I noticed yesterday when I checked out the wikipedia page for the album that three tracks have been credited to Jagger-Richards-Watt. The tracks are angry, get close and depending on you.
I can't recall another person getting that many writing credits and also playing on the album. Does anyone know if there has been a precedent like that before?

Quote
woodyweaving
I noticed yesterday when I checked out the wikipedia page for the album that three tracks have been credited to Jagger-Richards-Watt. The tracks are angry, get close and depending on you.
I can't recall another person getting that many writing credits and also playing on the album. Does anyone know if there has been a precedent like that before?

Ronnie got 4 co-writing credits on Dirty Work, but as far as someone not in the core group I don't believe so. I don't think Don Was ever had a co-credit.

Quote
JimmyTheSaint
It will take weeks, maybe months, maybe longer for me to decide what I think of this release. As an older fan, I don't like modern production values and haven't liked modern production since 1981 probably. Occasionally I've taken to a Stones original post '81. "Undercover of the Night" is very 1983 but I love it. "Saint of Me" is late '90s but I like it, like it, yes I do.

I've always wondered what an album of new Stones originals helmed by a Daniel Lanois or a Rick Rubin might sound like, and I guess I'm never going to get that answer.

Maybe some of these songs will resonate more for me in a live setting?

In the meantime, I'll play it some more or not much at all depending on whether or not it grows on me.

I thought AC/DC's BALLBREAKER (which, ha ha, should've been called HARD AS A ROCK) would be insanely awesome because of Rubin. Especially considering what he did with The Cult's ELECTRIC.

It's AC/DC but it's (more than) kinda boring. Malcolm wasn't happy with it.

Mick's WANDERING SPIRIT is excellent but there were parts of it when Rubin didn't know what he was doing - or what Mick was doing - and Rubin took Mick's "You're worse than Keith" comment during a talk out in the hallway of the studio as a complement!

Rubin has had a fantastic discography, although he ruined his relationship with Tom Petty because of his use of heroin, Rubin has done some amazing work.

Between Rubin and Lanois, personally, they would've had great success with Lanois. Hell, Bob Dylan did! That's enough to suggest he would've been great with The Rolling Stones. Because Rubin has, basically, tunnel vision, and Lanois has completely open vision.

What Andrew Watt has done with The Rolling Stones for HACKNEY DIAMONDS is incredible, regardless of comparison to A BIGGER BANG (for the obvious reason of it being their previous original album but it's been so damn long it's not really in any kind of comparison arena).

They sound alive on this one. As in, there's air on this album, in the songs. It's not a clobbering. There's some stretching out.

Been listening to Angry on repeat until the album came out (oddly enough not so much with Sweet Sounds Of Heaven, which I'm liking more in context of the album than as a single, even with the single edit version, and, yeah, it definitely could fit on Side 2 of STICKY FINGERS) and every play it got better and better - and now with the LP out it's fantastic - I love Mick's sneers of 'Why ya angry?' after, but possibly the best moment is "Hear the rain beating on my window pane".

As I listen to the album, of course there are reminders: Bite My Head Off, aside from Mick's recent solo song, sounds like it could easily fit with Where The Boys Go and Summer Romance (ha ha - SOME GIRLS leftovers!) on EMOTIONAL RESCUE. I thought similar about Oh No Not You Again but Bite My Head Off is a million times better song.

The stop and then turn back drum in right before "You shared my photos" in Mess It Up is that Charlie drumming groove/feel people are talking about Jordan not having.

Of course he doesn't. But he does a great job playing the drums for (in?) The Rolling Stones.

Live By The Sword reminds me of some of the (not slow) clunky SOME GIRLS leftovers in the deluxe reissue.

Get Close is a great groove. Mick's Too Far Gone still comes to mind (at this point it's inevitable that some song is going to remind someone of something previous) but I like Get Close a lot more. Is Elton John actually playing piano on this tune? I can kinda hear him in the choruses in the latter part of the song.

Really digging this album. Maybe it's age - or maybe it's the age that's gone by since (enter whatever here) but I'm gonna guess it's genuine interest, with the amount of time not actually mattering - even though it certainly has an effect - because it's a new Stones album.

I loved VOODOO LOUNGE when it came out. 2 years later I was bored with it. It never gained any ground back.

BRIDGES has aged much better - I still enjoy most of that album.

BANG... eh, ha ha, a very trimmed version of it is still fun enough to listen to once in a while.

