A `Bang' That's Too Big
Stones Should Have Cut 5 Or 6 Songs From Album
August 25, 2005
By ERIC R. DANTON, Hartford Courant Rock Critic
Lose five or six songs from "A Bigger Bang," and the Rolling Stones would have a pretty good new album. We're not talking "Sticky Fingers" good, but it would have bested "Bridges to Babylon," the legendary band's middling 1997 record.

As it is, "A Bigger Bang" (out Sept. 6 on Virgin) suffers from bloat. With 16 songs adding up to 64 minutes, the forthcoming album violates a central tenet of show business: Always leave them wanting more. This is the band's longest album since 1972's "Exile on Main St.," a masterpiece that caught the Stones at the height of their considerable talents.

The bleak, sprawling songs on that album teetered on the edge of exhaustion. The band fearlessly grafted elements of blues, country and gospel into its sound, and the songs crackled with the weary beauty of Mick Jagger's lyrics and Keith Richards' unforgettable guitar riffs.

It's unreasonable all these years later to expect the band to equal what was certainly one of the best albums of the 20th century. "Exile," though, did something "A Bigger Bang" doesn't: It focused wholly on the Rolling Stones' strengths.
The new record is inconsistent that way.

Keef grinds out terrific taut riffs on "Rough Justice" and "She Saw Me Coming," and Mick sneers his way through choice double entendres. But the best songs feel hemmed in by maudlin ballads, like the gooey "Streets of the Love" or the shapeless dirge "This Place Is Empty," which Richards sings.

The album starts strong, with Jagger preening on "Rough Justice" like a rooster in the poultry metaphor he employs. A raw slide-guitar part tears through the middle, and the song sounds like it's about to come unhinged, the way the best Stones songs of yore did.

The descending chorus on "Let Me Down Slow" is vintage Jagger, and he nails the world-weary vibe without sliding into schmaltz. The jangly guitar riff on "Rain Fall Down" lands somewhere between "Miss You" and "Emotional Rescue," and drummer Charlie Watts plays a part so laid back, it's nearly prone.

Much has already been made of the song "Sweet Neo-Con," a not-so-subtle swipe at proponents of the school of thought driving the Bush administration's war in Iraq. Regardless of your position on the conflict, we can probably all agree that the song is a bust. Jagger is much more effective when he's subtle, and while "How come you're so wrong/My sweet neo-con" is a legitimate political question, it's a bit clunky as a song lyric. So is cramming in references to Halliburton and its subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, come to think of it.

The band compensates on the next track, "Look What the Cat Dragged In." Richards and Ronnie Wood apparently set their guitar amplifiers to "nasty," and they lay down scalding fills over an imposing bass line while Jagger expresses mock surprise in an arch, oh-so-British way.

That same dry humor underpins "Oh No, Not You Again," which the Stones played live in New York in May, when they announced the tour, which stops here Friday. Although Jagger addresses the rollicking, bluesy song to a romantic foil, the band clearly felt the title could apply to itself, too.

Maybe that's why the Stones are releasing a new album to coincide with this tour: It's a way of earning their keep. If so, well, that's ridiculous. For one thing, none of the 30,000 people who will cram into Rentschler Field in East Hartford Friday are there to hear new songs. Also, after releasing somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 studio albums over the years - at least eight of which are outright classics - it's not as if the Stones need to ply us with new product before hitting the road.

The fact that they continue to do so is testament to the band's strong work ethic. Commendable as that is, you've got to know when to stop. "A Bigger Bang" would make a bigger splash if it had stopped after 10 or 11 songs instead of forcing in the filler.

This wingnut doesn't mention which songs are the filler or why. I've been listening to samples of the whole thing and all the songs are good with the exception of "NeoCon" which is bad for the reasons he stated.

I would tend to agree when it comes to lyrics: the ones I've already read out of the new album, range from nearly satisfactory to completely embarassing. Come on, there's stuff on here which would make Avril Lavigne blush. Mick's obviously completely lost his sense of metaphor. When you listen to Sweet Neo Con, you wouldn't think it's written by the same guy who wrote Midnight Rambler. Therefore, I would simply call on Mick to give up on the futile attempts to please the neurons of the young and rebelious, they're listening to Jack White and the BRMC anyway nowadays. Better to sing about Micks own everyday life impulses. Why, "Incontinence Blues" doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me...

I'd rather have more songs than less. If you want a 10-song CD, then burn your own mix, or program your CD player to play the 10 songs you want in the order you want. Some people are going to like the songs he says are "filler". What is "filler" anyway? If there's 16 songs, there's no need for any filler. To me, filler is when you have 5 or 6 good songs, and you slap a few more on the CD to make what looks like a complete album. If there's already 10 or 11 songs that are decent, why would they put 5 more songs on there that aren't up to standards? I don't think they did that.

Kamiel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick's obviously
> completely lost his sense of metaphor. When you
> listen to Sweet Neo Con, you wouldn't think it's
> written by the same guy who wrote Midnight
> Rambler.

MR has metaphors?

