The previously mentioned L.A.Times interview keeps the streak alive of albums since the 80's being called the strongest album since Tattoo You.This would include every album since at least Talk Is Cheap.While it is possible that every album since Undercover has been better than the one before it but, not as good as Tattoo You,this seems very hard to believe.How do these people expect to have any credibility when they give the same review to every new Stones or Stones related release then forget about them two years later?They like to talk about the Stones getting old but,to me,their reviews are getting old - not to mention the old jokes are getting old.

exactly. I haven't posted my reaction to the album as a whole yet (having heard all but one of the songs in entirety) - but I guarantee you it won't be anything like "it's the best album, since...." - that's just a cop out from doing an actual review. what are the strengths, weaknesses, etc. that's what folks want to hear and discuss....among other things none of us would ever be able to agree that some of their albums since TY aren't better than TY - so where does that leave you?

OK, here goes.......!

Undercover is better than TY
DW is better than TY
SW is better than TY
BTB is better than TY

They are all genuine new albums of original work, (with exception of some of Undercover).

agreed!!---undercover is one of the best efforts since exile...very underrated IMHO...this new lp has better buzz than anything in a long time---lets wait and see if it is a classic....all signs point to yes!?....

STONES JAM!! MICKEYS RULES!!! (burp) NADER IN 2016!!!!! GO GIANTS!!

IMHO they havent made a "great" album since Some Girls. The Stones are a live show now...new music, for the most part, is just not what it was...not important like it used to be.

Theif in the night , we here at copsnrobbers agree with your post.. and don't " give much creedence to reviews about the stones smears slander inuindos etc etc they probably think "Their the neccesary talent behind every RNR band"thank you copsnrobbers

I don't believe that just because these new albums aren't on par with Exile On Main Street or Some Girls that they are not great.They compare very favorably to what other albums were/are being released in the same time periods.I'd much rather listen to Undercover for example,than 90% of the other music from the eighties & I'd much rather listen to Too Tight than to Lies.

Me too!

And I'd rather listen to Terrifying rather than Neighbours.
And i'd far rather listen to Juiced than (even) Slave.

etc. etc.

They moved on. Entered new territory etc.

(Hope new album is not too retro.)

I'd say:

SW, VL, BtB is better than TY.
DW and Undercover blows, but Undercover is better than DW, which is their worst record.

JumpingKentFlash

Yes to what the Thief says. Tired very tired of the same reviews for years. I find myself already not reading any of the new reveiws of ABB. because the all say exactly the same thing. They use the same quotes too. But this lame line "Best album since TY or Exile" or "The Stones Age..." or "Stones gather no Moss"... Have had enuff!
This new album has a bubbling momentum waiting to explode. First time I can recall that the Stones themsleves have not hyped it too much. Tour and album are RELATIVELY underhyped, but in response they got the best unsolicited buzz going since...well a long time..Every album is great because it is a new body of work from my fave band. Although I don't play SW too often it is a masterpiece of music because it has Jagger vocalizing and Keith ripping. Undercover hppens to also be one of my favorites. real overlooked. Even Dirty Work gets more press and attention simply because it is considered to be so bad and controversial.

TY is kind of great only because it has 100% gems SMU and "Waiting on a friend" on it. I also like "Hang Fire" and "Worried about you", but I can easily live with out other tunes. Plus TY is a compilation album quickly made for the upcoming tour.
So the last GREAT album for me is SG, which I love as much as Sticky Fingers my all time favorite. As far as I can judge from what I've heard for the moment ABB is a great album stronger than anything since SG.

Four Stone Walls and lunar, how can you say Undercover and Dirty Work are better than Tattoo You?? They are the two worst stones albums ever. Undercover is Mick Jagger wannabe Michael Jackson, and some rock'n'roll songs nothing more than OK. I mean how do She Was Hot and It must Be Hell sounds to Start Me Up and Slave? By The Way, Keith stole the soul survivor riff for it must be hell. Dirty Work is IMHO an embarrising moment.

Does it really matter. I have the feeling in a time of nearly non existing rockbands except DJ Music the critics just are fancying everything best since what ever time. From what I hear so far from the album I would say it's a kind of greatest blues and tunes from 5 decades. It covers every decade somehow the songs made albums. Don't get me weong it's NOT a greatist hits ablum. but it captures the sounds from Sticky Fingers to Tattoo you on to Steel Wheels. And it seems that it is NOT from old, and revised and superrevised rehearsals it is a new album with old vibes and that's what I like.