So far it's their most interesting release in eons, way more diverse (Dreamy Skies is killer and Tell Me Straight is like a 54 year old shadow of You Got The Silver and Keith sounds fantastic - Keith and Mick alternate on the harmonies in the choruses! Well, the last chorus is Keith Keith Keith Mick) than anything in quite some time - ha ha - it's kinda like a little grunty echoey short cousin of EXILE in terms of all the difference, diversity, whatever you want to call it.

CD supposedly now shows up tomorrow night. I'm listening to it via Amazon rip through speakers.

A new Stones album!!! All the crap going on in the world (when isn't there?) it's a nice shot of life.

Quote
bye bye johnny
Cover of the music industry publication HITS Daily Double



[hitsdailydouble.com]

I remember when it waa just called Hits. Seeing that takes me back to my days in commercial radio.

Thanks! I thought Ronnie might have come close with some DW credits but nobody outside the band for sure.
I'm not the greatest Stones historian though so wasn't really certain.

[www.pastemagazine.com]

Are the bridges the weakest parts of this album? I like the whole album but it seems like the bridges in some songs take the steam out of them. Like Sweet Sounds. The song keeps building and gaining momentum, then the bridge happens and it seems like a wrong turn.

It seems to me that in the face of evidence of an excellent album, brilliant, fresh, eclectic, with a great sound and truly enjoyable to listen to...someone necessarily wants to extinguish the enthusiasm: either with rancorous and prejudiced reviews or by vivisecting every track in search of some flaw.
So let's enjoy it for them, too!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-24 09:10 by HardRiffin.

Quote
keefgotsoul
Are the bridges the weakest parts of this album? I like the whole album but it seems like the bridges in some songs take the steam out of them. Like Sweet Sounds. The song keeps building and gaining momentum, then the bridge happens and it seems like a wrong turn.

No.

Rod

Fanks HardRiffin ... that
Pastemagazine review is pretty good ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Fanks HardRiffin ... that
Pastemagazine review is pretty good ....

You're right...a good review

"(...) i read someone say that Hackney Diamonds is the Rolling Stones attempting to make a Maroon 5 record. I didn’t think that “Moves Like Jagger” still had our culture in a chokehold, or that anyone has ever thought that Adam Levine’s oeuvre is one worth mining through (and certainly not by Mick Jagger, a man who’s still digging through his own bag of tricks). No part of this record sounds like clunky pop rock fit for festival grounds and rid of any emotional reward; this thing is fresh to the bone, whether you want to admit it or not. A song like “Get Close,” which is so fabulous it remains my favorite cut off the record, is poppy while still boasting one of those quintessential Keith Richards riffs that’ll puncture your soul. Maroon 5 couldn’t dream of making a track so untamed and badass"

[www.pastemagazine.com]

Period.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-24 09:44 by HardRiffin.

Quote
woodyweaving
Thanks! I thought Ronnie might have come close with some DW credits but nobody outside the band for sure.
I'm not the greatest Stones historian though so wasn't really certain.

Chuck Leavell got a credit for Back To Zero

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
keefgotsoul
Are the bridges the weakest parts of this album? I like the whole album but it seems like the bridges in some songs take the steam out of them. Like Sweet Sounds. The song keeps building and gaining momentum, then the bridge happens and it seems like a wrong turn.

No.

Agreed. They make the songs more interesting. The one in Live By The Sword is really odd, but sort of a light weight Rocks Off-bridge. Love it!

Quote
keefgotsoul
Are the bridges the weakest parts of this album? I like the whole album but it seems like the bridges in some songs take the steam out of them. Like Sweet Sounds. The song keeps building and gaining momentum, then the bridge happens and it seems like a wrong turn.

In general, yes, they feel forced and unnecessary. Although in Sweet Sounds it's okay.

[youtu.be]

Well said bro!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-24 11:20 by HardRiffin.

Quote
matxil

Quote
keefgotsoul
Are the bridges the weakest parts of this album? I like the whole album but it seems like the bridges in some songs take the steam out of them. Like Sweet Sounds. The song keeps building and gaining momentum, then the bridge happens and it seems like a wrong turn.

In general, yes, they feel forced and unnecessary. Although in Sweet Sounds it's okay.

I think the bridges are great. Stevie's Moog on Sweet Sounds is the highlight of the song for me. The bridge on Live by the Sword could be directly from Undercover (All The Way Down) and the bridge on Dreamy Skies comes quite late at an unexpected point and helps to justify the rest of the development of the song.

My main gripe with the album are some of the choruses. Often the verses are great and raunchy and then the chorus comes around and makes it just a bit too clear that it wants to be a chorus. In Angry, Whole Wide World and Mess it Up the choruses are wayyy to poppy for my taste. Too clean, forced and early 2000's radio pop rock. Very cheesy. While at the same time the verses are inspired and driving. But on Depending on You the pop melody of the chorus works well and there's some great choruses in the other songs: Get Close and Live by the Sword.

Here's my take:

1. When the album out I streamed it several times and loved it:

2. When my CD arrived I cranked up the volume and loved it even more:

3. Last night I played it on vinyl and it sounded amazing.


Conclusion - this is a great Stones album.

Quote
MonkeyMan2000

Quote
matxil

Quote
keefgotsoul
Are the bridges the weakest parts of this album? I like the whole album but it seems like the bridges in some songs take the steam out of them. Like Sweet Sounds. The song keeps building and gaining momentum, then the bridge happens and it seems like a wrong turn.

In general, yes, they feel forced and unnecessary. Although in Sweet Sounds it's okay.

I think the bridges are great. Stevie's Moog on Sweet Sounds is the highlight of the song for me. The bridge on Live by the Sword could be directly from Undercover (All The Way Down) and the bridge on Dreamy Skies comes quite late at an unexpected point and helps to justify the rest of the development of the song.

My main gripe with the album are some of the choruses. Often the verses are great and raunchy and then the chorus comes around and makes it just a bit too clear that it wants to be a chorus. In Angry, Whole Wide World and Mess it Up the choruses are wayyy to poppy for my taste. Too clean, forced and early 2000's radio pop rock. Very cheesy. While at the same time the verses are inspired and driving. But on Depending on You the pop melody of the chorus works well and there's some great choruses in the other songs: Get Close and Live by the Sword.

Well, you might have a point there because I don't like All The Way Down either. One of the worst songs on Undercover, partly - indeed - because of the bridge.

I agree that the choruses, in general, are very pop. It's a pop album, it is what it is. On Angry and WWW it's alright, I think.
Get Close is something where I feel I'm in a different universe. The rest of the album I can listen to, but I find Get Close absolutely terrible. Third-rate pop, with no guitars to speak of.

Quote
matxil
Well, you might have a point there because I don't like All The Way Down either. One of the worst songs on Undercover, partly - indeed - because of the bridge.

I agree that the choruses, in general, are very pop. It's a pop album, it is what it is. On Angry and WWW it's alright, I think.
Get Close is something where I feel I'm in a different universe. The rest of the album I can listen to, but I find Get Close absolutely terrible. Third-rate pop, with no guitars to speak of.

Funny! For me Get Close is one of best tunes on the Album. I feel like everyone is on the same waggon and pushes the song forward. Especially Keith seems very inspired and Mick sounds like he's 25. For me, that's how a Stones tune in 2023 should sound. But hey, it speaks for the quality of the album when there's a person for each tune, declaring it their highlight of the album

After many listens, it is still enjoyable. There is so much variation in the album from rock/ballads/blues/country/gospel. For me, a top album.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
woodyweaving
Thanks! I thought Ronnie might have come close with some DW credits but nobody outside the band for sure.
I'm not the greatest Stones historian though so wasn't really certain.

Chuck Leavell got a credit for Back To Zero

Hahaha, some might say that was like a wish from a monkey's finger!
I know it's unpopular, but I have a soft spot for the outtake version of Back to Zero.

Quote
matxil

Quote
MonkeyMan2000

Quote
matxil

Quote
keefgotsoul
Are the bridges the weakest parts of this album? I like the whole album but it seems like the bridges in some songs take the steam out of them. Like Sweet Sounds. The song keeps building and gaining momentum, then the bridge happens and it seems like a wrong turn.

In general, yes, they feel forced and unnecessary. Although in Sweet Sounds it's okay.

I think the bridges are great. Stevie's Moog on Sweet Sounds is the highlight of the song for me. The bridge on Live by the Sword could be directly from Undercover (All The Way Down) and the bridge on Dreamy Skies comes quite late at an unexpected point and helps to justify the rest of the development of the song.

My main gripe with the album are some of the choruses. Often the verses are great and raunchy and then the chorus comes around and makes it just a bit too clear that it wants to be a chorus. In Angry, Whole Wide World and Mess it Up the choruses are wayyy to poppy for my taste. Too clean, forced and early 2000's radio pop rock. Very cheesy. While at the same time the verses are inspired and driving. But on Depending on You the pop melody of the chorus works well and there's some great choruses in the other songs: Get Close and Live by the Sword.

Well, you might have a point there because I don't like All The Way Down either. One of the worst songs on Undercover, partly - indeed - because of the bridge.