It's kind of funny that he thinks TPIE isn't a good ballad. For me that one of the best on the album. Aside from that he doesn't even mention Laugh, I nearly Died and It Won't Take Long which is just very funny really.
I agree that they could have left out some songs, but this review is just about bashing the new Stones album.

even without hearing the new album propelry you know full well he is right

as soon as the amount of tracks was announced i shuddered

too many!

10-12 is more than enough for ANY album. if you have a great set of 10 songs and then just included extra fillers for the sake of it, it ruins what could have been a classic album

shame

Rutger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's kind of funny that he thinks TPIE isn't a
> good ballad. For me that one of the best on the
> album. Aside from that he doesn't even mention
> Laugh, I nearly Died and It Won't Take Long which
> is just very funny really.
> I agree that they could have left out some songs,
> but this review is just about bashing the new
> Stones album.


Not sure this was a complete bashing by the writer. Absolute poppycock regarding more is less here, I agree mickboy33, let's hear more!! Hell, I'd probably advocate 30 new songs! Why stop at 16? But, that's just me, as Gazza will remind us I'm sure, "opinions and asswholes"!!

What about Dangerous Beauty? Was glad to hear about LWTCDI, I really do like what I've heard.

On another item, look out folks, I heard SOL on my local radio!! It's coming to a radio station near you !

I am in absolute misery waiting for this album release...

I agree they should have stopped when they had 10 songs on it! But he doesn't even mention LIND or IWTL and thinks TPIE is a bad ballad. The new album won't be a classic, but it's better than 90% of all other stuff that comes out these days. Which album is consistent by any of the modern bands? I don't know many really. I'd say... judge this album for what it is... 4 man in their sixties rocking their sox off! They should have left some of the songs off... but hey they didn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-26 17:48 by Rutger.

One other thing, I went to the Courant site and they had a mug of this guy (E. Danton)- He looks like just started shaving yesterday! Test of time my ass...

Too many weak songs have diluted the impact of the last 3 Stones albums and this one looks as though it will contain a few clangers as well - Streets of Love is embarrasingly bad. At least the magic of the CD is that you can programme the tracks you want to hear and hopefully get a pretty decent 9 or 10 track album. Quality not quatity please lads.

Andy

"Quality not quantity please lads"


never a truer line spoken!

To this reviewer: Like many hardcore fans, my friends & I do go to shows to hear new songs or new covers, & hope to be surprised by rarely & never played songs.

Andy- you are absolutely correct. I have ignored VL for years and only recently re-learned that most of it is quite good...but the bad ones are the ones that I identify with the album.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This wingnut doesn't mention which songs are the
> filler or why. I've been listening to samples of
> the whole thing and all the songs are good with
> the exception of "NeoCon" which is bad for the
> reasons he stated.


Well, hes highlighted three songs in particular that he thinks are shit, so I cant see where you get THAT idea from...

he hasnt mentioned every one of the 16 songs on the album, but then he doesnt need to and in a newspaper column, wouldnt have the time and space to do a track by track breakdown like youd expect in a music magazine.

He's also mentioned 6 songs that he happens to like, so overall thats not so negative

Bit pointless slagging the guy off for not liking some of the songs considering he's heard the album and you've only heard brief samples!

However, having heard all but one song off the album in full, I can see his point even though I like more of the songs than he does. Theres very few albums that justify having 16 songs on it. Four or five substandard songs drag down the overall quality of the record as a whole, ie

12 very good songs + 4 filler = good album. 3 star review.
12 very good songs + no filler = very good album. 4 star review

Jimminy Crickets, folks, Everything I have heard from Bigger Bang has potential..How can you people not want to hear New Songs..? I dont get it. I have been a die hard fan since 1965, and I was more excited about the new songs that would be played on tour, than ANY of the old ones, as I have been hearing them in concert for decades now. If you dont like the album, dont buy it..If you dont like the set list, dont go to the show.....Stay home and listen to your records...Tired of all this bashing....

JR

1: Liking or disliking SOL - I don't like SOL (prefer fx. Already Over Me - an underrated song)... Today, I talked with a friend of mine and he said, that he really liked SOL. So I think Stones fans are really divided on this matter..... liking or disliking SOL....

2: Who says they wouldn't chosen the fillers in a 10 songs album.... - then we would have had 6 good songs and 4 fillers..... Jagger would quite sure have chosen SOL, NeoCon... Keith his songs..... Would they then have left out IWTL, LMDS, BOMH..... All albums have fillers on, Beatles had it, U2 has it, Zep had it....

stone-relics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jimminy Crickets, folks, Everything I have heard
> from Bigger Bang has potential..How can you people
> not want to hear New Songs..? I dont get it

think you miss the point

Of course we want to hear new songs. No one is denying that.

But if youre a critic REVIEWING the album as a body of work (as this journalist is) and not a fan just DYING to hear ANYTHING then youre going to look at it from a different perspective.

You're not going to say "this is a great album" simply because it has 8-10 good songs on it and then ignore a few songs that happen to lessen their impact and drag down the overall standard of the album.

