Quote
Doxa

Quote
slewan

Quote
wesley
(…)
This album compares to Bob Dylan's two modern classics from the 2000s; Modern Times and Time out of Mind, at least I still play them continuously.

hahaha – joke of the year.

The biggest difference between Hackney Diamonds and Time Out Of Mind as well as Love & Theft is that Hackney Diamonds in in the vein with a lot of things the Stones done before while Time Out Of Mind as well as Love & Theft break away from almost everything Dylan has done before. Those two Dylan albums offer a complete new sound and feeling while Hackney Diamonds is a rather typical Stones/Jagger album. That doesn't mean it's bad, of course.

Why a joke? Those two Dylan albums are modern classics - well, at least TIME OUT OF MIND non-disputed is, released 26 years ago - but not because Dylan, once again, re-invented himself, but because those are great albums. Like HACKNEY DIAMONDS is.

Re-inventing oneself is not a guarantee of greatness in itself or even a value of its own. It is the quality of the results that matter.

- Doxa

you're surely right – re-invention oneself and/or taking new directions is no guarantee for anything.
But I still think it's a joke to compare Hackney Diamonds to TOOM.
1. As I said before TOOM added something fresh to Dylan's works. I don't think that can be said of Hackney Diamonds.
2. it is way too early to tell if Hackney Diamonds will stand the test of time. I completely understand that anyone (including me) tends to overrate new albums by their favorite artists when they are first released. As far as I remember quite a few Stones albums were hailed as the best since Some Girls (just as new Dylan albums tend to be hailed as the best since Blood On The Tracks (or – nowadays – the best since TOOM). So it's a kind of joke to me compare a new album on it's release day with stuff that has surely stood the test of time.

I think it’s a really excellent album and for its times it’s anA-. I hate to compare it to the big 4 because that is just too high a standard.But if you put a gun to my head I’d say it is way better than a Bigger Bang but not as good as Tatoo You and Bridges to Babylon if you are comparing it to albums since 1978.But it is still an excellent album

In my book, best since Tattoo You.. maybe on a par with it.

I guess there is not much better things in the world to do than listening to a new Rolling Stones album. No hurry to judge or evaluate anything, just let the music flow and do its magic. No reason to compare, no reason to analyse, no reason show its place in the history of the Stones or pop music in general. No, just to take it as an art piece of its own, The Rolling Stones presented here and now. Just keep one's ears and mind open. Let it grow on you, let its nuances and patterns, all those choices and ideas, little by little, after more and more listening, come to more and more familiar, to be grasped in their full glory.

So I don't feel like reviewing anything yet, nor sharing any of occasional impressions of its highs or lows here. Those days will come, but no hurry - I just enjoy the very process of where I am now. Feel privileged. And happy.

But while doing that, it is funny to reflect the impressions and feelings one goes through. I find myself in a dilemma that is based on following this band over forty years and knowing their music, legacy and everything thru and thru, way better than probably is reasonable for a sane person. The mountain of references from the past is out of this world and it affects on every observation. There is no way to avoid conservatism here. The conceptual scheme to interpret any new content shared by this band is heavy like hell, and there is no way of avoiding bias. One immediately recognizes the familiar elements (good or bad) and mind goes hastily making cozy but probably unfair comparisons. That is safe game, easy to do, happens by instinct. Pure conservatism. But at the same time are traits that are novel and odd - how to come in terms with them? How to interpret them? Mind is not ready for them. They might sound odd, since they conflict with the expectations (prejudices actually). And in each tune both of those two elements are present. Of course, in some tunes the other has a bigger role than the other.

So listening a new Stones song - any of them - is like trying to make sense of the confusion made by these two elements - the mix of familiar and cozy content with something novel. It takes time to get grasp it, you know, how is the song like in its own terms. But it is, let me repeat, a lovely process, and I enjoy every sec of it.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-20 14:29 by Doxa.

Bite My Head Off is sort of the cousin of Easy, Sleazy.

