an honest, loose, late-career victory lap. Instead, we get Hackney Diamonds. Let’s be entirely clear about why this sounds so awful: Andrew Watt. The production is an unmitigated disaster of digital compression and focus-group sheen. Charlie Watts's loose, behind-the-beat swing is replaced by rigid, quantised rhythm tracks mixed for streaming algorithms and intended for Ford commercials. Mick Jagger’s vocals on "Angry" are buffed flat by obvious pitch correction, but "Tell Me Straight" is the true horror. Slathering autotune and digital delay over an exhausted, crumbling 79-year-old Keith Richards creates an uncanny valley nightmare where software violently fights to smooth out notes that don't exist in Keith's vocabulary. "Mess It Up" is a sterile, cringe-inducing attempt at modern pop-funk that has no business existing. "Whole Wide World" sounds like straight-up Temu Killers - a soulless hybrid of mid-2000s post-punk revival and Gaslight Anthem-tier heartland bombast, relying on adolescent, rhyming-dictionary cliches sung by an 80-year-old multi-millionaire. As a standalone artifact, it gets a charitable 2/5. It is technically a miracle that two octogenarians can assemble a functioning rock record after sixty years, as soulless as it may be. As an entry on the 1001 Albums list, however, it is a definitive 1/5. It’s a minor insult to the Stones catalogue. It’s a major insult to the underrepresented bands and artists that have been excised - The Mars Volta, Jurassic 5, Hot Chip, Beach House, Little Simz, Jane Weaver drop off entirely. Leonard Cohen and Fiona Apple lose definitive, late career-defining statements, to say nothing of the other 2020s artists not represented here. Nobody on earth needs to hear Hackney Diamonds before they die. It adds nothing to the Stones' legacy and steals oxygen and representation from essential modern music. A complete and utter failure of curation.

Not essential, but a good rolling stones album

Le clou du spectacle de Robert: le septième album des Rolling Stones de la liste, pis c’est même pas Some Girls! Nan, juste pour ça, ça tombe à 2, parce que la musique est correcte, borderline généré par AI dans le style des Stones. J’en reviens pas que, parmi tout les albums sortis depuis 4 ans, qu’on ait droit à ça mais pas à: - Un des deux albums d’Angine de Poitrine - Viagr Aboys, de Viagra Boys - Hyperdrama de Justice - Moisturizer de Wet Leg - Au moins UN album de King Gizzard! - Et plus! Ok, ciao amigos! À la revoyure!

As an album its perfectly fine. Its not ground breaking, its not good, it doesnt show case their maturity or growth in their dotage, its just a worse album than the admittedly good ones they made in their youth. As a new entry on this list it is a criminal waste of visibility and the absolute antithesis of what the list should be about.

It just didn’t work for me. Sorry, boys. 1.5

Still making great stuff.

There’s nothing about this new album that I don’t like. I love the rock, and I love the bluesy songs. And I particularly love the Stones’ lyrics. A fantastic resurgence all around.

I'll avoid the low-hanging fruit of a joke and not called it hackneyed. They sound very good for their age, but I struggle to see the point of this. Even at their best I don't think they made any masterpiece albums. They made masterpiece songs, sure. Gimme Shelter is proof of that. But this feels like a curio for the die-hard fans and not something that should be an "essential" album.

"Don't get angry with me" pleads Jagger, as we're forced to sit through an album by a band who's peak ended half a century ago. I'm not angry, Mick, just disappointed. Not with you of course, Hackney Diamonds is surprisingly fine, but rather with Dimery for adding another Rolling Stones album that I most definitely did not need to hear before I died. The Rolling Stones have aged considerably, and you can hear it through the music. They don't have the youthful vigor they did in the 70s, they don't sing about sex, drugs, and rock-'n'-roll, and Jagger now requires autotune to strengthen his vocals. That said, this album isn't without merit, the Stones opted for a more pop rock direction in contrast to their typical style of hard rock, and the hooks on some of these songs are actually quite good. They retain their typical style of blues rock, and I actually kind of agree with Dimery that it's been modified for a more modern audience, though that doesn't make it any more interesting. There's a number of guest stars on here, there's old legends like Elton John, Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, but also new blood (relatively speaking) in the form of Lady Gaga, who does her best attempt at gospel singing as backup vocals for the song Sweet Sounds of Heaven, and she does a damn good job at it. This is one of the best songs on the album, if not the best. The album does wear it's welcome out towards the end, you could easily shave 10 minutes off of this and get an improved experience, a lot of the songs on here in the final third just feels like filler. I actually like this more than some of the Stones classic albums, like Aftermath, Exile on Main Street, hell maybe even Let it Bleed, but I think that's the problem with adding an album like this. I'm not a Stones fan, as you can see on my profile the only album I gave above a 3 was Sticky Fingers, and really I only enjoy them as a singles band, so if an album this middle-of-the-road and as easily digestible as this is provoking a mildly positive reaction from me, it probably isn't that good or important as a Rolling Stones album. Exile on Main Street has its fans, I don't like it at all, and that's okay because I don't need to, I can see why some would consider it their masterpiece. Despite my opinions on Hackney Diamonds, I can't see anyone considering it their favourite Stones record. And on the final song - "Rolling Stone Blues" - the lyrics repeatedly say "rolling stone". Bravo boys. Was it a good addition to the list: No, absolutely not. Top 3 Songs: Depending On You, Whole Wide World, Sweet Sounds of Heaven

