Tell Me :
Talk
Agree!
Oh God yeah, you have to go back as far as Tattoo You to find a Stones album as good as Crosseyed Heart, i still think if Mick had been on CH it would definitely be up there with Tattoo You and Emotional Rescue, don't get me wrong i love Keith's Vocals on it, he did a good Job but as a Stones album it would have been seen as a return to form creatively.
Tattoo You IS a compilation
So do I.
I really like CIH!
Absurd statement ... but at least we now know HMS's new username.
In my case, I might have added one word: I even prefer DIRTY WORK to CROSSEYED HEART.
I wouldn't say he 'lost' his voice, simply that it has morphed with age, booze, and ciggies. I quite like it. He's a great Bakersfield country singer.
That's mainly because he didn't bother to perfect/work out the melodies for SOME of his songs, I guess. However, I will claim that Mick has that very same "problem" - hence we get too many Mother Of A Man-ish songs.
With Keith's tenor still intact, though, we wouldn't have gotten songs like Make No Mistake sung with conviction, so it's a double-edged sword.
Just to make sure you get me. I'm not blind or deaf - I too shake my head from time to time when I hear "melodies" like Running Too Deep or the studio version of Big Enough (the melody was completed when he took it to the stage, though, rather nicely, imo).
I would say that those are two different issues, even though linked: his voice and being a bit lazy melody-maker. However, the latter is not necessarily to be with laziness, but as an artistic choice. Keith a long ago acquired the habit of making songs around riffs and other instrumental-based foundations, to be sure the song has a right feel, with just some very rough cues for melody lines. The proper melody lines (and lyrics) was the last thing to be added to the cake - and the latter, when he learned the habit, was something Mick usually did. Take years and see how it will effect to an over-all output: three Keith's solo albums. I think there is some truth in Mick's claim - around the time of TALK IS CHEAP I guess - that to him Keith's solo songs sounded like stuff he would offer him to finish. But here we get a link to his voice - mostly he relies on the interpretation skills playing around the melody cues.
Anyway, to me sometimes that works and sometimes is not. At best times that gives an impression of free-going spirit and unique, relaxed feel. Sometimes just lazy, unfinished stuff.
Then the voice. Yep that tenor of young Keith has gone a long ago (dammit, listen to his background vocals and especially what he does in EXILE, Pavarotti or not, but distinguished and beautiful). The elder voice has its charm, but personally for me as got older and more confident his 'interpretation skills' just started to take over and being like a means to cover the shortage of his voice (he is no Bob Dylan). I think in TALK IS CHEAP those are somehow in balance - there is some rigourness still in his delivery, and not 'acting Keith Richards' too much. But CROSSEYED HEART from start to finish is almost unlistenable to me. It is such a showcase of every breath he takes 'look, I am Keith Richards', over-acting his own cliches, that it simply is too much for me. It is like his myth put on vinyl.
Mostly it asks acquired taste to enjoy the outcome - what retired dog's friend says of people needing to love Keith Richards to really enjoy it, nails it, I think.
What goes for the comparison here - CROSSEYED HEART to latest Stones albums - that's apples and oranges to me. And I am more a Rolling Stones fan than a Keith Richards fan.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 12:26 by Doxa.
Because it's loud but without dynamics, without a melody, without a riff or lick or groove, without harmonies. It's just a loud, uninspired 12 bar blues which you can hear on every Friday night during the soundcheck as a warming-up jam of an average band in an average blues bar.
The rest of the album is great though. Illusion, Suspicious, Lover's Plea especially.
Be honest mate, this is about the most hostile place in the world towards Keith, it was overwhelmingly received as a great album on its release because many people who are not regular posters came along to give their opinions on the new album from Keith.
The only negative comments are coming from Keith bashers basically, most people love the album more now than when it was released, it's a keeper unless you don't like Keith's voice, and if you don't like Keith's voice why would you buy the album in the first place.
I love Bob Dylan, even his voice at its worst is great to me, my wife can't stand it, so i can play Dylan's masterpieces and they fall on deaf ears as far as my wife is concerned.
Do you see the pointlessness of someone saying Keith singing Goodnight Irene is unbearable so Crosseyed Heart is crap. It means you are a Stones fan, not a Keith solo fan, as Doxa said it's Apples and Oranges, why would someone who hates Mick Jaggers voice be qualified to judge if Exile or Sticky Fingers are the best Stones album's, it's like asking someone who hates Jazz to decide the greatest Jazz artist in history.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 12:35 by stone4ever.