The Rolling Stones are onboard nearly 45 years now. They have done many tracks, many albums. With every track and every new album they fill new fans with enthusiasm. And they disappointed some other fans and sometimes the horrified some other peoples.

That's The Rolling Stones: IORR, But I Like It!

A Bigger Bang sounds "a little different", too.

It's a great album!






Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-19 12:09 by HighwireC.

Agree to HighwireC. Absolutely correct.

JumpingKentFlash

Don't really think the 80's material after ER & TY is worth listening to... It's confused music, they don't really know where they are going. IMO SW 1989 is a step in theright direction, more clean rock. There are though some songs worth listening to under this period, like "She Was Hot", "Mixed Emotions" among others.

ps. IMO TY is the best Stones album ever!

IMO, Tattoo You is one of the all time best stones records. Undercover was the last great stones-album. Of the "new" albums, Voodoo Lounge is best. Bridges To Babylon is the weakest and most unfinished stones record of all time (including Dirty Work, which I think gets slagged too much on this board).

Dandelion while I always respect you I can not agree at all here.
Of the new period (post SW) Imo the album get progressively better. Simple as that. SW is to me the alltime worst Stonesalbum with some of the most embarrassing cuts ever (Blinded by Love, Can't be seen, Rock and a Hard Place) then Voodoo is a product of Don Was trying too hard and getting his way, releasing every outtake that sound s"pysychedleic" to him, getting it all right on Stripped" and then culimuntaing in Babylon. The songs on B2B are fabulous. That was some of the strongest songwriting in a long time. So much better than VL.
TY does have some stellar cuts, especially on Side 2 but also has some of my least fave (Neighbors, Hang Fire). UC was a real Stoner album. Real sessions, new songs, etc. One of the few 80's albums that stahnds on it's own. It was the first album AFTER that gigantic outporing from the Paris session of the late 70's. They got SG, ER and TY out of that one.
What can you say baout DW though? I think alot of people like it only because someone has got to like it, right? Someone' sgot to go against the grain. because honestly the songs just are not strong. And production suffers so much from the internal strife. Fight, Hold Back, Back to Zero...Nobody can in good faith say that this is some good solid Stoneswork.

I Can. All songs are strong. Who cares about production. They rock.

(Sixties production pre J Miller was bad too).

Worst,

Yes, MBH is a terrible track.

I really don't like SMU much. Just a one riff song. I like rest of Undercover - esp SWH. Guitars, guitars.

Waiting on a Friend is a Gem. Ofcourse, Slave, HF and Black Limousine are fun. Even like Neighbours. But many tracks on side two are dispensible - and as previously stated, the feeling of an album pasted together with old re-vamped out-takes. Good ones though.

I didn't really mean production as in the technical term 'production'. What we mornally refer to as 'production'. I totally agree with you: who cares about p. whent he songs are good? I love the early albums, especially the firsat oine and Buttons. Jagger always syas that in his opinion Buttons is the worst produced album.
In the context of DW I meant p. as the way they went about pushing the songs out; birthing them.Keith was so hellbent on showing jagger up that he put together his ersatz Glimmer twins with Ronnie. While I agree with his drive it just didn't work. A Stonesalbum need a Jagger 100%, as well as a keith and a Charlie. And we also know that Charlie was not around either. In retrospect I still belive Keith did the right thing. I guess he just had to force it. Becuase otherwise there wouldn't have been an albu at ll. We already did not get a tour.

ChelseaDrugstore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What can you say baout DW though? I think alot of
> people like it only because someone has got to
> like it, right? Someone' sgot to go against the
> grain. because honestly the songs just are not
> strong. And production suffers so much from the
> internal strife. Fight, Hold Back, Back to
> Zero...Nobody can in good faith say that this is
> some good solid Stoneswork.


I can say "very good album". One must disregard BTZ and WU, which to my ears sound like Undercover rejects. Everything else is prime Stones-raw, mean, lean, funky, and good songwriting. Great Keith riffs abound (and his reggae and ballad tunes shine), Jagger is practically spitting out the lyrics, and sounds like he actually means what he is saying (generally a rare occurence since Exile). IMO (offered in good faith) the turmoil between MJ-KR actually gives Mick something to sing about:

"Living high, sitting in the sun
Sit on your ass till your work is done
You lazy mother, your hands are clean
You pull the strings and you got the clout
There's something filthy living in your mouth
Pushing your buttons you get away for free

You let somebody do the dirty work
Find some loser, find some jerk
Find some dumb ass do it all for free"

The guitar playing is excellent. Ronnie sounds wholly involved and he and Keith give one of the best examples of "weaving". Charlie may have been a bit strung out, but I can't hear any problems with his performance. In fact he gives the song DW a great kick, replete with some nifty snare flourishes.

