A Bigger Bang must be for me the biggest let-down in the history of Rolling Stones studio recordings! (With Dirty Works, we expected problems, and not a renaissance!)
Given, it’s not overproduced... Hell, I would say it is UNDERproduced... But there are not much production values anyway... OK, Charlie Watts is steady and solid, and Mick sings great. But where is the inspiration? This is Stones-by-numbers, and a steady mid-tempo 4/4 almost all the way throught the 65 minute set is a lot for me (to say nothing of poor Charlie’s mind, probably wandering all the while in jazzland...).
Even friggin’ Bridges to Babylon has more variety and surprises!! Hell, you have Saint of Me, the great fire-setting, true RnR opening number (record and live show) Flip the Switch, and, at the very least, it is about half a Keith Richards solo LP’s worth! While his Infamy, here one of the potently compelling songs, is undevelopped. ...As several other pieces of the set that don’t even have a bridge. (And not because they are based on interesting vamps that elicit improvisations of any sort either... Hence my post title.) I hate the lame, diatonic chorus of Sweet NeoCon... Back of My Hand, yes, is as hot as blues can be... But what does it bring to the genre? It has zero novelty in it! With no specific, original item added to an otherwise normal 12-bar blues (not standard changes, but still). Here they should have done what they have always do: directly pay tribute to one of their heroes by doing a genuine cover (then pay the latters’ estate!)...
She Saw Me Coming at least is somewhat interesting harmonically (they TRIED something DIFFERENT as chords, like they used to).
And how about those corny fillers (the ones with the falsettos)... And how about those brutal, awkward fade-outs... That incredibly loud, overcompressed signal (CD version)...
No, I do not find it ALL bad... Just more and more predictable and undifferentiated... Where are the friends they used to be surrounded with, that were healthy, normal influences for a musical group to have around? ...OK, NEW friends then!! The young guys Robert Plant is presently surrounded by - I saw them in concert two weeks ago - are BURNING with creativity on stage!...
I am pretty sure the actual impact this album manages to have within the fandom will be a thing of the past as soon as the tour ends, and that in a year from now, it will rank very, very low in the all-time favourites list. Because it’s «instant Stones» with no depth and nothing new to say («And the rain fell down, then we made sweet love...» Gimme a break, Mick!!... You used to be such a great song lyricist!), besides the Bush administration thing (but check out the music on which this is set to...).
Just my opinion.

To say this
"A Bigger Bang must be for me the biggest let-down in the history of Rolling Stones studio recordings!"

Then this...

"Back of My Hand, yes, is as hot as blues can be... But what does it bring to the genre? It has zero novelty in it!" and "No, I do not find it ALL bad..."

Make up your mind mate.

I disagree, I think its the best album the Stones have put out in years and better than some albums in the 70s or at least better than IORR.

Yaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn!!!
Why bother entering this site? Miserable bunch of bleaters......
'Ron Wood out after A Bigger Bang tour? .... read the reviews... he's doing great!!!!
Dronning on and on about the war horses! Do the general public really want Indian Summer over JJF????
'Stones a Vegas act'... who aint nowadays??? On and on and on........

The only fun is the maddness of the hair implants........

ABB rocks, stones live rocks...... but it aint 1972!

"A bigger bang" is nice at best. It is a good Mick Jagger album. But it is no Rolling Stones album since Keith seems no more really interested in the group while Ronnie ducks away drinking. It seems Keith stopped songwriting in the mid-1990s almost completely (let aside his so called "ballads" which are mere moanings of a drunken wreck - they are even titled so appropriate: "Losing my touch", "This place is empty", "Infamy"). The true engine of the Stones nowadays is Mick Jagger.

How can a dedicated musician and great songwriter like Keith endure for 8 years without even releasing a solo album or anything, let alone a Stones album? Ok he was on tour. As far as one can judge he lost his will to create almost completely.

F.U.C. the Captain,
Please answer my reply. How do you know Keith was not involved much in this album. Just because he didn't sing a song doesn't mean he had nothing to do with writing it....

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> F.U.C. the Captain,
> Please answer my reply. How do you know Keith was
> not involved much in this album. Just because he
> didn't sing a song doesn't mean he had nothing to
> do with writing it....

