Quote
TooTough
Dito.

But the same status for me has A Bigger Bang.

Both albums knocked me off my feet (in a positive way).

Same for me, love both.

Is always funny how some songs or albums are bashed but as soon as someone post something positive about them so many people comes out to delcare their love. Funny.

To me Bridges is the best of the 4 "late" albums.
Lot of good stuff on it and I still like to listen to that album.

Thief in the night - great tune...two chords...hardly any melody...and Keith goin´"baby, baby"...for five minutes...Yeah, a HIT!!!!!!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Glam Descendant

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Some of the songs weren't nearly as good on record as they were live (OOC, FTS, MAWGJ).

You think "Might As Well Get Juiced" was better in it's sole live performance than on record? Interesting.

It blew the album version away! The NYC-performance was bluesy, raunchy and sexy. The B2B-version is interesting at best, imo.

juiced is easily the standout cut on the album for me - could have been an exile cut (minus the modern touches). loved the one live outing of it, too.

Jagger surprised me in his comments about "Thief"; in a not-so-good way. It'sa groove, it flows and it's what Keith does well, but Jagger said it was boring, and that nothing really happens.
Jagger loves his bridges, even if he has to force them into the song; it has become such a part of his tunes; almost to the point of parody.
Still, I didn't expect him to not recognize a good tune in someone else.

Mick said Thief was waffly, just like the demo.

It doesn't seem 'waffly' to me.

The spirit of Exile lives on in those last two Keith cuts, and Mick has never thought much of Exile -- except as a commercial vehicle.

Quote
JHM
The spirit of Exile lives on in those last two Keith cuts, and Mick has never thought much of Exile -- except as a commercial vehicle.

what's the connection of those two cuts to the spirit of Exile?

Quote
cc

Quote
JHM
The spirit of Exile lives on in those last two Keith cuts, and Mick has never thought much of Exile -- except as a commercial vehicle.

what's the connection of those two cuts to the spirit of Exile?

and what are you talking about Mick has never thought much of Exile - who has? Have you? Did you write all the lirics and half or more of tunes on this album, did you sing the songs?
I can't stand this stupidity

I love BTB. Its my fav since Tatoo you, and I loved the Bridges Tour. Much better than VL by far IMHO! Great songs on BTB. I love Gunface. The groove of it anyway. The Keith songs are terrific, and I can listen to the whole album cover to cover without a problem.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
cc

Quote
JHM
The spirit of Exile lives on in those last two Keith cuts, and Mick has never thought much of Exile -- except as a commercial vehicle.

what's the connection of those two cuts to the spirit of Exile?

and what are you talking about Mick has never thought much of Exile - who has? Have you? Did you write all the lirics and half or more of tunes on this album, did you sing the songs?
I can't stand this stupidity

Proudmary, are maybe misunderstanding what JHM is saying? I did not write it, but it seems to me JHM is only saying that Jagger has never spoken very highly of the final album. Which is true. he says he is not fond of the mix; and never saw any hits on it at first; and does not have many fun memories of Nellcote.
I THINK that is what JHM is saying, not that Jagger did not put any thought into it.

Out of the Trifecta of crap post-Wyman Stones albums, this is the worst. Voodoo Lounge is about half a good album, ABB at least has 'Rough Justice'. Even the experiments ASMB and Gunface go wrong on BTB. Out of Control was a good live number on the No Security Tour. I saw them attempt ASMB on the BTB tour. Daryll Jones, the world's greatest jazz bass player couldn't handle it and fumbled all over the beginning.

Goddamn. That's almost shocking to read it that way: Trifecta of crap post-Wyman Stones albums.

THREE albums since 1989! AUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's just......WRONG.

Quote
rollmops
I love BTB too. I still remember the very first time I listened to "Out of Control". As the song unfolded, I couldn't believe how good it was. One of those songs that was "love at first sight" and I still love it to this day.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Never liked Out of Control, until I heard it live. They REALLY do an excellent job on it live....especially mick.

Out of Control is way better live. Actually, Ronnie shines on the great trippy wah wah solo he does. It is a jam!!!
Great album, my favorite of the post Wyman efforts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-14 08:22 by whitem8.

