Quote
Doxa

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. 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 it is best policy to follow BV's advice that 'if you don't have anything postive to say, don't say anything'.

- Doxa

I always pay attention to your reviews Doxa, from a musical standpoint you go deeper than most reviewers , i remember your review of CH was initially sort of in the middle, you hadn't made your mind up that it was good or a dud, but on later posts you did warm to it and actually gave it a 4 out of 5 from a 3 out of 5.

Just saying.

Its normal that someone doesn`t like Keith`s voice. I love it, as well as Mick`sJ voice. I also love Lou Reed voice and many people will tell that he can`t sing. But for me music is much more than singing skills.

I think Wandering Spirit is really good and and I would rate it above most of the recent Stones albums. But for me Mick is more prone to do crap songs and Keith always maintain a certain quality level.

<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>

That's where I think Mick has gotten poorer over the years (also for his own songs).

I'm not sure if this is an artistic choice for either of them. They are both excellent melody craftsmen, when they put in time and effort, that is.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


That's where I think Mick has gotten poorer over the years (also for his own songs).

I'm not sure if this is an artistic choice for either of them. They are both excellent melody craftsmen, when they put in time and effort, that is.

I agree that Mick really has gotten poorer over the years. He relies so much on easy melodic choices and repeats some/same typical patterns more and more (which might sound even annoying if one listens too much of them). For example, although I like "Living in A Ghost Town" very much, there still is that predictable Jagger-like melodic pattern there (which he tries to hide by a strong delivery and adding some surprising note choices). I guess that what it is when one gets old and is a victim of own habits and scope. The results start to sound like forced and repitive. Inspiration and naturalness go hand in hand.

Yeah, it isn't an artistic choice I am afraid. In the case of Mick I many times get the impression that he tries melodywise too much to do something different and novel, but is bounded by his own creative imagination (that goes generally to his musical universe). It could be that he actually doesn't do as much as he once did as young, not having any longer that stamina (but then again, a true inspiration is a key there).

Over-all, I think if an old Mick sounds like trying too much, an old Keith sounds like trying too little - not even trying to write properly (setting the bar so low that one cannot miss it).

But I don't know what is the point to make these observations. These two are senior citizens and given so much original greatness to the history of music, so it sounds arrogant and disrespectful to make these obvious remarks of people getting old and losing their true muse (if compared to their heyday).

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 15:41 by Doxa.

Quote
stone4ever

I always pay attention to your reviews Doxa, from a musical standpoint you go deeper than most reviewers , i remember your review of CH was initially sort of in the middle, you hadn't made your mind up that it was good or a dud, but on later posts you did warm to it and actually gave it a 4 out of 5 from a 3 out of 5.

Just saying.

Haha... that 4 out of 5 must've been a lip service to the tone of thread... Good I didn't continue to document more how I 'grew on it'. Namely, the ratings would have gone quite low rather quickly...

I guess CROSSEYED HEART was a kind of landmark for me in the sense that I really tried to like it, it was a first Keith solo album for ages and everything, but it made me realize that I really aren't a big Keith Richards fan any longer. The problem is not in him, but in me. I realized that this also holds true in regard to his earlier solo stuff, something - especially TALK IS CHEAP - I once liked really much. I guess I just grew out of him and of his music. If it is not my kinda thing, why should I listen to it or talk about it?

I guess it is an over-all question with these 'Stones-related' projects that had I have not been a hardcore Rolling Stones fan would I ever cared any of these solo artists? I mean, solo records by Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Ron Wood and Mick Taylor has always been for me just 'side projects', funny curiosities but nothing to write home about, and I could easily live my life without having listened any of them. I wouldn't have really missed anything mind-blowing. Of course, Mick and Keith are a different animal - they are the creative heart of the Stones. Especially during the 80's Mick and Keith's solo albums were the next best thing to the real thing (and for a while it looked like that the story of The Stones will go on along these two seperate paths). There is so much pure Stones-element in all of their solo doings, they both breathe the Stones, do they like it or not. But still, if I really am honest to myself, would I ever been a fan of either of them had there not been The Rolling Stones? That's pure speculation, but I am afraid I would never been hooked by neither of these two solo artists.

Nowadays I like more Jagger's solo output, because that still somehow excites me, and that's why I tend to write more about it here in IORR.

- Doxa



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 16:31 by Doxa.

Totally agree, Doxa, although it is something that started more than 30 years ago.

Writing hundreds of songs might do this to you as well, I guess. It gets harder to create something that stands out melodically.

Then it's easier to create something that grooves, and nobody can touch Mick and Keith in that department, imo. Rhythmically, they're still unique

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Totally agree, Doxa, although it is something that started more than 30 years ago.

Writing hundreds of songs might do this to you as well, I guess. It gets harder to create something that stands out melodically.

That's natural (and yes, it started more than 30 years ago). And although The Stones used to be a rather wide scoped entity musically, and Mick and Keith for a long time took care that they are not repeating themselves, the idiom within which they create is still rather a narrow one. One cannot make miracles eternally out of three chords (to put it metaphorically). They hit the boundaries a long time ago. However, although in this site is typical to think that the grass is always greener behind the gate (and Mick and Keith are these lazy bastards and traitors of their great artistic generation), this also holds true to their great contemporiers as well, despite some of them being more profilic in releasing new stuff. Macca, Young, Dylan, Townshend... melodically those guys been repeating their own patterns - and many other things as well - for ages.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 17:21 by Doxa.

Lovers Plea for me is like Continental Drift two of the best studio songs the stones ever did. I always listen to CH and Keith's solo records and Mick's solo records which for me fill the void of those above records since the 80's which I hardly listen to. The exile and some girls bonus tracks are enjoyable to listen to also.

Quote
matxil

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.

Sorry I was talking about the K'naan remix version,

If by "latest Stones albums" we say post-Wyman era...which I guess no one said that that is the agreed upon definition, but that's what I'll use for my answer, then my answer is no.

Babylon is better than Crosseyed Heart, even with some of the misfires on Babylon. Babylon is daring in ways that no Stones related album has been since Undercover, though SW definitely took some fun turns with Terrifying and Continental Drift. Daring doesn't always translate into "better", but in BtB's case it makes it better, IMHO...and then Blue and Lonesome is higher than Crosseyed Heart just as a great love letter to their love of blues.

That said, I haven't listened to Crosseyed Heart since last December 18th when I listened to all my Keith stuff, including Wingless Angels...so maybe I need to give it another spin to see how it sounds to me now, but that's my feeling off the cuff.

I do know that Voodoo Lounge and A Bigger Bang have not aged well for me, and outside of some good songs on each are not better albums than Crosseyed Heart, IMHO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 20:08 by floodonthepage.

Quote
floodonthepage
If by "latest Stones albums" we say post-Wyman era...which I guess no one said that that is the agreed upon definition, but that's what I'll use for my answer, then my answer is no.

Babylon is better than Crosseyed Heart, even with some of the misfires on Babylon. Babylon is daring in ways that no Stones related album has been since Undercover, though SW definitely took some fun turns with Terrifying and Continental Drift. Daring doesn't always translate into "better", but in BtB's case it makes it better, IMHO...and then Blue and Lonesome is higher than Crosseyed Heart just as a great love letter to their love of blues.

That said, I haven't listened to Crosseyed Heart since last December 18th when I listened to all my Keith stuff, including Wingless Angels...so maybe I need to give it another spin to see how it sounds to me now, but that's my feeling off the cuff.

I do know that Voodoo Lounge and A Bigger Bang have not aged well for me, and outside of some good songs on each are not better albums than Crosseyed Heart, IMHO.

I think Post-Wyman is the only way to define Voodoo Lounge forward. The remaining group stopped looking forward and created a 'classic' retro Stones albums. It would take stopped up ears not to hear 'New Faces' as 'Lady Jane'.
Bridges, while quite ambitious, in the end sounds dated.

I love Keith's voice up until 20 years ago. Unlike Mick, Keith has done nothing to help preserve what voice he had. I find CH unlistenable. If I want Tom Waits, I'll buy Tom Waits. (Which I won't.)

I guess the question is does Crosseyed Heart sound better than A Bigger Bang? No. Not at all. And it's not that high a bar. Technically Crosseye Heart is up against Blue and Lonesome. There's no competition. B&L is possibly their best album since Tatoo You.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
floodonthepage
If by "latest Stones albums" we say post-Wyman era...which I guess no one said that that is the agreed upon definition, but that's what I'll use for my answer, then my answer is no.

Babylon is better than Crosseyed Heart, even with some of the misfires on Babylon. Babylon is daring in ways that no Stones related album has been since Undercover, though SW definitely took some fun turns with Terrifying and Continental Drift. Daring doesn't always translate into "better", but in BtB's case it makes it better, IMHO...and then Blue and Lonesome is higher than Crosseyed Heart just as a great love letter to their love of blues.

That said, I haven't listened to Crosseyed Heart since last December 18th when I listened to all my Keith stuff, including Wingless Angels...so maybe I need to give it another spin to see how it sounds to me now, but that's my feeling off the cuff.

I do know that Voodoo Lounge and A Bigger Bang have not aged well for me, and outside of some good songs on each are not better albums than Crosseyed Heart, IMHO.

I think Post-Wyman is the only way to define Voodoo Lounge forward. The remaining group stopped looking forward and created a 'classic' retro Stones albums. It would take stopped up ears not to hear 'New Faces' as 'Lady Jane'.
Bridges, while quite ambitious, in the end sounds dated.

I love Keith's voice up until 20 years ago. Unlike Mick, Keith has done nothing to help preserve what voice he had. I find CH unlistenable. If I want Tom Waits, I'll buy Tom Waits. (Which I won't.)

I guess the question is does Crosseyed Heart sound better than A Bigger Bang? No. Not at all. And it's not that high a bar. Technically Crosseye Heart is up against Blue and Lonesome. There's no competition. B&L is possibly their best album since Tatoo You.

Well yes, naturally post-Wyman is the only way to define Voodoo forward...but someone else may define "latest albums" as going back to SW or even just the latest, latest, B&L.

Agreed that B&L is best album since Tattoo You, and even agreed that Bridges is dated, but I still think it's daring and best of the (original) post-Wyman Stones albums. Undercover is dated too really, but daring in it's own great way.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-19 22:08 by floodonthepage.

I like CH very much, but some of the songs don't feel 100% finished and some of the lyrics a bit weak. Great album but I definitely like that last 3 RS records better and if you include Blue and Lonesome I'd say their last 4 were better.

Quote
Lynd8
I like CH very much, but some of the songs don't feel 100% finished and some of the lyrics a bit weak. Great album but I definitely like that last 3 RS records better and if you include Blue and Lonesome I'd say their last 4 were better.

Agree. There are a couple of magnificent tunes on Crosseyed Heart, but there are also some unfinished jams that don’t give me anything. Very much like any Stones album since... Well, all the Stones albums too, actually...

[www.reverbnation.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-20 01:19 by audun-eg.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
floodonthepage
If by "latest Stones albums" we say post-Wyman era...which I guess no one said that that is the agreed upon definition, but that's what I'll use for my answer, then my answer is no.

Babylon is better than Crosseyed Heart, even with some of the misfires on Babylon. Babylon is daring in ways that no Stones related album has been since Undercover, though SW definitely took some fun turns with Terrifying and Continental Drift. Daring doesn't always translate into "better", but in BtB's case it makes it better, IMHO...and then Blue and Lonesome is higher than Crosseyed Heart just as a great love letter to their love of blues.

That said, I haven't listened to Crosseyed Heart since last December 18th when I listened to all my Keith stuff, including Wingless Angels...so maybe I need to give it another spin to see how it sounds to me now, but that's my feeling off the cuff.

I do know that Voodoo Lounge and A Bigger Bang have not aged well for me, and outside of some good songs on each are not better albums than Crosseyed Heart, IMHO.

I think Post-Wyman is the only way to define Voodoo Lounge forward. The remaining group stopped looking forward and created a 'classic' retro Stones albums. It would take stopped up ears not to hear 'New Faces' as 'Lady Jane'.
Bridges, while quite ambitious, in the end sounds dated.

I love Keith's voice up until 20 years ago. Unlike Mick, Keith has done nothing to help preserve what voice he had. I find CH unlistenable. If I want Tom Waits, I'll buy Tom Waits. (Which I won't.)

I guess the question is does Crosseyed Heart sound better than A Bigger Bang? No. Not at all. And it's not that high a bar. Technically Crosseye Heart is up against Blue and Lonesome. There's no competition. B&L is possibly their best album since Tatoo You.