[www.reverbnation.com]

booklet with details of the tracks, lyrics, band pictures and a tribute to Charile saying:

DEDICATED WITH LOVE
TO CHARLIEWATTS

also in digipack version

Quote
Doxa
I guess there is not much better things in the world to do than listening to a new Rolling Stones album. No hurry to judge or evaluate anything, just let the music flow and do its magic. No reason to compare, no reason to analyse, no reason show its place in the history of the Stones or pop music in general. No, just to take it as an art piece of its own, The Rolling Stones presented here and now. Just keep one's ears and mind open. Let it grow on you, let its nuances and patterns, all those choices and ideas, little by little, after more and more listening, come to more and more familiar, to be grasped in their full glory.

So I don't feel like reviewing anything yet, nor sharing any of occasional impressions of its highs or lows here. Those days will come, but no hurry - I just enjoy the very process of where I am now. Feel privileged. And happy.

But while doing that, it is funny to reflect the impressions and feelings one goes through. I find myself in a dilemma that is based on following this band over forty years and knowing their music, legacy and everything thru and thru, way better than probably is reasonable for a sane person. The mountain of references from the past is out of this world and it affects on every observation. There is no way to avoid conservatism here. The conceptual scheme to interpret any new content shared by this band is heavy like hell, and there is no way of avoiding bias. One immediately recognizes the familiar elements (good or bad) and mind goes hastily making cozy but probably unfair comparisons. That is safe game, easy to do, happens by instinct. Pure conservatism. But at the same time are traits that are novel and odd - how to come in terms of them? How to interpret them? Mind is not ready for them. They might sound odd, since they conflict with the expectations (prejudices actually). And in each tune both of those two elements are present. Of course, in some tunes the other has a bigger role than the other.

So listening a new Stones song - any of them - is like trying to make sense of the confusion made by there the two elements - the mix of familiar and cozy content with something novel. It takes time to get grasp it, you know, how is the song like in its own terms. But it is, let me repeat, a lovely process, and I enjoy every sec of it.

- Doxa

You're right. I'm enjoying this album, but it's true, there are old references of “what a Stones album should sound like” and at the same time they have added some new ingredients, new melodies, etc.

My Rolling Stones fan mentality needs to adapt to these developments, but I appreciate the changes and the effort they have made.

Yes, it's too early, but here goes...

Not a fan of "Dreamy Skies" - but I can see others are. Fair enough. Some reviewers speak about a mini-slump in the middle of the album, and I can see that, but the quality of the start and finish are still better than anything after Tattoo You. BTW that is in my top 5, so high praise.

Watt has done a great job all over, but maybe best in terms of the separation of the guitars. Bite My Head Off and Driving Me Too Hard - you hear the "weaving" like you've not heard it for forty years.

Overall, so fresh, so vital - and such good songs.

Also I'll stick my neck out here. Is there a hint at the end of WWW? "The party's over ... when they get you?"

Did both not participate in the sessions? If so, anyone know why? Just curious...

I think Darryl was playing on tour with his jazz projects. Chuck I don't know.

i’m not sure if this is the reason, but I understand Chuck’s wife has had some health challenges.

And no Bernard Fowler!

Quote
hockenheim95
And no Bernard Fowler!

The Stones do nothing by chance. Keith's bass on Angry sounds like what the bass on a Stones song should sound like. They must have heard by now how that was a problem in their overall sound. As for Chuck, I don't know. They used to change the on stage lineup every three years or so. It hasn't been freshened up in 30 years. Maybe that just happened, maybe it was planned. Anyway you look at it, nice song, it was a happy circumstance.

The sound for the last 30 years has grown stale. Darryl has rarely been an integral part to the recordings. He was good on Voodoo Lounge and then faded over the years. Chuck is generally good, even though he gets a bit tinkly inappropriately on songs like Midnight Rambler.

