I don't know of any site similar to Rate Your Music, where users can give ratings to albums (and singles, compilations, EPs etc.) and what this site shows is what is some general users' rating of RS albums. Now, of course a few thousand votes per album is not sufficient for being considered general concensus, but this is just to show you what average listeners (not fans) think of their albums. One reason why I am posting this because over the years, but especially since the album discussions started, there were statements such as "Tattoo You was not their last great album, Undercover was" or "Dirty Work is a masterpiece compared to ABB" or "Goat's Head Soup should be added to Big Four to make them Big Five!" or "B2B was much much better than uninspired Voodoo Lounge" and similar – those are their opinions and everyone can say what they find out to be true for themselves, music is a subjective matter, but some of the people that state things like that press those opinons among others and think that those opinions are the only right opinions and that those opinions are popular opinions. So I am posting this just to show what are general ratings and views of their albums (e.g. Undercover much lower rating that Tattoo You and GHS lower than Big Four, VL higher rating than B2B, ABB miles ahead of Dirty Work etc.) by some general population. Yes, it is only by users of that site, not by everyone ever, but it still gives a good general picture.

BTW, you can also write and read reviews of albums there (there are various reviews, from people writing eulogies for their albums just like fans on IORR do to people that find RS albums average, e.g. one person gave Beggars Banquet 2/5 and wrote "typical 60's Stones album.... two or three amazing tracks, and a bunch of filler in between" - it makes you wonder whether there is truth in what they speak, but I disagree with such reviews of course). If you are interested in exploring that site, here is the link: [rateyourmusic.com].

So, what do you think about these ratings?

Quote
Screamer
this is just to show you what average listeners (not fans) think of their albums.

Just curious, how do you know these listeners aren't fans?

Pretty accurate except I would put Rolling Stones Now far ahead of GHS and knock TSMR down a bit



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-09 19:55 by Turner68.

Quote
Boognish

Quote
Screamer
this is just to show you what average listeners (not fans) think of their albums.

Just curious, how do you know these listeners aren't fans?

Some of them definitely are, but most of the votes come from average music listeners for sure. And average rating takes in count all the votes, therefore mostly the votes of the average listeners. That's what I was trying to say.

Pretty interesting. Pretty close to a 'standard view'.

It is also noteworthy that the Big Four is not only rated best, the volume of ratings of those four albums is strikingly bigger than the rest (8-9 000 vs. 1-2.5 000). That is to say the people are also awere what are the 'best' albums one should look for or care about.

- Doxa

I use this site a lot.

What strikes me is that The Stones don't even have a year-end top 3 finish.

1968: Beggars Banquet is #7 (#1 is The Beatles' White Album)
1969: Let It Bleed #7 again (#1 is King Crimson - In The Court of the Crimson King)
1971: Sticky Fingers #4 (#1 Led Zeppelin IV)
1972: Exile on Main St. #4 (#1 David Bowie - Ziggy Stardust)

Some Girls doesn't even make top 40.

The Stones were one of the most important bands in history, but never the most popular.

Quote
BowieStone
I use this site a lot.

What strikes me is that The Stones don't even have a year-end top 3 finish.

1968: Beggars Banquet is #7 (#1 is The Beatles' White Album)
1969: Let It Bleed #7 again (#1 is King Crimson - In The Court of the Crimson King)
1971: Sticky Fingers #4 (#1 Led Zeppelin IV)
1972: Exile on Main St. #4 (#1 David Bowie - Ziggy Stardust)

Some Girls doesn't even make top 40.

The Stones were one of the most important bands in history, but never the most popular.

Yes, and this bolded fact is important to state because the mechanism of the site combines both the average rating and the number of votes in raking an album. There are albums that have 3.9X rating but 20.000+ votes and are because of that ranked higher than the Big Four.

Quote
Turner68
Pretty accurate except I would put Rolling Stones Now far ahead of GHS and knock TSMR down a bit

I think we should not look too closely different era albums against each other, but more like all over tendencies, which go incredibly closely according to a 'standard view': rather strong 60's out-put over all (with the peak of AFTERMATH), then the Big Four, the mid-seventies 'low period', then the new peak with SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU, then the 80's low period, etc.

Since the Stones catalogue covers such a long period, I think it is typical that different 'eras' attract different people. Some casual listeners are more keen on their 60's output - I think people who are more towards the nostalgic 60's over-all. Then some more into their more current sounds, to go with probably seen them in concerts during the last decades, etc. The 80's Stones crisis is such strongly advertised, so it is no wonder why not just DIRTY WORK but also UNDERCOVER do not manage well (it could be that the whole musical climate of the 80's is not that fascinating these days, but only to those who were teenagers those days and 'learned' to like those sounds. We here at IORR have a strong fanbase/generation from that era). So different people with probably different criterion are rating different eras.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-09 21:12 by Doxa.

those stats are quite interesting and not far wrong in my opinion.

they are quite consistent with my version of things.

but usually surveys are heavily biased towards modern trends and dismissive of things the older they become, i think to get a more even view of any survey the exact same amount of people of every age should take part, but this isnt the case with most surveys.


its like a survey depicting manchester uniteds best ever player. he is going to come from recent years, or probably the 50,s to 70,s period, he isnt going to come from 1915 is he, people of today would dismiss anything that happened in 1915 as irrelevant.

Quote
buttons67
those stats are quite interesting and not far wrong in my opinion.

they are quite consistent with my version of things.

but usually surveys are heavily biased towards modern trends and dismissive of things the older they become, i think to get a more even view of any survey the exact same amount of people of every age should take part, but this isnt the case with most surveys.


its like a survey depicting manchester uniteds best ever player. he is going to come from recent years, or probably the 50,s to 70,s period, he isnt going to come from 1915 is he, people of today would dismiss anything that happened in 1915 as irrelevant.

When you put it like this stones fans are quite odd - we dismiss anything that happened after 1981 as irrelevant.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
buttons67
those stats are quite interesting and not far wrong in my opinion.

they are quite consistent with my version of things.

but usually surveys are heavily biased towards modern trends and dismissive of things the older they become, i think to get a more even view of any survey the exact same amount of people of every age should take part, but this isnt the case with most surveys.


its like a survey depicting manchester uniteds best ever player. he is going to come from recent years, or probably the 50,s to 70,s period, he isnt going to come from 1915 is he, people of today would dismiss anything that happened in 1915 as irrelevant.

When you put it like this stones fans are quite odd - we dismiss anything that happened after 1981 as irrelevant.

But doesn't that just show how damn irrelevant the Stones have been since 1981...

- Doxa

I certainly think so!

Quote
Doxa
...Pretty close to a 'standard view'...

In some regards, but it's surprising to see Tattoo You in joint fifteenth place, behind Their Satanic Majesties Request.

.....

Olly.

Agreed olly tsmr seems high. Maybe his majesty has been stuffing the ballot box

I think TSMR has grown on people after they stopped believing the reviews saying it was a bad copy (musically) of St. Pepper

I suggest those people give in another land a listen... It's brutal... ;-)

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think TSMR has grown on people after they stopped believing the reviews saying it was a bad copy (musically) of St. Pepper

Yeah, and there are also people who primarily are not Stones fans (who are comparing the album especially to the 'typical' guitar-based, post-JJF material, etc.) but dig the whole psychedelia period per se, and who rate the album in that context, and usually pretty high. It is even pretty cool phase in the history of rock in the eyes of some 'youngsters' today I have noticed (the weirder, the better...).

It is pretty funny that the musical world I grew up (the 80's) judged SGT. PEPPER without a doubt the greatest album of all time and THEIR SATANIC if not the worst album of all time, but at least clearly the worst album the Stones ever done (a horrible "mistake"). Nowadays, it is not that clear that PEPPER is even the Beatles' best - especially the worth of 'pre-PEPPER' material, especially RUBBER SOUL, has increased enermously. And the worth of SATANIC MAJESTIES has also recognized - being probably more psychedelic than the Beatles were even able to dream for...