I can see the Keith - Tom Waits comparison, and probably yes, if you don't like one, you might not like the other. Personally I like Tom Waits until the beginning of the 90s, RainDogs and a little bit after, until it got too much "experimental without melody". However, as far as voices go, I'd say Keith's voice with all its limitations is closer, especially in approach, to Leonard Cohen (of the last years especially). They both use the same clever use of backing vocals to give more depth to their songs, for one thing. Cohen's "You Want It Darker" could have been sung by Keith, and Keith's "Suspicious" by Cohen.

Just my 2 cents.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stone4ever

I always pay attention to your reviews Doxa, from a musical standpoint you go deeper than most reviewers , i remember your review of CH was initially sort of in the middle, you hadn't made your mind up that it was good or a dud, but on later posts you did warm to it and actually gave it a 4 out of 5 from a 3 out of 5.

Just saying.

Haha... that 4 out of 5 must've been a lip service to the tone of thread... Good I didn't continue to document more how I 'grew on it'. Namely, the ratings would have gone quite low rather quickly...

I guess CROSSEYED HEART was a kind of landmark for me in the sense that I really tried to like it, it was a first Keith solo album for ages and everything, but it made me realize that I really aren't a big Keith Richards fan any longer. The problem is not in him, but in me. I realized that this also holds true in regard to his earlier solo stuff, something - especially TALK IS CHEAP - I once liked really much. I guess I just grew out of him and of his music. If it is not my kinda thing, why should I listen to it or talk about it?

I guess it is an over-all question with these 'Stones-related' projects that had I have not been a hardcore Rolling Stones fan would I ever cared any of these solo artists? I mean, solo records by Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Ron Wood and Mick Taylor has always been for me just 'side projects', funny curiosities but nothing to write home about, and I could easily live my life without having listened any of them. I wouldn't have really missed anything mind-blowing. Of course, Mick and Keith are a different animal - they are the creative heart of the Stones. Especially during the 80's Mick and Keith's solo albums were the next best thing to the real thing (and for a while it looked like that the story of The Stones will go on along these two seperate paths). There is so much pure Stones-element in all of their solo doings, they both breathe the Stones, do they like it or not. But still, if I really am honest to myself, would I ever been a fan of either of them had there not been The Rolling Stones? That's pure speculation, but I am afraid I would never been hooked by neither of these two solo artists.

Nowadays I like more Jagger's solo output, because that still somehow excites me, and that's why I tend to write more about it here in IORR.

- Doxa

You make it all sound so depressing, that's the last thing Crosseyed Heart is, it's a very uplifting album, sorry your dislike of the man gets in the way of any enjoyment his music could bring you.

come to think of it ....
Where is Mr Tom Waits ?????

aint sighted the guy in a
long time .... enjoyin farm life .,..



ROCKMAN

It is truly amazing how diverse human brains work.

Whenever I put CH on, all I have to do is turn the volume way high and what follows is more or less 1 hour of bliss. Most of the times I have to repeat tracks.

Further pro, It's one of the few stones related records that my lady likes!

Is it better than Bang or Babylon?

Don't know, and don't care. Know what? When I get back from work I'll play them all in a row and drink a bottle of whine thanking god that I don't get what REAL GREAT music should sound like!

C

Quote
24FPS

Quote
floodonthepage
If by "latest Stones albums" we say post-Wyman era...which I guess no one said that that is the agreed upon definition, but that's what I'll use for my answer, then my answer is no.

Babylon is better than Crosseyed Heart, even with some of the misfires on Babylon. Babylon is daring in ways that no Stones related album has been since Undercover, though SW definitely took some fun turns with Terrifying and Continental Drift. Daring doesn't always translate into "better", but in BtB's case it makes it better, IMHO...and then Blue and Lonesome is higher than Crosseyed Heart just as a great love letter to their love of blues.

That said, I haven't listened to Crosseyed Heart since last December 18th when I listened to all my Keith stuff, including Wingless Angels...so maybe I need to give it another spin to see how it sounds to me now, but that's my feeling off the cuff.

I do know that Voodoo Lounge and A Bigger Bang have not aged well for me, and outside of some good songs on each are not better albums than Crosseyed Heart, IMHO.

I think Post-Wyman is the only way to define Voodoo Lounge forward. The remaining group stopped looking forward and created a 'classic' retro Stones albums. It would take stopped up ears not to hear 'New Faces' as 'Lady Jane'.
Bridges, while quite ambitious, in the end sounds dated.

I love Keith's voice up until 20 years ago. Unlike Mick, Keith has done nothing to help preserve what voice he had. I find CH unlistenable. If I want Tom Waits, I'll buy Tom Waits. (Which I won't.)

