Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
JadedFaded
Friday was a crazy busy day for me, so I didn’t buy HD until Saturday. After listening to it twice, I am not disappointed. I like hearing Mick and Keith sing together on Dreamy Skies and I like Live by the Sword. I love every time Mick plays harp. Rolling Stones Blues is a gem. And I really love SSOH. But the record is a bit more pop than rock, which is unfortunate. But I know many of these songs will grow on me, the way Stones songs always do. If I could make one change to it, I’d get rid of those strings on Depending on You.

Good grief, no. The strings on Depending on You are it’s icing on the cake.

Sort of like saying get rid of the strings on Moonlight Mile!!

I wouldn’t change Moonlight Mile. But I just didn’t like them on Depending on You. Felt overly dramatic to me.

Quote
keefriffhards
If it didn't far exceed what some of us expected is that okay, is it tolerable for a few of us real Stones fans of Stones music to be disappointed.

Oh give it a rest will you. You don't like it..... Fair enough. How many times are you going to say it though?

"Is it tolerable for a few of us real Stones fans of Stones music to be disappointed".

Real Stones fans? Oh do shut up you lemon....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-22 10:17 by strat72.

Quote
georgelicks
It won't chart at #1 in the US, #3 ir #4 is the best bet.


THESE NEW RELEASES ROCK
Major rock albums by blink-182 and The Rolling Stones will lead next week's debuts. Can either catch Drake’s For All the Dogs (OVO/Republic), which has the edge to return to #1, with 109-115k? Could Bad Bunny also be in the mix for a repeat? Stay tuned.

blink-182 (Columbia): 95-105k
The Rolling Stones (Geffen): 75-85k
Fuerza Regida (Rancho Humilde/Street Mob/Sony Latin): 30-35k

[m.hitsdailydouble.com]

Yes. Altough Stones passed Blink after one day on the digital sales the streams are way off in the US and it seems that it has been very tough to get the US market ”Rolling” (compared to a lot of years ago). But streams seems pretty good in other markets charting with 3 songs from the new album!

Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-22 10:45 by RobertJohnson.

Quote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.

Ok let's have a discussion about this album because although most love it something happened during the making of this album that no one seems brave enough to mention other than you Robert.
It's probably their last album and some of us are allowed to be disappointed with the outcome, the men who made Crosseyed Heart clearly didn't have much input on HD other than to play on it. The new Stones album is actually a Mick Jagger/ Andrew Watt solo album with Keith playing on it.
I understand that is great for most iorrians, but what happened to the album they shelved and why has Keith apparently just given up his half of being a Glimmer Twin other than to sprinkle some fairy dust ?

I think it's a really good album, I'm glad they put it out. Even friends my age (24) like songs off of it, the most popular ones being Whole Wide World, Live by the Sword and Depending on you, and of course Angry. My favourites are Whole Wide World and Live by the Sword.

Quote
keefriffhards
Ok let's have a discussion about this album because although most love it something happened during the making of this album that no one seems brave enough to mention other than you Robert.
It's probably their last album and some of us are allowed to be disappointed with the outcome, the men who made Crosseyed Heart clearly didn't have much input on HD other than to play on it. The new Stones album is actually a Mick Jagger/ Andrew Watt solo album with Keith playing on it.
I understand that is great for most iorrians, but what happened to the album they shelved and why has Keith apparently just given up his half of being a Glimmer Twin other than to sprinkle some fairy dust ?

I think your expectations were too high. There are different types of music in this world and they serve different purposes. There are plenty of wonderful musicians that make complex music that make you marvel. There is also plenty of underground music (although I would love to know about current underground artists, I am too old to know a lot) that give you a sense of adventure. And there is a lot of mainstream pop music, which is entertaining enough without much else. The Stones have been in that latter category since at least 1981, although already on Emotional Rescue there are the early signs. Expecting anything else than a pop album is not really fair. Obviously, there have been artist who at a later stage want to say something about their lives or how they feel, but the Stones have never been really the introspective kind, and neither has Keith. Musically, yes, Keith on his solo albums has tried to explore new approaches to blues, rock and (especially) soul, but to expect that from the Stones would be highly unrealistic. Really, adjust your expectations.
The over-enthusiast press (apart from the French) is a bit silly, but we have seen that before. It's not a bad pop album, and in a way, it's more listenable than Blue & Lonesome and more focussed than ABB. For the rest, just put on Exile, or find some other artists to listen to.
Personally, I am more shocked by them shamelessly sponsoring FC Barcelona than by this album which in some ways is better than could be expected.