I agree that the choruses, in general, are very pop. It's a pop album, it is what it is. On Angry and WWW it's alright, I think.
Get Close is something where I feel I'm in a different universe. The rest of the album I can listen to, but I find Get Close absolutely terrible. Third-rate pop, with no guitars to speak of.

How you hear Get Close is how i hear most of the Album, as a pop record it's okay, it's an old man trying to appear accessible and relevant to young listeners, from the standpoint of possibly the Stones final album to add to their legacy it's un listenable.
It's very much like Goddess In The Doorway, an average Mick solo album, which over the years I've grown to appreciate, Mick's solo albums were not really all that bad, perhaps in time i will look at HD that way but for now I'm shocked the way i was when ABB was released, shocked because i doubt i will want to play a Stones album again in a hurry.

How are people rating half the tracks on the album 10 out of 10, does that mean that posters think these tracks are as good as the best work ever including Exile etc.
Are people so desperate to fit in with others that they will give 10/10 for acceptance or fear of personal attacks, fascinating stuff, I'm learning more about our species on here than anywhere else..

Still far from judging the album or the songs per se. Loving every sec listening it.

But although still withdrawing from judgments I am making some formal notes about its structure. Namely, what is great in compared to any of its predecessors from VOODOO LOUNGE on - those pure CD era albums - pl. BLUE & LONESOME, it is constructed so well, a treasure to listen from the start to finish, each individual song supporting the outcome. The albums were like this once, you remember? Even if one particular song is not that good in itself, it fits there.

But yeah, my particular point. Not that the album has a flow, it surely has, I think it also has some interesting little subdivisions along the flow. Or that is at least how I started to grasp the album.

It starts with a pure Watt showcase: what is Andrew Watt really contributing to the sound of the band. It is no wonder that the songs he had a co-credit are the first three numbers. It his his vision most strongly there what would be done in order to refresh and high-tune the band into 2020s. Interestingly, they all are based on familiar old winning receipts. We have there a classical "Start Me Up" style riff rocker, a classical sexy Stones-style R&B/funk groove tune, and a great, sharply-written ballad in the vein of "Memory Motel", "Angie", "Ruby Tuesday", or even of "As Tears Go By", etc. The statement of HACKNEY DIAMONDS - how is the album really like - is pretty much laid there. Let's call this 'Watt section'.

But then the depth and the real story of the album starts. Some funny pairings there. Yeah - pairings - always two songs in a row to state or express something.

"Bite My Head Off" and "Whole Wide World" is a little chapter of its own. I call it 'British section'. One might label it British Rock, from punk to new wave to BritPop. From Pistols to Blur. Like America - Muddy, Chuck, Otis - never happened. The former is familiar stuff from old SOME GIRLS days - reminded by Mick's solo song a while ago - but the latter is totally new ground for them. That they have another English Icon playing a bass there - on a punk song! - is just perfect. The grandfathers of British rock are playing their offspring's stuff that was partly inspired by them (although initially made against them and their legacy). Such an English irony!

"Mess It Up" and "Live By The Sword" is, of course, a Charlie section, him putting the groove like nobody ever can. The first is a dance track, something Charlie and Mick loves and do so damn well together. Naturally this divides the fan opinions most, as it has been since the white, straight male folks started burning disco records in America and cannot see what is so fun in moving one's ass. The latter is a basic Pathe Marconi era R&B rocker, and when we have the original bass player there, it is a pure memory line to the groove nobody ever did better.

"Driving Me Too Hard" and "Tell Me Straight" is a Keith section. The former introduces us the classical Open G in action and in its full glory, and is pretty much a Richards/Winos track by constitution, Mick adding just some of his own nuances there. The latter is a typical, but fresh-sounding Keith crooner ballad. It is no wonder that these two songs are favorites by many fans here - especially by those who love Keith's solo records. If there is something odd or even annoying in elsewhere on the album, this section is a safe haven for those people.

The album ends with not one, but two ending songs - both like ending statements of their own, but together something we have not heard if not ever, but at least since The Golden Era albums. "Sweet Sounds of Heaven" - in the vein of grand finales like "The Salt of The Earth", "You Can't Always Get What You Want", and "Moonlight Mile" - leads the band into a non-inquired field and "Rolling Stones Blues" is as radical and extreme in its raw purity. Together they constitute a dual 'Finale section'.

Well, the pure country number "Dreamy Skies" was left out, but yeah, it is a breakaway song... one needs to have those...

Altogether, this album is full of exciting stuff, different chapters - so much to digest, to dig. It is the diversity that makes this album special, but they all work - me thinks - nicely together.

- Doxa



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-24 14:31 by Doxa.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-24 13:40 by DandelionPowderman.

<from the standpoint of possibly the Stones final album>

We know that HD isn't their last album, as they're 3/4 finished with the next one. Did you miss the press conference, Riffie?

Quote
DandelionPowderman


We know that HD isn't their last album, as they're 3/4 finished with the next one. Did you miss the press conference, Riffie?

No DP didn't miss a thing, but take into account this album has been coming for over 5 years and Mick and Keith are 80 I'm not holding my breath for the next album.
If it's tracks that weren't good enough for this album it might not be that fantastic.

Got today the CD and LP from JPC - still liked the songs on Youtube, but now, listening the album in perfect quality. It's just great music for me!

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
matxil

Quote
MonkeyMan2000

Quote
matxil

Quote
keefgotsoul
Are the bridges the weakest parts of this album? I like the whole album but it seems like the bridges in some songs take the steam out of them. Like Sweet Sounds. The song keeps building and gaining momentum, then the bridge happens and it seems like a wrong turn.

In general, yes, they feel forced and unnecessary. Although in Sweet Sounds it's okay.

I think the bridges are great. Stevie's Moog on Sweet Sounds is the highlight of the song for me. The bridge on Live by the Sword could be directly from Undercover (All The Way Down) and the bridge on Dreamy Skies comes quite late at an unexpected point and helps to justify the rest of the development of the song.

My main gripe with the album are some of the choruses. Often the verses are great and raunchy and then the chorus comes around and makes it just a bit too clear that it wants to be a chorus. In Angry, Whole Wide World and Mess it Up the choruses are wayyy to poppy for my taste. Too clean, forced and early 2000's radio pop rock. Very cheesy. While at the same time the verses are inspired and driving. But on Depending on You the pop melody of the chorus works well and there's some great choruses in the other songs: Get Close and Live by the Sword.

Well, you might have a point there because I don't like All The Way Down either. One of the worst songs on Undercover, partly - indeed - because of the bridge.

I agree that the choruses, in general, are very pop. It's a pop album, it is what it is. On Angry and WWW it's alright, I think.
Get Close is something where I feel I'm in a different universe. The rest of the album I can listen to, but I find Get Close absolutely terrible. Third-rate pop, with no guitars to speak of.

How you hear Get Close is how i hear most of the Album, as a pop record it's okay, it's an old man trying to appear accessible and relevant to young listeners, from the standpoint of possibly the Stones final album to add to their legacy it's un listenable.
It's very much like Goddess In The Doorway, an average Mick solo album, which over the years I've grown to appreciate, Mick's solo albums were not really all that bad, perhaps in time i will look at HD that way but for now I'm shocked the way i was when ABB was released, shocked because i doubt i will want to play a Stones album again in a hurry.

How are people rating half the tracks on the album 10 out of 10, does that mean that posters think these tracks are as good as the best work ever including Exile etc.
Are people so desperate to fit in with others that they will give 10/10 for acceptance or fear of personal attacks, fascinating stuff, I'm learning more about our species on here than anywhere else..

I don't really agree with your judgement that the sound of Hackney Diamonds is one of an old man trying to get young ears (hardly a fresh or new accusation, it is itself past middle age...) . For me, it's not a pop record, although it has a lot of pop hooks amid the Rolling Stones rock n roll, which is everywhere, with the guitars packed with lovely moments and some great moments.
Right now, some of those tracks, because they are good and new and fresh, are as exciting as some of what is on the big albums of the early 70s etc. They sound great. I know that that judgement can change...
I think you betray a need to be diametrically opposed to 'the crowd' with the last comment. I really do think that people, especially fans on a Rolling Stones fan site, are giving some tracks a 10/10 because they love them, and they are super fresh and exciting, and a week old. Of course, that may change. WHo know if we stick or twist? I ink if we wanna learn about our species, we got to look at ourselves! I know I'm getting older and uglier, but hey...!
I find it harder to get my head around people who come on this board to give a 1/10 tongue lashing. Save it for social media, I'd suggest! It is, after all, a Rolling Stones fan site. I grew with Stones hate in the British music press for decades - morally, ethically, musically, politically, they were really really hated until rock culture went legacy in the 90s - which is why I suppose I prefer to swerve from deliberately negative takes on the band... !

According to Woody, these 12 from Hackney Diamonds are not even the best songs of the 23 recorded during the sessions. That bodes well, delightful enjoyment in my old age.

Quote
Idorh

According to Woody, these 12 from Hackney Diamonds are not even the best songs of the 23 recorded during the sessions.

Sounds promising ....