Blue and Lonesome
by The Rolling Stones
User Score
7.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 66 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 51 out of 66
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 66
  3. Negative: 9 out of 66
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this album

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. YT_Guyyy
    Dec 8, 2016
    5
    I don't see it. I don't see what's good about this. I'm generally into bluesy stuff, but this I just don't like. The mixing seems to be a bit off, and the songs don't sound like the Rolling Stones at all. I generally preach the message of "Innovate on every album", but this just sounds like Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones having a fight to the death in an Irish pub. And that does notI don't see it. I don't see what's good about this. I'm generally into bluesy stuff, but this I just don't like. The mixing seems to be a bit off, and the songs don't sound like the Rolling Stones at all. I generally preach the message of "Innovate on every album", but this just sounds like Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones having a fight to the death in an Irish pub. And that does not sound good at all. Never thought I'd be one of those people who say: "Screw the critics!", but, well.

    It's still not all that horrible as an album, but expectations can ruin something. Just like Star Wars episodes 1-3.    … Expand
  2. Flowedandelion1
    Jun 2, 2018
    4
    I expected solid if predictable, but this trip back to the Stones' blues-home is remarkably free of true inspiration. Yes, they can play well. Yes, Don was knows how to produce. But hearing Mick sing the blues at this point is akin to hearing a billionaire wax poetic about the joys of the simple life. When was the last time Mick Jagger suffered, had his heart truly broken, yearned for anI expected solid if predictable, but this trip back to the Stones' blues-home is remarkably free of true inspiration. Yes, they can play well. Yes, Don was knows how to produce. But hearing Mick sing the blues at this point is akin to hearing a billionaire wax poetic about the joys of the simple life. When was the last time Mick Jagger suffered, had his heart truly broken, yearned for an honorable place in the eyes of society, cried out to the world to recognise his manhood and his dignity... maybe 50 years ago? Or never? His harp is solid. The band knows the blues form by heart.... but the actual heart? Missing. After a while, it's like blues wallpaper. The wide-ranging individual writers and singers given tribute here are varied, but the approach of each song does not change. The album gives new meaning to the term meh.… Expand

Awards & Rankings

78
#78 Best Album of 2016
85
#85 Most Discussed Album of 2016
83
#83 Most Shared Album of 2016

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
82

Universal acclaim - based on 21 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 21
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 21
  3. Negative: 0 out of 21
  1. Q Magazine
    Dec 13, 2016
    80
    All thoughts of age, celebrity and stadium itineraries melt away as the Stones work their peculiar alchemy with vigour, mastery and jeu d'espit. [Feb 2017, p.114]
  2. PopMatters
    Dec 13, 2016
    80
    The album might be a one-off or a warm-up for a (hopefully) strong album of new material. Regardless, it’s a peak moment in the storied career of rock’s most enduring band.
    Read full review
  3. Consequence
    Dec 13, 2016
    58
    In the end, the record feels like a copy of a copy, though produced on what may just be the world’s best copier. If nothing else, though, the record works as a pleasing re-centering for one of the greatest rock bands of all time.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »