For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DoxaQuote
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
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.
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.
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.
Quote
matxilQuote
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.
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.
Quote
24FPSQuote
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.
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...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.
Quote
24FPSQuote
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
DoxaQuote
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
Quote
24FPSQuote
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
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]
Quote
Doxa
Haha... that 4 out of 5 must've been a lip service to the tone of thread...
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this "Tom Waits"?
[...]
Quote
matxilQuote
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.
Quote
HairballQuote
matxilQuote
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.
Quote
HairballQuote
matxilQuote
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.