Not a bad album but not a great one either. Unclear why this one needed to be added to their other albums on the list. Also one star deducted for making me conjure up an image of Rupert Murdock and Jerry Hall

Honestly this is better than I thought it was going to be. I always found the Stones more of a singles band and their albums consist of a couple of bangers and some mediocre tunes. This one doesn’t have any bangers but it’s pretty much even throughout. Lady Gaga yelping and the Muddy Waters cover are terrible though

Ridiculous that we are still adding Rolling Stones albums to this list as if they weren’t already massively over represented. That being said this is a fine listen but I might as well be listening to AI with the about of post production and sweetening, which I get they are old - but again what’s the point of it being here?

Now we really didn’t need this, did we?

This is the death song of a no longer relevant 60's blues rock band who are trying to make more money to pay for their nursing home fees. It's always sad to hear an older band try to hang in the landscape of modern music. It just doesn't work. There is a statute of limitations on how long you can make music that doesn't make the general populace cringe. Perhaps it's once your lead singers voice is so old and weathered that it needs autotune in order to sound good enough to make a record. This meander into pop rock is kinda gross and off putting as well, considering they started life as a gritty blues rock number. I'm not the biggest Stones fan, but this sounds like music made by a band that the traditional Stones band would beat up for beer money. Please, just retire. Dimery has completely lost focus on what this list is all about. He just threw a handful of random "New" albums at a wall and called it good enough so he could sell a few more books. The user who asked whether Elvis Costello is still making music made me laugh. The same could be asked about The Byrds lol. Mick probably wants to "get close" to some woman so he can hear what she's saying to him, because they just dug him out of some sarcophagus to make this album. As many have said, this album sounds.... Ok..... But when reviewed from the lens of the bands larger works, it's just a desparate plea to try and stay relevant. I'll remember the Stones for what they were thanks, not whatever this is.... Favourite songs: Whole Wide World, Bite My Head Off, Sweet Sounds of Heaven Least favourite songs: Tell Me Straight 2/5

I don't need this in my life. There must be thousands of more appropriate albums from 2023 for the list than this pish. Old codgers that now have the creative relevance and urgency of Toploader. Let the past be the past and don't let your legacy get crushed by the door on your way out.

So 6 old Rolling Stones albums wasn’t enough? We really needed to hear this forgettable album of theirs from 2023? It’s irritating that this album made the cut at the expense of other modern albums. While it is impressive that they’re still putting out bland inoffensive music over a half a century since they started… you only need to listen to this one if you’re a diehard Stones fan. There is nothing memorable about this album and this list has shown me that I am firmly NOT a fan of the Rolling Stones 2 stars for the waste of a space

I loved this. It’s classic Rolling Stones but not tired at all. I will add this to my regular playlist.

Okay. The original list surely didn't have enough Rolling Stones albums. It's a good album, but do we really need to listen to a new one?

I think it’s the stupidest addition to the list… certainly not an awful album ‘sweet sounds of heaven is great’ and I was fond of ‘live by the sword’ but a famous bands rather average late career album isn’t something I needed to hear before I die… please give me more elvis costello (not) 3/5

There is seriously zero reasons for ANOTHER stones album. If you listened to one, then you've heard them all. There is nothing ground breaking being delivered here... Just a bunch of old men wishing they weren't so damn old.