Funny to read all these negative comments here in a Rolling Stones fan site. Like some people are so busy to share their negative thoughts here about item they supposedly love. One might call it masochism, but I more feel like, using the principle of charity, that hopely those sad folks have a life, not so miserable, outside of this forum.

But meanwhile me, I am busy to listening a brandnew Rolling Stones album. What a thrill!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-22 11:47 by Doxa.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.

Ok let's have a discussion about this album because although most love it something happened during the making of this album that no one seems brave enough to mention other than you Robert.
It's probably their last album and some of us are allowed to be disappointed with the outcome, the men who made Crosseyed Heart clearly didn't have much input on HD other than to play on it. The new Stones album is actually a Mick Jagger/ Andrew Watt solo album with Keith playing on it.
I understand that is great for most iorrians, but what happened to the album they shelved and why has Keith apparently just given up his half of being a Glimmer Twin other than to sprinkle some fairy dust ?

The boring, repetitive cliches about reviewers knowing nothing about the band and praising HD to the skies for ... well, for what - why would they do that again, unless they liked the record? - is so braindead it makes me want to get a shovel, but I DO know exactly "what this band can and could do" and it just made a brilliant new album and they made it together, and while it may give you pleasure to come on here with the disposition of shrivelled up old prunes, given that you mainly seem to slag off other people, or the band, or Jagger, maybe it's true that you know even less than quite a lot of the useless reviewers you hate so much. Hating Hackney Diamonds is fine, by the way, people should feel free to express it as much as they want, even if they start expressing nonsense about how no one else understands the band etc lol.Happy day!

I think it's ridiculous to be disappointed that this album grew on the effort of Mick. Without him there would be no album! Have you fanboys not noticed that Mister Keith Richards has no muse anymore? It became abundantly clear in the last 15 years that the man is not interested in making music anymore. He doesn't play guitar between tours, had to be talked into doing Crosseyed Heart and the drive for HD obviously came from Mick.
BUT Keith was in on it. Which is what we should be very happy about. Because only thanks to Mick making the deadline and Keith being open minded about it, we get to hear the Rolling Stones on a new record again. And you hear that Keith put a lot into this album, even if many of the original tunes didn't originate from him. He plays fantastically and there's a lot of nuance. The only tune on which he phones it in is on SSOH.
And if you can't get any satisfaction from hearing his playing on tunes like Get Close, Driving Me Too Hard and Live By the Sword I don't know what to tell you. Because those are classic later-era Keith riffs and the songs don't sound like Mick solo tunes.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.

Ok let's have a discussion about this album because although most love it something happened during the making of this album that no one seems brave enough to mention other than you Robert.
It's probably their last album and some of us are allowed to be disappointed with the outcome, the men who made Crosseyed Heart clearly didn't have much input on HD other than to play on it. The new Stones album is actually a Mick Jagger/ Andrew Watt solo album with Keith playing on it.
I understand that is great for most iorrians, but what happened to the album they shelved and why has Keith apparently just given up his half of being a Glimmer Twin other than to sprinkle some fairy dust ?

This is really an interesting question. Maybe there's an agreement for the future: "Okay, Mick, we'll support you in your thing, but then we'll do something else sensible that has musical value!" That's the optimistic reading. But maybe the psychodynamics in the band have shifted in such a way that only Mick has something to say. That is the pessimistic reading.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.

Ok let's have a discussion about this album because although most love it something happened during the making of this album that no one seems brave enough to mention other than you Robert.
It's probably their last album and some of us are allowed to be disappointed with the outcome, the men who made Crosseyed Heart clearly didn't have much input on HD other than to play on it. The new Stones album is actually a Mick Jagger/ Andrew Watt solo album with Keith playing on it.
I understand that is great for most iorrians, but what happened to the album they shelved and why has Keith apparently just given up his half of being a Glimmer Twin other than to sprinkle some fairy dust ?

why do people keep saying it's likley the last album

they've all said in interviews when asked if this was the last that it's not

mick has said multiple times that two thirds of the next album is done

they made this album in a few months

why would it be so difficult for them to go back into the studio in a few months and recorded 3-4 songs to finish the next one?

i know there old but come on there 80 not a 180

i'm sure the three of them can make it another few months to finish the next album

Not sure about LBTS but the other two are indeed Keith ideas as explained in the book. That with TMS and all the work he put in the guitar and bass parts is probably the best that could be hoped for given the circumstances, i.e.Keith looks his age, Mick looks half his age.

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

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
Steen G
Isn't this the first album including the voice of CW?

Where are you hearing him ?

Counting in to "Live by the Sword". It became obvious when I had the album in high quality headphones for the first time last night.

BTW "This Record Should Be Played Loud" also applies to HD

@Georgelicks

Does "HD" a good chance to reach #1 in UK charts?Could it sells 2.5 millions worldwide in your opinion?

"Angry" getting played a ton on the Hockey Night in Canada telecast last night.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-22 12:00 by Topi.

Quote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.

I think you are completely wrong here. I agree that Mick was the driving force, but when I listen to this album I hear Keith and Ronnie’s stamp all over it. Mick himself has said in a few interviews that Keith worked extremely hard on this album, and Andrew Watt said the same thing. As a guitar player myself, I would say the playing and the contributions from both Keith and Ronnie are stronger and more innovative than anything they have done since Exile. I think this is a great Stones album, and a great team effort by the band. The fact that all members of the band are so positive about it reinforces this for me. It’s a great, cohesive band album full of great and innovative songs.

Quote
john lomax

Quote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.

I think you are completely wrong here. I agree that Mick was the driving force, but when I listen to this album I hear Keith and Ronnie’s stamp all over it. Mick himself has said in a few interviews that Keith worked extremely hard on this album, and Andrew Watt said the same thing. As a guitar player myself, I would say the playing and the contributions from both Keith and Ronnie are stronger and more innovative than anything they have done since Exile. I think this is a great Stones album, and a great team effort by the band. The fact that all members of the band are so positive about it reinforces this for me. It’s a great, cohesive band album full of great and innovative songs.

I hear typical sound patterns from Mick Jagger's solo albums in almost every song. Nothing is innovative there. It's a pretty mediocre retro show of Mick's solo efforts. Let there be no misunderstanding. I like Mick's solo albums, but they are not Rolling Stones albums. Keith's and Ronnie's solo albums of the last decades are another matter. They are totally underrated, far above HD in quality.

Quote
slewan

Quote
Doxa

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

my point is not about saying anything postive or negative about new album. But I'd carefully to rate a new album shortly after it's release. It takes time to judge. Rating on the first day(s) is like judging things while (still) being drunk. I understand that people like to shoot from their hips – but shooting from your hip is not a very wise move

Well, as far as judging go, we are pretty similar - it takes time - as I tried to explain in a post above.

But I think is judging - putting things rationally into some kind of 'right' perspective in relation to anything else - is over-rated - and I, if anyone, is more than guilty for that habit. It has its point, and it can be fun and intellectually challenging sometimes (like trying to scrutiny if, say, UNDERCOVER is a better than album, say, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS, like that would actually mean something) but the best thing in art is just to enjoy, just to experience the shit!

Besides, it is the impressions that matter. That it moves you. Maybe one gets tired of it sooner or later, sometimes never, but let's cherish it while it lasts. While it does, it is always as significant as ever. If that happens, even for a sec, the music has had a function in your life.


- Doxa

HD is an album full of desire and energy, and for me that's the most important thing. Comparable in this sense to the last AC/DC album. Well done to the Stones.

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

Quote
powerage78
HD is an album full of desire and energy, and for me that's the most important thing. Comparable in this sense to the last AC/DC album. Well done to the Stones.

You're so right Powerage!

Quote
Doxa

Quote
slewan

Quote
Doxa

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

my point is not about saying anything postive or negative about new album. But I'd carefully to rate a new album shortly after it's release. It takes time to judge. Rating on the first day(s) is like judging things while (still) being drunk. I understand that people like to shoot from their hips – but shooting from your hip is not a very wise move

Well, as far as judging go, we are pretty similar - it takes time - as I tried to explain in a post above.

But I think is judging - putting things rationally into some kind of 'right' perspective in relation to anything else - is over-rated - and I, if anyone, is more than guilty for that habit. It has its point, and it can be fun and intellectually challenging sometimes (like trying to scrutiny if, say, UNDERCOVER is a better than album, say, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS, like that would actually mean something) but the best thing in art is just to enjoy, just to experience the shit!

Besides, it is the impressions that matter. That it moves you. Maybe one gets tired of it sooner or later, sometimes never, but let's cherish it while it lasts. While it does, it is always as significant as ever. If that happens, even for a sec, the music has had a function in your life.


- Doxa

I completely agree with you. That's why I love Keith's riffs on Jimmy Fallon the day before yesterday more than the whole album. That was really the hot shit. In contrast, "Angels Falling from Heaven" or whatever it's called with that weird singer at Mick's side is a bore.

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
john lomax

Quote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.

I think you are completely wrong here. I agree that Mick was the driving force, but when I listen to this album I hear Keith and Ronnie’s stamp all over it. Mick himself has said in a few interviews that Keith worked extremely hard on this album, and Andrew Watt said the same thing. As a guitar player myself, I would say the playing and the contributions from both Keith and Ronnie are stronger and more innovative than anything they have done since Exile. I think this is a great Stones album, and a great team effort by the band. The fact that all members of the band are so positive about it reinforces this for me. It’s a great, cohesive band album full of great and innovative songs.

I hear typical sound patterns from Mick Jagger's solo albums in almost every song. Nothing is innovative there. It's a pretty mediocre retro show of Mick's solo efforts. Let there be no misunderstanding. I like Mick's solo albums, but they are not Rolling Stones albums. Keith's and Ronnie's solo albums of the last decades are another matter. They are totally underrated, far above HD in quality.

As long as Mick Jagger is a Rolling Stones member and the main song-writer of the group it is pretty natural that the Stones albums sound mickjaggerish. He is only one person and artist and his tone and voice will be heard in anything he does, be the template whatever. Maybe in some alternative reality there is Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger and all your dreams will come true. Who knows, maybe Jagger might even resign some day, and the band will all be Richards/Wood heaven for you.

Actually lately I have started re-listening the whole Stones catalogue with the "This is not the Stones, but Mick Jagger solo" criterion in mind. I, for example, noticed that most of STICKY FINGERS is unlistenable. Most of the songs are made by Jagger and in some there is not Wood or even Richards. "Moonlight Mile"? Where is the Stones there? A Jagger solo tune with Taylor noodling something 'unStonesy' all around! Jeez, even the riff of "Brown Sugar" - you know, that dance number - is Mick's. SOME GIRLS, naturally, is nothing but a Mick Jagger solo album. And then, for god's sake, how they dared to start BEGGARS BANQUET with a long Jagger solo song? And damn, isn't his voice so damn upfront there, not buried in the mix like real Stones songs have? And what a hec samba drums do there, in a Rolling Stones recording? And piano? where is the ancient art of weaving - the real Stones sound? Thankfully I have Wood and Richards solo albums with real macho guitarism and loyalty to the roots music to listen instead of that crap. As far as the Stones go, I noticed, only the Pathe Marconi out-takes present some real Stones. You know, raw and mannish. About all the released stuff is polished Jaggerish pop stuff made by assistance of some fancy flavor of the month producer, from Andrew to Andrew.

- Doxa



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-22 14:24 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
john lomax

Quote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.

I think you are completely wrong here. I agree that Mick was the driving force, but when I listen to this album I hear Keith and Ronnie’s stamp all over it. Mick himself has said in a few interviews that Keith worked extremely hard on this album, and Andrew Watt said the same thing. As a guitar player myself, I would say the playing and the contributions from both Keith and Ronnie are stronger and more innovative than anything they have done since Exile. I think this is a great Stones album, and a great team effort by the band. The fact that all members of the band are so positive about it reinforces this for me. It’s a great, cohesive band album full of great and innovative songs.

I hear typical sound patterns from Mick Jagger's solo albums in almost every song. Nothing is innovative there. It's a pretty mediocre retro show of Mick's solo efforts. Let there be no misunderstanding. I like Mick's solo albums, but they are not Rolling Stones albums. Keith's and Ronnie's solo albums of the last decades are another matter. They are totally underrated, far above HD in quality.

As long as Mick Jagger is a Rolling Stones member and the main song-writer of the group it is pretty natural that the Stones albums sound mickjaggerish. He is only one person and artist and his tone and voice will be heard in anything he does, be the template whatever. Maybe in some alternative reality there is Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger and all your dreams will come true. Who knows, maybe Jagger might even resign some day, and the band will all be Richards/Wood heaven for you.

Actually lately I have started re-listening the whole Stones catalogue with the "This is not the Stones, but Mick Jagger solo" criterion in mind. I, for example, noticed that most of STICKY FINGERS is unlistenable. Most of the songs are made by Jagger and in some there is not Wood or even Richards. "Moonlight Mile"? Where is the Stones there? A Jagger solo tune with Taylor noodling something 'unStonesy' all around! Jeez, even the riff of "Brown Sugar" - you know, that dance number - is Mick's. SOME GIRLS, naturally, is nothing but a Mick Jagger solo album. And then, for god's sake, how they dared to start BEGGARS BANQUET with a long Jagger solo song? And damn, isn't his voice so damn upfront there, not buried in the mix like real Stones songs have? And what a hec samba drums do there, in a Rolling Stones recording? And piano? where is the ancient art of weaving - the real Stones sound? Thankfully I have Wood and Richards solo albums with real macho guitarism and loyalty to the roots music to listen instead of that crap.

- Doxa

Here I do not agree. There was a balance of synthesis on the albums mentioned. Mick's contributions did not stand separately next to those of Keith, Ronnie or Mick Taylor. Sway is one of my favorites. It's a collaboration between the two Micks, but just a collaboration. Or another example is Beast of Burden, the ultimate song from the band to my taste. Everything we love about the band meshes here. Mick's solo style, in my opinion, only developed in his later years, especially on Wandering Spirit, undoubtedly a musical masterpiece.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-22 13:07 by RobertJohnson.

The album is fine. Keith live was not. Why doesn´t he help Ronnie? Where there should be power and attack, he just bend a string - if he even tries at all. Whole Wild World - please join the chorus! Dont just stand there! And so on. Makes me kinda sad. But I guess he will sort it out in time for the tour. Maybe it´s just me. I care too much. Always want to see the best in everyone. Want people to shine.

Quote
Bjorn
The album is fine. Keith live was not. Why doesn´t he help Ronnie? Where there should be power and attack, he just bend a string - if he even tries at all. Whole Wild World - please join the chorus! Dont just stand there! And so on. Makes me kinda sad. But I guess he will sort it out in time for the tour. Maybe it´s just me. I care too much. Always want to see the best in everyone. Want people to shine.

I'm hoping that Keith will play most of the songs in Open-G if a tour comes around because his muscle memory is much more reliable in that tuning. Get Close, Mess it Up, Depending on You, Angry, Driving Me Too Hard, Tell Me Straight all have at least one Open G guitar and it would be a shame if he chose to play it in standard just because there's a solo or another standard guitar line on the recorded tune.

I am very happy with the new album. I think it leans somewhat in the direction of "pop music",as opposed to blues and roots type of music. But I don't have a problem with that, since the songs are so good. The only song I haven't quite warmed to yet is Bite My Head Off. I don't have particular favourites among the remaining 10 originals (except maybe SSOH) since they are all of high quality.

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
Doxa

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
john lomax

Quote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.

I think you are completely wrong here. I agree that Mick was the driving force, but when I listen to this album I hear Keith and Ronnie’s stamp all over it. Mick himself has said in a few interviews that Keith worked extremely hard on this album, and Andrew Watt said the same thing. As a guitar player myself, I would say the playing and the contributions from both Keith and Ronnie are stronger and more innovative than anything they have done since Exile. I think this is a great Stones album, and a great team effort by the band. The fact that all members of the band are so positive about it reinforces this for me. It’s a great, cohesive band album full of great and innovative songs.

I hear typical sound patterns from Mick Jagger's solo albums in almost every song. Nothing is innovative there. It's a pretty mediocre retro show of Mick's solo efforts. Let there be no misunderstanding. I like Mick's solo albums, but they are not Rolling Stones albums. Keith's and Ronnie's solo albums of the last decades are another matter. They are totally underrated, far above HD in quality.