I think it would have been a better album with a couple of songs left off (especially "NeoCon" which I think is a weak track) but I still think the 'lesser' songs on the album are generally releasable in one way or another (unlike some Stones albums in the past, which had a few that should have been canned). I think however that the fact its been 8 years warranted a longer album than normal, so i aint complaining.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-26 19:08 by Gazza.

Normally I would agree that 45 minutes is the perfect length for a studio album and that anything beyond 50 is too long, but considering the Stones have released only 4 new songs in the last eight years, I think it's OK for them to add a few more. Thier longest album is Exile and It's considered by most, including myself, as thier greatest achievement, and that was in the day you made an album every year.

When I see the band in Durham in October the first I'm going to want to hear are the new songs. I've heard Satisfaction, You Got Me Rocking and Brown Sugar. I can't wait to see them do something new or something they rarely play.

Bill

I havent even heard the new album, only the three released songs, and the short samples, but I liked everything I heard...I think the album has a ton of potential, and that reviewer probably never heard of Brian Jones...

JR

he doesnt need to have. All that matters is whats on the CD in the player...

I wrote the cat (Eric Danton) this morning (and I know you guys are thinking that I really ripped on the guy, but I didn't- I just wanted to gain more perspective on the how and why of his review which I thought was pretty mediocre) and he e-mailed me back and said:

"Did you actually read the review? I wrote that the new album is pretty darn good, save for some filler.

You apparently also missed the glowing review I wrote when the Stones played Hartford in 2002 -- a concert that ended up on my year-end list of the best shows.

You give me too much credit, though -- I don't think anything I write is going to dampen turnout for a sold-out stadium show." -this last bit comes from my sarcasm regarding his review impacting the turnout for tonite's CONN show !

So my apologies to young Eric, but I just didn't get the impression that he liked the album, oh well. I'm still waiting for another review for "Dangerous Beauty"...

Mr Eric R. Danton wrote: "none of the 30,000 people who will cram into Rentschler Field in East Hartford Friday are there to hear new songs"

Oh, yehh?? MMmmmm.... But many fans were saying: "oh, give us a lot of new songs live, in other case the tour will be a nostalgia act"

100.000.000 different opinions, personal tastes and demands conflicting each other. So the Stones do always the right thing : Anything they want!!

Many reviews of the stones records are made by people who ignore their work. In Portugal some of them say this is the best album since Emotional Rescue. Like if
Tattoo You dont exist. You dont have to be a hard core fan to make a review but its difficult fo find people who really knows the Stones work. Even the worst albums of the Stones have great songs. People tend to compares all their records with the golden era. And that is not fair.

Well said....I for one (and dont take me wrong here, but I have more Stones records than the rest of you combined), was DYING to hear the new songs, and at Fenway 1, was more than delighted...It was a GREAT show, and I just heard the tape of a few from that show over the phone...Get over it, ladies and gentlemen, the Stones ARE BACK, so just give this new record a chance....too much new material...thats bloody crazy...I'll take I all I can hear...and all of them from the new record are pretty darn good...

JR

stone-relics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well said....I for one (and dont take me wrong
> here, but I have more Stones records than the rest
> of you combined), was DYING to hear the new songs,
> and at Fenway 1, was more than delighted...It was
> a GREAT show, and I just heard the tape of a few
> from that show over the phone...Get over it,
> ladies and gentlemen, the Stones ARE BACK, so just
> give this new record a chance....too much new
> material...thats bloody crazy...I'll take I all I
> can hear...and all of them from the new record are
> pretty darn good...
>
> JR
>
> Home of the worlds greatest Stones records!


NO stone-relics- YOU said it well!

Hey stones-relic, I agree. How dare he say that "30,000 people at the concert don't want to hear new songs" I wonder if he interviewed them all?!

Voodoo Lounge had 15 tracks, but aside from what the knob roller who reviewed ABB said, I would have to say that for me "Mean Disposition" was certainly filler, but "So Young", "Drive", "Jump OTOMB", and "The Storm" were much more than just "B" sides, and were definitely album worthy.

I am outright amazed that people actually critique how many songs are on an album. What matters is the consistency, and this album has it. One of my friends was commenting on ABB saying he knows it will be "one of those discs I can just put in my stereo and not worry about what plays. Hell, put it on random, I dont give a shit what comes out of that box as long as its off the new album."

Review is crap if the best he can do is badmouth the length of the album.

The problem is: the days of 10 tracks on 40 minutes of vynil are over. Sticky Fingers were ten of the best tracks from 1970, and it is clear why the outtakes from this period were left off. If the Stones would have released a new CD in 2005 with just 40 minutes of music, they would have been critisized to death for being cheap or whatever. So they can't win this situation: if they only release the best material it's not enough, and if they release all they have you will see 4 or 5 fillers (which are clearly there: in my reveiw I mentioned several songs being "outtakes").

It's also part of the way they work these days. In the early 70's it could take several years for a song to develope into something they could release. All Down The Line, Loving Cuo, Sweet Virginia, Silver Train, were all written in 1968/69, and were tried and recored over an over again, until they were finally released in 72/73. These days a song is written, recorded in a fortnight, and that's it. If it's good it will be released, if it's not so good, it will be released as well as they need it to fill 63 minutes of the new CD.

Mathijs