Tell Me :
Talk
Thanks for reminding me why I don't like the album. Those f-ing trash can lid drums the Stones, including Keith as solo, fell in love with years ago. I used to love Keith's voice. It was a real rock instrument. And then it wasn't. 'Say It's Not You' with George Jones is killer.
Haha... usually is not a good way to define one's greatness by negative terms - something is good because not what it is but what it is not. Like saying 'hey, this is great rock music because there is no saxophone there' or 'The Stones are great because they don't sound like the Beatles'. Among the Stones folklore and especially among the strongest Keith Richards devotees it seems sometimes to be a crucial part of defining Keith's greatness by the doings of Mick Jagger - like Keith is not an independent artist of his own right but somehow parasitic to Mick Jagger (as Hairball so obviously means there). Anyway, that was Jane Rose's PR strategy back in the 80's when she started to work for Keith, and she did a great job.
What goes to Waits, Dylan and Cohen comparisons I wouldn't much pay attention to similarities between their voices (all of them have aged, which can be heard in their voices, so that's common). But I see there another similarity. Namely, what really stood me out when CROSSEYED HEART was released was how musically mature and independent it was. Keith sounded like a true solo artist, a singer song-writer in the vain of Waits, Cohen and Dylan. TALK IS CHEAP and MAIN OFFENDER were so much based on 'Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones has now a new group', and his role was still pretty much a band member and leader, not much different than he had with the Stones, although taking care of the lead vocal duties/acting a frontman. But CROSSEYED HEART is not any longer a band effort, but a fruition of Keith's ideas supported by a suitable people he needed for the tracks (of course, Jordan being the partner in crime there, as Keith seemingly needs always a sparring partner, someone to trade ideas with). It very much relied on Keith's persona, his idiosyncracy, his rootsie taste of music. To me it really sounded like that finally Keith is on his own, not dependent on Jagger or The Stones (there is a feel in both of his previous solo albums that 'hey excuse me, I only do this because The Stones are not not working, and that's because Mick is a bitch') - or even on the Winos. It was like a musical paraller to LIFE. Him making a personal musical testament.
It is also because of having this feature of sounding a true solo effort and so personal, I don't find the comparison to The Rolling Stones - and even less to doings of Mick Jagger - fruitful at all.
To judge the outcome, to like it or not, is a different animal.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-21 12:48 by Doxa.
To me, this solo record also reeks of "The Stones aren't working so I better do my own thing", again. Fact is that The Stones haven't been able to make an all-new studio album and Crosseyed Heart apparently was made by recording stuff off and on over several years during which The Stones weren't doing any serious recording. The difference might be that this time -but also when Main Defender was released- Keith didn't vent about it all the time in the press, for some reason (perhaps these days few people would have been interested anyway?).
The rest, I agree with completely, they are artists in their own right. But I still prefer a Stones record to a solo record, just as I enjoy, say, a Led Zeppelin record more than a Jimmy Page solo record.
Lucky you don't even have to make that choice
Well five years after the fact, including the original lengthy thread where some of us dissected each song one by one for months on end, there's only so many positive superlatives one can use to describe the high quality of the album. Comparisons seem a natural way to describe and/or critique something, and if one has something the other one doesn't (for better or worse) and vice versa, then it can only help the explanation.
Whether it's food, books, movies, music, etc., etc., comparisons are natural. Such as, "this hamburger tastes great because there's not much fat in it" - same way Crosseyed Heart is great because there's not much gimmickry involved with it. But aside from that, I also mentioned the high quality production values and compared the simplicity of it to Blue and Lonesome, so there's both positive and negative comparisons to be made when describing anything.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
there's neither to look forward to
True. And?
As far as I can tell Crosseyed Heart as well as 'the latest Stones albums', already came out several years ago, so I, for one, won't be looking forward to those either
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-22 01:05 by SomeGuy.
