Tell Me :
Talk
Predictable for lack of a better word.
Stones by numbers by Stones by numbers= not Stones at all.
Maybe the problem is not the Stones but unreasonable expectations on your side.
Have you ever thought about that?
I have thought about that, a guy called Maxil said the same thing to me, but why would my expectations be low when we are talking about two geniuses, Mick clearly over the so called Wall and Keith not so long ago impressed me with CH.
I think Andrew Watt has done a great job with other older artists bringing their talents the attention they might have not received, but the Stones are different, with the right production they could have made a truly great album, not an album trying to be something but an album that really was something.
Could it be easier for you to admit that you don't like The Rolling Stones in the form they nowadays are? You loved some band that doesn't exist any longer (or only exists in your imagination), since their muse have driven them into direction that goes out of your taste and interest. Many has made that conclusion ages ago - some over 50 years ago - but they don't use this site or especially a new Stones album thread for a personal therapy session or trying to convince anybody how much the contemporary version of the Stones sucks (or how stupid people are for thinking that they are still great or something). Jeez, it's just music. The idea of claiming 'that is no Stones any longer' is not solely stupid and arrogant, but a serious sign of not understanding who is the artist - the leader - and who is the fan - the follower - here. The Stones are/do what they are/do, that's Mick and Keith's, no one else's business to determine. Watt works for them, not the other way around. We might like it or not, but nothing else.
Personally I made a peace with Keith's solo stuff. Yes, I once loved it - TALK IS CHEAP was a very important album for me at one time, although MAIN OFFENDER was a huge disappointment - but after CROSSEYED HEART I realized that I am not really that fond of that sort of stuff any longer, so why I should cry here how much I don't like it - or, say, Keith is not something any longer I'd like him to be. Why should I bother myself or anyone else with negative stuff like that? I mean, I don't go to the Beatles sites to tell people how little that band moves me. It is not an obligatory thing to always have an opinion on anything somehow Stones-related. I mean, why just let it go. Better to stick on stuff that moves you.
Things like that happen. The life goes on.
It's Only Rock'n'Roll.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 00:05 by Doxa.
So you think it's not the quality of the material and the performances of the Stones, but just the producer that brings it down for you? You mean the "right" producer could have turned everything to gold? That's interesting, indeed.
Writing slowly, I started this post before Doxa posted above. I see that this post becomes superflous then.
Reading this, I wonder. Maybe it is not about low as opposed to high expectations. Maybe instead that you can possibly have preconceived ideas about how a Rolling Stones album is supposed to be like. Think about the band's development through the decades! Would you be ready and willing to accept the Rolling Stones to enter in new directions? For instance, as a test of that question, how do you consider the massive changes especially during the first decade of the career of the Rolling Stones?
Edit: An introduction.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 00:48 by Witness.
HACKNEY DIAMONDS made me believe on the format of album again. You know, like there is an artistic entity or statement called album telling a sort of story still. And I had almost lost a hope! Like you, I played "Angry" like hell, almost to death. But the song that starts the album is like something else than the single - it is a bang that starts a helluva listening party that just keeps on giving... the same with "Sweet Sounds of Heaven" - the song is now a part of the whole, having a determinate function there.
Unfortunately I have had always difficulties in seeing A BIGGER BANG, BRIDGES or VOODOO LOUNGE ever like this. They sounded like endless series of singular songs, some better or worse, and the habit of skipping tracks here or there has been too typical for me. They are like long and random play lists. Honestly I don't even remember - or my instinct do not - in many cases what song follows this or that song (unlike any album prior them).
The CD era was not a very good for album format as an art form. And I thought the streaming era will kill anything there is left outside of singular song, but sometimes people turn the clock back, or are pragmatic enough to learn from mistakes.