Haha, there was LongBeach, me and a couple of others who spoiled the party there at the time. Anyway, I learned my lesson there and stopped taking Keith Richards seriously any longer in terms of saying anything critical of him (I guess what I wrote above was the first instance ever since, and I really had my doubts if to say anything). The notions of being critical and being negative usually are confused in fansites like ours, and I think it is best policy to follow BV's advice that 'if you don't have anything positive to say, don't say anything'.
- Doxa
P.S. Longbeach learned his lesson more efficiently: he quitted altogether.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 12:45 by Doxa.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
MadMax
()
Date: May 18, 2020 12:04
CH got much better production and mixin (ie no brickwalling) than ABB and except for BITM (could've been skipped, it ain't ICHSYU even if it tries) it got 14 great songs.
Stuff like the hypnotic SFN, Heartstopper, Lover's Plea, Trouble and Amnesia are the bees knees.
Agree about B & L as it is covers. B2B almost touches CH but Voodoo is in the same League IMHO.
I'd rank 'em like this:
1. X-Eyed
2. VL
3. B & L
4. B2B
5. ABB
I really hope the lads got time to come out with a 10, 11 track-filled new album which won't be brickwalled like crazy and dynamically sounding like CH and just filled with real nuggets. They still got it in them.
Stuff like the hypnotic SFN, Heartstopper, Lover's Plea, Trouble and Amnesia are the bees knees.
Agree about B & L as it is covers. B2B almost touches CH but Voodoo is in the same League IMHO.
I'd rank 'em like this:
1. X-Eyed
2. VL
3. B & L
4. B2B
5. ABB
I really hope the lads got time to come out with a 10, 11 track-filled new album which won't be brickwalled like crazy and dynamically sounding like CH and just filled with real nuggets. They still got it in them.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: May 18, 2020 12:48
CH is unforced and that’s the charm.
Bridges
CH
VL
Bang
Bridges
CH
VL
Bang
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
GetYerAngie
()
Date: May 18, 2020 16:31
Quote
Rockman
Nothing on X-Eyed matches the sheer
ferocity and attack of It Wont Take Long ....
Nothing on X-Eyed comes anywhere near Hoo Doo Blues ...
Agree!
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 18, 2020 16:38
The Stones haven't done anything superior to Hoodoo Blues since 1983, imo. 
It Won't Take Long is a bit boring, imo, although I like the first minute of it - and the atmosphere it's setting up. The chorus doesn't really deliver what's "promised", imo.
It Won't Take Long is a bit boring, imo, although I like the first minute of it - and the atmosphere it's setting up. The chorus doesn't really deliver what's "promised", imo.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
SomeGuy
()
Date: May 18, 2020 16:49
"He's not exactly Pavarotti" (Bill Wyman on Keith's vocal abilities, 1988).
Although my first reaction to Trouble, on first listen, was, this is absolutely nothing even remotely what you could call a song, I got to like it anyway. I think it's Keith's best solo album, although I think Main Offender is a close 2nd.
But in the end, it's no Rolling Stones and as far as solo projects go, it's obvious that the proper band is way more than the sum of its parts. The only Stones album that I would rank below Crosseyed Heart is Bridges To Babylon.
Although my first reaction to Trouble, on first listen, was, this is absolutely nothing even remotely what you could call a song, I got to like it anyway. I think it's Keith's best solo album, although I think Main Offender is a close 2nd.
But in the end, it's no Rolling Stones and as far as solo projects go, it's obvious that the proper band is way more than the sum of its parts. The only Stones album that I would rank below Crosseyed Heart is Bridges To Babylon.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: May 18, 2020 17:12
I love Crosseyed Heart EXCEPT for Goodnight Irene. That is a shocker and an absolute travesty of a cover of a crap song and just brings the record down... what was he thinking? He is a rock star, covering that? Woeful.
Rod
Rod
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
SomeGuy
()
Date: May 18, 2020 17:23
I wouldn't know what's wrong with that 'crap song'.
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: May 18, 2020 22:21
Quote
stillife
In the latest Stones albums there are some good songs but in many of them I think there is a big influence of Mick Jagger solo kind of songs and a decrease of quality. Crosseyed Heart seems to me a solid work with an overall quality that I don`t find in the latest Stones albums. What do you think?