Really like this one. Out of Control is a real gem imo. Love Saint Of Me, Anybody Seen Baby, Always Suffering. Just could never get into Juiced at all or How Can I stop not much either. Rest of the tracks solid to very good for me. Will we ever here the Keith's revenge Blues mix of Juiced someday? Hopefully will surface from the vaults sooner than later. But I agree with most here best since 81 but like VL & ABB real lot too! MEZ

Okay, let's say something of it. To me it is the best of the post-1989 era albums. But that fact doesn't make it a masterpiece. Far from that.

I really liked the BLACK&BLUE comparison of the original post... For me the resemblance is based on the fact that in both albums there are some excellent songs, and over-all the quality of the songs is quite high (despite some stinkers) but that the wholeness just doesn't come up right. Both albums are like collections of songs, but not really coherent albums that have a 'point'. That's maybe the biggest problem they have. I try to explain my point by first talking about the song material, and then about the 'cohesiviness' of the album.

First of all, there are probably some best quality individual songs Mick and Keith have brought to any Stones album since UNDERCOVER: "Saint of Me", "Out of Control", "How Can I Stop". Even the single song "Anybody Seen My Baby?" has a nice melodic hook in it, and it is nice dance song. Some cuts actually enlarge the Stones repertuare: "Flip The Switch" is a speed-up Eddic Cochran rocker that is bit too fast and breathy for them (and for me) but that's alright. "You Don't Have to Mean It" has a pure Caribbean atmospshere not any Stones song has been able to capture before it (not much tried before either). It is long, matured way from "Luxory" and "Cherry Oh Baby" to get there. Also Keith's demo-like, moody "Thief In The Night" is a daring try to do something different.

Then - secondly - there is the 'Stones-by-numbers' section. It has two sudivisions. All the rockers are type of songs Mick and Keith can make a dozen half-sleep within a minute: "Low Down", "Gunface", "Too Tight" - a kind of stuff VOODOO LOUNGE has more than enough and A BIGGER BANG simply full of. They are equivalent to "Hand of Fate" or "Crazy Mama" of BLACK&BLUE but without the inspiration and depthness of the latter (and even those have 'by-numbers' feeling in them already...). The ballad section is also as 'by-numbers' as it can be. "Already All over Me" and "Always Suffering" are so formulaic - starting from their titles - that their choruses are almost impossible to distinguish from each other. It makes one think if Jagger's muse has left the building for good. God, just think of "Melody Motel" or "Fool To Cry"... No don't!

Thirdly, there is one real stinker - "Might As Well Get Juiced". Probably the worst thing they ever done - at least seriously challenging "Back to Zero". It is the equilavent to "Cherry Oh Baby" that almost ruins BLACK&BLUE (because having only 8 songs, each weights a lot). Jagger's worst vocals ever - miming a cow? - with the most idiotic production ideas. And all based on innocent basic (no brainer) three-chord blues-formula that now sounds like raped. The blues "modernized"? My ass. Were they totally out of their minds to release this crap?

Okay, that's the song material. Now the point how they work together.

I agree with some posters here that most of the songs are - typical to post-89 albums - half-baked, and therefore some of them might even sound better in live when they are worked 'further' (especially "Out of Control" and "Flip the Switch") . Then there are "odd" songs in wrong places. I'm with the poster who says "Thief In The Night" has a EXILE spirit but the problem with is that it needs a context that has EXILE spirit all over it. You take "Just Wanna See His Face" out of EXILE and put to SOME GIRLS and it wouldn't work. The same is with "Thief" - it sounds odd in that context.

But I think the very idea that kills the possibility of BRIDGES TO BABYLON to sound a coherent ROLLING STONES album is the decision over Keith's solo numbers. To include three Keith Richards solo songs to 13-song-album is way too much. The point is that Mick Jagger's voice is a distinguished part of The Rolling Stones sound, and to have every fourth song without it, is a torso Rolling Stones music. If Keith wants to sing so much, I prefer him to do a solo album. To me it sounds like this Mick/Keith ego war proceeds sometimes with awful results, and I think this is one of those (I blame Keith here). When I first time listened the album and finding out it has not one but two slow Keith numbers to finish it, I thought "Jesus Christ, what a hell this means? Does Keith really think that he is a equal vocalist to Jagger nowadays or what is going on?". The point is not the quality of the songs (they are good like I've said) but I think it simply kills the cohereness of a Rolling Stones album. I've read about the reasons for their 'double-existence' but it doesn't change the result to sound as a very bad idea to dynamics of the album.

