For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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
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!"
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
Quote
SomeGuy
...just as I enjoy, say, a Led Zeppelin record more than a Jimmy Page solo record.
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!"
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Quote
GetYerAngie
Yeah,Tom Waits allmost everywhere in Keith's voice since All about you (1980). And often in the overall sound.
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.
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.
Quote
Rockman
I prefer to go commando with no seat belt ....
Deep down it just feels better ........
Quote
Rockman
Mum taught me to always share .....