rank your so dead on,this album is a knockout,musically,lyrically,and any other way.one of ,if not there best ever.mr twining has always been a whiner.

john scialfa

i refuse to respond to kish_stoned until he finds the "caps lock" on his keyboard....

Rank Outsider,

I can hear K &R. I cannot hear any cosmically creative contribution made by them.

So, Kish_Stoned, you are prepared to take the Stones as they are no matter what or how they play. For you they can do no wrong.

If they play an album of Russian folk songs on ukeles, ballelikas (or however you spell it!) - that's ok with you?

I think it is unreasonable of you to expect other fans to leave this discussion board just because they have other expectations or aspirations than yourself.

FSW, There are two RankOutsider(s) on this board, I'm the one with 'no' space. Just didn't want anyone getting confused.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

Shit!..Hell who have I been talking to?...which Rank is Gene?....legs open or legs closed?

ROCKMAN

I agree camper... The sum is definitely greater than the parts. In context I love it all (still waiting for Neocon to grow on me, however). If they had given me a vote, that would have been left off.

BowieStone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't expect on new Exile. Like you can't
> expect a new Innervisions from Stevie Wonder or
> Berlin from Lou Reed.
'68-'72 was just the best rock
> & roll ever by any artist. It's wrong to
> compare it with those albums.
>
> - BowieStone


BowieStone: I often disagree with your opinions, but grudgingly admit you have some excellent taste....

Berlin is a great album, but IMHO "Legendary Hearts" is better. Innervisions is "The Shit". Great stuff! Plus, as much as i dislike Michael, "State of Shock" is way groovy, brother. hee hee!

Karl

PS: I think Berlin was released in 1973, but I catch your drift.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-10 07:40 by KSIE.

Berlin is Lou Reed's masterpiece, but he's made great albums since - Street Hassle, New York, Magic & Loss, Songs For Drella.

Michael Jackson's Off The Wall is a masterpiece.

Legs closed Rockman.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

cool Rank man..thought it was...ROCKMAN

Ya it's me, just sitting here listening to Tattoo You, fine work indeed. It's all about that thread about which is the best since Some Girls.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

KSIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> PS: I think Berlin was released in 1973, but I
> catch your drift.
>

Innervisions is also from 1973. With 68-72 I only meant The Stones. With Lou and Stevie I wasn't referring to 1972. I could have said you can't expect a new Off The Wall (1979) or Thriller (1982) from Michael Jackson.

Also I think Transformer,The Blue Mask & Street Hassle are the same level as Berlin. And Songs In The Key of Life & Talking Book are the same high level as Innervisions. I just took the most legendary one. Like I can understand someone likes Some Girls as much or even more than Exile or Sticky Fingers.

The problem is BowieStone the Stones post Tattoo You albums all tend to ring hollow after initial listens leading at least for me feeling deflated. Although i'm not trying to propose Love And Theft and Ecstasy are as good as Bob and Lou's peak albums they do tend to hold up well on repeated listens.
I agree about the lack of guitars on the album - they tend to support Jagger's vocals instead of being a creative force in their own right. Keith does sound more at home these days when crooning even though it may not be to the taste of many Stones fans. I personally don't mind that aspect of his performance. Dangerous Beauty is an example of a song which would have benefitted immeasurably from more inspired guitars. The Richards/Taylor guitar partnership at their peak would have made this track awesome.
The most convincing aspect of the album for me is the ab-libs at the end of Streets Of Love - Jagger's vocals at this point transcend the posing/attitude he displays on many of the tracks to deliver something far more soulful and ultimately genuine and for me that's what music is all about.