I guess the question is does Crosseyed Heart sound better than A Bigger Bang? No. Not at all. And it's not that high a bar. Technically Crosseye Heart is up against Blue and Lonesome. There's no competition. B&L is possibly their best album since Tatoo You.

Yes, I quite agree. But I think in hindsight that this second hand-Tom Waits-Keith appeared on All about you on Emotional Rescue. Run run Rudolph was the last of Keith with his voice not drowned in second hand Tom Waits-manners. The Stones have always been influenced by all sorts of things, but in most cases their take is stronger. That has not been the the case with Tom Waits' influence on Keith-songs on Stones-albums or on his solo albums. I don't care much for Tom Waits, which I often find "fake-authentic" and tiresome in his poses as a drunkard. So of course it's a mystery to me why a legend like Keith Richards suddenly gave up and and wanted to be Tom Waits.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-20 13:15 by GetYerAngie.

Why is this "Tom Waits"?





[www.youtube.com]

What's "Tom Waits" about this?





[www.youtube.com]

This?





[www.youtube.com]

Waits?





[www.youtube.com]

I better check Tom Waits out for soul gems like this...





[www.youtube.com]

The way he and Steve turn around the beat in Amnesia is worth the whole album experience alone. And the hypnotic outro to Something For Nothing, YUMMY!

Similar to Liddas, my old lady prefers X-eyed the most of all Stones-related stuff (along with Black and Blue, funnily enough).

Being a musician I also enjoy the two different ways that Mick and Keith approaches songwriting, we should just be thankful for the fact that their Brains and ears works differently. Imagine if they had the same mindset! We wouldn't have had the 58 years (and still counting) of joy I tell ya!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-20 13:18 by MadMax.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this "Tom Waits"?





[www.youtube.com]

What's "Tom Waits" about this?





[www.youtube.com]

This?





[www.youtube.com]

Waits?





[www.youtube.com]

I better check Tom Waits out for soul gems like this...





[www.youtube.com]

Yeah,Tom Waits allmost everywhere in Keith's voice since All about you (1980). And often in the overall sound.

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Doxa

Haha... that 4 out of 5 must've been a lip service to the tone of thread...

you can't say things like that and still be Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this "Tom Waits"?
[...]

I agree. Apart from having a "rough" voice and loosely based on blues, jazz and "lounge", I don't see much similarities, neither musically nor in the way the are using their voices. As I said before, I see more similarities with Leonard Cohen (later years) and CH.
Substantial Damage might have a slight Tom Waits feel to it, but I don't see much connection. And I like both. I prefer 70's and 80's Tom Waits though.

Blues in the Morning
Keith Richards

Got the blues in the morning
I believe that's far too long
Got the blues in the morning
Now babe it stayed too long
It's hardcore babe but I gotta sing this song
Maybe frayed around the edges but a little bit loose outside
Strong around the edges but really, really loose inside
I'm long gone honey, you ain't gonna be my bride
Blues in the morning
Baby they last too long
We got the blues in the morning
Baby they're back too long

Had a hard-on babe but now it's come and gone
Holes in my pocket
Baby don't ask me why
They got holes in my pocket but, babe don't ask me why

I bought you everything and now you're wanna say goodbye
Got a picture of your face and I hold it up to the light
Got a picture of your face and I hold it up to the light
But on a good day baby…

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this "Tom Waits"?
[...]

I agree. Apart from having a "rough" voice and loosely based on blues, jazz and "lounge", I don't see much similarities, neither musically nor in the way the are using their voices. As I said before, I see more similarities with Leonard Cohen (later years) and CH.
Substantial Damage might have a slight Tom Waits feel to it, but I don't see much connection. And I like both. I prefer 70's and 80's Tom Waits though.

Agree. The people who make the Tom Waits comparison have either never heard Tom Waits, or are just repeating the false comparison they read from someone else who has never heard Tom Waits.
Keith's vocals have definitely aged, and maybe not like a fine wine that continues to get better, but more like the last third of the barrel of some high quality whiskey with a bit of sediment floating around.
Similar to the latter era Dylan or Leonard Cohen as you mentioned, maybe it's an acquired taste, but it fits the music well and is a major part of why Crosseyed Heart is such a fantastic album.
There's no autotune, vocoder, or any other *manipulative effects on his vocals, or any drum samples or other gimmicks (ala quantized) - at least none that are obvious or glaringly apparent.
The overall production is reeled in and down to earth, and what you hear is absolute reality as if they just hit record and released it in all of it's original glory - in that sense similar to Blue and Lonesome.