Oh God yeah, you have to go back as far as Tattoo You to find a Stones album as good as Crosseyed Heart, i still think if Mick had been on CH it would definitely be up there with Tattoo You and Emotional Rescue, don't get me wrong i love Keith's Vocals on it, he did a good Job but as a Stones album it would have been seen as a return to form creatively.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: May 18, 2020 22:35
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
exilestonesQuote
windmelody
In my opinion Crosseyed Heart is a collage, Richards played some riffs and licks and sang a little. His friends took those snippets ad turned it into an album with nice moments, but it is fa from being great.
Crosseyed Heart is a bunch of songs, not really an 'album.' A Bigger Bang is an album where the songs fit together well.
Oh. You're one of THOSE.
Next thing you'll be saying is TATTOO YOU is a "compilation".
Tattoo You IS a compilation
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: May 18, 2020 22:36
Quote
Witness
I prefer DIRTY WORK to CROSSEYED HEART.
So do I.
I really like CIH!
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Jimmer
()
Date: May 18, 2020 22:40
I like CH much better than Keith's prior album (Main Offender). If we are going back 30 years, I would put Wandering Spirit ahead of CH in terms of Mick vs. Keith solos, from my own personal enjoyment level. I like Voodoo Lounge more than CH. But I can't say I would put ABB or Bridges ahead of CH.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
MartinB
()
Date: May 18, 2020 22:55
Keith's vocals are obviously acquired taste (e.g. Irene). I love it.
Not sure how to rank CH but ABB was dreadful.
Not sure how to rank CH but ABB was dreadful.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: May 18, 2020 23:23
X-eyed Heart wins for me! I love every tune! I also love all the albums after Steel Wheels, but X-Eyed is just a notch above all.
I also love both Talk is Cheap and Main Offender ... and still I think I put X-Eyed ahead of both.
I also love both Talk is Cheap and Main Offender ... and still I think I put X-Eyed ahead of both.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: May 18, 2020 23:34
I love "Trouble" though. Generic Stones music.
(and I added another Keith good solo song below).
Trouble: [www.youtube.com]
Wicked As It Seems:
[www.youtube.com]
(and I added another Keith good solo song below).
Trouble: [www.youtube.com]
Wicked As It Seems:
[www.youtube.com]
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: May 18, 2020 23:47
Quote
Four Stone Walls
Tattoo You IS a compilation
Absurd statement ... but at least we now know HMS's new username.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: May 18, 2020 23:49
So, HMS is back. Good to hear! You're more than welcome!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-18 23:54 by Stoneage.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-18 23:54 by Stoneage.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
SomeGuy
()
Date: May 18, 2020 23:54
Quote
LeonidPQuote
Four Stone Walls
Tattoo You IS a compilation
Absurd statement ... but at least we now know HMS's new username.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Iggyrichards
()
Date: May 18, 2020 23:55
The 7 song run that starts out Crosseyed heart is great. Love Heartstopper and Kieth's version of Love overdue is fantastic. His vocals on that one feel like pure vintage Kieth to me.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 00:04 by Iggyrichards.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 00:04 by Iggyrichards.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: May 19, 2020 00:07
Quote
Four Stone WallsQuote
Witness
I prefer DIRTY WORK to CROSSEYED HEART.
So do I.
I really like CIH!
In my case, I might have added one word: I even prefer DIRTY WORK to CROSSEYED HEART.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: May 19, 2020 04:10
It's a pity that Keith only started to release solo albums after he lost his voice. I could listen to the Toronto 1977 stuff endlessly or We Had It All, Run Rudolph Run, The Harder They Come and the like, not to speak of You Got The Silver, Happy, Coming Down Again, Before They Make Me Run and whatever, but have a hard time playing his solo albums from start to finish just because of this voice - no matter how good or bad the actual songs are. Speaking of this, his first two albums have the memorable songs.
An old friend of mine used to say: "People don't love him because he's a good singer, they love him because he's Keith Richards!". In that respect, CH is for dedicated Keith lovers only.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 04:16 by retired_dog.