I need to admit that it took me years to really listen the album again and to see its worth above, say, VOODOO LOUNGE, and I think the reason simply was its uncohesiviness (and having a stinker like "Juiced", and not very convincing opener). It sounded like an album no really 'thought through' and like based on too many stupid compromise solutions. Those facts seemed to ruin the listening experince for me, and the possibility to appreciate the better sides of it.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-14 13:00 by Doxa.

The good thing about "Bridges" is that even though songwriting-wise there is much by-numbers-painting on it (as is the case for all the post-Dirty-Work stuff), all the songs are carefully arranged and tastefully delivered so it is a smooth listen from beginning to end.

I do not get all the MAWGJ bashing (how can anyone dislike this little blues gem and praise a mediocre demo tune like "Back of My Hand" at the same time?), and I do not get the raving about OOC (weak attempt at "Papa was A Rolling Stone", for my taste at least).

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
proudmary

Quote
cc

Quote
JHM
The spirit of Exile lives on in those last two Keith cuts, and Mick has never thought much of Exile -- except as a commercial vehicle.

what's the connection of those two cuts to the spirit of Exile?

and what are you talking about Mick has never thought much of Exile - who has? Have you? Did you write all the lirics and half or more of tunes on this album, did you sing the songs?
I can't stand this stupidity

Proudmary, are maybe misunderstanding what JHM is saying? I did not write it, but it seems to me JHM is only saying that Jagger has never spoken very highly of the final album. Which is true. he says he is not fond of the mix; and never saw any hits on it at first; and does not have many fun memories of Nellcote.
I THINK that is what JHM is saying, not that Jagger did not put any thought into it.

I don't think there is any misunderstanding. I see what you and JHM mean and I don't agree with you. It is an old myth which, I hoped, has disappeared after re-issue of Exile last year

Extract from one of Jagger's interview but you can google Exile reissue and there are many of them

Q: You’ve never been particularly enthusiastic about “Exile” when you’ve been asked about it in subsequent interviews. Why is that?

A: I was being slightly annoying because people would always say, “Isn’t that your favorite?” And I would be a bit rebellious, just to annoy people who kept asking me if it was the best Stones record. I don’t have favorite records. I’m more familiar with songs when you put them on a set list for a show. It’s not a period, it’s just a song. And since you don’t play the whole record in a concert, you don’t really hear it as a record. You pick your favorites and find out what works live. For that reason, I don’t have a favorite Stones record.

Q: But “Exile” is now routinely cited as the best Stones record.

A: And it is a great record. What’s interesting about it is that it has so many sides to it, so many different musical styles, very bluesy, and it has soul, gospel, and the other quirky little bits that perhaps you wouldn’t have put on a record with only 12 songs. You would’ve thrown out stuff maybe like “Just Wanna See his Face,” but on a more sprawling record like this you could afford to let those things go. Which perhaps explain why it wasn’t immediately reviewed as stunningly wonderful. But after a while people get to appreciate the breadth of it.

Q: The record didn’t get great reviews at first

A: Oh, yeah. You know what reviewers do, they play the first three songs and then review the record.

Q: Thanks, man.

A: [Laughs] But you know what I mean. You can’t take in 18 tracks in a day. It’s hard. So you get through those four sides, it could take a while to really get the full picture. It’s a lot of stuff to get through. It took a while for the record to be appreciated for what it was.

Might as well get juiced as a blues is a catastrophe, but the rhythm on the bass swings like hell... I give it three smokers... (I felt I had to stand up for Juiced after reading Doxas latest reveue over Bab)

2 1 2 0

Quote
Doxa
Okay, let's say something of it. To me it is the best of the post-1989 era albums. But that fact doesn't make it a masterpiece. Far from that.

I really liked the BLACK&BLUE comparison of the original post... For me the resemblance is based on the fact that in both albums there are some excellent songs, and over-all the quality of the songs is quite high (dispite some stinkers) but that the wholeness just doesn't come up right. Both albums are like collections of songs, but not really coherent albums that have a 'point'. That's maybe the biggest problem they have. I try to explain my point by first talking about the song material, and then about the 'cohesiviness' of the album.