I don't think it is depressing at all... c'mon, it is just music... and if one particular album doesn't uplift me, there are, thankfully, thousands of albums over there doing that for me. That's great about music, it only brings positive vibes or nothing. No negative vibes.
And it's not 'disliking the man', but if the issue is to discuss things with such personal terms (my own fault because I chose a bit misfortunate words above), for me it is more like not loving the man so incredibly much to enjoy his solo albums. I guess my love is not blind enough to ignore/not recognize the musical shortcomings (not that there aren't some great features as well, but seemingly not enough of them for me to compansate the shortcomings). I mean, one can 'love' what Bill Wyman did with the Stones, and see him as about the greatest bass player in a rock and roll band ever, despite not loving MONKEY GRIP so much, now can one? I guess many people here see Mick Jagger similarly.
Like I said, it's only music. It moves you or it doesn't. A taste is one son of bitch - surely one can develop it or something, but in the end it is a pretty tough one to manipulate: you either like or you don't. For example, I once purchased all the Beatles albums, listened and studied them, I recognized all the greatness there (in a theory I could write essays in describing their brilliance), but shit, finally, I came to the conclusion, no matter how hard I fought against: this music doesn't move me. Of course, I 'like' them, like everybody does, and it always sounds fresh and alright when some song of theirs pops up suddenly, but I haven't really listened them for 30 years willingly (that is: pick up an album and listen it). I guess I just happen to have some damage in my brains where suppose to locate a 'Beatles click' like almost everyone has. But that doesn't depress me...
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-22 11:08 by Doxa.
There isn't ANY Tom Waits in Keith's voice.
You're reaching for something that isn't there. Waits' Cold Water is the closest to the Stones (and Keith) Waits has ever gotten - musically. His voice is still Waits, not Keith or Mick.
Keith has never done anything that resembles Tom Waits.
You really are a true beliver. I'm impressed.
Your way of turning the matter backwards is just so convincing. Especially when you point out that there isn't any Mick in Waits.
No one said Keith was imitating Waits. What is meant is that Keith's voice has devolved into an almost unlistenable growl, akin to the way Waits sounds.
thanks for the completely unnecessary visual.
Ugh...I really don't think you should go there!
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:
24FPS
()
Date: May 21, 2020 01:44
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]
Thanks for reminding me why I don't like the album. Those f-ing trash can lid drums the Stones, including Keith as solo, fell in love with years ago. I used to love Keith's voice. It was a real rock instrument. And then it wasn't. 'Say It's Not You' with George Jones is killer.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 21, 2020 12:16
Quote
retired_dogQuote
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.
Boooah, what a cheap stab... As if this does make a great album...
"It's the song, stupid!"
Haha... usually is not a good way to define one's greatness by negative terms - something is good because not what it is but what it is not. Like saying 'hey, this is great rock music because there is no saxophone there' or 'The Stones are great because they don't sound like the Beatles'. Among the Stones folklore and especially among the strongest Keith Richards devotees it seems sometimes to be a crucial part of defining Keith's greatness by the doings of Mick Jagger - like Keith is not an independent artist of his own right but somehow parasitic to Mick Jagger (as Hairball so obviously means there). Anyway, that was Jane Rose's PR strategy back in the 80's when she started to work for Keith, and she did a great job.
What goes to Waits, Dylan and Cohen comparisons I wouldn't much pay attention to similarities between their voices (all of them have aged, which can be heard in their voices, so that's common). But I see there another similarity. Namely, what really stood me out when CROSSEYED HEART was released was how musically mature and independent it was. Keith sounded like a true solo artist, a singer song-writer in the vain of Waits, Cohen and Dylan. TALK IS CHEAP and MAIN OFFENDER were so much based on 'Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones has now a new group', and his role was still pretty much a band member and leader, not much different than he had with the Stones, although taking care of the lead vocal duties/acting a frontman. But CROSSEYED HEART is not any longer a band effort, but a fruition of Keith's ideas supported by a suitable people he needed for the tracks (of course, Jordan being the partner in crime there, as Keith seemingly needs always a sparring partner, someone to trade ideas with). It very much relied on Keith's persona, his idiosyncracy, his rootsie taste of music. To me it really sounded like that finally Keith is on his own, not dependent on Jagger or The Stones (there is a feel in both of his previous solo albums that 'hey excuse me, I only do this because The Stones are not not working, and that's because Mick is a bitch') - or even on the Winos. It was like a musical paraller to LIFE. Him making a personal musical testament.
