Nine albums that shouldn’t be on Rolling Stone's list of most disappointing albums

All of us are sometimes (it can be often) disappointed by albums released by our faves or artists that are big names in music. Yet, making a list of those is not such an easy task as it may seem.

What criteria should you use? Are such albums disappointing compared to their other releases, or are all albums overall? Even that just might not be a deciding criteria, because you have to place them in their proper context the moment they were released, the music scene in general, and possibly quite a few others.

Recently, Rolling Stone, a stalwart of music journalism, came up with its list of "The 50 most disappointing albums of all time." Sure, there are quite a few there that most of us will agree with, but then, there are a number of albums here that aren’t disappointments by most criteria and shouldn’t be there.

What Rolling Stone got wrong in the list of most disappointing albums of all time

Here are nine such albums that have much more importance than credited, or these artist surely made bigger duds than these.

Beach Boys, Smiley Smile (1967)

Ok, so, for whatever reason, the Beach Boys never released their supposed masterpiece Smile, and this album did come in its unfortunate wake. But as Rolling Stone itself points out, it is ‘one of the best Beach Boys albums in their vast catalog’, and after all, the band’s single masterpiece “Good Vibrations” saw its album version here.

And yes, it is an original lo-fi masterpiece that is the progenitor to all (good or bad) lo-fi albums that came after it.

Possible dud: 15 Big Ones

The Rolling Stones, Their Satanic Majesties Request (1967)

So both Mick Jagger and Keith Richards still hate this one. One of the reasons might be that they were not so keen on psych rock, which was at its height; the other is that it was mostly masterminded by the late Brian Jones, who son after it was out of the band.

Yet, it was a slice of exemplary psychedelia that stands the test of time and should be given much more credit for it. And after all, the Rolling Stones, as great as they are, made quite a few lousy albums.

Possible dud: Bridges to Babylon

Bob Dylan, Self Portrait (1970)

Sure, the musical genius Bob Dylan has made disappointing albums, actually, quite a few of them, but this was not it. An old musical chameleon that he is Dylan at one point (1984) said, “I wanna do something they can’t possibly like, they can’t relate to,” he said. “They’ll see it, and they’ll listen, and they’ll say, ‘Well, let’s go on to the next person.’”

Yet, listening to this album a few more times, particularly its extended version (Bootleg Series, Vol. 10: Another Self Portrait (1969-1971)) you realize Dylan was making a joke both on himself and his audience, as he made an excellent album even despite himself.

Possible dud: Shot of Love

Wings, Wild Life (1971)

Sure, even a music legend, Paul McCartney, is bound to come up with somewhat mediocre music. Yet, what is poor by McCartney's standards is miles ahead of what even some other big artists came up with. Is this one of the better McCartney (and Wings) albums? Probably not, but in his attempt to find a new musical footing McCartney came up with music here that weathered the initial critical storm.

Possible dud: Press to Play

The Band, Cahoots (1971)

No, this album is neither Music From Big Pink, The Band, or even Stage Fright. Yet any album that includes songs like “Life is a Carnival” or a brilliant version of Dylan's “When I Paint My Masterpiece” cannot be a disappointment. At the same time, some of the weaker songs here could be considered some of the best by quite a few other big names.

Possible dud: High on the Hog

Patti Smith Group, Radio Ethiopia (1976)

When you create an absolute rock classic that was Patti Smith’s debut Horses, anything that came up after it was bound to be an initial disappointment. It might be an album where Smith was trying to find an answer to the ‘what’s next’ question, but she was still at a high, with quite a few classics here.

Possible dud: Twelve

Neil Young, Hawks & Doves (1980)

With such a voluminous catalog, Neil Young, with his tendency to try something else all the time, was bound to come up with a number of weak albums.

Ok, so this one does rely on some of Young’s songs he wrote in the previous decade, but the seventies were his musical prime, and compared to a number of albums that came after this one, it is actually among those that stand the test of time.

Possible dud: Trans

Fleetwood Mac, Behind the Mask (1990)

This one came after Lindsay Buckingham left the band, and yes, temporary replacements Rick Vito and Billy Burnette didn’t have the songwriting skills up to his standards. Yet the rest of the band was still there and still had it in them to create the soft-pop that they were masters of.

Possible dud: The Dance

Bruce Springsteen, Human Touch (1992)

This album was released the same day as another Springsteen offering Lucky Town, and in comparison, the latter was a better album overall.

Some say that Human Touch does not have much of a human production to it. Possibly, but the songwriting is still much stronger than on some later Springsteen albums, and so is the playing, even though the E Street Band wasn't present.

Possible dud: Magic

More music news and analysis: