Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
tiffanyblu

Quote
tiffanyblu

Quote
mailexile67
@Georgelicks

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

Wondering the same. Blink and Drake have higher streams. But how much of the UK chart is based on pure sales is the question?

Stones are actually doing quite good on Apple music (streams, especially compared to blink) on an international level, and a bit better than blink on Spotify. But Blink are having more streams on the two large ones: US and UK.

The album will hit #1 in the UK with huge sales, it sold over 10k during pre-sale on Amazon alone, we can expect at least 4-5 times that number in total, the streams aren't good but the sales are strong and that's enough.
We'll see it tomorrow during the week.

The problem is the US market, it is too much based on streaming and the Stones' streaming numbers are non-existent which shows that the fan base in the US is much older than anywhere else in the world, it is what it is, and we have to resign ourselves to the fact that the Stones will not be able to have that #1 that they have been looking for since 1981, but the album is also guaranteed the Top 4 which is not bad at all for an artist with 60 years of chart activity releasing new music, 90% of his contemporaries have been dead for a long time.

McCartney 3 went Top 2 in the US with 107000 w/104000 physical, they should do better in terms of numbers, no? The ranking depends on the competition of course

McCartney released the album in December during Christmas week, the best sales week of the year, plus the physical market and fan base was much healthier 3 years ago than it is now, with each passing year more fans die, sad but true.

Blue & Lonesome opened with 123,000 units in the US in December 2016, it's logical to drop that number after 7 years.

Quote
James Kirk
According to Hits Daily Double, HD is heading towards a #4 debut in the United States with sales in the range of 75-85k sales. The album will chart higher in other countries that don’t rely so heavily on streaming. It hurts that the Stones fanbase is much older and generally don’t stream. It also hurts the band that major retailers like Best Buy don’t even carry cd’s anymore (the marketplace is very different from when Macca released McCartney 3 only a couple years back)and very little physical media in general these days.


[m.hitsdailydouble.com]

From this week's chart:

Bad Bunny claims his third No. 1 on the Billboard 200 albums chart (dated Oct. 28), as Nadie Sabe Lo Que Va a Pasar Mañana starts atop the tally. The set earned 184,000 equivalent album units in the U.S. in the week ending Oct. 19, according to Luminate. Almost all of the album’s opening week was driven by streaming activity of its songs. Nadie was announced on Oct. 9 and released Oct. 13.

Of Nadie Sabe Lo Que Va a Pasar Mañana’s 184,000 equivalent album units earned in the week ending Oct. 19, streaming units comprise 176,000 (making it the most streamed album of the week, equaling 239.56 million on-demand official streams of the set’s songs), album sales comprise 7,500 (it was only available to purchase as a digital download album).


And from last week's chart:

Drake earns his 13th No. 1 album on the Billboard 200 albums chart (dated Oct. 21), as his new studio effort For All the Dogs debuts atop the list. The set earned 402,000 equivalent album units in the U.S. in the week ending Oct. 12, according to Luminate. That marks the fourth-largest week of the year for an album, by units earned.

For All the Dogs’ opening frame was almost entirely driven by the streaming activity of its 23 songs. In total, 97% of Dogs’ debut was owed to song streams — adding up to 514.01 million on-demand official streams of those songs in its first week. That results in the largest streaming week of 2023 for any album, and the fourth-largest ever. Strikingly, of the top five biggest streaming weeks four of them were generated by a Drake album.

Of For All the Dogs’ 402,000 equivalent album units earned in the week ending Oct. 12, streaming units comprise 391,000 (equaling 514.01 million on-demand official streams of the set’s 23 songs), album sales comprise 10,000 (it was only available to purchase as a digital download album).

Put everything aside from those heavy conversations and long writing, just enjoy this 3-chord music full of emotion of blues/country/rock/gospel/ballads by these 80-year-old musicians. It's a miracel this brilliant album . Just enjoy.

Can we talk about how great Ronnie is on this record? He is playing such tasty, Faces-era rock and roll guitar throughout this record. An essential part of the sound.

Quote
JMoisica
Can we talk about how great Ronnie is on this record? He is playing such tasty, Faces-era rock and roll guitar throughout this record. An essential part of the sound.

I think that’s Ronnie playing those beautiful Taylor-like licks on Depending on You…. Classic and resonant!!!

[www.radiofrance.fr]

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
tiffanyblu

Quote
tiffanyblu

Quote
mailexile67
@Georgelicks

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

Wondering the same. Blink and Drake have higher streams. But how much of the UK chart is based on pure sales is the question?

Stones are actually doing quite good on Apple music (streams, especially compared to blink) on an international level, and a bit better than blink on Spotify. But Blink are having more streams on the two large ones: US and UK.

The album will hit #1 in the UK with huge sales, it sold over 10k during pre-sale on Amazon alone, we can expect at least 4-5 times that number in total, the streams aren't good but the sales are strong and that's enough.
We'll see it tomorrow during the week.

The problem is the US market, it is too much based on streaming and the Stones' streaming numbers are non-existent which shows that the fan base in the US is much older than anywhere else in the world, it is what it is, and we have to resign ourselves to the fact that the Stones will not be able to have that #1 that they have been looking for since 1981, but the album is also guaranteed the Top 4 which is not bad at all for an artist with 60 years of chart activity releasing new music, 90% of his contemporaries have been dead for a long time.

McCartney 3 went Top 2 in the US with 107000 w/104000 physical, they should do better in terms of numbers, no? The ranking depends on the competition of course

McCartney released the album in December during Christmas week, the best sales week of the year, plus the physical market and fan base was much healthier 3 years ago than it is now, with each passing year more fans die, sad but true.

Blue & Lonesome opened with 123,000 units in the US in December 2016, it's logical to drop that number after 7 years.

Well the number would drop, but it should rise many more as well given the fact it's new music, been promoted like crazy and has innumerable versions of the album for all us suckers buying the Barcelona/Blue Jays/Blue Vinyl versions.

If it opens with a lower number than that I'll grant you sales have completely cratered, and I'd be worried about that follow-up album.

I think the songs are doing quite good on Spotify streaming, just look in some Viral hits lists, you will mostly find Sweet Sounds and Angry.
That said, all this will be blown away when 1989 (Taylor's Version) is released this friday ofcourse.

Quote
Idorh
Put everything aside from those heavy conversations and long writing, just enjoy this 3-chord music full of emotion of blues/country/rock/gospel/ballads by these 80-year-old musicians. It's a miracle this brilliant album . Just enjoy.

Damn right!

"No Anchovies, Please"

I think it’s KR playing the slide in the left channel on Depending on You. Sounds a lot like his playing on Beggars and Let it Bleed. Not so much like Ronnie’s.

I like it. I don't think there's ever been a Stones release I didn't enjoy (even Dirty Work). I also think it's distinct in its sound, which is cool. But I don't think it's more special that ABB, B2B, VL, or SW. Which is fine, I like all those records. There's always a "prisoner of the moment" thing going on with a new release, as many have commented on. Very exciting that they are recording and releasing material!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-23 05:36 by Send It To me.

having listened to it for a while i really like it

it's great

my favorites at the moment are get close, rolling stones blues, live by the sword, and tell me straight

though i like all the songs on it

when i first heard many of these tracks on the planet rock thing i thought it sounded like a less dark version of undercover

but having heard it in its entirety a few time now i can't really think of any previous stones albums that it easily compares to

what it does resembles to me is wandering spirit

which to me is a good thing i love wandering spirit and my only gripe with it is that it's a mick solo album and not a rolling stones album

well now it sorta is with a more updated sound

and to be honest if i had magic god like powers over time and space i would have transported them to pathe marconi studios in the late 70's and have them record this album there and then with the technology and techniques of the time

but it's 2023 not 1978 i'm not a god and though i prefer the sound of back then and think it's superior to the sound of today

it doesn't hinder my ability to enjoy this fantastic album

now the issue of where i would rank this album quality wise with the rest of there albums is a hard thing for me to decide

i don't really have a favorite album i like everything they do

i will say that i don't think it's as good as the big 4, some girls, or tattoo you

but it's as good or better then anything else they've released together or apart after 1980

overall i'm very satisfied with it and think a lot of these songs will translate well onstage if they choose to play them on the next tour

also i think the cover art and overall visual theme looks good and will look pretty interesting if they decide to incorporate it into the the new stage, animations, effects, ect.

i'm really looking forward to seeing what they plan to do with it all going forward

Listening to Hackney Diamonds to me is still overshadowed by Hairball's death and other shite going on around me right now, so I want to leave it at some descriptive remarks for the moment. It's a very coherent, consistent and homogeneous-sounding album to me, not a torn affair like e.g. Voodoo Lounge. It was certainly a good idea to cut the album down to 12 songs. It's got its very own vibe, doesn't sound like they tried to remake something from the past. Definitely doesn't sound like a bunch of tired octogenarians trying to cash in on their big name one more time. Sounds kinda brickwalled to me, though, which is a pity.
Don't really want to say anything about the individual songs right now other than what stuck out immediately was Keith's ballad, which may have to do with my present mood. Need to give it more spins when things have cooled down a bit.

However, what is really great news to me is that not only is there a new Stones album but - if they are to be believed - the better part of the next one is already in the can (more or less, maybe, judging by Ronnie's remarks). How great would it be to have the next one already next year!

Quote
NilsHolgersson
I think the songs are doing quite good on Spotify streaming, just look in some Viral hits lists, you will mostly find Sweet Sounds and Angry.
That said, all this will be blown away when 1989 (Taylor's Version) is released this friday ofcourse.

all is relative of course and it's depending on what you compare it to. But just some facts:

In order to chart a song on the global top 200 (for a day) you need appr. 1,1-1,2 million streams. none of the songs are even close to that. PiB is still the closest contender, wrapping up 770k streams on Saturday.

On to local markets, we can see that songs from HD have charted on local top 200 in 9 markets. With Netherlands being the strongest, then Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Norway, Luxemburg, Switzerland etc. so quite small markets.

As master georgelicks says, my analysis is also that Stones are more struggling with younger fans in US. In UK we can at least see that songs are doing quite well on Apple music stream (though less so on Spotify). But streaming is the big thing today.

One good news is that Stones are now, after the album release, gaining monthly listeners - now at a new peak of 28 million. and the old tunes have had a really good weekend when it comes to streaming.

There have been talks about a longer plan, and we have read the article about creating a "streaming monster" in the future. Which I hope is true and very much inclined to believe.

To understand it a bit closer. Stones are still behind Fleetwood Mac, ABBA, Creedence, Elton John, Queen, AC/DC etc in monthly listeners and daily streams. But one key here is how to attract new, younger fans. One solution is a cooperation which we can see with Elton John. After the cooperation with Dua Lipa his old catalogue is just spinning and spinning - having a monthly listerners base of appr. 50 million, placing him is a number #50 in the world. Very impressive! Stones are at its peak on #150.

To break down the "new tunes" (excluding Angry and SSOH) the streaming on Spotify looks like this (in millions):

Mess it up 1,2
Get Close 1,05
Bite my head off 1,02
Depending on you 0,93
Whole wide world 0,84
Dreamy skies 0,8
Live by the sword 0,73
Driving me to hard 0,63
Tell me straight 0,6
Rolling Stone blues 0,6

Quote
plusplusjames
WHERE HACKNEY DIAMONDS FITS IN THE STONES CANON

The band’s last studio album, A Bigger Bang, released in 2005, struck me as a competently made rock and roll record. In terms of my comment made in the Giant’s stadium parking lot, “every part of my life, there’s been a stones album that’s been a soundtrack,” that album was no exception. I knew exactly who in my life was “Oh No, Not You Again,” exactly who was gonna “Let Me Down Real Slow,” and how to get out of “The Biggest Mistake,” (which, ultimately, I was unable to avoid, but I got what I needed).

The problem with A Bigger Bang was that the band really didn’t push the envelope much. They were determined to produce an album of hard rockers, and they did. It was rock and roll sausage making at its best using a little bit of this, a little bit of that, some choice cuts tossed in at times (“Rough Justice”), some Ya-Ya’s seasoning. and lots of filler (but still below maximum FDA standards). I know that I am an unusual fan, asking that the band push out a little more into genres where they appear reluctant to, like jazz or gospel. I always regarded the Charlie Watts/Jim Keltner Project as the second disc and integral part of the Bridges of Babylon release (accompanied by a bright comet in the sky, no less).

What I wanna know is, is Hackney Diamonds more “rock and roll sausage making?” Or is it more “Love of Music,” like Charlie’s solo projects? That is the question.

Don’t get me wrong. I loved A Bigger Bang for its rocky elements. However, I couldn’t deny that, over time, I felt a lot like my friends’ dogs at mealtime (I don’t have a pet myself). You know, that look you get from when you lock eyes with their poochie, as they grab their first bite (salivating like Pavlov’s dog). The glance that says, “Yes, it is dogfood. But I’m a dog. And I’m @#$%& hungry. Leave me alone. And nothing to see here.” Look away, chew, chew, gulp, another huge bite. And repeat.

Yes, it’s only rock and roll and I eat it up too. But I do wish that they would change it up some more.

So what about Hackney Diamonds? After my first few listens, it’s deeply satisfying. What’s interesting about it are the references it makes to the band’s past and possibly future work. They did it not by inserting a forgettable “Continental Drift” like they did with Steel Wheels. Or the marginally more interesting one-off harpsichord number “New Faces” from Voodoo Lounge.

In sum, Hackney Diamonds is the band’s late period London-referential album, as a counterpoint to New York’s Some Girls. Like the latter, it features country tunes as sidebar attractions (I did like the reggae change-up on Bridges). It’s got a rocker lifted straight from the 1970’s club scene in Camden Town. And they come back to London or shards as themes to hold it all together. Unlike the London dadaesque Pistols that just self-destructed in Texas.

To be sure, the band did engage in some rock and roll sausage making again. But I detect much more “Love of Music” in this work than in Bang. By all the references to their past canon. And in one special case, to an under-emphasized genre in their extensive catalogue.

Let’s review, track by track:

I’ll start with “Rolling Stones Blues,” the album closer. This track is the natural bookend for both sides of the band’s career. From the “what’s your band’s name” question over the phone back at Edith Grove in 1962 to Blue & Lonesome in 2016. The perfect track to honor the band’s longevity and roots. Down home style.

Angry is a derivative of Start Me Up. Could’ve been a great summer anthem if they had released it 5 weeks earlier. Did they really need to wait to finish the Sydney Sweeney video? At least we could’ve been rocking to Angry. Why was the band angry with us? We’d been waiting 2 years since the last single?! We needed that melody ringing in our brains in August! Keith’s bass lines!!! Wow! Where are my pills? Where’s my plane ticket to Brazil?! Sydney can drive my car!

Depending on You harkens back to one of my favorite late period ballads, Already Over Me. This song blows me away in terms of the “soundtrack of my life” category. I’m too young for dying and too old to lose. And now she’s giving my loving to somebody new. All the while, accompanied by a haunting Mick Taylor guitar lick played expertly by Ronnie. A testament to his enduring influence on the band.

Get Close is clearly descended from Gold Coast slaves. If it had appeared on the first side of Sticky Fingers, you wouldn’t have batted an eye. I wanna get close to you chorus sticks. Hard.

Whole Wide World recalls the album’s themes of London and broken glass. When your late night friends leave you, it’s only just begun. So let’s raise a glass. After all, Mick and Keith did pass some time in London’s clink. Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel? With reference to the Some Girls era, we are treated to 2 great Jim Carroll Band style solos. I get excited to hear this fine-lined track over and over. The “Love of Music” is strong with this one.

Speaking of punk, let’s turn now to Bite My Head Off. The riff is straight Steve Jones of Pistols’ fame. Definitely London style. Could’ve have appeared on Some Girls if they mentioned trashing Studio 54. And to top it off, there is that great solo by a guest bassist. The very same guy who penned the band’s second single in 1963. In fact, an extremely versatile musician authoring such tracks like “And I Love her,” the children’s anthem “Yellow Submarine” (complete with clunking), as well as “Oo You,” (same clunks, but this time in a completely edgy context). Talk about multiple vintages. “Love of Music” is off the charts!

The Keith track: Tell Me Straight. Memphis soul, the way Keith likes to croon. Why can’t Keith sing on a rocksong anymore?, harlem shuffle asked on October 17th. May I remind you that Keith is the master of the pause in the downstroke? The anticipation and the surprise? The Roctober Vampire doesn’t come when beckoned. He unexpectedly appears in your darkened room when least expected, while you gaze out of your window upon the moonlit lawn, lace curtains undulating gently by your knees. Tell me straight and skip the fake news. Broken glass needs to swept off the floor. A satisfying bridge on a composition where Keith admits the chords intrigued him.

The two country songs:

Dreamy Skies, a relative of Always Suffering, complete with a call-out to Hank Williams. Anybody remember You Win Again from Some Girls? The harmonica solo is pure snazz. This track continues to impress. My kind of Country Stones.

Driving Me Too Hard seems to me to be Mick’s homage to his friend Brad Paisley. Great licks, verve, and energy. Both country tracks display a playfulness dripping with “Love of Music.”

This leaves me with the two Charlie tracks Mess It Up and Live by the Sword. Both songs remind me of Mick’s 1980 solo period, not my favorite, unfortunately. I find these two tracks to be way too much rock and roll with faux pop/dance added to the sausage making. I just don’t like that much sawdust and filler. I have a friend who really likes Primitive Cool and She’s the Boss. He’s welcome to it. Just not my cup of tea. Thank God England Lost and Gotta Get A Grip neither made the cut for Hackney Diamonds nor were they on the uninspired album that was never released years ago. Wanna really want to hear the truth? I can see Charlie smirking behind the drum kit.

Live by the Sword strikes me as the better of the two as it’s more like Neighbors on a swingy ragtime engine. Mick’s call and response with himself is intriguing, I’ll grant you that. I’ll give these two some more listens.

This leaves me to finish with Sweet Sounds of Heaven, a “Love of Music” masterpiece. The genre here is gospel, with its never-ending refrain. The band needs to play more in this vein. Yes, there are hints of Dreams to Remember. But where Dreams was irreverent, Sounds is blissful. Mick’s vocal performance is commanding, Gaga’s respectful and responsive. The two manage the call and response like an inspired session of lovemaking. Towards the end, they switch. The bottom takes the superior position, top is down, ever rising to a crescendo, while Mick plays Rock ‘n Roll Circus master calling out his piano player. “Love of Music?” Absolutely, a perfect ten. The rock and roll sausage machine not even touched.

This brings me to an uncomfortable discussion, one that must be had as we contemplate the late period of the band. The question is, what does the band do if Mick leaves (a question that I cannot ask without some emotional agony). Sweet Sounds of Heaven hints at the answer, one that I have suspected ever since I was dancing next to Lady Gaga on the rail at the First Union Center in Philadelphia in 2013. Gaga is a natural to handle vocals as Mick’s clear understudy. I think she would be instantly popular with the band’s male fans. To my female fan friends, who I am sure will be divided on this question, I would say, cut us dudes some slack. You’ve had your fun. Now it’s our turn to get our Short and Curlies off.

To continue, what if Keith were to leave? This one is easier and hopefully less controversial. I think Ronnie could play Keith’s parts faithfully for the fans. As for the other guitar parts, Mick Taylor would do very nicely, and undeniably has the legacy to boot. And that would be a very nice mix. Even today with all three!

If needed, Ronnie could be replaced by the aforementioned Mick Taylor. The interesting question is who would take over the other guitar. I would nominate a number of guitarists who have played with the band over the years, such as Ry Cooder, Macca (reprise of the tension between “Music Hall” and “Rhythm and Blues?”), Andy Watt, Sheryl Crow, Lenny Kravitz, among many others.

Hackney Diamonds, the band’s London themed album, points to both their past and future. I dig this compendium that thoroughly convinces me that a late period album can truly be more “Love of Music” than “rock and roll sausage.”

Gold rings on ya!

here I am reading an interesting and obviously well informed review of the album...an then all that stuff about what if Mick or Keith left ...

What the f%^& is that all that about ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-23 11:05 by Spud.

I do not intend this to be a negative review, but rather an honest one, and indeed I think much of what I have to say is positive. I've been putting off writing anything about Hackney Diamonds until I listened to it a few times and gave it some good thought. I've probably listened through about 6 or 7 times or so, and have more plays than that on some specific tracks, which I'll get into. My overall feelings about the album are mixed. It's clearly a Jagger-led album, with which I have no problem and of course had every expectation of it being so. I knew when watching the interview Mick did with Tom Power and he said something along the lines of "It has all the things that The Rolling Stones always had, but it sounds like it came out this year" that I was going to have issues with the production of the album. It's strictly a personal taste but I hate modern production values, give me mud and warmth and headroom (remember headroom?) any day over the big loud thrashy boomy mess that comes out of every speaker I hear these days. I get Jagger being forward looking and not wanting to do Sticky Fingers again because they already did that, and artistically I very much understand that but from a sonic standpoint I think that's a detriment. I'm only 27, but I do suspect this is how people felt in 1983 when Undercover (which I love) came out. Did people who were used to Exile and Beggars Banquet go "eww it sounds modern"? Probably. My issue mostly isn't even the mix issues I see discussed here often (Mick is too loud, etc.). It's more to do with the mastering, everything gets pushed to the brink of overdrive where even clean guitars sound crunchy, and certain things that would be beautiful details get lost in a big ball of sound because it's all so squished together nothing really stands out. It's all just noise. This is an overarching issue throughout most of the album for me so I will try not to flog a dead horse except where necessary. That being said, boy I miss Chris Kimsey.

I will actually credit Watt for getting them to put together something that is, for better or worse, cohesive and consistent and focused all the way through, maybe more so than anything they did with Don Was. And according to Ronnie Wood, it was Watt's idea to get Bill Wyman on board to do a track with Charlie, so for that I am grateful. I guess he is also at least somewhat responsible for the gaggle of guest musicians, about whom I have differing feelings.

Ratings would be that a 0/10 is total garbage, 5/10 average, and 10/10 being something that is so good it transcends time and space. It's also not rated in context of the album, but in context of music in general. So 6/10 is above average and a 7.5/10 is pretty darn good. Anyway, without further ado:

01: Angry
I don't love or hate Angry, I think it's fine and probably a good choice for the lead single album. Upon first listen I didn't care for it but it has grown on me, at least a little bit. As much as I will probably complain about the production throughout this album, I think it actually sort of fits a song like this, which especially from Keith's solo on, is quite loud and thrashy. I'm not a huge fan of the sound of Mick's vocals in the chorus, the autotune sound is a bit distracting although it will show up in worse form later in the album. 5/10

02: Get Close
I have yet to develop a feeling for this song although it would seem that it is quite well liked (on this board anyway). I get what they're going for I think, and I've seen it compared to Slave on here but it lacks the sleaze and sweaty midsummer basement feel that I get from Slave or something similar. On an album with a mixed bag of lyrics, I'm not terribly fond of this one. And although I actually like David Sanborn's take on Pretty Beat Up, I don't know that I have ever cared for another sax solo on a Stones song by anyone other than Bobby Keys. There's nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't do it for me. 4/10

03: Depending on You
The introduction to this song actually sounds very nice, and I like Mick's opening lines quite a bit, both lyrically and performance wise. And it is a great example of the fact that even at 79 (at the time of recording), Jagger actually has a great voice when he can get in the studio and focus on his singing only. It gives me grief then that he rarely allows himself to have a clean vocal these days, it frequently seems to be coated in some echo, or some fake dirt achieved by cranking the gain as if to make it sound like he's singing through a harp mic. Point here though is that he sounds great in this intro. I also like the more poignant, reflective Mick who actually sounds like an older man looking back at his past, while also not sounding too terribly sappy and overly introspective. When I have issues with his writing it is frequently that he sounds (unconvincingly) like he's pretending to still be 25, but that is not the case here. I like the lyric altogether actually. Again, I have some issues with the chorus and the autotuned choir of Micks going on, and while I'm sure the strings and an appearance by Bentmont Trench here would be nice (if I could hear them well), the result is unfortunately almost a pad affect, Jeff Lynne style. Trench especially is such a great studio guy and I'd love for him to be more audible than he is but oh well. Just unfortunate for what would otherwise probably be a very pretty piece. All that said, nice song. 6/10

04: Bite My Head Off
I don't have a whole lot to say about this one. It's a recall to their punkier days, which I like just fine. And while it doesn't quite have the utter chaos and frantic feeling that something like Lies or Neighbors had back in the day, or even something more recent like Too Tight, I think it still packs a punch. It's neat to have Paul McCartney on bass for this one and he sounds good, although I wouldn't say much more about it than that as it doesn't stand out as being so McCartney that it's unmistakable. Still a nice idea and Paul was apparently elated that he got to do it. The band is clearly having a good time with it, and I appreciate that we get the first Ron Wood solo on the album that really sounds like him, as opposed to some non-solo solos he's been guilty of playing in the past (think Streets of Love or Doom and Gloom). It's high energy and clonky and sloppy in a way that only Ronnie has ever done for the Stones and I love it. Maybe a bit repetitive but a lot of fun anyway. 6.5/10

05: Whole Wide World
This is not the first or last time on this album that I am confronted with a verse that I like quite a bit, followed by a slightly-too-catchy-for-its-own-good chorus that I don't like quite as much. I don't dislike it as much as I did at first although it does still have a little bit of boy band singalong feel to it. Oh well. I like Mick's change of dialect for effect, and following the 2nd chorus, Ronnie comes in with another high energy solo that honestly sounded like something off of Steel Wheels, like his solo/outro licks on Rock and a Hard Place. It is at this point that I realize that Ron Wood sounds GREAT on this record and that all the "Might as well be a Mick Jagger album" critics ought to pay close attention to Wood's contributions, because if it were actually a Jagger solo effort, this song would be very very different. 7/10

06: Dreamy Skies
I am often skeptical of the "Stones by Numbers" criticism I read often in reference to some later songs of theirs, where people say "eh they're just doing themselves over again". I never had a huge problem with this approach from The Rolling Stones because, well, I like them. This is the first time on the album where they do however sound like a pastiche of themselves, a little bit of No Expectations, a little bit of You Got the Silver, a whole lot of Short and Curlies, etc. Since I've been complaining about the soundscape, I should say that this is a nice break from the loudness of the first 5 songs. It's not my favorite lyric on the album but it's relatable enough, and I like the little uptick with the back beat coming in when the harp break hits near the end. I think the word I'm looking for here is nice. Nice. Not thrilling, but nice. 6/10

07: Mess it Up
On my first listen through the whole album, Dreamy Skies faded away and this began, first in the background like hearing it through the wall, and then coming in with a full head of steam. And immediately I said aloud "THAT'S CHARLIE WATTS". I mean no disrespect to Steve Jordan, who does an admirable job playing the majority of this record, but it became apparent from the downbeat of this song that Charlie was the missing element from the first half of the album. The first verse comes in and I'm thinking, "Man this sounds great, it's just Mick, Keith, and Charlie and it really sounds like the Rolling Stones, like something that could be from A Bigger Bang" (and I mean that in a good way). For about 38 seconds I was having a great time with it. And then the chorus came around. What I felt at that moment was once described by the comedian Mike Birbiglia as the feeling of "Having a pizza handed to you, and then being shot." The feeling of excitement from hearing Charlie on the album quickly turned to "Oh my what have they done". I'm sorry but I did not order whatever this is, please send it back to the kitchen. From that point on I don't have much to say. Complete and total miss. 2.5/10

08: Live by the Sword
Still reeling from whatever that was, I was now a bit discouraged wondering what I was in for next. What I got was total redemption. Sure it sounds like a "Stones by Numbers" or "filler" track to some, and the lyric sounds a bit like a throwaway that might have fit somewhere in the middle of Voodoo Lounge, not terrible but nothing groundbreaking. But what I get on here is Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts together one last time, and that more than makes up for anything it lacks in originality. The groove feels great, it feels like them in a way I haven't heard for 30 years. Very satisfying. Elton John is also a nice edition, banging away on the piano like the old days although I wish he was a little higher in the mix. Still I appreciate his presence here as that Ian Stewart honky-tonkin piano was such a large part of their sound for years and they lost that almost completely after he died. Very nice to have it back, even just once. My only complaint is that this is Jagger with the vocal effects maxed out, and I just wish he would realize that his voice sounds perfectly fine without all that stuff on it. I can't pin this on Watt either because Mick has been doing it increasingly since A Bigger Bang so it's clearly a choice on his part. Oh well, a romp if nothing else and a great time was had by all. 7.5/10

09: Driving Me Too Hard
Okay we're starting to hit a stride here, this sort of midtempo thing is something they've always done well. The intro is clearly a Tumbling Dice rehash, or a kissing cousin at least but that doesn't bother me. The lyric is maybe my favorite on the album, and perhaps I am reading too much into this but I think of it as Mick singing about Keith and the struggles they've had over the years. "I guess that you've become a part of me, that'll have to do for now" is perhaps a reluctant resignation to the fact that never again in history will one of them truly be thought of apart from the other. Maybe it's nothing of the sort, but in my head it is and I'm happy with that. I also quite like the "Look what you've done to me" refrain sung by Mick and Keith together. A touching moment really. I like the performance by both Mick and band, and we get something we haven't had loads of on the album, which is some lead lines from Keith, who seems to have embraced his limitations what with his arthritis, and all for the better. Very nice parts here by him, and I love the B-bender work by Ronnie also. Maybe my favorite on the album? 8/10

10: Tell Me Straight
Production wise, this is my favorite sounding song on the album, even down to the little slapback on Keith's voice. He's sort of become the go-to tender ballad writer for the band, basically from Emotional Rescue on. This one almost has a timeless feel to it, and at least could have fit as one of Keith's tracks from any album Steel Wheels-present. Not transcendent but very very nice, and I find it touching in a way that I haven't felt about some of his other ballads on previous albums like The Worst or This Place is Empty. Some are saying it could have been longer, but I think it says what it wishes to in just under three minutes and doesn't overstay its welcome. Lovely and well executed. 8/10

11: Sweet Sounds of Heaven
I like this track fine but I don't seem to have the affinity for it that many on this forum do. I don't know whether it's Mick's vocals, which I think are just a bit screechy on this one, or the crescendo, where especially during the coda section when the band comes back in, I just feel like someone is bashing my head with marching symbols and it feels like overkill. I will say that I think Lady Gaga sounds excellent, and whatever oddities in which she may indulge in her regular performances, I have always thought she was a very good singer, and I appreciate how much she seems to appreciate collaborating with the Stones. Stevie Wonder I think gets lost in the mix unfortunately, and aside from the very beginning and the breakdown before the outro he doesn't really cut through in any distinguishing way. Overall I think it's good but it doesn't quite grab me the way I think it had intended to. 6.5/10

12. Rolling Stone Blues
A very good take on a blues that ended up being more interesting than almost anything on Blue & Lonesome. I especially like the little pause Keith gives when Mick gets to the "rolling stone" bit, which could have been hammed up into a "Look look he said the thing!" moment but somehow wasn't. I know talk is going around of another album in the works, but if this is the last one, this is a good way to close it out. 6.5/10

So overall this is a mixed bag of things for me, with the album really getting into a groove from Live by the Sword through Tell Me Straight, and overall I think tracks 8-12 is one of their better 5 song stretches from anytime after Undercover and certainly post-Bill Wyman. I'm not on the train of "Best Album Since 19xx" like some people, but I'm glad they made it as I've found a few new songs that I really like. As with every album from after 1983, I will probably settle in to somewhere between a third and half of the album becoming regular rotation, and the other half left to occasional listens during a whole album runthrough. Maybe I'll feel differently a year from now, and maybe I'll get used to the production and be able to reevaluate some of these songs where I felt it got in the way. Until then, I'll be enjoying a good portion of it, and secretly hoping that Bob Clearmountain or somebody gets their hands on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-23 11:25 by MrBobMartini.

Quote
MrBobMartini
[...]

Very interesting review. Well argumented. Thanks for posting.

Excellent album. I dont care bout song-by-song reviews. The band and Andy Watt seem genuinely excited. It shines through in all the infectious choruses over the album. Go Stones.

Now I suppose everyone will be mad at me with my opinions and feelings.
Fortunately, everyone has their own taste and right to their own opinion. I am 76 and have been a Stones fan since 1963. I have travelled half the world for their live performances. I have had countless bootlegs, and have all their studio albums. And to cut a long story short, Hackney Diamonds is for me the best thing they ever released. For me, it's not about lyrics or what key G or whatever. I constantly have the urge to play the album, and for me personally, there is not a single bad song on it. Hackney Diamonds is a big party for me.

Angry:

Very catchy tune. Well-played, well-performed. Nice touch with the extra part in the chorus. Very clever move to take it down in the middle and to make a post-chorus toward the end. 8/10

Get Close:

I like the sound of it as well as the vibe. Keith's phaser contributes a lot to that. It is a little disturbing to hear the melody of Too Far Gone in the first verse. It was better in the second verse, when Mick twisted a little on the melody. Nice sax solo by James King. And the rhythm - it's a blueprint of Slave. I'm fine with that. 7/10

Depending On You:

I can hear from the get-go that this is something special. Nice guitars, extraordinary singing. No doubt about this being a Mick-melody - and a very good one at that! Ronnie's slide themes are as phenomenal as they are simple. Beautifully played! The chorus is delicious. The Stones at their best. 10/10


Bite My Head Off:

How can these 80 year olds make such a racket? This is even punkier that the stuff on Some Girls! Mick is fantastic, same with the rest of the band. Nice touch with the extra chords and harmonies (on the ain't on a leash/chain-parts). Will become a live classic. 10/10

Whole Wide World:

Wow! Melodic, wistful, rocking and mysterious. Fantastic guitars, great singing. I almost got a new wave-vibe of this. Nice touch with the London-accent - it really suited the song. Beautiful verses and chorus. Mick sounds like he's crying when they take it down before the last chorus. Ronnie is on fire. The best Stones-tune I've heard in a long, long time. 10/10

Dreamy Skies:

The Stones and country can (almost) never go wrong. Immediately, I notice a similarity with the «you can't get away from it all»-part in Short And Curlies. However, in a way slower tempo. There are some variations, so it doesn't bother me at all. I've almost forgot it now. Perhaps the best «weaving-song» on the album. Superb slide playing by Ronnie, and really nice open G-playing (without a pick) by Keith. Nice ending bridge. I hope they'll play this one live. 9/10

Mess It Up:

This could have been a single off Wandering Spirit. There is a lot to take in there: The sound, the style, the phrasing, the chorus. IMO, it works nicely. Some of the best choruses ever will glue themselves to your brain, and you just can't let go. Mess It Up is one of those choruses. Very nice playing. Good to hear Charlie, who really contributes here. 8/10

Live By The Sword:

The rhythm section is back! They really are one of a kind. Both are unique at what they do, and together they're dynamite. The song is a nice rocker, and Elton John does a very good job. Unnecessary to copy/paste the first part of Ronnie's solo and play it twice. 8/10

Driving Me Too Hard:

Ha! This could have come straight outta Crosseyed Heart. The melody, too. Nice to hear those country-tinged open G-riffs from Keith, as well as beautiful licks. Nice tune, but not among the best here, imo. 7/10

Tell Me Straight:

We've been hearing a lot about Mick's girl problems on this album so far. Here's a piece with some self-reflection - at least it can be interpreted that way («is my future all in the past»). The song is wistful and melancholic musically, and the playing is top notch. Keith is singing better than he has done in a long time. Very nice backup-vocals by Mick. I really like this one. 9/10

Sweet Sounds Of Heaven:

The Stones go soul, and turn it into a gospel-fest. Simply fantastic! Lady Gaga is phenomenal, so is Mick. Nice dynamics. The ending after the «false» stop is a classic. The Stones at their very best. 10/10

Rolling Stone Blues:

This is interesting. The Stones claim that they've never recorded this one, nor played it. We know that this is incorrect, as they did Still A Fool (recorded in 1969, and live in 1995), which is the same song with slightly different lyrics. The sounds Mick and Keith are creating here is perfect. That guitar is so dirty and respectfully authentic-played that it is almost unfathomable. The way the harp and the guitar are following each other is brilliant. Surprisingly, the only thing that doesn't work 100 percent is Mick's vocals, imo. 8/10



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-23 15:37 by DandelionPowderman.

Nice, detailed reviews by plusplusjames and MrBobMartini. Lots of great insights. Thank you.

I am not busy reviewing anything yet, but I think what is absolutely great in this album is how different in many ways it is compared to A BIGGER BANG (and, of course, to BLUE & LONESOME). Like they are almost a different band. In a way that also works for seeing the unique, raw nature of A BIGGER BANG as well. It was a testimony how the Stones were back then and what they wanted to achieve under those circumstances. But instead of seeing it as their last big statement as far as original songs go - and for that I think it was a pretty sad way to end up an incredible career - it is now just one but interesting chapter in their story.

Surely 18 years is a long time, and they probably could have not even managed to do a similar album had they tried, but I am more than happy that they wanted to make a very different statement now. It is the variance not just within the albums but also between the albums I cherish. You put all those albums next to each other and you get a helluva story.

There is a lot of retro - familiar things, that is - in HACKNEY DIAMONDS, but is clothed so freshingly from the bottom to the top (and I am still in the process of digesting all that) that it sets it apart from all of their catalogue. Quite an achievement!

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-23 13:17 by Doxa.

For me, Goat's Head Soup was the Stones most poignant album because it is always tied to the time my high school sweetheart of 3 years dumped me. Hackney Diamonds just took over its place. It was released on the very day that I finally broke up with my only other true love. We were in an on again/off again for three years. She is trapped in a cult run by her sister-in-law who will not let us be together. We had to sneak around just to be friends. She never knew that I knew what the problem was, and I never let her know that I knew what the problem was. I finally addressed the situation with her and we have now fallen apart for good because just addressing the situation made her furious. Each song on Hackney Diamonds reflects an emotion I went thru in that relationship and Sweet Sounds of Heaven is as heavenly as her soul is otherwise.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Angry

Very catchy tune. Well-played, well-performed. Nice touch with the extra part in the chorus. Very clever move to take it down in the middle and to make a post-chorus toward the end. 8/10

Get Close:

I like the sound of it as well as the vibe. Keith's phaser contributes a lot to that. It is a little disturbing to hear the melody of Too Far Gone in the first verse. It was better in the second verse, when Mick twisted a little on the melody. Nice sax solo by James King. And the rhythm - it's a blueprint of Slave. I'm fine with that. 7/10

Depending On You:

I can hear from the get-go that this is something special. Nice guitars, extraordinary singing. No doubt about this being a Mick-melody - and a very good one at that! Ronnie's slide themes are as phenomenal as they are simple. Beautifully played! The chorus is delicious. The Stones at their best. 10/10
EDIT: I see Andrew is credited on guitar. He might have played the slide solo.

Bite My Head Off:

How can these 80 year olds make such a racket? This is even punkier that the stuff on Some Girls! Mick is fantastic, same with the rest of the band. Nice touch with the extra chords and harmonies (on the ain't on a leash/chain-parts). Will become a live classic. 10/10

Whole Wide World:

Wow! Melodic, wistful, rocking and mysterious. Fantastic guitars, great singing. I almost got a new wave-vibe of this. Nice touch with the London-accent - it really suited the song. Beautiful verses and chorus. Mick sounds like he's crying when they take it down before the last chorus. Ronnie is on fire. The best Stones-tune I've heard in a long, long time. 10/10

Dreamy Skies:

The Stones and country can (almost) never go wrong. Immediately, I notice a similarity with the «you can't get away from it all»-part in Short And Curlies. However, in a way slower tempo. There are some variations, so it doesn't bother me at all. I've almost forgot it now. Perhaps the best «weaving-song» on the album. Superb slide playing by Ronnie, and really nice open G-playing (without a pick) by Keith. Nice ending bridge. I hope they'll play this one live. 9/10

Mess It Up:

This could have been a single off Wandering Spirit. There is a lot to take in there: The sound, the style, the phrasing, the chorus. IMO, it works nicely. Some of the best choruses ever will glue themselves to your brain, and you just can't let go. Mess It Up is one of those choruses. Very nice playing by Ronnie and Andrew (left channel). I can't hear Keith in here. Good to hear Charlie, who really contributes here. 8/10

Live By The Sword:

The rhythm section is back! They really are one of a kind. Both are unique at what they do, and together they're dynamite. The song is a nice rocker, and Elton John does a very good job. 8/10

Driving Me Too Hard:

Ha! This could have come straight outta Crosseyed Heart. The melody, too. Nice to hear those country-tinged open G-riffs from Keith, as well as beautiful licks. Nice tune, but not among the best here, imo. 7/10

Tell Me Straight:

We've been hearing a lot about Mick's girl problems on this album so far. Here's a piece with some self-reflection - at least it can be interpreted that way («is my future all in the past»). The song is wistful and melancholic musically, and the playing is top notch. Keith is singing better than he has done in a long time. Very nice backup-vocals by Mick. I really like this one. 9/10

Sweet Sounds Of Heaven:

The Stones go soul, and turn it into a gospel-fest. Simply fantastic! Lady Gaga is phenomenal, so is Mick. Nice dynamics. The ending after the «false» stop is a classic. The Stones at their very best. 10/10

Rolling Stone Blues:

This is interesting. The Stones claim that they've never recorded this one, nor played it. We know that this is incorrect, as they did Still A Fool (recorded in 1969, and live in 1995), which is the same song with only a few differences in words a couple of places. The sounds Mick and Keith are creating here is perfect. That guitar is so dirty and respectfully authentic-played that it is almost unfathomable. The way the harp and the guitar are following each other is brilliant. Surprisingly, the only thing that doesn't work 100 percent is Mick's vocals, imo. 8/10

Glad you really enjoy this one DP.
My opinion is a little more mixed, but if you took a look at my review, I'll say it again: it's a good album, full of desire and energy. On the other hand, sorry, for me, Mess It Up is a horror ^^...

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-23 14:17 by powerage78.

Quote
powerage78

On the other hand, sorry, for me, Mess It Up is a horror ^^...

It's one for the girls .... play this track and the dancefloor will immediately be full.

If it's catchy, it's catchy

CD or LP?

Is there a difference?
Tomorrow i‘m going to buy.

[youtu.be]

A nice review, Dandie. At the moment I disagree with something you say (like I am not that big fan of Macca tune - at least yet), but I wholeheartedly agree that "Whole Wide World" is the best Stones song for a long time. It is novel, fresh and with all of its musical and lyrical references they haven't sounded so English since BETWEEN THE BUTTONS (damn, at one point I hear even The Clash and "London Calling" entering). The chorus alone is so damn well written and catchy and perfect in a rocker that it is almost unique in their catalog, at least since the melodic pop-era 60's (What catchy choruses there really have been 'lately'? "She Was Hot"? "Mixed Emotions"?). But yeah, probably I will talk about this tune more in its own thread some day.

And oh yeah, I also agree that the weak link in otherwise great "Rolling Stone Blues" is, surprisingly, Mick's vocals. I think he holds his horses a bit there, I would have expected a stronger performance (based on what he, for example, does on BLUE & LONESOME).

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-23 14:56 by Doxa.

Quote
Spud

Quote
plusplusjames
WHERE HACKNEY DIAMONDS FITS IN THE STONES CANON


This brings me to an uncomfortable discussion, one that must be had as we contemplate the late period of the band. The question is, what does the band do if Mick leaves (a question that I cannot ask without some emotional agony). Sweet Sounds of Heaven hints at the answer, one that I have suspected ever since I was dancing next to Lady Gaga on the rail at the First Union Center in Philadelphia in 2013. Gaga is a natural to handle vocals as Mick’s clear understudy. I think she would be instantly popular with the band’s male fans. To my female fan friends, who I am sure will be divided on this question, I would say, cut us dudes some slack. You’ve had your fun. Now it’s our turn to get our Short and Curlies off.

To continue, what if Keith were to leave? This one is easier and hopefully less controversial. I think Ronnie could play Keith’s parts faithfully for the fans. As for the other guitar parts, Mick Taylor would do very nicely, and undeniably has the legacy to boot. And that would be a very nice mix. Even today with all three!

If needed, Ronnie could be replaced by the aforementioned Mick Taylor. The interesting question is who would take over the other guitar. I would nominate a number of guitarists who have played with the band over the years, such as Ry Cooder, Macca (reprise of the tension between “Music Hall” and “Rhythm and Blues?”), Andy Watt, Sheryl Crow, Lenny Kravitz, among many others.

Hackney Diamonds, the band’s London themed album, points to both their past and future. I dig this compendium that thoroughly convinces me that a late period album can truly be more “Love of Music” than “rock and roll sausage.”

Gold rings on ya!

here I am reading an interesting and obviously well informed review of the album...an then all that stuff about what if Mick or Keith left ...

What the f%^& is that all that about ?

Hi Spud... Thank you for your question.

I was making a point that HD makes not only references to the band's past, but also, possibly, to the band's future.

Trust me, I'm queasy to contemplate this stuff. But if we soul survive the band, we'll need to deal with this.

Charlie's legacy is that the group can and should continue. I agree. If so, what would it look like?

I offer my thoughts for you to throw darts at. That's all.

[youtu.be]