- Doxa
Interestingly, the trend of BLUE & LONESOME seem to continue here - the album selling about the same amount of copies in UK and US market despite the latter being five times bigger or something. For decades - especially during the 70's - the Stones were relatively taken much better seller in USA than at their home market (actually for years The US sales covered about 50% of their worldwide sales). The British seemingly have re-established their love for their prodigal sons, while the Americans have lost interest in them as recording artists (or buying albums altogether if someone's name is not Taylor Swift). Since VOODOO LOUNGE the following new studio album always drops about half in sales in US market (almost like a mathematical model no matter how many years there are between the releases...). The British Invasion is finally over?
Anyway, if we compare the first week sales of the blues album (UK: 106 000, #1; US: 123 000, #4), the approximated numbers of HACKNEY DIAMONDS will be seemingly pretty far behind in both markets. Same chartings, though. Reflects pretty much the change of people buying albums in 7 years I guess. That's shit, but it is what it is.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 02:13 by Doxa.
The american market could care less about new Stones music, their last Hot 100 hit was in 2003 (with a new song in 1998 with Saint Of Me) and outside the die hard fan base (which drops every year due to age) the general audience only cares about the hits and that's all, the tours are hits but the new music don't move a thing outside the die hards.
In the UK for example the general people still care, Angry was a Top 40 hit and a Top 10 Airplay hit, Ghost Town and Doom And Gloom were minor hits too, the album sales are way better in a market 6-7 times lower than the US.
In Germany, the Stones are selling almost the same in 2023 than Taylor Swift, as crazy as that, in many european markets too.
Sadly not in the US.
It's not a problem for the Stones only in the US, almost every act of certain age (+40-45) is ignored with their new stuff there, let alone from an artist with a recording carrer dating from over 60 years ago.
From that point of view, a Top 4-5 debut in the biggest world market in 2023 which is 90% stream based is not a bad thing at all, it's impressive actually.
good way to put it, definitely leaves me wanting more
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 04:39 by snoopy2.
It's NOT a solo album and you have not been able to make a analytical distinction from other albums like Sticky Fingers, where just as much of the songs have originated from Mick and the rest of the group made musical rather than compositional contributions. You have failed to give convincing definitions of what you call a solo-album and you have proven to not know much about production, thinking Mick's voice just sounds good because of some ominous, mysterious studio effects, for example. You're just getting a kick out of trolling. Now give us our well-deserved break that you've promised.
Yes, almost. In the United States, last AC/DC album Power Up debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 chart, with 117,000 album-equivalent units (including 111,000 pure sales) in its opening week in November 2020.
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
Second hand embarrassment.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Idorh
()
Date: October 24, 2023 20:19
IORR has been around for years, we have had to wait from as far back as 2005 for 80-year-old musicians. Now it's here. I don't worry about it looking like that or that. It's a miracle that we get to experience this. Enjoy it.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 24, 2023 21:01
Quote
NashvilleBluesQuote
liddasQuote
Big Al
I find Andrew Watt’s production to be popish and contemporary
Blame my daughters, but I am quite exposed to contemporary pop music. Well I can hardly remember any guitar driven pop songs charting on spotyfy, forget songs with bum notes, a real drummer, etc etc,
C
HD is very meaty, bouncy and punchy. For lack of a better word, the production sounds cartoonish and exaggerated. Not a criticism, just an opinion.
Predictable for lack of a better word.
Stones by numbers by Stones by numbers= not Stones at all.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
skytrench
()
Date: October 24, 2023 21:20
Here's my early judgement, big hits like TD or JJF would get 4/3.
A respectable effort all round, I hope there's more to come.
2/3: Angry - the "Please just..." chorus brings it down, great Keith licks
3/3: Get Close - cousin of CYHMK, cool sax solo
2/3: Depending On You
3/3: Bite My Head Off - pretty perfect, if you like the Sex Pistols that is
2/3: Whole Wide World
2/3: Dreamy Skies
1/3: Mess It Up - great verse, chorus belongs to another song
2/3: Live by the Sword
3/3: Driving Me Too Hard - nice guitars
2/3: Tell Me Straight
2/3: Sweet Sounds of Heaven - excellent beginning
2/3: Rolling Stone Blues
A respectable effort all round, I hope there's more to come.
2/3: Angry - the "Please just..." chorus brings it down, great Keith licks
3/3: Get Close - cousin of CYHMK, cool sax solo
2/3: Depending On You
3/3: Bite My Head Off - pretty perfect, if you like the Sex Pistols that is
2/3: Whole Wide World
2/3: Dreamy Skies
1/3: Mess It Up - great verse, chorus belongs to another song
2/3: Live by the Sword
3/3: Driving Me Too Hard - nice guitars
2/3: Tell Me Straight
2/3: Sweet Sounds of Heaven - excellent beginning
2/3: Rolling Stone Blues
Made myself a cool little EP
Posted by:
dedospegajosos
()
Date: October 24, 2023 17:19
1. Mess It Up
2. Live By The Sword
3. Living In A Ghost Town
4. Rolling Stones Blues
I was thinking maybe call it CHARLES
You´re welcome world
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-24 17:21 by dedospegajosos.
2. Live By The Sword
3. Living In A Ghost Town
4. Rolling Stones Blues
I was thinking maybe call it CHARLES
You´re welcome world
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-24 17:21 by dedospegajosos.
My 5 years old son loves Hackney Diamonds!
Posted by:
dedospegajosos
()
Date: October 24, 2023 17:32
And I have caught him several times dancing like Shin Shan to it
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
tomcat2006
()
Date: October 24, 2023 22:07
HD is unquestionably an eclectic and superb rock’n roll album, albeit with a crisp modern sheen. And thank god for the variety on there, so what if there is a slight pop vibe. Better than a pure hard rock dead end.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 24, 2023 22:15
Just tried the album again, slightly off topic there was this guy called Mike ( Longbeachareana72 ) and from 2012 onwards he used to comment on the Stones live sound as un listenable.
I loved the Guy, we were friends but i could never understand how he could describe the Stones live like that, the band i loved and spent all my spare money on going to see them.
As the years passed i still struggled to see his perspective of the band's live sound.
That's how some of you must view my comments, it's as though we are listening to an entirely different album and i feel sort of apologetic for the void in transparency.
I loved the Guy, we were friends but i could never understand how he could describe the Stones live like that, the band i loved and spent all my spare money on going to see them.
As the years passed i still struggled to see his perspective of the band's live sound.
That's how some of you must view my comments, it's as though we are listening to an entirely different album and i feel sort of apologetic for the void in transparency.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: October 24, 2023 22:15
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
NashvilleBluesQuote
liddasQuote
Big Al
I find Andrew Watt’s production to be popish and contemporary
Blame my daughters, but I am quite exposed to contemporary pop music. Well I can hardly remember any guitar driven pop songs charting on spotyfy, forget songs with bum notes, a real drummer, etc etc,
C
HD is very meaty, bouncy and punchy. For lack of a better word, the production sounds cartoonish and exaggerated. Not a criticism, just an opinion.
Predictable for lack of a better word.
Stones by numbers by Stones by numbers= not Stones at all.
Maybe the problem is not the Stones but unreasonable expectations on your side.
Have you ever thought about that?
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 24, 2023 22:28
Quote
retired_dogQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
NashvilleBluesQuote
liddasQuote
Big Al
I find Andrew Watt’s production to be popish and contemporary
Blame my daughters, but I am quite exposed to contemporary pop music. Well I can hardly remember any guitar driven pop songs charting on spotyfy, forget songs with bum notes, a real drummer, etc etc,
C
HD is very meaty, bouncy and punchy. For lack of a better word, the production sounds cartoonish and exaggerated. Not a criticism, just an opinion.
Predictable for lack of a better word.
Stones by numbers by Stones by numbers= not Stones at all.
Maybe the problem is not the Stones but unreasonable expectations on your side.
Have you ever thought about that?
I have thought about that, a guy called Maxil said the same thing to me, but why would my expectations be low when we are talking about two geniuses, Mick clearly over the so called Wall and Keith not so long ago impressed me with CH.
I think Andrew Watt has done a great job with other older artists bringing their talents the attention they might have not received, but the Stones are different, with the right production they could have made a truly great album, not an album trying to be something but an album that really was something.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Woz
()
Date: October 24, 2023 22:36
OK, so after sixty years the above poster decided that the Stones sound like the Stones and has decided that's a bad thing. Some real head scratching stuff can be found on this thread I tell you......
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Idorh
()
Date: October 24, 2023 22:50
keefriffhards is just sitting here to bully hahahaha. You just shouldn't take it seriously.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 24, 2023 23:52
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
retired_dogQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
NashvilleBluesQuote
liddasQuote
Big Al
I find Andrew Watt’s production to be popish and contemporary
Blame my daughters, but I am quite exposed to contemporary pop music. Well I can hardly remember any guitar driven pop songs charting on spotyfy, forget songs with bum notes, a real drummer, etc etc,
C
HD is very meaty, bouncy and punchy. For lack of a better word, the production sounds cartoonish and exaggerated. Not a criticism, just an opinion.
Predictable for lack of a better word.
Stones by numbers by Stones by numbers= not Stones at all.
Maybe the problem is not the Stones but unreasonable expectations on your side.
Have you ever thought about that?
I have thought about that, a guy called Maxil said the same thing to me, but why would my expectations be low when we are talking about two geniuses, Mick clearly over the so called Wall and Keith not so long ago impressed me with CH.
I think Andrew Watt has done a great job with other older artists bringing their talents the attention they might have not received, but the Stones are different, with the right production they could have made a truly great album, not an album trying to be something but an album that really was something.
Could it be easier for you to admit that you don't like The Rolling Stones in the form they nowadays are? You loved some band that doesn't exist any longer (or only exists in your imagination), since their muse have driven them into direction that goes out of your taste and interest. Many has made that conclusion ages ago - some over 50 years ago - but they don't use this site or especially a new Stones album thread for a personal therapy session or trying to convince anybody how much the contemporary version of the Stones sucks (or how stupid people are for thinking that they are still great or something). Jeez, it's just music. The idea of claiming 'that is no Stones any longer' is not solely stupid and arrogant, but a serious sign of not understanding who is the artist - the leader - and who is the fan - the follower - here. The Stones are/do what they are/do, that's Mick and Keith's, no one else's business to determine. Watt works for them, not the other way around. We might like it or not, but nothing else.
Personally I made a peace with Keith's solo stuff. Yes, I once loved it - TALK IS CHEAP was a very important album for me at one time, although MAIN OFFENDER was a huge disappointment - but after CROSSEYED HEART I realized that I am not really that fond of that sort of stuff any longer, so why I should cry here how much I don't like it - or, say, Keith is not something any longer I'd like him to be. Why should I bother myself or anyone else with negative stuff like that? I mean, I don't go to the Beatles sites to tell people how little that band moves me. It is not an obligatory thing to always have an opinion on anything somehow Stones-related. I mean, why just let it go. Better to stick on stuff that moves you.
Things like that happen. The life goes on.
It's Only Rock'n'Roll.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 00:05 by Doxa.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: October 24, 2023 23:54
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
retired_dogQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
NashvilleBluesQuote
liddasQuote
Big Al
I find Andrew Watt’s production to be popish and contemporary
Blame my daughters, but I am quite exposed to contemporary pop music. Well I can hardly remember any guitar driven pop songs charting on spotyfy, forget songs with bum notes, a real drummer, etc etc,
C
HD is very meaty, bouncy and punchy. For lack of a better word, the production sounds cartoonish and exaggerated. Not a criticism, just an opinion.
Predictable for lack of a better word.
Stones by numbers by Stones by numbers= not Stones at all.
Maybe the problem is not the Stones but unreasonable expectations on your side.
Have you ever thought about that?
I have thought about that, a guy called Maxil said the same thing to me, but why would my expectations be low when we are talking about two geniuses, Mick clearly over the so called Wall and Keith not so long ago impressed me with CH.