DW (again, my HO) is as good as anything they've done since 1981, and is at least as good as TY, whose second side routinely puts me to sleep.

Karl

It has almost become a rarity around here that someone disagrees with you without taking it to the floor. I saw "CD wrote...etc" and I go "Uh oh, it's on". So it's always good when there's healthy opposition. To me the bad of DW is just so bad that it corupts the good. (SW on the other hand is so bad that the good has no chance of redeeming the schmutz LOL). You qute the tune Dirty Work. That is such a fine little rocker. I have always thought that it has almost dissappeared from our radar. Certainly from the Stones' radar. It would becool to play live. I bet they never even think of that one. If you forget about how it sort of falls apart towards the end that is one tight number.
Don't understand how Side 2 of TY can put one asleep. It's so much better than Side 1

Totally agree KSIE - except I think BTZ and WU are fresh and innovative. Much Jagger in them, I think. I think the DW track lyrics are Keith's. Love WU bass-line, and the Guitar.

Chelsea,

I particularly like DW BECAUSE there's less Jagger interference. It was mainly Richards/Wood conceived. I like Richards in control and Jagger then adding his cents. Exile was the last Stones album on which Richards had had the primary musical input. Jagger is quite a good songwriter but in spite of lots of good riff ideas on his solo albums, the songs always lose the direct, honest etc (R&R)approach that Richards instills. Richards' solo albums are not so strong songwise but they really are the genuine article. So is DW. More than Undercover and more than TY.

IMO! (And In My R&R Heart!).

Well, of course even the worst Stones albums are listenable. And even the best ones generally have a stinker or two. That's why our boys are the best!

Chelsea: we're definitely in agreement about Steel Wheels. And..I was just stating my case for DW. Certainly wasn't an attack on your opinions.

btw: I never have liked the pacing of TY. Don't like the fast side/slow side thing.

Karl

I love reading the variety of opinions on Stones albums. I always pick up a different perspective from someone that makes my go back and appreciate an album like DW that I quickly dismissed as crap. I have grown to really appreciate at least half of it. There is some great material on there, but certainly not on par with their best.

I am reminded of "Black & Blue". I was so disappointed upon listening to that the first time. Then I read the often quoted review of that album that called it "the first Stones album that didn't matter" and went on to basically say that they were making music that THEY enjoyed, instead of trying to make another "Stones" album. (I forget which critic now, 47 years has taken it's toll!)

After reading that I developed a new appreciation for each song on that album and, to this day, always giving that one a spin!

A different perspective can change a lot!

Ross

Ross Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love reading the variety of opinions on Stones
> albums. I always pick up a different perspective
> from someone that makes my go back >



Ross: Same here! I always hated Undercover, but after hearing many people praise it here, I pulled it out and gave it another try. I still don't care much for it, but was impressed with a couple of the tunes I had kind of forgotten. Maybe some of the difference is just time. My tastes change a bit as the years go by.

I think that was Lester Bangs with the BNB quote.

Karl

>I think that was Lester Bangs with the BNB quote.

>Karl

Yes! Creem Magazine I beleive!

Thanks for jogging the old memory!

Ross

Karl, I was the same way. I still think Undercover is my least favorite Stones album but I did play a few more times a few months back when there was a lengthy thread here about it.

About the original idea of this post. I find the media to always be really lame when it comes to writing about the Stones. Yeah the "old" jokes were all over the place with the Steel Wheels tour. "Steel Wheelchairs" and all that. But it seems like since then the media has used the same jokes and lines and even good concert reviews seem to still carry out the same headlines. "Fans Get Satisfaction" or Stones Rolling Into Town Again." I am a writer and have written plenty of stuff about the Stones for Charlotte at Stones Planet and I realize it can be tough to find new words to describe a song live or the atmosphere. But there are ways to do it and I just think journalists are lazy or don't care much about what they are writing.

My favorite "Stones are old" joke pretty much sums it up...

"The Stones are so old now that all of the jokes about them being old are OLD!"

Nobody ever gave John Lee Hooker any shit about being old!

Ross

OK, Im sorry but they havent made a great album since Tatoo you which was a great album, a whole album with an album feel and a very typical yet new Stones feel to it. Everything since is a project to keep them rolling on tabloids, stages and in life. They have to go on tour but they have to put out albums to do that. Keith said himself on thei website that they had to make an album. The well is dry.