Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well said, Doxa.

For a vinyl lover like myself, CH flows naturally as a double album. When listening to it like that, the «problem» is more the other way around: It could have had a couple of more tunes – especially on that side with only three tracks.

Quote
Doxa
People seem to take very seriously those review ratings... I haven't since the 80's...

But another issue talked here, the length of the album. I am generally with JumpingKentFlash that this is a kind of disease of CD era that 'the quantity over quality' since there is a lot of space for that. But I'm with georgelicks as well that so it goes these days, and we should adjust ourselves to the reality of the things as they are today; this is what CDs are like today, the days of vinyl format and the way to listen the albums, each track having a bigger identity in the whole, is long gone. Now you just pick up the ones you like, and skip the others. If you bother.

But that said, I don't think the length of CROSSEYED HEART is any problem. Yeah, it is a long album, but I don't hear there any song I could call a filler. It flows naturally, the tracks follow each other nicely, each having a 'point' in the whole. I guess if I had the vinyl version, the impression would be even better (I assume it is a double album).

To use the analog I did earlier: not also having such Americana feel of that classic album, CROSSEYED HEART is also 'old man's EXILE' in the sense that the wholeness is build with the same kind of policy, having left nough room for different musical exercises, and which together give the album a certain identity and feel, a musical statement. Without that policy we wouldn't have had "Just Wanna See Your Face" released ever. I think there are pieces like that many in Keith's album (like "Goodnight Irene"), which in some other could might be called a filler, but being now there, as a part of the whole, make sense. (Probably we could also offer one more EXILE-feature: not much absolute highlights or turds, but the quality over-all being a rather standard).

The contrast is huge to the previous Rolling Stones albums, especially A BIGGER BANG; those really are just senseless - and endless - collections of arbitrary songs, of which I wouldn't hesitate to call many fillers.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I think the sound and warmth in the production really serves the music on this album. Even sharp-sounding tracks like Amnesia and Substantial Damage sound warm and meaty.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I think the sound and warmth in the production really serves the music on this album. Even sharp-sounding tracks like Amnesia and Substantial Damage sound warm and meaty.

Yeah, it is produced damn well. One of the best sounding albums I have heard for sometime. I kinda liked the bootleg version as well, but of course, this is something else. Like Wild Slivovitz suggested, they could use this as a blueprint also for a new Rolling Stones album (at least, it would sound well...)

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
72hotrocks
RollingStone magazine gives it 3.5 out of 5 so,by that metric,I am comfortable with my rating of 2.5

Their usual reviewer, David Fricke, gave it a 4 – in MOJO this time...

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

As a final note, the record sounds fantastic: if it's true that the Stones will soon be back in studio, please let Keith be the one in charge of the production!!

Quote
Doxa
Okay, now since the thing is finally officially released, let's say a few words about it.

The great thing about the record is that it shows that Keith Richards is finally matured up as an artist. One in content with himself, not needing Mick or the Stones to fulfill his musical visions. CROSSEYED HEART is pure Keith Richards, exercising in the musical waters he is in love with. A man in his autumn years, not having any need to 'prove' anything for anyone, all that is said and done years ago. Now it really is: I just play whatever I want and just for my own fun. The music sounds so relaxed, just like it was done: no deadline, no more endless saturdays night sessions, but just some nice little Sunday afternoon fun with friends. It is the genuine, effortless feel in the album that charms me most. Probably something to do with him playing with the idea of retirement, and dropping the guitar playing for a year or so - it all sounds so fresh; the guy restarting and rethinking his own game.

The album works best when listened as a whole. Individually the songs are not very memorable (I don't think there is any striking song in the album). But the songs support nicely each other, and make together a coherent musical statement of its own. That is: this is kind of rootsie, genuine, authentical (whatever you call it) music Keith Richards loves most (or only), and wants to share with us. A kind of text book of the old musical genres that took before the late-seventies (the last being that of reggae), and before all new music turned out to be 'crap' (if we are to believe Keith Richards' teachings). Uncle Keith now really put into action all those talks he has said along the years. In a way Keith is in the same place as he once started with Brian Jones and Mick Jagger: introduce the 'world' of this wonderful, authentic music one couldn't see much - or at all - at the pop charts of the day. Or if we like: CROSSEYED HEART is 'old man's (using 'poor man' here sounds inappropriate) EXILE ON MAIN STREET' - a new, updated interpretation of Americana.

But probably because Keith Richards is not any longer hungry or needing to make music for living or anything, but just entertaining himself, the music in CROSSEYED HEART has no ambition, or the drive he, with his old pals, once had. It is a kind of lazy man's music, almost muzak - Keith sounds like a kid in the candy shop - taking the genres and characterics he most likes, and without any hesitation or second-thought, shares those sweets with us. We are not EXILE-like developing those into something novel and unique, but like staying there as close to the original sources as possible.

Here comes the dilemma of authenticity: Keith is genuine and does music he loves, but that is doomed to be replica or pastishe-like. The title song - a good introduction to theme and feel of the album - is a charming Robert Johnson-pastishe. But the question arises: for what we actually need this piece, if we already have all those Robert Johnson records? Ironically, decades ago this same man took one of Johnson's own pieces, added there a chord, and come up with an original sound rock classic. And that also added people at the time to know about this wonderful musician (like Keith with his pals helped them to know people like Muddy Waters and Jimmy Reed). But now we all - who might be interested in Keith's album - do know Robert Johnson, and now we recognize "Crosseyed Heart" being a reference to him.

Probably it is that Keith is so deep in his own musical world and has so many decades loved and studied so much these authentic genres that he has lost some of his own originality? (And among that, a helluva lot of his skills as an interesting song-writer).

Probably that is the biggest problem I have with the album. I love each and every of the 'authentic' genres that are presented in the album, but since I am familiar with the originals, Keith's efforts are doomed to be a bit generic. He doesn't really add anything to what I already 'know' (and many time is just a lame copy). I am rather sure that Keith will not charm any 'real' C&W, blues, reggae, etc fans, but probably 'just' Keith Richards - and to an extent Rolling Stones/rock - fans.

So the issue finally is: how much we adore/appreciate/stand Keith's personal sound or ability to interpret? The attraction is "Keith Richards doing blues, country, reggae, etc.' It is his persona, his sound, his voice at stake... how much we all are in love with that/him... I think Keith plays (surpisingly) fine, and sings alright, but that's about it. Probably I am just too tired with his cliche-like pirate persona that the music that comes across, no matter how genuine his feelings are, does not much talking to me. Keith, no matter how much charisma he has, has no as a solo artist a Bob Dylan-like presence. I find the album an easy-listening one (even a bit too much), but not very memorable. It is a bit too obvious, and I think it lacks some depthness and strong, serious song-writing, to really charm one's imagination.

But CROSSEYED HEART is a coherent piece of work, much better than I expected, and adds nicely to Keith's legacy as now this old spokes-man of roots music. Three out of five.

- Doxa

Quote
GasLightStreet
Anyone that doesn't like this album is ORDERED to listen to nothing but DIRTY WORK for 31 days in a row anytime there is time to breathe.

Quote
72hotrocks
RollingStone magazine gives it 3.5 out of 5 so,by that metric,I am comfortable with my rating of 2.5

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Doxa
Okay, now since the thing is finally officially released, let's say a few words about it.

The great thing about the record is that it shows that Keith Richards is finally matured up as an artist. One in content with himself, not needing Mick or the Stones to fulfill his musical visions. CROSSEYED HEART is pure Keith Richards, exercising in the musical waters he is in love with. A man in his autumn years, not having any need to 'prove' anything for anyone, all that is said and done years ago. Now it really is: I just play whatever I want and just for my own fun. The music sounds so relaxed, just like it was done: no deadline, no more endless saturdays night sessions, but just some nice little Sunday afternoon fun with friends. It is the genuine, effortless feel in the album that charms me most. Probably something to do with him playing with the idea of retirement, and dropping the guitar playing for a year or so - it all sounds so fresh; the guy restarting and rethinking his own game.

The album works best when listened as a whole. Individually the songs are not very memorable (I don't think there is any striking song in the album). But the songs support nicely each other, and make together a coherent musical statement of its own. That is: this is kind of rootsie, genuine, authentical (whatever you call it) music Keith Richards loves most (or only), and wants to share with us. A kind of text book of the old musical genres that took before the late-seventies (the last being that of reggae), and before all new music turned out to be 'crap' (if we are to believe Keith Richards' teachings). Uncle Keith now really put into action all those talks he has said along the years. In a way Keith is in the same place as he once started with Brian Jones and Mick Jagger: introduce the 'world' of this wonderful, authentic music one couldn't see much - or at all - at the pop charts of the day. Or if we like: CROSSEYED HEART is 'old man's (using 'poor man' here sounds inappropriate) EXILE ON MAIN STREET' - a new, updated interpretation of Americana.

But probably because Keith Richards is not any longer hungry or needing to make music for living or anything, but just entertaining himself, the music in CROSSEYED HEART has no ambition, or the drive he, with his old pals, once had. It is a kind of lazy man's music, almost muzak - Keith sounds like a kid in the candy shop - taking the genres and characterics he most likes, and without any hesitation or second-thought, shares those sweets with us. We are not EXILE-like developing those into something novel and unique, but like staying there as close to the original sources as possible.

Here comes the dilemma of authenticity: Keith is genuine and does music he loves, but that is doomed to be replica or pastishe-like. The title song - a good introduction to theme and feel of the album - is a charming Robert Johnson-pastishe. But the question arises: for what we actually need this piece, if we already have all those Robert Johnson records? Ironically, decades ago this same man took one of Johnson's own pieces, added there a chord, and come up with an original sound rock classic. And that also added people at the time to know about this wonderful musician (like Keith with his pals helped them to know people like Muddy Waters and Jimmy Reed). But now we all - who might be interested in Keith's album - do know Robert Johnson, and now we recognize "Crosseyed Heart" being a reference to him.

Probably it is that Keith is so deep in his own musical world and has so many decades loved and studied so much these authentic genres that he has lost some of his own originality? (And among that, a helluva lot of his skills as an interesting song-writer).

Probably that is the biggest problem I have with the album. I love each and every of the 'authentic' genres that are presented in the album, but since I am familiar with the originals, Keith's efforts are doomed to be a bit generic. He doesn't really add anything to what I already 'know' (and many time is just a lame copy). I am rather sure that Keith will not charm any 'real' C&W, blues, reggae, etc fans, but probably 'just' Keith Richards - and to an extent Rolling Stones/rock - fans.

So the issue finally is: how much we adore/appreciate/stand Keith's personal sound or ability to interpret? The attraction is "Keith Richards doing blues, country, reggae, etc.' It is his persona, his sound, his voice at stake... how much we all are in love with that/him... I think Keith plays (surpisingly) fine, and sings alright, but that's about it. Probably I am just too tired with his cliche-like pirate persona that the music that comes across, no matter how genuine his feelings are, does not much talking to me. Keith, no matter how much charisma he has, has no as a solo artist a Bob Dylan-like presence. I find the album an easy-listening one (even a bit too much), but not very memorable. It is a bit too obvious, and I think it lacks some depthness and strong, serious song-writing, to really charm one's imagination.

But CROSSEYED HEART is a coherent piece of work, much better than I expected, and adds nicely to Keith's legacy as now this old spokes-man of roots music. Three out of five.

- Doxa

Yes, you nailed it.
a really great album, worlds better than MAIN OFFENDER and totally unexpected. Sometimes a bit lazy arranged, and no second TALK IS CHEAP (compare BLUES IN THE MORNING and COULD HAVE STOOD YOU UP and you know what I mean). But hey, now it´s an old mans work and well done, Keith.

P.S.: I find some tracks very memorable and they definetly grow
P.P.S: SWEET HEARTS TOGETHER from Voodoo Lounge was rearranged and went to HEARTSTOPPER and finally works ;-)

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Doxa
Okay, now since the thing is finally officially released, let's say a few words about it.

The great thing about the record is that it shows that Keith Richards is finally matured up as an artist. One in content with himself, not needing Mick or the Stones to fulfill his musical visions. CROSSEYED HEART is pure Keith Richards, exercising in the musical waters he is in love with. A man in his autumn years, not having any need to 'prove' anything for anyone, all that is said and done years ago. Now it really is: I just play whatever I want and just for my own fun. The music sounds so relaxed, just like it was done: no deadline, no more endless saturdays night sessions, but just some nice little Sunday afternoon fun with friends. It is the genuine, effortless feel in the album that charms me most. Probably something to do with him playing with the idea of retirement, and dropping the guitar playing for a year or so - it all sounds so fresh; the guy restarting and rethinking his own game.

The album works best when listened as a whole. Individually the songs are not very memorable (I don't think there is any striking song in the album). But the songs support nicely each other, and make together a coherent musical statement of its own. That is: this is kind of rootsie, genuine, authentical (whatever you call it) music Keith Richards loves most (or only), and wants to share with us. A kind of text book of the old musical genres that took before the late-seventies (the last being that of reggae), and before all new music turned out to be 'crap' (if we are to believe Keith Richards' teachings). Uncle Keith now really put into action all those talks he has said along the years. In a way Keith is in the same place as he once started with Brian Jones and Mick Jagger: introduce the 'world' of this wonderful, authentic music one couldn't see much - or at all - at the pop charts of the day. Or if we like: CROSSEYED HEART is 'old man's (using 'poor man' here sounds inappropriate) EXILE ON MAIN STREET' - a new, updated interpretation of Americana.

But probably because Keith Richards is not any longer hungry or needing to make music for living or anything, but just entertaining himself, the music in CROSSEYED HEART has no ambition, or the drive he, with his old pals, once had. It is a kind of lazy man's music, almost muzak - Keith sounds like a kid in the candy shop - taking the genres and characterics he most likes, and without any hesitation or second-thought, shares those sweets with us. We are not EXILE-like developing those into something novel and unique, but like staying there as close to the original sources as possible.

Here comes the dilemma of authenticity: Keith is genuine and does music he loves, but that is doomed to be replica or pastishe-like. The title song - a good introduction to theme and feel of the album - is a charming Robert Johnson-pastishe. But the question arises: for what we actually need this piece, if we already have all those Robert Johnson records? Ironically, decades ago this same man took one of Johnson's own pieces, added there a chord, and come up with an original sound rock classic. And that also added people at the time to know about this wonderful musician (like Keith with his pals helped them to know people like Muddy Waters and Jimmy Reed). But now we all - who might be interested in Keith's album - do know Robert Johnson, and now we recognize "Crosseyed Heart" being a reference to him.

Probably it is that Keith is so deep in his own musical world and has so many decades loved and studied so much these authentic genres that he has lost some of his own originality? (And among that, a helluva lot of his skills as an interesting song-writer).

Probably that is the biggest problem I have with the album. I love each and every of the 'authentic' genres that are presented in the album, but since I am familiar with the originals, Keith's efforts are doomed to be a bit generic. He doesn't really add anything to what I already 'know' (and many time is just a lame copy). I am rather sure that Keith will not charm any 'real' C&W, blues, reggae, etc fans, but probably 'just' Keith Richards - and to an extent Rolling Stones/rock - fans.

So the issue finally is: how much we adore/appreciate/stand Keith's personal sound or ability to interpret? The attraction is "Keith Richards doing blues, country, reggae, etc.' It is his persona, his sound, his voice at stake... how much we all are in love with that/him... I think Keith plays (surpisingly) fine, and sings alright, but that's about it. Probably I am just too tired with his cliche-like pirate persona that the music that comes across, no matter how genuine his feelings are, does not much talking to me. Keith, no matter how much charisma he has, has no as a solo artist a Bob Dylan-like presence. I find the album an easy-listening one (even a bit too much), but not very memorable. It is a bit too obvious, and I think it lacks some depthness and strong, serious song-writing, to really charm one's imagination.

But CROSSEYED HEART is a coherent piece of work, much better than I expected, and adds nicely to Keith's legacy as now this old spokes-man of roots music. Three out of five.

- Doxa

Nice review, Doxa. I think your discription of the pastiche-originality-dialectic would do for every Dylan-cd since Time Out of Mind too, though.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I like Blues In The Morning better than ICHSYU.

«I forgive her, too» / «We've only just begun» – Nah, not that similar. I mean, the phrasing is, but the music is so different that the effect of it isn't really disturbing.

If you'd removed the music, however

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I like Blues In The Morning better than ICHSYU.

Quote
Hairball
Reading through credits and see Blondie Chaplin on backup vocals on Illusion.
Evidently Keith is still friends with him, so wonder why he no longer sings live backup (and plays guitar under stage lol) with the Stones...
Did he quit? Was it health issues? Was he fired?

Quote
Doxa


Here comes the dilemma of authenticity: Keith is genuine and does music he loves, but that is doomed to be replica or pastishe-like. The title song - a good introduction to theme and feel of the album - is a charming Robert Johnson-pastishe. But the question arises: for what we actually need this piece, if we already have all those Robert Johnson records? Ironically, decades ago this same man took one of Johnson's own pieces, added there a chord, and come up with an original sound rock classic. And that also added people at the time to know about this wonderful musician (like Keith with his pals helped them to know people like Muddy Waters and Jimmy Reed). But now we all - who might be interested in Keith's album - do know Robert Johnson, and now we recognize "Crosseyed Heart" being a reference to him.

Probably it is that Keith is so deep in his own musical world and has so many decades loved and studied so much these authentic genres that he has lost some of his own originality? (And among that, a helluva lot of his skills as an interesting song-writer).

Probably that is the biggest problem I have with the album. I love each and every of the 'authentic' genres that are presented in the album, but since I am familiar with the originals, Keith's efforts are doomed to be a bit generic.

- Doxa