I think it's a perfect comparison. Lou Reed Ecstasy and The Stones' A Bigger Bang. I also loved the Ecstasy album, but it isn't Transformer, Berlin or The Velvet Underground (or Metal Machine Music ). Same thing goes for A Bigger Bang. I love it, but no Exile, Sticky Fingers, Beggars, Bleed or Some Girls.
Most Stones albums after Tattoo You hold up pretty well, I think. But every album has some problems... SW has a terrible sound, but most of the songs are good. VL is simply a bit too long. Bridges has too many filler. Dirty Work same thing. Undercover is simply brilliant, only that 80s sound is wrong.
If you program your cd-player you have great post tattoo you albums. And the thing is: A Bigger Bang has got no real filler material (to me - so far). SOL, Neocon & Infamy aren't that great, but they aren't bad either.

This album rocks. The groove's there. And that's the thing.

"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."

Personally, Dylan's first & last (L & T...where is the next one Bob?)...are my favorites. I just adore on L&T how you can REALLY see Bob changing directions...he is getting into Americana & doing that singer/songwriter thing. At this point in his career (and for MANY folks...say Dave Alvin for example), this is just an amazing thing for him to get into. It seems as if it is the obvious choice, but part of his late career (but still pre-World Gone Wrong), it seemed as if he just wanted out & was wandering (somewhat evidenced in his book). While I think WGW is a fine album, L&T really is just the tits (ok, i really don't know if it is in my top 2 dylan records, but in my top 2 i'm listening to now...i just LOVE this album). The band he is with (mr. Sexton) is the best since the Band & just nail the songs to the wall. Not only is the album amazing, but when Dylan was touring and playing the guitar, he showed off just how hot he is on the axe...that cat can play (funny how we're surprised folks like Dylan & Jagger can really play...even though they've been doing it for 40+ years). Sadly, he is on the keys now...but...and I don't care what any yahoo says...Dylan's voice is crisper than I've ever heard it live...on the money!

To be honest, & I don't mean to offend anyone...but I've seen Dylan 20 times...and I have learned one great truth. When folks say "Dylan can't even sing, he doesn't even know the songs...", the truth is, THEY don't know the songs. Dylan totally rearranges the songs, makes em fresh, does em for himself, the way he want to share em that night (to be honest, more like that tour). If folks in the crowd think they paid for Dylan to do what they want (ie, right off album for them to feel rebellious in a suit), they should have stayed home. This is music, meant to live, breathe, expand & grow...and if the tempos, etc. are different & hard to sing along to...good. Watch that painter in action...not just the finished static piece...that's the beauty of Dylan live (and has HUGE Stones fans know...the Stones too...in fact that is what makes live music so special...nobody will ever hear it THAT way...THAT night...ever again), the songs aren't stale, they are fresh, new and alive! Dylan can still do it at 100%...it's just that some (ok, many) of the fans just can't follow him...they're stuck in the past.

i like the deep bass drum kicks. also the very clean deepbass on abb.
imo its very well produced. good quoice of different sounds.its not an overproduced album, which is in my opinion very great. i like it .
all the more i hear it, i like it more.
when you hear it very loud, it really rocks.
imo the best song on the album (currently for me) its look what the cat dragged in.
but also like laugh i nearly, biggest mistake,back of...actually the whole album.
i give 8,5 / 10 points



-----------------------------------------------------
Oh, give me the beat, boys, and free my soul
I wanna get lost in your rock and roll and drift away

Bob Dylan is so charismatic on Love And Theft lyrically and vocally even though to many he can't sing. It's possibly the most enjoyable album of his career and his backing band also deserve a lot of credit.

Love & Theft is absolute perfection. Shot voice and all.

Dylan is "getting into" Americana and doing that singer songwriting thing? To these ears, he has defined it for over 40 years!

Ross

Wild Slivovitz, (damn, there are some weird names on this board!),

Yes, the groove is there, (Jagger and production department made damn sure of that), but groove in itself is not enough. Rain Fall Down has groove, Infamy has groove - but neither have any ultimate substance/direction. Just aimless 'groove'.

Stones were always more about guts than just groove.

I bet Dylan's voice on his next album will be even worse than ever but that the album will have more guts (and less groove) than ABB.