It is also because of having this feature of sounding a true solo effort and so personal, I don't find the comparison to The Rolling Stones - and even less to doings of Mick Jagger - fruitful at all.
To judge the outcome, to like it or not, is a different animal.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-21 12:48 by Doxa.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
SomeGuy
()
Date: May 21, 2020 18:27
Quote
DoxaQuote
retired_dogQuote
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.
Boooah, what a cheap stab... As if this does make a great album...
"It's the song, stupid!"
Haha... usually is not a good way to define one's greatness by negative terms - something is good because not what it is but what it is not. Like saying 'hey, this is great rock music because there is no saxophone there' or 'The Stones are great because they don't sound like the Beatles'. Among the Stones folklore and especially among the strongest Keith Richards devotees it seems sometimes to be a crucial part of defining Keith's greatness by the doings of Mick Jagger - like Keith is not an independent artist of his own right but somehow parasitic to Mick Jagger (as Hairball so obviously means there). Anyway, that was Jane Rose's PR strategy back in the 80's when she started to work for Keith, and she did a great job.
What goes to Waits, Dylan and Cohen comparisons I wouldn't much pay attention to similarities between their voices (all of them have aged, which can be heard in their voices, so that's common). But I see there another similarity. Namely, what really stood me out when CROSSEYED HEART was released was how musically mature and independent it was. Keith sounded like a true solo artist, a singer song-writer in the vain of Waits, Cohen and Dylan. TALK IS CHEAP and MAIN OFFENDER were so much based on 'Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones has now a new group', and his role was still pretty much a band member and leader, not much different than he had with the Stones, although taking care of the lead vocal duties/acting a frontman. But CROSSEYED HEART is not any longer a band effort, but a fruition of Keith's ideas supported by a suitable people he needed for the tracks (of course, Jordan being the partner in crime there, as Keith seemingly needs always a sparring partner, someone to trade ideas with). It very much relied on Keith's persona, his idiosyncracy, his rootsie taste of music. To me it really sounded like that finally Keith is on his own, not dependent on Jagger or The Stones (there is a feel in both of his previous solo albums that 'hey excuse me, I only do this because The Stones are not not working, and that's because Mick is a bitch') - or even on the Winos. It was like a musical paraller to LIFE. Him making a personal musical testament.
It is also because of having this feature of sounding a true solo effort and so personal, I don't find the comparison to The Rolling Stones - and even less to doings of Mick Jagger - fruitful at all.
To judge the outcome, to like it or not, is a different animal.
- Doxa
To me, this solo record also reeks of "The Stones aren't working so I better do my own thing", again. Fact is that The Stones haven't been able to make an all-new studio album and Crosseyed Heart apparently was made by recording stuff off and on over several years during which The Stones weren't doing any serious recording. The difference might be that this time -but also when Main Defender was released- Keith didn't vent about it all the time in the press, for some reason (perhaps these days few people would have been interested anyway?).
The rest, I agree with completely, they are artists in their own right. But I still prefer a Stones record to a solo record, just as I enjoy, say, a Led Zeppelin record more than a Jimmy Page solo record.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: May 21, 2020 19:58
Quote
SomeGuy
...just as I enjoy, say, a Led Zeppelin record more than a Jimmy Page solo record.
Lucky you don't even have to make that choice
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: May 21, 2020 20:23
Quote
retired_dogQuote
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.
Boooah, what a cheap stab... As if this does make a great album...
"It's the song, stupid!"
Well five years after the fact, including the original lengthy thread where some of us dissected each song one by one for months on end, there's only so many positive superlatives one can use to describe the high quality of the album. Comparisons seem a natural way to describe and/or critique something, and if one has something the other one doesn't (for better or worse) and vice versa, then it can only help the explanation.
Whether it's food, books, movies, music, etc., etc., comparisons are natural. Such as, "this hamburger tastes great because there's not much fat in it" - same way Crosseyed Heart is great because there's not much gimmickry involved with it. But aside from that, I also mentioned the high quality production values and compared the simplicity of it to Blue and Lonesome, so there's both positive and negative comparisons to be made when describing anything.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
SomeGuy
()
Date: May 21, 2020 22:10
Quote
NikkeiQuote
SomeGuy
...just as I enjoy, say, a Led Zeppelin record more than a Jimmy Page solo record.
Lucky you don't even have to make that choice
I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: May 22, 2020 00:25
Quote
SomeGuyQuote
NikkeiQuote
SomeGuy
...just as I enjoy, say, a Led Zeppelin record more than a Jimmy Page solo record.
Lucky you don't even have to make that choice
I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
there's neither to look forward to
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
SomeGuy
()
Date: May 22, 2020 00:56
Quote
NikkeiQuote
SomeGuyQuote
NikkeiQuote
SomeGuy
...just as I enjoy, say, a Led Zeppelin record more than a Jimmy Page solo record.
Lucky you don't even have to make that choice
I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
there's neither to look forward to
True. And?
As far as I can tell Crosseyed Heart as well as 'the latest Stones albums', already came out several years ago, so I, for one, won't be looking forward to those either
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-22 01:05 by SomeGuy.
Re: 
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums? Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 22, 2020 10:57
Quote
stone4ever
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.
I don't think it is depressing at all... c'mon, it is just music... and if one particular album doesn't uplift me, there are, thankfully, thousands of albums over there doing that for me. That's great about music, it only brings positive vibes or nothing. No negative vibes.
And it's not 'disliking the man', but if the issue is to discuss things with such personal terms (my own fault because I chose a bit misfortunate words above), for me it is more like not loving the man so incredibly much to enjoy his solo albums. I guess my love is not blind enough to ignore/not recognize the musical shortcomings (not that there aren't some great features as well, but seemingly not enough of them for me to compansate the shortcomings). I mean, one can 'love' what Bill Wyman did with the Stones, and see him as about the greatest bass player in a rock and roll band ever, despite not loving MONKEY GRIP so much, now can one? I guess many people here see Mick Jagger similarly.
Like I said, it's only music. It moves you or it doesn't. A taste is one son of bitch - surely one can develop it or something, but in the end it is a pretty tough one to manipulate: you either like or you don't. For example, I once purchased all the Beatles albums, listened and studied them, I recognized all the greatness there (in a theory I could write essays in describing their brilliance), but shit, finally, I came to the conclusion, no matter how hard I fought against: this music doesn't move me. Of course, I 'like' them, like everybody does, and it always sounds fresh and alright when some song of theirs pops up suddenly, but I haven't really listened them for 30 years willingly (that is: pick up an album and listen it). I guess I just happen to have some damage in my brains where suppose to locate a 'Beatles click' like almost everyone has. But that doesn't depress me...
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-05-22 11:08 by Doxa.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: May 22, 2020 11:09
Quote
liddas
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 wine thanking god that I don't get what REAL GREAT music should sound like!
Kind of nails it for me, what this music is all about, the fun of it, the joy of it, this has to be the best post on iorr for a long time.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 22, 2020 14:39
It's possible to answer both yes and no to stillife's question.
Yes, because it steers clear off the "Stones by numbers" and rather generic rockers. Also because the songwriting is stronger than we've been used to on latter-day Stones albums.