4/5

Hackney Diamonds is the twenty-sixth album of rock band The Rolling Stones. The album shows a mature rock band that does not try to be cool (drugs, sex) anymore, but still throws in a considerable effort to produce anything significant after several lame and uninspired albums. The album shows the less heavy and more poppy version of the band and a version that is accompanied with a lot audible fun. The album does not contain any classics (as far this can be determined at an early stage), there are some decent attempts though. Still the question remains why the authors thought this album should be added to the 1001 albums. The band already had six albums in it, of which their debut is a dubious choice as it only shows the start of a promising band with cover versions of famous songs and only one mediocre original. So I would already suggest to drop that one and maybe replace it by Some Girls that at least could be argued to be essential. Hackney Diamonds is a nice for fans and for people that want to listen to a decent record, but not for someone that expects a classic. The fact that the latest attempt of the band (Foreign Tongues) overshadows this album in every way only confirms this is a ridiculous submission.

More lively than expected for octogenarian rock guys, and it sounds pretty good - but so what? If anyone can hire in competent ringers to churn out high spec generic bluesy rock and capture a decent vocal performance and the occasional guitar solo it's the Rolling Stones. But come on. It's a novelty record and testament to the life extending powers of modern medicine available to the ultra wealthy. Does anyone care about these boring ass songs?

Funny, I purchased this album when it was released, but had never listened to it. It's not bad, well, maybe within the context of being a Stones album it's just. okay. It's a 3.5, but we all know about those half points.

Protest 1, better 2020s albums

wasn't bad. didn't sound anything like the stones though.

Another situation where it feels like the only reason this album is on the list is because of the artist and not because it’s actually good.

I’m SO glad they removed good albums from the book so a shit band can have a SEVENTH album that even their fans don’t think should be on here. Of all the new additions to the book, this is the one I have been dreading the most. And, yeah, it's pretty bad. Ironically, not the worst of the Stones albums I've been forced to listen to, but it is outrageous that this album has made the list.

I was today years old when i learned these guys have recent albums. I don’t dislike this one, though there are some really bad tracks

++: Live by the Sword, Sweet Sounds of Heaven +: Dream Skies, Rolling Stone Blues +-: Bite My Head Off, Mess It Up, Tell Me Straight -: Angry, Whole Wide World, Driving Me Too Hard --: Get Close, Depending on You 2,8/10

Not nearly as bad as I thought it was going to be. Not great, either, but there were plenty of tracks on here that were fun and way more energetic than expected!

I applaud The Rolling Stones for having enough vitality to release an album in 2023, but this is very bad.

Ik heb hier diverse gedachtes bij. - Er stonden al genoeg albums in van de Stones - Dit album hoef je sowieso niet gehoord te hebben voor je sterft, het is weinig bijzonder - Die autotune op de openingstrack is Stones onwaardig en mede door die eerste track ga ik me meteen afvragen hoe ongelofelijk veel ze hier aan hebben moeten sleutelen om die bende bejaarden nog wat soeps te laten maken Als we dit allemaal even een beetje parkeren, dan krijg ik verder wel gewoon een album wat ik graag aan heb staan. Een keer dan. Ik weet nog niet helemaal hoe ik dit moet vangen in een cijfer. Ik denk dat ik uiteindelijk op een 3 of 4 uitkom.

Lmao who is working on this list that they’re putting geriatric era Stones albums on the latest revision?

I'm being harsh, but I see no reason whatsoever for this album to be added to the list. There's nothing bad about it, but it is about as far from groundbreaking as you can get. This music is all old dog, old tricks. It went in one year and out the other. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times. Other cliches, because this music is cliche. Not bad, but bland. At least the album art is pretty neat. Favorite track: "Sweet Sounds of Heaven" but, like, maybe there was an entire album of Lady Gaga we could've had instead?

nope, this sucked

There are few things I would like less on this list than a 2020s Rolling Stones album but here we are.

Right, essential stretched in a new way I suppose. Now it's a really big band who released an album recently. Not their most recent album mind, so no chance of being their last release. Wasn't too bad at face value, mostly acceptable. That makes it less essential than an album that attempts something new and misses though. A few of the recently added albums have been odd choices, must be loads of better options than this. Not including Fontaines DC or Turnstile but including this would be mad, guess we'll see. 2.5, considering they are octogenarians let's go 3.

Do we really need another rolling stones album on the list? Why are we including their 24th(!) studio album on the list? It's not like it's doing anything new. It's fine though I guess, maybe even better sounding than I was expecting from an 80 year old Mick Jagger, but there's probably all sorts of digital fuckery going on. However, nothing originally jumps out and it is not going to be memorable. 2.5

Seems mostly a nostalgic throwback. Competent, sure, but have we aged out? I am not being grabbed, sorry to say.

Really? I didn't really dig it at all. Docking a star for the publishers serving it up. There weren't better albums than this to add?