It's too bad they haven't been able to find the genius sidemen like they had in the past. Nicky, Bobby, Billy. I guess rock and roll has stopped producing such giants. Extraordinary musicians must be extremely hard to find.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
hockenheim95
And no Bernard Fowler!

The Stones do nothing by chance. Keith's bass on Angry sounds like what the bass on a Stones song should sound like. They must have heard by now how that was a problem in their overall sound. As for Chuck, I don't know. They used to change the on stage lineup every three years or so. It hasn't been freshened up in 30 years. Maybe that just happened, maybe it was planned. Anyway you look at it, nice song, it was a happy circumstance.

The sound for the last 30 years has grown stale. Darryl has rarely been an integral part to the recordings. He was good on Voodoo Lounge and then faded over the years. Chuck is generally good, even though he gets a bit tinkly inappropriately on songs like Midnight Rambler.

It's too bad they haven't been able to find the genius sidemen like they had in the past. Nicky, Bobby, Billy. I guess rock and roll has stopped producing such giants. Extraordinary musicians must be extremely hard to find.

I agree. Jagger said the 2019 sessions did not work, they did not get going. I bet Andrew Matt lured Mick into writing and recording with just the core of the band, aided by Jagger's friend Matt Clifford.

Mathijs

But were Chuck and Darryl in the 2019 sessions ? Chuck wasn't in the 2015 sessions since he publicly whined about not being on B&L and made a nuisance of himself until they let him do some overdubs for B&L !

Anyway Darryl's back on stage !

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
gotdablouse
But were Chuck and Darryl in the 2019 sessions ? Chuck wasn't in the 2015 sessions since he publicly whined about not being on B&L and made a nuisance of himself until they let him do some overdubs for B&L !

Anyway Darryl's back on stage !

Before Jagger's remark I don't think we knew there were 2019 sessions...

Mathijs

Quote
24FPS

Quote
hockenheim95
And no Bernard Fowler!

The Stones do nothing by chance. Keith's bass on Angry sounds like what the bass on a Stones song should sound like. They must have heard by now how that was a problem in their overall sound. As for Chuck, I don't know. They used to change the on stage lineup every three years or so. It hasn't been freshened up in 30 years. Maybe that just happened, maybe it was planned. Anyway you look at it, nice song, it was a happy circumstance.

The sound for the last 30 years has grown stale. Darryl has rarely been an integral part to the recordings. He was good on Voodoo Lounge and then faded over the years. Chuck is generally good, even though he gets a bit tinkly
inappropriately on songs like Midnight Rambler.

It's too bad they haven't been able to find the genius sidemen like they had in the past. Nicky, Bobby, Billy. I guess rock and roll has stopped producing such giants. Extraordinary musicians must be extremely hard to find.

Amen

Quote
kowalski

Quote
Topi
Better than ABB by a country mile.

Different era, different producer, some different musicians... Not sure it can be compared to ABB.

The production on ABB doesn't make it hold up very well unfortunately. Same goes for Steel Wheels btw and B2B although the sound on the latter holds up better.
We will have to wait with Hackney Diamonds. It sounds fresh now but who knows in 5 years.

Cheers,
Wuudy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-20 14:25 by Wuudy.

Quote
slewan

Quote
Doxa

Quote
slewan

Quote
wesley
(…)
This album compares to Bob Dylan's two modern classics from the 2000s; Modern Times and Time out of Mind, at least I still play them continuously.

hahaha – joke of the year.

The biggest difference between Hackney Diamonds and Time Out Of Mind as well as Love & Theft is that Hackney Diamonds in in the vein with a lot of things the Stones done before while Time Out Of Mind as well as Love & Theft break away from almost everything Dylan has done before. Those two Dylan albums offer a complete new sound and feeling while Hackney Diamonds is a rather typical Stones/Jagger album. That doesn't mean it's bad, of course.

Why a joke? Those two Dylan albums are modern classics - well, at least TIME OUT OF MIND non-disputed is, released 26 years ago - but not because Dylan, once again, re-invented himself, but because those are great albums. Like HACKNEY DIAMONDS is.