*On Substantial Damage, sounds like he could have used a handheld megaphone to shout through to add to the chaotic vibe, or was recorded from a distance in an empty hallway, but those are old school techniques.
Maybe it's that shouting technique that could invite the Waits comparison, but it's definitely not in the sound of his actual vocals on their own, and that goes for everything he's ever sang on.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this "Tom Waits"?
[...]

I agree. Apart from having a "rough" voice and loosely based on blues, jazz and "lounge", I don't see much similarities, neither musically nor in the way the are using their voices. As I said before, I see more similarities with Leonard Cohen (later years) and CH.
Substantial Damage might have a slight Tom Waits feel to it, but I don't see much connection. And I like both. I prefer 70's and 80's Tom Waits though.

Agree. The people who make the Tom Waits comparison have either never heard Tom Waits, or are just repeating the false comparison they read from someone else who has never heard Tom Waits.
Keith's vocals have definitely aged, and maybe not like a fine wine that continues to get better, but more like the last third of the barrel of some high quality whiskey with a bit of sediment floating around.
Similar to the latter era Dylan or Leonard Cohen as you mentioned, maybe it's an acquired taste, but it fits the music well and is a major part of why Crosseyed Heart is such a fantastic album.
There's no autotune, vocoder, or any other *manipulative effects on his vocals, or any drum samples or other gimmicks (ala quantized) - at least none that are obvious or glaringly apparent.
The overall production is reeled in and down to earth, and what you hear is absolute reality as if they just hit record and released it in all of it's original glory - in that sense similar to Blue and Lonesome.

*On Substantial Damage, sounds like he could have used a handheld megaphone to shout through to add to the chaotic vibe, or was recorded from a distance in an empty hallway, but those are old school techniques.
Maybe it's that shouting technique that could invite the Waits comparison, but it's definitely not in the sound of his actual vocals on their own, and that goes for everything he's ever sang on.

Good comparison would be Last Leaf or That feel, both duets (and great tunes)

I for one do like "All About You" and consider it one of the three alltime great songs of EMOTIONAL RESCUE, whereas I am not at all delighted by CROSSEYED HEART.

And if some might think that you are and have to be a relentless anti- Keith basher, if you are not delighted by CROSSEYED HEART, I am one who did appreciate TALK IS CHEAP, and I still do so.

"Blues in the Morning" shoulda been a Keef-Song on a Stones album...it's got "that jive" to it...

IMO.

great tune.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this "Tom Waits"?
[...]

I agree. Apart from having a "rough" voice and loosely based on blues, jazz and "lounge", I don't see much similarities, neither musically nor in the way the are using their voices. As I said before, I see more similarities with Leonard Cohen (later years) and CH.
Substantial Damage might have a slight Tom Waits feel to it, but I don't see much connection. And I like both. I prefer 70's and 80's Tom Waits though.

Agree. The people who make the Tom Waits comparison have either never heard Tom Waits, or are just repeating the false comparison they read from someone else who has never heard Tom Waits.
Keith's vocals have definitely aged, and maybe not like a fine wine that continues to get better, but more like the last third of the barrel of some high quality whiskey with a bit of sediment floating around.
Similar to the latter era Dylan or Leonard Cohen as you mentioned, maybe it's an acquired taste, but it fits the music well and is a major part of why Crosseyed Heart is such a fantastic album.
There's no autotune, vocoder, or any other *manipulative effects on his vocals, or any drum samples or other gimmicks (ala quantized) - at least none that are obvious or glaringly apparent.
The overall production is reeled in and down to earth, and what you hear is absolute reality as if they just hit record and released it in all of it's original glory - in that sense similar to Blue and Lonesome.

*On Substantial Damage, sounds like he could have used a handheld megaphone to shout through to add to the chaotic vibe, or was recorded from a distance in an empty hallway, but those are old school techniques.
Maybe it's that shouting technique that could invite the Waits comparison, but it's definitely not in the sound of his actual vocals on their own, and that goes for everything he's ever sang on.

Boooah, what a cheap stab... As if this does make a great album...

"It's the song, stupid!"