- Critic score
- Publication
- By date
-
A strong, engaging, cohesive Rolling Stones album that finds everybody in prime form.
-
Some of their best work in nearly two decades.
-
BlenderWithout playing "best since" games, just say it ranks near the top of the eight [albums] they've manufactured since 1980. [Oct 2005, p.142]
-
Here, they succeed just by doing what they do best, taking few chances, but sounding more comfortable in their own skin than they have in a very long time.
-
The Stones in 2005 sound fresh and re-invigorated.
-
Instead of playing it slick, they've made their dirtiest, most homemade-sounding album since Some Girls.
-
MojoThough not without the odd turkey, it is arguably their most satisfying work since 1978's Some Girls. [Oct 2005, p.100]
-
Though [A Bigger Bang] doesn't dare to place itself in the same hallowed halls as that Jimmy Miller-produced quartet of records between 1968 and 1972, it jostles justly and fairly with the best since.
-
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.
-
In its no-frills pleasures, A Bigger Bang recalls Some Girls and Emotional Rescue, two great meaningless albums.
-
It's the best effort The Rolling Stones have produced in quite a while.
-
The New York TimesOn "A Bigger Bang," the Stones actually sound like they're having fun together, live in a studio somewhere. [4 Sep 2005]
-
UncutThere are some outstanding songs here, and Jagger turns in a series of performances that are their match, full of much defiant flouncing, strutting bitchiness, preening arrogance, snarling haughtiness and a typically provocative misogyny. [Album of the Month, Oct 2005, p.92]
-
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.
Awards & Rankings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 56 out of 76
-
Mixed: 11 out of 76
-
Negative: 9 out of 76
-
StéphanieVApr 11, 2007
-
Aug 2, 2013
-
Mar 9, 2012