I had just answered that same question in the "Stop the setlist moaning" thread quoting the Keith interview from "Guitar World" (and there are other interviews of course). He brought in mere THREE songs (out of 16)! At least one of them ("Rough justice") is for me the best on the whole album... but you can guess which two other songs he wrote...

Besides everyone can HEAR it there is not much Keith on that album. Yes, sometimes he plays the guitar, that's ok. But Mick plays guitar, bass, drums and sings, he's wheelin' and dealin'

Don't ask me about Ronnie's contribution. I think "Look what the cat dragged in" could well be a song about him and his strange behaviour.

hey all of you
Let's be glad that there is a new stones album after all these years, and thank god mick, keith and charlie are still rocking the world in 2005!!!
I think they recorded one of the best albums in years!!

be thankfull!!!

enjoy the tour!!!

"all the rum i want to drink it, and all the whisky too!"

Exactly, F.U.C. This is how I feel about it. Keith sounds absent, creatively. And if KR is absent, then this cannot be a RS creation. That's just a feeling of course.

J-J Flash:
>Make up your mind mate.<

What do you mean? That it's supposed to be all black or all white? My thoughts were written randomly as they came. (Not anything new around here.)

What are you on? Keith only plays a minor part? You must have a different CD! The whole band play outta there skins.....

Mick also said he brought only a couple of songs to the sessions with Keith, so where does that mean the others came from? I heard them both say they wrote more than a handful together.

Odd-beat,
to say sonething is the worst than say its not that bad just sounds two completely different opinions. If its the worst thing how can it be not that bad. Then to say a blues as hot as can be than say negative things right after just sounds.. nevermind its all a matter of opinion.

Maybe it's the 6th or 7th best album they ver did IMO.The only ones it's not better than is the four "Big Ones" and OOOH and maybe Black and Blue.

JumpingKentFlash

J-J Flash, I know it's a bit long, but read my post again, on both of these accounts. My English ain't that bad!

I have now listened to ABB now many times to the point where I know which song is next and the words to lots of the songs. The riffs to the songs I like are firmly in place within my memory. I don't see what fans want from this band that are so heavily critical of the new album? What would you have them play for instance? It is a nice Stones record from the studio. There are some very good songs in there that will sound strong for many years. There is a great guitar sound, some catchy riffs, a few decent ballads and a nice couple of blues, one Delta and one with some soul. I just don't know what you dissident fans want from this band at this point in time? Please explain.

filstan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I just don't know what you dissident fans want
> from this band at this point in time? Please
> explain.



Not sure if I'm one of the "dissidents." But, I'll challenge the question itself - I am not asking for ANYTHING from the band regarding studio work. They have provided me with a lifetime of thrills on their albums. I'm more than happy with what I have. That doesn't mean I'm not inclined to comment if and when they do deliver something new, as in ABB. And I have done so.

Fair enough. Everyone has the right to an opinion, and if it is supported that's fine. I guess I need to be more tolerant with contrary opinions I find difficult to justify concerning the Stones. Trust me, I don't think these guys are above criticism. I just prefer to focus on what I see as some positive things going on with them right now.

That's cool - there are positives, for sure. But, the negatives are definitely in abundance too and it just amazes me sometimes that the "cheerleaders" out there apparently think it's "taboo" to bring them up.

>The true engine of the Stones nowadays is Mick Jagger.<
He is the driver since Exile but you find on every Stones-record some Keiths

i dont care who brought what songs to the bigger bang session...all i know is that the songs are excellent...i could over-analyze any album to death and not like it...thinking too much can ruin listening enjoyment...a bigger bang has excellent songs...every one of them stands on its own...and in typical stones fashion gets better and better upon repeated listenings...ill defend a bigger bang till the end...its a GREAT cd!!!...it stands on its own merits...its quite an achievement for a band into their 60s...best to all the stones fans..and for all the bigger bang fans....CRANK & ENJOY!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-21 20:31 by Leonard Keringer.

Its says these exact lines in Rolling Stone.

"Jagger and Richards wrote and refined many of the songs literally side by side"

I just want to know where people read that Mick wrote all but three songs. It doesn't mean anything if Keith says he brought a few songs with him when he went to write this album with Mick.