I think Andrew Watt has done a great job with other older artists bringing their talents the attention they might have not received, but the Stones are different, with the right production they could have made a truly great album, not an album trying to be something but an album that really was something.
So you think it's not the quality of the material and the performances of the Stones, but just the producer that brings it down for you? You mean the "right" producer could have turned everything to gold? That's interesting, indeed.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: October 24, 2023 23:55
I've decided that it is not just a good album, but probably great.
And I totally understand keefriffhard's reservations. The album didn't grab me at first. I loved the idea of Andy watt, but was not convinced he got it.
There is this 'modernization of sound' that A'smith did post-drugs, where there are so many huge delays and reverbs bouncing into each other; fighting for real estate in the song. And you end up with this constant drone, which drowns out any expression of guitar, or sharpness of snare etc.
And that was my very 1st impression of HD. Then the songs started sinking in. Instead of hearing the self references, I appreciated them. The Stones have covered so much ground in their career; it's almost impossible for them not to quote themselves.
And I have to say: Jagger did really well on the lyrics. They're not nostalgic, they sound okay coming from an 80 year old lothario.
S Jordan does great. And I have to say - even Matt Clifford. Another good change probably - no Bernard, no Leavell.
The album gets better as it goes.
Edit - I do hope that this is a one off type production. Jagger says they have another practically ready. Common sense says it will be a A Watt production. But it would be so cool, to have this be the quiet little cousin album.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 00:07 by Palace Revolution 2000.
And I totally understand keefriffhard's reservations. The album didn't grab me at first. I loved the idea of Andy watt, but was not convinced he got it.
There is this 'modernization of sound' that A'smith did post-drugs, where there are so many huge delays and reverbs bouncing into each other; fighting for real estate in the song. And you end up with this constant drone, which drowns out any expression of guitar, or sharpness of snare etc.
And that was my very 1st impression of HD. Then the songs started sinking in. Instead of hearing the self references, I appreciated them. The Stones have covered so much ground in their career; it's almost impossible for them not to quote themselves.
And I have to say: Jagger did really well on the lyrics. They're not nostalgic, they sound okay coming from an 80 year old lothario.
S Jordan does great. And I have to say - even Matt Clifford. Another good change probably - no Bernard, no Leavell.
The album gets better as it goes.
Edit - I do hope that this is a one off type production. Jagger says they have another practically ready. Common sense says it will be a A Watt production. But it would be so cool, to have this be the quiet little cousin album.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 00:07 by Palace Revolution 2000.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: October 25, 2023 00:14
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
retired_dogQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
NashvilleBluesQuote
liddasQuote
Big Al
I find Andrew Watt’s production to be popish and contemporary
Blame my daughters, but I am quite exposed to contemporary pop music. Well I can hardly remember any guitar driven pop songs charting on spotyfy, forget songs with bum notes, a real drummer, etc etc,
C
HD is very meaty, bouncy and punchy. For lack of a better word, the production sounds cartoonish and exaggerated. Not a criticism, just an opinion.
Predictable for lack of a better word.
Stones by numbers by Stones by numbers= not Stones at all.
Maybe the problem is not the Stones but unreasonable expectations on your side.
Have you ever thought about that?
I have thought about that, a guy called Maxil said the same thing to me, but why would my expectations be low when we are talking about two geniuses, Mick clearly over the so called Wall and Keith not so long ago impressed me with CH.
I think Andrew Watt has done a great job with other older artists bringing their talents the attention they might have not received, but the Stones are different, with the right production they could have made a truly great album, not an album trying to be something but an album that really was something.
Writing slowly, I started this post before Doxa posted above. I see that this post becomes superflous then.
Reading this, I wonder. Maybe it is not about low as opposed to high expectations. Maybe instead that you can possibly have preconceived ideas about how a Rolling Stones album is supposed to be like. Think about the band's development through the decades! Would you be ready and willing to accept the Rolling Stones to enter in new directions? For instance, as a test of that question, how do you consider the massive changes especially during the first decade of the career of the Rolling Stones?
Edit: An introduction.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 00:48 by Witness.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 25, 2023 00:15
YEah thats right Palace ....
I usually live by the play 5 times before ya listen
rule... But Hack has to be lived with ...
its a new to the ear wall of sound at first but ya gotta
let it move in and live with ya ..... ...
Then ya start to learn more about Hack everyday .....
It just keeps on giving ...........
Musta hammered Angry a few thousand times before Hack release
but it still bursts open the album ..... stunning stuff still rips me...
ROCKMAN
I usually live by the play 5 times before ya listen
rule... But Hack has to be lived with ...
its a new to the ear wall of sound at first but ya gotta
let it move in and live with ya ..... ...
Then ya start to learn more about Hack everyday .....
It just keeps on giving ...........
Musta hammered Angry a few thousand times before Hack release
but it still bursts open the album ..... stunning stuff still rips me...
ROCKMAN
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
GetYerAngie
()
Date: October 25, 2023 00:28
Quote
DoxaQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
retired_dogQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
NashvilleBluesQuote
liddasQuote
Big Al
I find Andrew Watt’s production to be popish and contemporary
Blame my daughters, but I am quite exposed to contemporary pop music. Well I can hardly remember any guitar driven pop songs charting on spotyfy, forget songs with bum notes, a real drummer, etc etc,
C
HD is very meaty, bouncy and punchy. For lack of a better word, the production sounds cartoonish and exaggerated. Not a criticism, just an opinion.
Predictable for lack of a better word.
Stones by numbers by Stones by numbers= not Stones at all.
Maybe the problem is not the Stones but unreasonable expectations on your side.
Have you ever thought about that?
I have thought about that, a guy called Maxil said the same thing to me, but why would my expectations be low when we are talking about two geniuses, Mick clearly over the so called Wall and Keith not so long ago impressed me with CH.
I think Andrew Watt has done a great job with other older artists bringing their talents the attention they might have not received, but the Stones are different, with the right production they could have made a truly great album, not an album trying to be something but an album that really was something.
Could it be easier for you to admit that you don't like The Rolling Stones in the form they nowadays are? You loved some band that doesn't exist any longer (or only exists in your imagination), since their muse have driven them into direction that goes out of your taste and interest. Many has made that conclusion ages ago - some over 50 years ago - but they don't use this site or especially a new Stones album thread for a personal therapy session or trying to convince anybody how much the contemporary version of the Stones sucks (or how stupid people are for thinking that they are still great or something). Jeez, it's just music. The idea of claiming 'that is no Stones any longer' is not solely stupid and arrogant, but a serious sign of not understanding who is the artist - the leader - and who is the fan - the follower - here. The Stones are/do what they are/do, that's Mick and Keith's, no one else's business to determine. Watt works for them, not the other way around. We might like it or not, but nothing else.
Personally I made a peace with Keith's solo stuff. Yes, I once loved it - TALK IS CHEAP was a very important album for me at one time, although MAIN OFFENDER was a huge disappointment - but after CROSSEYED HEART I realized that I am not really that fond of that sort of stuff any longer, so why I should cry here how much I don't like it - or, say, Keith is not something any longer I'd like him to be. Why should I bother myself or anyone else with negative stuff like that? I mean, I don't go to the Beatles sites to tell people how little that band moves me. It is not an obligatory thing to always have an opinion on anything somehow Stones-related. I mean, why just let it go. Better to stick on stuff that moves you.
Things like that happen. The life goes on.
It's Only Rock'n'Roll.
- Doxa
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
georgelicks
()
Date: October 25, 2023 00:45
Final US sales predictions are in, it looks like the album will sell more in the UK this week...