Four Stone Walls Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wild Slivovitz, (damn, there are some weird names
> on this board!),
>
> Yes, the groove is there, (Jagger and production
> department made damn sure of that), but groove in
> itself is not enough. Rain Fall Down has groove,
> Infamy has groove - but neither have any ultimate
> substance/direction. Just aimless 'groove'.
>
> Stones were always more about guts than just
> groove.
>
> I bet Dylan's voice on his next album will be even
> worse than ever but that the album will have more
> guts (and less groove) than ABB.


Dylan lost his guts long ago, don't be fooled, the guy can't hack it anymore, he is embarrising, stop singing if you can't sing!

gained some more respect for you, sdstonesguy....for a young'un - you know your Dylan pretty well.

You are right, he can't sing. But he can still write interesting stuff.

What worries me more than his lack of voice is his lack of guitar-playing. He was SO damn good/distinctive with regard phrasing.

Four Stone Walls Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wild Slivovitz, (damn, there are some weird names
> on this board!),
>
Well, that's a reason for the mickname, it's a long story; I just tell you that I play in a band called "Slivovitz", in honour of the alcoholic central european drink...
>
> Stones were always more about guts than just
> groove.

Of course they were and they still are; "A Bigger Bang" itself to my ears has a lot more than just groove, but to me the groove is the most important think: I love, for instance, Undercover for its groove, just like "A Bigger Bang". I still prefer The latter for many reasons: I like the lyrics, the sound, the overall mood of it (I think it's classic Rolling Stones and yet very contemporary, just like Mick said in the press conference). I didn't highlight all these aspects in my previous post because I'm aware that they can be argued, according to one's personal taste. The groove can't. It's undeniably there. So I'm very happy with this record, it's a source of joy for me, like all Stones records. Ok, maybe it's not perfect, but I think it's really good, solid and rockin'.

By the way, I'm very glad to read your appreciations on Steel Wheels, I also think that there are many gems in it, and I like its fresh approach.

Laugh I nearly died and Back of my hand are the best ballards/ Blues They have doen in a while I would not give it a 5 but 3 1/-4

Funny if released years ago would have 5 stars easy gotten easy

But it is like reinventing the wheel..

Funny sit down with a causaul Srones fan who likes old stuff

Play the best five songs of this Cd bet they love it

so psycological

sdstonesguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> To be honest, & I don't mean to offend
> anyone...but I've seen Dylan 20 times...and I have
> learned one great truth. When folks say "Dylan
> can't even sing, he doesn't even know the
> songs...", the truth is, THEY don't know the
> songs. Dylan totally rearranges the songs, makes
> em fresh, does em for himself, the way he want to
> share em that night (to be honest, more like that
> tour). If folks in the crowd think they paid for
> Dylan to do what they want (ie, right off album
> for them to feel rebellious in a suit), they
> should have stayed home. This is music, meant to
> live, breathe, expand & grow...and if the
> tempos, etc. are different & hard to sing
> along to...good. Watch that painter in
> action...not just the finished static
> piece...that's the beauty of Dylan live (and has
> HUGE Stones fans know...the Stones too...in fact
> that is what makes live music so special...nobody
> will ever hear it THAT way...THAT night...ever
> again), the songs aren't stale, they are fresh,
> new and alive! Dylan can still do it at
> 100%...it's just that some (ok, many) of the fans
> just can't follow him...they're stuck in the past.



Best post of the week. Couldnt have put it better myself.

Absolutely.

And, (not wanting to sound like a whiner regarding Stones shows), Dylan's voice is bad live but after 2 or 3 numbers you don't care - because the music and setlist are so live. You'll never know what's coming - except at the encore(s). And what is astonishing is how on some nights he can lift numbers to great heights - even with that croaky, cracked larynx of his. That's the miracle.

With Stones you now get a very good singing voice, but almost predictable setlist.