For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
winter
ABB is frustrating to me because it's such a missed opportunity. And since it's the only real full studio release in 16 years, that frustration is compounded. I think they had good material; good enough to be that long-awaited post-TY undisputed 'classic' that VL and B2B didn't quite turn out to be due to their lengths and lack of just one or 2 more guitar-y anthems each. After coming up with a really solid batch of song ideas, I think Mick, Keith and Don Was kind of blew off the rest of the process of arranging/producing. (The 2002 model, ala "Don't Stop".)
1. Songcraft was thrown out the window. Not much effort put into crafting intros, endings, bridges or instrumental breaks to dynamically energize the songs that needed it. LIND, RFD and BOMH are almost the only songs that actually sound like they were 'fully realized' or finished. And nary a single decent guitar/sax/harp break or solo out of 18 tracks? That's a first.
2. Demo-ish sounding. The lack of decent arrangements, solos and care make the songs sound weak and unfinished, like the 4 2002 cuts on 40Licks. Where's that piano or acoustic guitar, whether in the foreground or imperceptibly filling out the sound? 0:20 seconds into SSMC it sounds like Mick didn't finish the improvised lyric ideas so it comes off as unfinished. Why not lop off the opening 10 seconds of RJ noodling? Why not just take some time to play around with SNC's chorus melody so it doesn't just sound like "Nyah-nyah Nyah-nyah"; those were great biting lyrics. It's the producers again coming up short in their role; there was definitely a really great album here but they slacked off and followed the 2002 model.
3. Guitar anthems. When you have more potentially great guitar riffage songs than practically every album since SG, you need to lovingly give them attention, full sounding arrangements, impeccable guitar overdubs, etc. UTR, SSMC, RJ, RFD, LWTCDI and DTF would have been more masterfully treated and nourished on ANY prior Stones' record.
4. Presentation. As many have noted, brick walled sound and too many songs. Let the mixes breathe and whittle it down to 45 minutes; release the rest as outtakes, b-sides, downloads, etc. And the handling of UTR as a deluxe edition bonus track only?! Face palm. Shoulda been one of the first tracks that everybody heard on the album and trotted out on the road.
Again, great starting material and feels, but a frustrating listening experience because they didn't flesh out the songs and let them live up to their potential. Then they brickwalled the sound and didn't cull the songs down to the strongest 10 tracks. A missed opportunity.
#Quote
liddas
I don't understand the "no solos" argument.
Solos are not important. 80% of the songs that made the stones what they are, have no solos whatsoever.
I don't understand the "unfinished" argument either. ABB is as it is because the Stones decided to release it this way. Add more arrangements, rework bridges, add solos, are all ideas they already used in the past, but are not essential ingredients of a good recording.
If there is a point that is often overlooked, is that ABB is essentially the Stones attempt to "home recording". I think they set a quite high standard in the field.
Compression. Good, bad? It's a matter of taste.
Quote
liddas
I don't understand the "no solos" argument.
Solos are not important. 80% of the songs that made the stones what they are, have no solos whatsoever.
I don't understand the "unfinished" argument either. ABB is as it is because the Stones decided to release it this way. Add more arrangements, rework bridges, add solos, are all ideas they already used in the past, but are not essential ingredients of a good recording.
If there is a point that is often overlooked, is that ABB is essentially the Stones attempt to "home recording". I think they set a quite high standard in the field.
Compression. Good, bad? It's a matter of taste.
C
Quote
His Majesty
Hmm, they did the home recording thing already back in 1970 - 1972.
Quote
DoxaQuote
liddas
I don't understand the "no solos" argument.
Solos are not important. 80% of the songs that made the stones what they are, have no solos whatsoever.
I don't understand the "unfinished" argument either. ABB is as it is because the Stones decided to release it this way. Add more arrangements, rework bridges, add solos, are all ideas they already used in the past, but are not essential ingredients of a good recording.
If there is a point that is often overlooked, is that ABB is essentially the Stones attempt to "home recording". I think they set a quite high standard in the field.
Compression. Good, bad? It's a matter of taste.
C
I don't care about the solos either, and it is very likely that the album sounds like it is or was supposed to sound (an artistic choice). But then again, taken the way it was recorded; Mick and Keith providing the backing tracks by themselves, the rest then adding their contribution afterwards (and not much about the old habit of having the whole band together and trying to catch the right feel and moment) - was that more like a choice made out of necessity (Charlie's illness, Ronnie's rehabs) to have the product available to get the big wheels rolling on (tour)? Or just as it was the easiest way, with minimal effort, to get the record done?