Re-inventing oneself is not a guarantee of greatness in itself or even a value of its own. It is the quality of the results that matter.

- Doxa

you're surely right – re-invention oneself and/or taking new directions is no guarantee for anything.
But I still think it's a joke to compare Hackney Diamonds to TOOM.
1. As I said before TOOM added something fresh to Dylan's works. I don't think that can be said of Hackney Diamonds.
2. it is way too early to tell if Hackney Diamonds will stand the test of time. I completely understand that anyone (including me) tends to overrate new albums by their favorite artists when they are first released. As far as I remember quite a few Stones albums were hailed as the best since Some Girls (just as new Dylan albums tend to be hailed as the best since Blood On The Tracks (or – nowadays – the best since TOOM). So it's a kind of joke to me compare a new album on it's release day with stuff that has surely stood the test of time.

So is the point that if one has something negative to say in its release day it is more valid than saying something positive about it? So one can be more objective about seeing the crap than the gold there? The former observation will stand the test of time better?

In my book, feeling at the moment like HACKNEY DIAMONDS is OUT OF MY MIND caliber masterpiece is as valid as feeling it is not. My stance is Carpe Diem: who cares about what one feels like about the album some day in future, if it feels wonderful now. We might not live then. Be wesley's instinct impression whatever, I don't find much point in trying 'objectively' to prove why a 1997 Dylan album must be superior in the very release day of a new Stones album. What's the point really? Personally, I don't give a flying fvck about how TODAY RELEASED new Stones album compares to an old Dylan album (that, by the way, happens to be one of my personal all-time favourites).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-20 14:18 by Doxa.

The Keith song is growing on me as well.

Nice Guardian interview out today with Mick...

[www.theguardian.com]

Cheers to the Stones, loving this!

Quote
LondonLee
Not a great album, in fact far from it, and feels very much like a mixture of a Mick solo album with a mixture of Stones tracks that weren't released because they weren't deemed decent enough to be put on a B side.

4 excellent tracks - Angry, Sweet sounds... , Tell me Straight and Rolling Stones Blues but for me the rest I'm happy to have listened to and will do so every now and again but seldomly.

I know we couldn't expect something akin to them at their best and should be amazed that men in or near their 80s can still make an album like that but it's not even as good as being a 'Stones by Numbers album'.

Far from being the best output since Some Girls, for me this is the worst record since Dirty Work and, whisper it quietly, I probably prefer that to be honest.

So you listen to Whole Wide World and you think 'mmmm, that's mediocre'?

Mathijs

Had a first listen during my commute. It definitely sounds like the Stones.

Quote
goingmad

Quote
Doxa
I guess there is not much better things in the world to do than listening to a new Rolling Stones album. No hurry to judge or evaluate anything, just let the music flow and do its magic. No reason to compare, no reason to analyse, no reason show its place in the history of the Stones or pop music in general. No, just to take it as an art piece of its own, The Rolling Stones presented here and now. Just keep one's ears and mind open. Let it grow on you, let its nuances and patterns, all those choices and ideas, little by little, after more and more listening, come to more and more familiar, to be grasped in their full glory.

So I don't feel like reviewing anything yet, nor sharing any of occasional impressions of its highs or lows here. Those days will come, but no hurry - I just enjoy the very process of where I am now. Feel privileged. And happy.

But while doing that, it is funny to reflect the impressions and feelings one goes through. I find myself in a dilemma that is based on following this band over forty years and knowing their music, legacy and everything thru and thru, way better than probably is reasonable for a sane person. The mountain of references from the past is out of this world and it affects on every observation. There is no way to avoid conservatism here. The conceptual scheme to interpret any new content shared by this band is heavy like hell, and there is no way of avoiding bias. One immediately recognizes the familiar elements (good or bad) and mind goes hastily making cozy but probably unfair comparisons. That is safe game, easy to do, happens by instinct. Pure conservatism. But at the same time are traits that are novel and odd - how to come in terms of them? How to interpret them? Mind is not ready for them. They might sound odd, since they conflict with the expectations (prejudices actually). And in each tune both of those two elements are present. Of course, in some tunes the other has a bigger role than the other.