An old friend of mine used to say: "People don't love him because he's a good singer, they love him because he's Keith Richards!". In that respect, CH is for dedicated Keith lovers only.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 04:16 by retired_dog.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
StonedAsiaExile
()
Date: May 19, 2020 05:21
Quote
retired_dog
It's a pity that Keith only started to release solo albums after he lost his voice. I could listen to the Toronto 1977 stuff endlessly or We Had It All, Run Rudolph Run, The Harder They Come and the like, not to speak of You Got The Silver, Happy, Coming Down Again, Before They Make Me Run and whatever, but have a hard time playing his solo albums from start to finish just because of this voice - no matter how good or bad the actual songs are. Speaking of this, his first two albums have the memorable songs.
An old friend of mine used to say: "People don't love him because he's a good singer, they love him because he's Keith Richards!". In that respect, CH is for dedicated Keith lovers only.
I wouldn't say he 'lost' his voice, simply that it has morphed with age, booze, and ciggies. I quite like it. He's a great Bakersfield country singer.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Shott
()
Date: May 19, 2020 05:36
I think CH by a hair, in part because it doesn't have any crap songs like Neocon, or Sweethearts together. If I had a friend that didn't know latter period Stones, and I wanted to prove they still have it, I would give him CH.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
bobo
()
Date: May 19, 2020 09:14
Nowhere near it. Poor effort.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: May 19, 2020 09:52
Why does Blues In The Morning get mixed reviews? Such a raucous song, supposedly spit out rapidly after Pierre handed Keith guitar that fit that genre. Hopefully the new album will have awesome numbers reminiscent of this song and B&L tunes....something that strikes my nervous system
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 19, 2020 10:18
Quote
retired_dog
It's a pity that Keith only started to release solo albums after he lost his voice. I could listen to the Toronto 1977 stuff endlessly or We Had It All, Run Rudolph Run, The Harder They Come and the like, not to speak of You Got The Silver, Happy, Coming Down Again, Before They Make Me Run and whatever, but have a hard time playing his solo albums from start to finish just because of this voice - no matter how good or bad the actual songs are. Speaking of this, his first two albums have the memorable songs.
An old friend of mine used to say: "People don't love him because he's a good singer, they love him because he's Keith Richards!". In that respect, CH is for dedicated Keith lovers only.
That's mainly because he didn't bother to perfect/work out the melodies for SOME of his songs, I guess. However, I will claim that Mick has that very same "problem" - hence we get too many Mother Of A Man-ish songs.
With Keith's tenor still intact, though, we wouldn't have gotten songs like Make No Mistake sung with conviction, so it's a double-edged sword.
Just to make sure you get me. I'm not blind or deaf - I too shake my head from time to time when I hear "melodies" like Running Too Deep or the studio version of Big Enough (the melody was completed when he took it to the stage, though, rather nicely, imo).
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 19, 2020 11:52
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
retired_dog
It's a pity that Keith only started to release solo albums after he lost his voice. I could listen to the Toronto 1977 stuff endlessly or We Had It All, Run Rudolph Run, The Harder They Come and the like, not to speak of You Got The Silver, Happy, Coming Down Again, Before They Make Me Run and whatever, but have a hard time playing his solo albums from start to finish just because of this voice - no matter how good or bad the actual songs are. Speaking of this, his first two albums have the memorable songs.
An old friend of mine used to say: "People don't love him because he's a good singer, they love him because he's Keith Richards!". In that respect, CH is for dedicated Keith lovers only.
That's mainly because he didn't bother to perfect/work out the melodies for SOME of his songs, I guess. However, I will claim that Mick has that very same "problem" - hence we get too many Mother Of A Man-ish songs.
With Keith's tenor still intact, though, we wouldn't have gotten songs like Make No Mistake sung with conviction, so it's a double-edged sword.
Just to make sure you get me. I'm not blind or deaf - I too shake my head from time to time when I hear "melodies" like Running Too Deep or the studio version of Big Enough (the melody was completed when he took it to the stage, though, rather nicely, imo).
I would say that those are two different issues, even though linked: his voice and being a bit lazy melody-maker. However, the latter is not necessarily to be with laziness, but as an artistic choice. Keith a long ago acquired the habit of making songs around riffs and other instrumental-based foundations, to be sure the song has a right feel, with just some very rough cues for melody lines. The proper melody lines (and lyrics) was the last thing to be added to the cake - and the latter, when he learned the habit, was something Mick usually did. Take years and see how it will effect to an over-all output: three Keith's solo albums. I think there is some truth in Mick's claim - around the time of TALK IS CHEAP I guess - that to him Keith's solo songs sounded like stuff he would offer him to finish. But here we get a link to his voice - mostly he relies on the interpretation skills playing around the melody cues.