But to me the problem in 'home recording', even though it being an interesting experiment theoretically, is that it sounds like that every first, instict idea available occur to mind is used, and that's it. Not actual error and trial, new angles, etc. To me that sounds more like artistic lazyness than spontaneus 'garage rock' feel. Namely the ideas that seem to have occurred to the masterminds sound like being autopilot-like, with no real inspiration. The easiest and most obvious ones. It sounds that there is way too many tracks, way too many routines, way too much history in their belt in order to sound at least a bit fresh or innovative in their intuitions. Like they are victims of their own music, and they can't reach out. The result is an album full of Rolling Stones cliches, and the idea of presenting them even more 'roughly' - they stood out more clearly - than before just emphasizes the lack of fresh ideas and inspiration. That's at least what my ears tell me.
- Doxa
Quote
His Majesty
Weak sometimes almost non existent melodies, iffy lyrics and dodgy production.
That's been the main theme running through their music for far too long.
Quote
Spud#Quote
liddas
I don't understand the "no solos" argument.
Solos are not important. 80% of the songs that made the stones what they are, have no solos whatsoever.
I don't understand the "unfinished" argument either. ABB is as it is because the Stones decided to release it this way. Add more arrangements, rework bridges, add solos, are all ideas they already used in the past, but are not essential ingredients of a good recording.
If there is a point that is often overlooked, is that ABB is essentially the Stones attempt to "home recording". I think they set a quite high standard in the field.
Compression. Good, bad? It's a matter of taste.
Apart from the bit about compression
There nothing wrong with compression if it's used appropriatley.
[Some compression is always necessary when mastering a commercial release.]
But when it's overdone to optimise the sound for poor or portable playback equipment [as it too often the case], it can severely compromise the music.
There no real dynamics. No difference in level between the quieter and louder sounds to give the appropriate emphasis or reveal the "touch" of the musicians.
Imagine for example if SF had been produced in the same way. What would CYHMK sound like if it didn't swell and build towards the ending as it so wonderfully does
Edited to add...
...We'll probably find out when it's again Digitally Disastered next year.
Quote
Denny
"No Bill Wyman"* has been a common feature of just about every Rolling Stones studio album since about 1969 or so, ha ha! No wonder he ****ed off eventually, eh?
*Okay, more like "not much Bill Wyman", or "guess where Bill Wyman is?" but still...
Quote
71TeleQuote
Denny
"No Bill Wyman"* has been a common feature of just about every Rolling Stones studio album since about 1969 or so, ha ha! No wonder he ****ed off eventually, eh?
*Okay, more like "not much Bill Wyman", or "guess where Bill Wyman is?" but still...
On one or two tracks (ok, nine on Exile), but when he left the rhythm section was never the same. They never got the wobble back.
Quote
Spud#Quote
liddas
Compression. Good, bad? It's a matter of taste.
Apart from the bit about compression
There nothing wrong with compression if it's used appropriatley.
[Some compression is always necessary when mastering a commercial release.]
But when it's overdone to optimise the sound for poor or portable playback equipment [as it too often the case], it can severely compromise the music.
There no real dynamics. No difference in level between the quieter and louder sounds to give the appropriate emphasis or reveal the "touch" of the musicians.
Imagine for example if SF had been produced in the same way. What would CYHMK sound like if it didn't swell and build towards the ending as it so wonderfully does
Edited to add...
...We'll probably find out when it's again Digitally Disastered next year.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I agree, partly.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
EDIT: Drunk post
Quote
goingmad
This could have been a great rock album:
1 Rough Justice
2 Under the radar
3 Let me down slow
4 Back of my hand
5 This place is empty
6 Oh no not you again
7 It won't take long
8 She saw me coming
9 Laugh I nearly died
10 We don't wanna go home
Quote
mtaylorQuote
goingmad
This could have been a great rock album:
1 Rough Justice
2 Under the radar
3 Let me down slow
4 Back of my hand
5 This place is empty
6 Oh no not you again
7 It won't take long
8 She saw me coming
9 Laugh I nearly died
10 We don't wanna go home
Then it would have been a monster good record. If you include Driving too... and Look what the cat . - even better.