Drake’s For All the Dogs (OVO/Republic) is headed back to #1 after being supplanted in its second week by Bad Bunny’s nadie sabe lo que va a pasar mañana (Rimas), which will now fall to #3. Meanwhile, Columbia’s blink-182 is set to arrive at #2 with an impressive six-digit bow, and Geffen’s Rolling Stones will see their first album of new music in almost two decades debut in the Top 5.
Now, if you’ll excuse us, we're trying to find out how much candy we can eat before we, too, are "fun-sized."
[m.hitsdailydouble.com]
Drake’s For All the Dogs (OVO/Republic) is headed back to #1 after being supplanted in its second week by Bad Bunny’s nadie sabe lo que va a pasar mañana (Rimas), which will now fall to #3. Meanwhile, Columbia’s blink-182 is set to arrive at #2 with an impressive six-digit bow, and Geffen’s Rolling Stones will see their first album of new music in almost two decades debut in the Top 5.
Now, if you’ll excuse us, we're trying to find out how much candy we can eat before we, too, are "fun-sized."
[m.hitsdailydouble.com]
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 25, 2023 00:53
Quote
Rockman
YEah thats right Palace ....
I usually live by the play 5 times before ya listen
rule... But Hack has to be lived with ...
its a new to the ear wall of sound at first but ya gotta
let it move in and live with ya ..... ...
Then ya start to learn more about Hack everyday .....
It just keeps on giving ...........
Musta hammered Angry a few thousand times before Hack release
but it still bursts open the album ..... stunning stuff still rips me...
HACKNEY DIAMONDS made me believe on the format of album again. You know, like there is an artistic entity or statement called album telling a sort of story still. And I had almost lost a hope! Like you, I played "Angry" like hell, almost to death. But the song that starts the album is like something else than the single - it is a bang that starts a helluva listening party that just keeps on giving... the same with "Sweet Sounds of Heaven" - the song is now a part of the whole, having a determinate function there.
Unfortunately I have had always difficulties in seeing A BIGGER BANG, BRIDGES or VOODOO LOUNGE ever like this. They sounded like endless series of singular songs, some better or worse, and the habit of skipping tracks here or there has been too typical for me. They are like long and random play lists. Honestly I don't even remember - or my instinct do not - in many cases what song follows this or that song (unlike any album prior them).
The CD era was not a very good for album format as an art form. And I thought the streaming era will kill anything there is left outside of singular song, but sometimes people turn the clock back, or are pragmatic enough to learn from mistakes.
- Doxa
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 25, 2023 01:23
The CD era was not a very good for album format as an art form
The old days most artists cranked the CD time right out
to the full 70 min mark ... which led ta more filler than
Joan River's left arse cheek ....
Hack clocks in at 48.13 which is like 24mins a side
like the good ole days of albums .....
Both sides go in and attack early... shell shock
Get in.. do the damage on ya ... then get out early .....
bandage ya back tagether with Dreamy & Tell Me Straight ....
Clever stuff from Wattsee and them Glimmers guys
Hey remember those early Al Green albums .... like 15 mins a side ...
ROCKMAN
The old days most artists cranked the CD time right out
to the full 70 min mark ... which led ta more filler than
Joan River's left arse cheek ....
Hack clocks in at 48.13 which is like 24mins a side
like the good ole days of albums .....
Both sides go in and attack early... shell shock
Get in.. do the damage on ya ... then get out early .....
bandage ya back tagether with Dreamy & Tell Me Straight ....
Clever stuff from Wattsee and them Glimmers guys
Hey remember those early Al Green albums .... like 15 mins a side ...
ROCKMAN
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 25, 2023 02:00
Quote
georgelicks
Final US sales predictions are in, it looks like the album will sell more in the UK this week...
Interestingly, the trend of BLUE & LONESOME seem to continue here - the album selling about the same amount of copies in UK and US market despite the latter being five times bigger or something. For decades - especially during the 70's - the Stones were relatively taken much better seller in USA than at their home market (actually for years The US sales covered about 50% of their worldwide sales). The British seemingly have re-established their love for their prodigal sons, while the Americans have lost interest in them as recording artists (or buying albums altogether if someone's name is not Taylor Swift). Since VOODOO LOUNGE the following new studio album always drops about half in sales in US market (almost like a mathematical model no matter how many years there are between the releases...). The British Invasion is finally over?