Anyway, to me sometimes that works and sometimes is not. At best times that gives an impression of free-going spirit and unique, relaxed feel. Sometimes just lazy, unfinished stuff.
Then the voice. Yep that tenor of young Keith has gone a long ago (dammit, listen to his background vocals and especially what he does in EXILE, Pavarotti or not, but distinguished and beautiful). The elder voice has its charm, but personally for me as got older and more confident his 'interpretation skills' just started to take over and being like a means to cover the shortage of his voice (he is no Bob Dylan). I think in TALK IS CHEAP those are somehow in balance - there is some rigourness still in his delivery, and not 'acting Keith Richards' too much. But CROSSEYED HEART from start to finish is almost unlistenable to me. It is such a showcase of every breath he takes 'look, I am Keith Richards', over-acting his own cliches, that it simply is too much for me. It is like his myth put on vinyl.
Mostly it asks acquired taste to enjoy the outcome - what retired dog's friend says of people needing to love Keith Richards to really enjoy it, nails it, I think.
What goes for the comparison here - CROSSEYED HEART to latest Stones albums - that's apples and oranges to me. And I am more a Rolling Stones fan than a Keith Richards fan.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 12:26 by Doxa.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: May 19, 2020 12:06
I do remember almost everyone praising it (CH) when it was new though. Seems to be more of a mixed feeling now?
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: May 19, 2020 12:06
Quote
Maindefender
Why does Blues In The Morning get mixed reviews? Such a raucous song, supposedly spit out rapidly after Pierre handed Keith guitar that fit that genre. Hopefully the new album will have awesome numbers reminiscent of this song and B&L tunes....something that strikes my nervous system
Because it's loud but without dynamics, without a melody, without a riff or lick or groove, without harmonies. It's just a loud, uninspired 12 bar blues which you can hear on every Friday night during the soundcheck as a warming-up jam of an average band in an average blues bar.
The rest of the album is great though. Illusion, Suspicious, Lover's Plea especially.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: May 19, 2020 12:16
Quote
Stoneage
I do remember almost everyone praising it (CH) when it was new though. Seems to be more of a mixed feeling now?
Be honest mate, this is about the most hostile place in the world towards Keith, it was overwhelmingly received as a great album on its release because many people who are not regular posters came along to give their opinions on the new album from Keith.
The only negative comments are coming from Keith bashers basically, most people love the album more now than when it was released, it's a keeper unless you don't like Keith's voice, and if you don't like Keith's voice why would you buy the album in the first place.
I love Bob Dylan, even his voice at its worst is great to me, my wife can't stand it, so i can play Dylan's masterpieces and they fall on deaf ears as far as my wife is concerned.
Do you see the pointlessness of someone saying Keith singing Goodnight Irene is unbearable so Crosseyed Heart is crap. It means you are a Stones fan, not a Keith solo fan, as Doxa said it's Apples and Oranges, why would someone who hates Mick Jaggers voice be qualified to judge if Exile or Sticky Fingers are the best Stones album's, it's like asking someone who hates Jazz to decide the greatest Jazz artist in history.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 12:35 by stone4ever.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 19, 2020 12:34
Quote
Stoneage
I do remember almost everyone praising it (CH) when it was new though. Seems to be more of a mixed feeling now?
Haha, there was LongBeach, me and a couple of others who spoiled the party there at the time. Anyway, I learned my lesson there and stopped taking Keith Richards seriously any longer in terms of saying anything critical of him (I guess what I wrote above was the first instance ever since, and I really had my doubts if to say anything). The notions of being critical and being negative usually are confused in fansites like ours, and I think it is best policy to follow BV's advice that 'if you don't have anything positive to say, don't say anything'.
- Doxa
P.S. Longbeach learned his lesson more efficiently: he quitted altogether.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 12:45 by Doxa.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Big Al , blackadder , DandelionPowderman , dedospegajosos , dishevelmentblues , hickorywind , IsakSun , PaintMonkeyManBlack , pooroldgrandad , RG , Rosto , spunky , straycatuk , Topi
Guests:
1830
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10