As long as Mick Jagger is a Rolling Stones member and the main song-writer of the group it is pretty natural that the Stones albums sound mickjaggerish. He is only one person and artist and his tone and voice will be heard in anything he does, be the template whatever. Maybe in some alternative reality there is Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger and all your dreams will come true. Who knows, maybe Jagger might even resign some day, and the band will all be Richards/Wood heaven for you.

Actually lately I have started re-listening the whole Stones catalogue with the "This is not the Stones, but Mick Jagger solo" criterion in mind. I, for example, noticed that most of STICKY FINGERS is unlistenable. Most of the songs are made by Jagger and in some there is not Wood or even Richards. "Moonlight Mile"? Where is the Stones there? A Jagger solo tune with Taylor noodling something 'unStonesy' all around! Jeez, even the riff of "Brown Sugar" - you know, that dance number - is Mick's. SOME GIRLS, naturally, is nothing but a Mick Jagger solo album. And then, for god's sake, how they dared to start BEGGARS BANQUET with a long Jagger solo song? And damn, isn't his voice so damn upfront there, not buried in the mix like real Stones songs have? And what a hec samba drums do there, in a Rolling Stones recording? And piano? where is the ancient art of weaving - the real Stones sound? Thankfully I have Wood and Richards solo albums with real macho guitarism and loyalty to the roots music to listen instead of that crap.

- Doxa

Here I do not agree. There was a balance of synthesis on the albums mentioned. Mick's contributions did not stand separately next to those of Keith, Ronnie or Mick Taylor. Sway is one of my favorites. It's a collaboration between the two Micks, but just a collaboration. Or another example is Beast of Burden, the ultimate song from the band to my taste. Everything we love about the band meshes here. Mick's solo style, in my opinion, only developed in his later years, especially on Wandering Spirit, undoubtedly a musical masterpiece.

That's just myth your mind makes. Nothing wrong there, people love to live in the past and construct all these old nostalgic myths. But if leave the myths aside, there is nothing different in terms of colloboration in any of the new songs in compared to, say, STICKY FINGERS stuff. Both albums are based mostly on Mick's ideas that are worked further by the other cats. The results. for sure, sound different, but that is pretty natural since the other was made over a half century ago. Of course, we can blame, say, Richards or Wood, that they are not able to come up with such outstanding contributions as young Richards or Taylor, but you know, their function is still exactly the same. That the album sound sounds different is not because of it being a Jagger solo album, but because that's the way the records nowadays sound and how they sound. It is not 1971 any longer. Mick didn't invent technology. He. like anyone, just follows its evolution. Naturally, some of his fans are more conservative than he is is, but that shouldn't come as a surprise.

If one does not like The Rolling Stones AD 2023, that's fine. But to explain that by saying 'it is not the Stones, but Jagger solo stuff' is nothing but lazy thinking that is based on unfounded prejudices plus unability to face the reality and like living in fantasy world/in the past. I would like to see you if any of you Keith Richards superfans/Jagger haters have balls to say that the new album is nothing but a Jagger solo project face to face to Keith Richards, who, as far as I can see, is (rightly) proud of the new album and the contribution he made for it. Be ready for the blade.


- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-22 13:55 by Doxa.

Doxa, I think you are getting carried away by your fear of Rolling Stones fans hating MJ. A fan of the Rolling Stones will be a fan of MJ. Some might with Keith should be making another JJF or Satisfaction, well whatever, Keith is all over the new album and rightly so.

Just want to add one comment about the “sound” of the album, as some people seem to be complaining about how it sounds (ie modern production).


I think it sounds great - guitars are up front, bass and drums and keyboards sound great, Micks vocal sounds amazing. It doesn’t sound like some modern tin can pop music, it sounds like modern rock guitar music. It doesn’t sound like Sticky Fingers or Exile because those albums were recorded 50 years ago - just the same as a car you drive today won’t feel the same as a car made in 1971. I wonder if there were people when Sticky Fingers came out saying they wished it had been recorded using 1921 technology and production values!

I would also add that I don’t know if any artists today whose recordings sound like they were recorded in 1971 or 1965 or whatever - even if they are “roots” musicians or whatever, their records will still sound modern because they are recorded today using today’s technology.

There is some use of autotune but it’s only sporadic - and as a musician myself, when I record the producers always use a touch of autotune just to correct minor pitch issues - it is just normal procedure, the same as adding reverb or compression whatever.