Critics Revisited - The Rolling Stones

Stones...

Along the Spokane River, just outside Spokane, WA, October 2003

- - - - -

I think it is interesting to look at what critics said in the past, about music that has gone on to be iconic.  One key source for me is a book I bought in the early 80's:  "The Rolling Stone Record Guide".  My nearly 40 year old copy is quite battered, missing the front and back covers, and a few pages in between.  But its still around.

Let's take the occasion of Charlie Watts passing to see what they were saying about the Rolling Stones back then.  Comparing the early 80's viewpoint with the Rolling Stone Magazine list of Top 500 Albums of all time from 20 years later (and nearly 20 years ago!)

The stones placed 10 albums on the 2003 list, here's the top 5, with selected commentary from the 1983 book:

• Exile On Main Street (ranked #7 of 500 in 2003):  4 Stars out of 5 in 1983.  Despite giving Exile 4 stars, they state "it was an attempt to break past the limits maturity imposed, and about half the time it succeeds".  But "too much of Exile is simply forgettable".   
• Let It Bleed (ranked #32 of 500 in 2003):  4 Stars out of 5 in 1983.  They state "some of the most frightening and beautiful music the Stones have made is here".  But, "the record is erratic".  They laud the keys songs, but declare Monkey Man to be "silly", and "some of the rest is just OK"
• Beggars Banquet (ranked #57 of 500 in 2003):  5 Stars out of 5 in 1983  "its theme is dissolution and from its opening song...to the final number... it is terrifying"  and "As usual, the Stones were more correct, if also more faithless, philosophers than any of their peers"
• Sticky Fingers (ranked #63 of 500 in 2003):  4 Stars out of 5 in 1983.  There's remarkably little in the book.  They note that "apart from Brown Sugar and Bitch it is the most subdued Rolling Stones record ever made."  Wild Horses is "not so much wistful as bitter" and "the rest is a restless rush in search of a self-assurance that never comes"
• Aftermath (ranked #108 of 500 in 2003):  5 Stars out of 5 in 1983. They start with "Aftermath has everything"  But they also state "The album's one flaw is its tendency to pander to the Stones' audience's flagellant tendencies"...  which seems a little harsh, and a bit insulting to listeners.

I don't know if there's a "so what" here, but it is interesting.

My take on the Stones?  They were one of the truly iconic bands of the 60's and 70's, who have an impressive list of really outstanding songs.  Really REALLY outstanding songs.  That said, while their peaks are very, very high, they have a LOT of valleys.  I have a lot of favorite Rolling Stones SONGS, but no favorite Rolling Stones ALBUMS.  No Revolver, no Who's Next, no Pet Sounds, no Blood On The Tracks.  But all that's OK. 
And while they deserve :props" for longevity, and for continuing to make new music, I'm simply not a fan of anything since 1978's Some Girls.  And, I've never seen a live performance that I thought was all that outstanding (yes, I know that's blasphemy).  I guess I agree with the comments above:  "erratic", "The rest is just OK".  But don't get me wrong, those peaks are awesome, and there are a LOT of them.