He brought in three songs but,this does not mean Jagger brought in 13.

That's cool filstan. You are entitled to every bit of that, and if the fans of aBB get something I don't, then I guess it's just too bad for me.
I dont't ask for anything, just >expect< a bit of musical and lyrical mystery and adventure form the artists, because creating is what their job is.
Globally, aBB just don't move me, and I feel a little cheated and, like I said, let down, because there was a lot of hype around this release, and I just don't see how it can live up to it in the long run, esp. against that major catalogue of theirs.

I know the feeling Odd-beat but when was the last time you felt moved by the Stones?
I don't think the album is as good as has been thought of by some of the critics and fans but it's nowhere near as bad as i thought it may have been. It's not great or even particuarly good but it's not embarrassing like the songs on Forty Flicks.
I think there's been an overreaction because of the lengthy period since Bridges To Babylon and it does echo if only weakly the Stones best work.

try this on for size critics: maybe you're not moved because you're gettin old...look inside yourself for once...maybe the exitement you once felt is gone because you're feelin old?....possible?...come on, you can admit it...best wishes

Combinations of harmonies, melodie-fragments, notes
& chords tends to be more and more few along the way.

Compare the Stones to any 60+ gurs: The´re superior.
COmpare to the bands in 40 years-area: Same, superior to those to.
Younger dudes. Superior to them.

Whats the problem?

The only which aBB/ABB can be measured towards is their own early production.

A BIGGER BANG IS A BRILLIANT CD IF THE FANS DONT ALWAYS COMPARE THE NEW CD WITH
PAST WORK WHEN LISTENING,FANS HAVE ALWAYS COMPLAIN ABOUT THE NEW MUSIC BY THE
STONES,IF THIS CD WAS DONE BY UPCOMIN BAND IT WOULD BE A CLASSIC,WHEN I LISTEN
TO STONES NEW CD OR SOLO I WANT TO HEAR THE NEW MUSIC AND JUDGE IT IF ITS
GOOD OR NOT,TO ME A BIGGER BANG IS V.GOOD STONES MUSIC IN 2005 AND I LOVE THEIR
PAST MUSIC TOO,I WOULD NOT GET REID OF ANY STONES CD AS THEIR ALWAYS GOOD SONGS,STONES ARE A WAY OF LIFE SINCE 1968 FOR ME AND IAM PLEASED THEY ARE STILL
ROCKIN,CANT WAIT FOR THE NEXT NEW CD,ROCK ON STONES AND FORGET YOUR CRITICS
THEY ARE LOOKIN TOO DEEP INTO YOUR MUSIC.

Ah, so it was Ronnie and Charlie.

not forgetting Bill

This album will fade away almost completely when this tour ends. B2B and VL are far better, more inspired works. B2B is far more concise and even throughout and VL just plain rocks harder with loud guitars. Someone else mentioned it, and I'll echo, "Keith is barely there in spirit on this record." Even Charlie sounds bored on alot of tracks.

They should regroup quickly after the tour and do another one.

Hi Odd beat, I really dug what you said in your original post. Let me first say that I do not agree at all with your assessment re.ABB. I love this album. Am totally blown away by the Stones (see Jagger) still having this one left in them.
But I really like the way you make your point. I like what you say about R.Plant's crew. About surrounding yourself with younger, tougher people who still have much to prove. And who are bursting with creativity. and who ALSO are not afraid to be critical. This I think is the biggest fault of the Stones and especially Keith. No matter what Keith might say: he surrounds himself with yes sayers. "Keith just woke up and breathed. Oh Lord, genius at wotk! Genius at work! Coming through please.."
There are people out there who are no spring cxhickens, who make a point to keep company that keeps them on edge, Like Lucinda wIlliams e.g. Or as you say Plant, Lou Reed at times, Ry Cooder, Neil Young for X sake. And look at their releases!
It took a gigantic effort by the Stones to release something they should have done years ago.
in a way it's been said here before but the best stuff from the Stonescamp nowadays is coming from the solo albums. because at least they still feel they have a bit to prove. Even if it is to each other. Keith might just want to out-stone Jagger etc