So listening a new Stones song - any of them - is like trying to make sense of the confusion made by there the two elements - the mix of familiar and cozy content with something novel. It takes time to get grasp it, you know, how is the song like in its own terms. But it is, let me repeat, a lovely process, and I enjoy every sec of it.

- Doxa

You're right. I'm enjoying this album, but it's true, there are old references of “what a Stones album should sound like” and at the same time they have added some new ingredients, new melodies, etc.

My Rolling Stones fan mentality needs to adapt to these developments, but I appreciate the changes and the effort they have made.

Yeah, you put that better - lesser words, that is - than I did. I sometimes feel like if the fanbase - including myself - of the last decades, and each one having sort of an own idea 'how the ideal Stones should sound like' (a kind of conservative idea based on their past achievements), would never manage go through the 60's or the 70's now, since the band kept on evolving and changing all the time. People would be horrified . But that was their second nature at the time (and the fans, like the whole culture, were similar - but not all of them: ROLLING STONE review of STICKY FINGERS complained that they did not sound as 'real' as they did in, say, ROLLING STONES NOW!). They still have something of it in themselves. Not much, but still a bit - and probably enough to make fans confused.

But that sort of conservatism of a fanbase is a result of all that history, and it is not a bad thing by any means; 60 years is a helluva long period and it amounts to something.


- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-20 14:49 by Doxa.

I'm just really enjoying listening to the whole album.

I don't analyse it . The more you enjoy the music, for you, the better it is.

...simple as that.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
LondonLee
Not a great album, in fact far from it, and feels very much like a mixture of a Mick solo album with a mixture of Stones tracks that weren't released because they weren't deemed decent enough to be put on a B side.

4 excellent tracks - Angry, Sweet sounds... , Tell me Straight and Rolling Stones Blues but for me the rest I'm happy to have listened to and will do so every now and again but seldomly.

I know we couldn't expect something akin to them at their best and should be amazed that men in or near their 80s can still make an album like that but it's not even as good as being a 'Stones by Numbers album'.

Far from being the best output since Some Girls, for me this is the worst record since Dirty Work and, whisper it quietly, I probably prefer that to be honest.

So you listen to Whole Wide World and you think 'mmmm, that's mediocre'?

Mathijs

Funnily enough that song devides people. I also find it impossible to call specially that one mediocre. Driving me too hard, that’s Stones by the numbers. WWW is just really good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-20 14:52 by LorenzAgain.

Listened through 4x this morning. I know it’s subjective but personally don’t get sone of the bitching and moaning here. It’s, as the reviews suggested, a very good album. Set against the context of age, loss of Charlie and no original material for 18 years it’s an excellent album. I think it hangs together really well with hints of country, dance, blues, gospel and stones patented rockers. Production is also very good (can’t wait to see what watt does next year with my other favourite band, pearl jam). Personal favourites so far SSOH, angry, rolling stone blues, live by the sword: also the 4x I’ve listened this morning is 4 more than any studio album they’ve released after 1978. Just my views
And whether I’ll still like it in 5/10 years? Er who cares



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-20 14:54 by yorkshirestone.

I‘m just on my 2nd listen, mid B-side.
I can‘t even name a favourite yet. My brain is having a hard time comprehending and processing what‘s going on whilst listening (Like, ANOTHER new song??) - I love it. Thank you, the Rolling Stones, never thought this day would come.

I am not able to review or vivisect every single track by giving it a final grade.
For me, an album should be evaluated as a whole.
And as a whole it is a wonderful album!
Give honor to this amazing band and enjoy this work that in some ways has something miraculous about it!!!
Thank you "old lions"...we were lucky to have grown up with you and still enjoy albums like these!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-20 15:01 by HardRiffin.