No, because there is something missing: That of the idiosyncratic and signature sounds of Mick, Ronnie and Charlie.
The latter is important if you wanna compare. But why compare in the first place? It's a solo album
Yes, because it steers clear off the "Stones by numbers" and rather generic rockers. Also because the songwriting is stronger than we've been used to on latter-day Stones albums.
No, because there is something missing: That of the idiosyncratic and signature sounds of Mick, Ronnie and Charlie.
The latter is important if you wanna compare. But why compare in the first place? It's a solo album
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: May 22, 2020 16:32
Quote
GetYerAngie
Yeah,Tom Waits allmost everywhere in Keith's voice since All about you (1980). And often in the overall sound.
There isn't ANY Tom Waits in Keith's voice.
You're reaching for something that isn't there. Waits' Cold Water is the closest to the Stones (and Keith) Waits has ever gotten - musically. His voice is still Waits, not Keith or Mick.
Keith has never done anything that resembles Tom Waits.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
GetYerAngie
()
Date: May 22, 2020 19:02
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
GetYerAngie
Yeah,Tom Waits allmost everywhere in Keith's voice since All about you (1980). And often in the overall sound.
There isn't ANY Tom Waits in Keith's voice.
You're reaching for something that isn't there. Waits' Cold Water is the closest to the Stones (and Keith) Waits has ever gotten - musically. His voice is still Waits, not Keith or Mick.
Keith has never done anything that resembles Tom Waits.
You really are a true beliver. I'm impressed.
Your way of turning the matter backwards is just so convincing. Especially when you point out that there isn't any Mick in Waits.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: May 22, 2020 19:24
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
GetYerAngie
Yeah,Tom Waits allmost everywhere in Keith's voice since All about you (1980). And often in the overall sound.
There isn't ANY Tom Waits in Keith's voice.
You're reaching for something that isn't there. Waits' Cold Water is the closest to the Stones (and Keith) Waits has ever gotten - musically. His voice is still Waits, not Keith or Mick.
Keith has never done anything that resembles Tom Waits.
No one said Keith was imitating Waits. What is meant is that Keith's voice has devolved into an almost unlistenable growl, akin to the way Waits sounds.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: May 22, 2020 22:31
From choir boy ta Tom Waits...
That's quite a haul ta take ya vocal chords on ...
ROCKMAN
That's quite a haul ta take ya vocal chords on ...
ROCKMAN
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: May 23, 2020 00:30
Yeah, fasten your seatbelt!
~"Love is Strong"~
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: May 23, 2020 01:26
I prefer to go commando with no seat belt ....
Deep down it just feels better ........
ROCKMAN
Deep down it just feels better ........
ROCKMAN
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 23, 2020 03:44
Quote
Rockman
I prefer to go commando with no seat belt ....
Deep down it just feels better ........
thanks for the completely unnecessary visual.
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: May 23, 2020 03:48
Mum taught me to always share .....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 23, 2020 23:54
Quote
Rockman
Mum taught me to always share .....
Ugh...I really don't think you should go there!
Re: Is Crosseyed Heart better than the latest Stones albums?
Posted by:
guitarbastard
()
Date: May 24, 2020 02:53
the biggest difference is the sound/production imho. since dirty work they never managed to get a good, convincing or at least special sound. listen to "ghosttown" - its just overproduced, while CEH sounds just great. natural, warm, rough, unpolished, charming. it's a pitty they stuck to don was.i really think they should have tried jack white, that would have been interesting. plus its a songwriting thing. as much as i admire jagger for many things, i really dont like those middle of the road poprock-jagger-songs he keeps writing for ages now....
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Big Al , DandelionPowderman , gotdablouse , marclaff , Mr.Soul , NathanLaze , Satisfaction , souldoggie , Spud , StonyRoad , straycatuk
Guests:
2085
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10