The Rolling Stones

Why is A Bigger Bang almost unnecessarily good? Has the weight of existence pressured the band into a last grasp at vitality? They've ditched any faddish production (save for a little schmaltz) and have made a hot-blooded, sweaty Stones record. Proof that sometimes even a well-oiled machine can give you the chills.

Let's just get this out of the way: A Bigger Bang isn't a good Rolling Stones album
considering their age. It isn't a good Rolling Stones album compared to their recent work.
No, A Bigger Bang is just a straight-up, damn fine Rolling Stones album, with no qualifiers or
apologies necessary for the first time in a few decades. The sixteen songs on this disc,
their first studio album in eight years, mark the closest collaboration between Mi... More >

I'm obviously not to be trusted, since when I finally pulled out my vinyl on Dirty Work, which nobody else likes, I still loved its booming Steve Lillywhite Charlie, its studious chicken-scratch Keith, its bitterness and cynicism and spiritual desperation. On this one desperation is in remission. But despite its lack of an anthem to replace "Start Me Up," it certainly beats Tattoo You or anything else going back to Exile except Some Girls. Long the weak link, Mick--come on: Keith and Charlie are gods, Ron is for sound effects, and Darryl Jones is an improvement--once again proves capable of relating on what we humans pathetically call a human scale. Not that I credit his "vulnerability," but I'm touched that he cares enough to lie about it. Together with clear evidence of prolonged cooperation between or among the principals (meaning two-man songwriting and a living groove, respectively), the effort suffices to provide or simulate the mattering considered so crucial in veteran bands. It also helps that the opener really rocks. As for the anti-Bush song, duh. Next time they should vet their corporate sponsor instead. (Grade - A-)