I don't get it...Exile on main Street-Blue

And in terms of the stupid back and forth happening on this thread, how about ignoring a comment made that’s not directly answering the OPs post? You’re no bigger responding to an unrelated comment with an unrelated answer, you’re contributing to the devolvement of this forum. a football coach I had once told me, “if its stupid enough to make you angry it’s smartest to ignore.”

@sammyshaps  , so you felt the need to comment and not ignore?

Alison Krauss, Emmylou Harris, Eva Cassidy or Jennifer Warnes have the ability to tug at my soul far more than any male vocalists.

@llg98ljk , those are some of my favorites. I just recently got an old copy of Emmylou Live At The Ryman for her cover of Steve Earle’s Guitar Town, and I love the entire CD.

IMO,music/musicians considered "excellent"by so called experts is often ear grating horror to my ears.Case in point,all the critical acclaim for Patricia Barber or Diana Krall,BOTH who I consider tone deaf & flat compared to a vocalist like Melody Gardot or Madeleine Peyroux.

No accounting for taste, @freediver . Actually, however, I used to like Some Girls myself. I’ve never been a real big fan of The Rolling Stones, but I did like Tatoo You an awful lot when it came out. I still like "Waiting For a Friend" but I no longer own a TT and LPs, and the CD I have just doesn’t make it sound as good as I remember it sounding.

I will attempt to answer the initial question. Artists, especially extremely talented writers like Maynard are listening from an advantage most of us can only dream of. He is hearing structure, timing, syncopation and other musical traits most of us just hear as harmony or beat. I grew up in a family of talented musicians and know firsthand what odd musical tastes some have. Sometimes I think they don't hear what I hear, but I can appreciate it anyways.

I agree with OP. Especially his Stones albums. I would add For the Roses to JM’s best other than Blue. @jmalen123 ​​​​​ makes sense to me. I know many professional musicians. Some have just a boom box for CDs. A few have good systems. But most, like book writers, take away from a work what they feel they can be inspired by or use. It’s not about production to them, or the tunes, or the execution, when it comes to recorded music. It’s about risk sometimes and pulling it off. I think a lot of this acclaim for those 2 records goes back to the initial deep think pieces when they came out. They were risky. Blue to many reviewers touched on a more mature, relationship based theme, with other musicians no less, as opposed to toe-tapping, something the press loved. Exile was followed in the press as it was being made and there was a lot of talk about emulating American roots sounds and so on. Something the Dead and Burritos and others were trying to do but this was The Stones. Both records take risks in not being immediately accessible. They have moods instead.

Exile has some great songs on it but it also has a lot of mediocre songs too.  I've always felt it was over rate.  It has twice the number of songs as Sticky Fingers but only an equal number of great songs.