Of course, we advanced Stonelogists here at IORR have noticed the merits of SATANIC MAJESTIES for some time now, and that the gap between it and BEGGARS BANQUET isn't at all that big that is traditionally thought...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-10 00:03 by Doxa.

The site is really interesting, and potentially a great way to discover new gems. Thanks for pointing it out.

Observations:
- the stones don't rate as well as I'd expect or hope
- velvet underground is, fairly i think, rated extremely highly, totally out of whack with their popularity at the time. great to see them get their due.
- it's cool to see jazz and rock mixed together although somewhat jarring.
- what incredible years for music were 65,66,67 and 68...

Regarding TSMR, even though it is rated "higher" than one might think on this site, if you look at in the context of 1967, it didn't rate in the top 100 albums of the year. Context always matters in these things, and compared to their peers, the Stones had a significant misstep with the album. Does it get blown out of proportion? Sure. but in the year of Velvet Underground & Nico (banana album), Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, Are you Experienced, Axis:Bold as Love, The Doors, Songs of Leonard Cohen, Love's Forever Chanages, Pink Floyd's Piper at the Gates, Something Else by the Kinks, Cream's Disraeli Gears, Dylan's John Wesley Harding.... it just didn't rate.

1966 top albums [rateyourmusic.com]
1967 [rateyourmusic.com]
1968 [rateyourmusic.com]
1969 [rateyourmusic.com]


and... here are their top albums of all time...

[rateyourmusic.com]



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-10 11:52 by Turner68.

also, just had to add, the top stones' solo albums are Talk is Cheap (rated 3.54) and Wandering Spirit (3.44), both rater higher than anything the stones have done since Tattoo You.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-10 11:57 by Turner68.

Look what they did to Dirty Work.
This ranking is ridiculous.

Quote
Screamer

1969: Let It Bleed #7 again (#1 is King Crimson - In The Court of the Crimson King)

Quite right.

And these are for the live albums:

They both look accurate to me..........only I would have expected that AfterMath scored higher although it got the highest on the Brain Jones era and GYYYO is worth more IMO.

__________________________

Seems about right, apart from Tattoo You which deserves a higher rating and Between the Buttons which deserves less.
Also, I personally prefer Bridges to Babylon from their post-Undercover albums, but admittedly, since none of them is very good, the difference is largely academic.

It is also interesting and a pleasant surprise to see that the wonderful "She's a Rainbow" is their third highest rated single (along with 2000 LYFH)!

My favorite singel is 'Get off of my cloud/I'm Free....not even on the list (with a correct flip-side)

2 1 2 0

I love RYM; used to go there a lot.
But it is populated, and run by a certain school of thought; a type of elitists, who do not go for bands like the Stones. To have the Stones not show up on an overall list of Best Album until #67 is more than opinionated. Back Sabbath appears 3 times before a Stones album, LOL
On the chart of Best Bootlegs of alltime, the first Stones entry is a # 321!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-04-05 15:24 by Palace Revolution 2000.

Quote
HMS
Look what they did to Dirty Work.
This ranking is ridiculous.

You're right. It's ranked way too high.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I love RYM; used to go there a lot.
But it is populated, and run by a certain school of thought; a type of elitists, who do not go for bands like the Stones. To have the Stones not show up on an overall list of Best Album until #67 is more than opinionated. Back Sabbath appears 3 times before a Stones album, LOL
On the chart of Best Bootlegs of alltime, the first Stones entry is a # 321!

You are right, but as I have said, it doesn't only depend on the average rating (which is pretty good for the Big Four), but also on the number of votes. Therefore, bands like Nirvana are rated higher although their albums have lower average rating, but have 20,000+ votes.

BowieStone wrote:

"The Stones were one of the most important bands in history, but never the most popular".

Hmm... According to Media Traffic, the Stones get # 8 on the chart of the most successful artists ever, by the figure "selling copies". As live act, they always were and still are extremely polular. I think that the relation of these two factors - figures does make an admirable result.

Yes, in every moment of the music history there were some most successful bands (atleast as albums sellers), including acts that remained popular for a few years. Twenty years ago the most successful band were... Back Street Boys. Today they are forgotten, while the Stones fill stadiums, at the age of 73...