Firs of all, there are probably some best quality individual songs Mick and Keith have brought to any Stones album since UNDERCOVER: "Saint of Me", "Out of Control", "How Can I Stop". Even the single song "Anybody Seen My Baby?" has a nice melodic hook in it, and it is nice dance song. Some cuts actually enlarge the Stones repertuare: "Flip The Switch" is a speed-up Eddic Cochran rocker that is bit too fast and breathy for them (and for me) but that's alright. "You Don't Have to Mean It" has a pure Caribbean atmospshere not any Stones song has been able to capture before it (not much tried before either). It is long, matured way from "Luxory" and "Cherry Oh Baby" to get there. Also Keith's demo-like, moody "Thief In The Night" is a daring try to do something different.

Then - secondly - there is the 'Stones-by-numbers' section. It has two sudivisions. All the rockers are type of songs Mick and Keith make a dozen half-sleep within a minute: "Low Down", "Gunface", "Too Tight" - a kind of stuff VOODOO LOUNGE has more than enough and A BIGGER BANG simply full of. They are equivalemt to "Hand of Fate" or "Crazy Mama" of BLACK&BLUE but without the inspiration and depthness of them (and even them have "by numbers" feeling in them already...). The ballad section is also as 'by-numbers' as it can be. "Already All over Me" and "Always Suffering" are so formulaic - starting from their titles - that their choruese is almost impossible to distinguish from each other. It makes one think if Jagger's muse has left the building for good. God, just think of "Melody Motel" or "Fool To Cry"... No don't!

Thirdly, there is one real stinker - "Might As Well Get Juiced". Probably the worst thing they ever done - at least seriously challenging "Back to Zero". It is the equilavent to "Cherry Oh Baby" that almost ruins the BLACK&BLUE (because having only 8 songs, each weights a lot). Jagger's worst vocals ever - miming a cow? - with the most idiotic production ideas. And all based on innocent basic (no brainer) three-chord blues-formula that now sounds like raped. The blues "modernized"? My ass. Were they totally out of their minds to release this crap?

Okay, that's the song material. Now the point how they work together.

I agree with some posters here that most of the songs are - typical to post-89 albums - half-baked, and therefore some of them might even sound better in live when they are worked 'further' (especially "Out of Control" and "Flip the Switch") . Then there are "odd" songs in wrong places. I'm with the poster who says "Thief In The Night" has a EXILE spirit but the problem with is that it needs a context that has EXILE spirit all over it. You take "JUst Wanna See His Face" out of EXILE and put to SOME GIRLS and it wouldn't work. The same is with "Thief".

But I think the very idea that kills the possibility of BRIDGES TO BABYLON to sound a coherent ROLLING STONES album is the decision over Keith's solo numbers. To include three Keith Richards solo songs to 13-song-album is way too much. The point is that Mick Jagger's voice is a distinguished part of The Rolling Stones sound, and to have three every fourth song without is a torso Rolling Stones music. If Keith wants to sing so much, I prefer him to do a solo album. To me it sounds like this Mick/Keith ego war proceeds sometimes with awful results, and I think this is one of those (I blame Keith here). When I first time listened the album and finding out it has not one but two slow Keith numbers to finish it, I thought "Jesus Christ, what a hell this means? Does Keith really think that he is a equal vocalist to Jagger nowadays or what is going on?". The point is not the quality of the songs (they are good like I've said) but I think it simply kills the cohereness of a Rolling Stones album. I've read about the reasons for their 'double-existence' but it doesn't change the result to sound as a very bad idea to dynamics of the album.

I need to admit that it took me years to really listen the album again and to see its worth above, say, VOODOO LOUNGE, and I think the reason simply was its uncohesiviness (and having a stinker like "Juiced", and not very convincing opener). It sounded like an album no really 'thought through' and like based on too many stupid compromise solutions. Those facts seemed to ruin the listening experince for me, and the possibility to appreciate the better sides of it.

- Doxa

I don't agree with the Black'n'Blue comparison. For me, there is clearly an idea behind B&B. It is a very "black" album music-wise - and black music is always close to the blues (so the title of the album could be a wordplay?).

You get funky rhythms (Hot Stuff, Hey Negrita), soul-ish ballads (Fool To Cry), reggae (Cherry Oh Baby), Cabaret-ish blues (Melody). The three last numbers are imo classic Stones (Memory Motel, Crazy Mama and Hand Of Fate).

Even on Hey Negrita they made room for a carribean-sounding bridge (Ronnie).

For me, B&B is one of the Stones albums with the clearest musical thread.

B2B sounds tossed together without a plan. It's just a collection of different songs. Had they omitted 4 or 5 numbers it could have turned out to be something entirely else, imo.

Quote
Tantekäthe
The good thing about "Bridges" is that even though songwriting-wise there is much by-numbers-painting on it (as is the case for all the post-Dirty-Work stuff), all the songs are carefully arranged and tastefully delivered so it is a smooth listen from beginning to end.

I do not get all the MAWGJ bashing (how can anyone dislike this little blues gem and praise a mediocre demo tune like "Back of My Hand" at the same time?), and I do not get the raving about OOC (weak attempt at "Papa was A Rolling Stone", for my taste at least).

I think you answer it by yourself. It doesn't have any quality of the "careful arranging or taseful delivery". This is of course, a matter of individual taste, but honestly there are not many Rolling Stones numbers that I think sound truely awful, but "Juiced" is one of those. It doesn't sound even boring or mediocre - like most of modern era safe and sure 'by-numbers' material - but simply disgusting to my ears. I take that to be an insult to the very blues tradition of which they once built their career on. How dare them to do that? Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong in trying to modernize a blues song format - the problem with "Juiced" is that the result is simply unconvincing, artefactual, corny and - most of all - horrible. A serious lack of judgment to release such crap. (I need to say that the horrible ELECTRIC MUDDY has some resemblance to it - when the idea and the means do not meet each other.)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-14 11:41 by Doxa.

Quote
The Mez
Will we ever here the Keith's revenge Blues mix of Juiced someday? Hopefully will surface from the vaults sooner than later.

Few seconds of it appeared on some promo VHS tape for the Babylon tour.

Anyone have it?

This version is ten times better than the studio recording, imo:

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
proudmary

Quote
cc

Quote
JHM
The spirit of Exile lives on in those last two Keith cuts, and Mick has never thought much of Exile -- except as a commercial vehicle.

what's the connection of those two cuts to the spirit of Exile?

and what are you talking about Mick has never thought much of Exile - who has? Have you? Did you write all the lirics and half or more of tunes on this album, did you sing the songs?
I can't stand this stupidity

Proudmary, are maybe misunderstanding what JHM is saying? I did not write it, but it seems to me JHM is only saying that Jagger has never spoken very highly of the final album. Which is true. he says he is not fond of the mix; and never saw any hits on it at first; and does not have many fun memories of Nellcote.
I THINK that is what JHM is saying, not that Jagger did not put any thought into it.

I don't think there is any misunderstanding. I see what you and JHM mean and I don't agree with you. It is an old myth which, I hoped, has disappeared after re-issue of Exile last year

Extract from one of Jagger's interview but you can google Exile reissue and there are many of them

Q: You’ve never been particularly enthusiastic about “Exile” when you’ve been asked about it in subsequent interviews. Why is that?

A: I was being slightly annoying because people would always say, “Isn’t that your favorite?” And I would be a bit rebellious, just to annoy people who kept asking me if it was the best Stones record. I don’t have favorite records. I’m more familiar with songs when you put them on a set list for a show. It’s not a period, it’s just a song. And since you don’t play the whole record in a concert, you don’t really hear it as a record. You pick your favorites and find out what works live. For that reason, I don’t have a favorite Stones record.

Q: But “Exile” is now routinely cited as the best Stones record.

A: And it is a great record. What’s interesting about it is that it has so many sides to it, so many different musical styles, very bluesy, and it has soul, gospel, and the other quirky little bits that perhaps you wouldn’t have put on a record with only 12 songs. You would’ve thrown out stuff maybe like “Just Wanna See his Face,” but on a more sprawling record like this you could afford to let those things go. Which perhaps explain why it wasn’t immediately reviewed as stunningly wonderful. But after a while people get to appreciate the breadth of it.

Q: The record didn’t get great reviews at first

A: Oh, yeah. You know what reviewers do, they play the first three songs and then review the record.

Q: Thanks, man.

A: [Laughs] But you know what I mean. You can’t take in 18 tracks in a day. It’s hard. So you get through those four sides, it could take a while to really get the full picture. It’s a lot of stuff to get through. It took a while for the record to be appreciated for what it was.

stop confusing us with facts proudmary,you know damn well this is keiths record.recorded at his house and..and.. and hated by mick because the songs are all co-written by gram parsons and any real hardcore fan would know this.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't agree with the Black'n'Blue comparison. For me, there is clearly an idea behind B&B. It is a very "black" album music-wise - and black music is always close to the blues (so the title of the album could be a wordplay?).

You get funky rhythms (Hot Stuff, Hey Negrita), soul-ish ballads (Fool To Cry), reggae (Cherry Oh Baby), Cabaret-ish blues (Melody). The three last numbers are imo classic Stones (Memory Motel, Crazy Mama and Hand Of Fate).

Even on Hey Negrita they made room for a carribean-sounding bridge (Ronnie).

For me, B&B is one of the Stones albums with the clearest musical thread.

B2B sounds tossed together without a plan. It's just a collection of different songs. Had they omitted 4 or 5 numbers it could have turned out to be something entirely else, imo.

I get your point. It surely has an 'idea' or a 'theme' a kind of you described but I think the problem is that the band doesn't sound quite convincing in what they are doing. They sound wide up our black music repertuare by 'let's try be more funky or reggae' but I'm not so sure how inspired they really are. For my ears, there is s sense of 'no point' or insecurity in the air - where are we going on, and what for? The band sounds a bit tired, too. I would say the idea of teh album is a bit 'vague' still. And even if it is clearer, I think the way the songs work together do not quite breath. There is a lack of dynamics in the wholeness. Something is missing.

My point of comparing it to BRIDGES based more on that both albums have good individual songs - and a one real stinker - but the wholeness doesn't still come up right.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-14 11:55 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
This version is ten times better than the studio recording, imo:

It is technically impossible to do worse than the original studio version, so, yeah, this version is better, but still about 2000 Light Years from good, listenable music. If it wasn't The Stones I would claim most of the folks here would laugh at it.

And by the way, if one wants to listen how The Stones convincingly "modernize" a blues tune with new sound experiments, take a listen to "2000 Light Years From Home"...

- Doxa

My kids think coffee stinks. Garlic too.
Doxa thinks Might as well get juiced stinks.

I am not interested in the olfactory ability of others. I just trust my own nose.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
This version is ten times better than the studio recording, imo:

It is technically impossible to do worse than the original studio version, so, yeah, this version is better, but still about 2000 Light Years from good, listenable music. If it wasn't The Stones I would claim most of the folks here would laugh at it.

And by the way, if one wants to listen how The Stones convincingly "modernize" a blues tune with new sound experiments, take a listen to "2000 Light Years From Home"...

- Doxa

Not much blues left there (200 Light Years From Home), but I know what you're getting at - and I agree.

As others have said, Bridges is their best post- '89 record.
Here's my little review of the songs:

Flip The Switch - A killer opener. Leaves you wanting more.

Anybody Seen My Baby - Nice "modern" pop-tune. Not typical Stones, but still a great tune and very nicely produced.

Low Down - Keef Riffhard signature. Solid rocker that really grooves. I would have loved to hear a live recording of this!

Already Over Me - Typical Jagger ballad. Not brilliant, but not bad either. Charlie is really great on this track and that alone makes the tune worth listening to.

Gunface - Filler. This is a little uninspired to my ears. Never leaves the ground, in a way.

You Don't Have To Mean It - Brilliant! Stones best attempt on reggea-like music. It swings and flows beautifully all the way.

Out of Control - Brilliant again. The dynamics of this is simply wonderful, and even better live.

Saint of Me - A nice Jagger-rocker where the blend of "modern" production and classic Stones works well.

Might As Well Get Juiced - Presumably Micks atttempt to mix traditional blues with contemporary sound/production. Not successful imo.

Always Suffering - I prefer Already Over Me of the two.

Too Tight - Another great rocker. Stones driving on high octane fuel.

Thief in the Night - One of the three Keith-songs the album could do without. Tiresome productionwise. Works better live, though.

How Can I Stop - Beautiful jazzy ballad by Keith. Up there amongst Coming Down and All About You.

[www.reverbnation.com]