I honestly think he's trolling us with this shit. literally any album from the user-submitted list deserves to be on here more than this. this album sucks. the production is awful. And Mick sounds terrible. It sounds like an AI version of the Stones. All the ingredients are there but the potion is completely devoid of magic. I repeat: Robert Dimery is a fucking hack.

I don't want to be ageist but Mick et al need to rock out gracefully and this isn't doing it. Mick's singing is a caricature of his younger self. Why is this even on the list?

Can we please give it a rest with these washed up husks still trying to produce albums 30-40 years past their prime? They’re blatant cash grabs and soulless albums.

There’s a good argument that this doesn’t need to be on this list but regardless, it’s a good album, especially this late in their career.

2.5/5 It's not bad but I don't think it is good enough for this list

Maybe I'm the one who's crazy.

Yllättävän hyvä levy vanhalta bändiltä. Sopivan kieli poskessa.

Perfectly fine and forgettable rock album

2. It's as good as a 3, but this is a protest vote and 1's are reserved for garbage that assaults the ears and mind. So many other great new bands deserve a spot on this list instead of another Stones album. Kudos to the old codgers for still rocking, but you've done it, we know you're great.

A really great Stones album - everything you'd expect - gnarly, grizzled, bluesy. Excellent production, too.

2.8 - I have no problem with these record companies placating boomers, giving them more of this passé honky-tonky drivel. But I want nothing to do with it. Autotuned Jagger is such a sick bummer.

Not bad for 80 year olds, but nothing particularly special. 3.5

я кусками слышала его ранее, тут отвращения не вызвал, уже хорошо!

come on.

Qqpart entre 2,75 et 3,25.

Les bons albums des Stones sont énergisants. Celui-ci est complètement drainant.

Man who knew the stones were still putting out great albums

Surprisingly strong. While their voices aren’t what they used to be, their musical instincts still are. The Stones will always rock.

Why the HELL did Dimery think it made sense to add yet another Rolling Stones album to the 1001?? Ridiculous. Well, let's put that aside for a moment and just assess the album on its own merit: it's OK. Some catchy tracks, but fundamentally it doesn't sound all that unique compared to the rest of their catalog. Good for them, they can still rock around 80 years old, but did we really need this album in the 1001? High points - Steve Jordan's drumming is outstanding, Bite My Head Off is awesome (and love the gritty bass line played by Sir Paul himself), and a clutch of catchy tunes - Angry, Get Close, Whole Wide World, and Mess It Up. Ok album, and a complete waste of a spot in the 1001.

3.5

No

The album is enjoyable for people who love the Stones. The fact that they’re still putting out music is amazing. Not sure it needs to take a spot but I enjoyed it for what it was.

The Rolling Stones without their grit is...not good

I really expected a far worse album than I got. It's not the Stones' best, but still a decent album. That said, it really shouldn't be on the list. I would much rather have seen a couple of Stones albums cut, instead, really. I want to give this album 2 stars because of that, but I can't convince myself the music is bad enough for that.

It doesn’t matter how old they are - it’s just a great album, even if not their best. Although maybe it does matter how old they are - that they can still put out a great album at their age. Still rockin' after all these years! I love it.

“You like a 15-years-past-his-prime Elvis Costello? How about a 50-years-past-their-prime Rolling Stones?” - Robert Dimery, probably. Here it is. The single least essential album on the entire list. You really couldn't think of a more important album from the last 5 years?!

The rolling stones are far past their best here, but I think given a few listens I could come round to it.

better than I expected

Gear: Aür Audio Aurora Artwork: ️🔪💎♥️ Production: 🎤📣😖 Music: 📚🚫😤 Rating: 🩼/5

I won't even dignify the author by saying his name but what the hell? Am I misunderstanding the point of this book? A must-hear album is one that is influential and stands the test of time. Why do the Stones get yet another (unworthy) entry when they are already over-represented on this list? To be fair, I enjoyed the album but it doesn't belong here and the book author is misguided and grasping at straws trying to include recent/newish releases. I kind of want to ding the album based on that principle alone but I'll play nice.

It was alright, just no understanding why a aging band has another album on this list if they haven't created something different.

Adequate

Yes, this album is the Stones returning to their roots, but that is no reason for celebration, given this isn't even their best that does that in the 21st century. 3/5

God just when I thought I was safe from another goddamn Stones record. yep just more slop rock right from the can, did anyone listen to this damn thing? The problem is that everyone knows these guys have been rockstars for 70 years, and they have no believability when they sing about shit like breaking free from it all, having someone leave them, or any other problem as they try to spin themselves as an everyman. Get fucked, Mick Jagger, and spare us all any more.