Anyway, if we compare the first week sales of the blues album (UK: 106 000, #1; US: 123 000, #4), the approximated numbers of HACKNEY DIAMONDS will be seemingly pretty far behind in both markets. Same chartings, though. Reflects pretty much the change of people buying albums in 7 years I guess. That's shit, but it is what it is.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 02:13 by Doxa.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Hutchence
()
Date: October 25, 2023 02:00
[www.officialcharts.com]
1 The Rolling Stones - Hackney Diamonds (55,357) [50,390 physicals, 3,588 downloads, 1,379 streaming]
2 blink-182 - ONE MORE TIME... (16,042)
3 Bombay Bicycle Club - My Big Day (9,909)
4 Richard Hawley - Now Then: The Very Best of Richard Hawley (3,692)
5 Barry Can't Swim - When Will We Land? (3,175)
1 The Rolling Stones - Hackney Diamonds (55,357) [50,390 physicals, 3,588 downloads, 1,379 streaming]
2 blink-182 - ONE MORE TIME... (16,042)
3 Bombay Bicycle Club - My Big Day (9,909)
4 Richard Hawley - Now Then: The Very Best of Richard Hawley (3,692)
5 Barry Can't Swim - When Will We Land? (3,175)
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
georgelicks
()
Date: October 25, 2023 03:48
Quote
DoxaQuote
georgelicks
Final US sales predictions are in, it looks like the album will sell more in the UK this week...
Interestingly, the trend of BLUE & LONESOME seem to continue here - the album selling about the same amount of copies in UK and US market despite the latter being five times bigger or something. For decades - especially during the 70's - the Stones were relatively taken much better seller in USA than at their home market (actually for years The US sales covered about 50% of their worldwide sales). The British seemingly have re-established their love for their prodigal sons, while the Americans have lost interest in them as recording artists (or buying albums altogether if someone's name is not Taylor Swift). Since VOODOO LOUNGE the following new studio album always drops about half in sales in US market (almost like a mathematical model no matter how many years there are between the releases...). The British Invasion is finally over?
Anyway, if we compare the first week sales of the blues album (UK: 106 000, #1; US: 123 000, #4), the approximated numbers of HACKNEY DIAMONDS will be seemingly pretty far behind in both markets. Same chartings, though. Reflects pretty much the change of people buying albums in 7 years I guess. That's shit, but it is what it is.
- Doxa
The american market could care less about new Stones music, their last Hot 100 hit was in 2003 (with a new song in 1998 with Saint Of Me) and outside the die hard fan base (which drops every year due to age) the general audience only cares about the hits and that's all, the tours are hits but the new music don't move a thing outside the die hards.
In the UK for example the general people still care, Angry was a Top 40 hit and a Top 10 Airplay hit, Ghost Town and Doom And Gloom were minor hits too, the album sales are way better in a market 6-7 times lower than the US.
In Germany, the Stones are selling almost the same in 2023 than Taylor Swift, as crazy as that, in many european markets too.
Sadly not in the US.
It's not a problem for the Stones only in the US, almost every act of certain age (+40-45) is ignored with their new stuff there, let alone from an artist with a recording carrer dating from over 60 years ago.
From that point of view, a Top 4-5 debut in the biggest world market in 2023 which is 90% stream based is not a bad thing at all, it's impressive actually.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
snoopy2
()
Date: October 25, 2023 04:38
Quote
Rockman
The CD era was not a very good for album format as an art form
The old days most artists cranked the CD time right out
to the full 70 min mark ... which led ta more filler than
Joan River's left arse cheek ....
Hack clocks in at 48.13 which is like 24mins a side
like the good ole days of albums .....
Both sides go in and attack early... shell shock
Get in.. do the damage on ya ... then get out early .....
bandage ya back tagether with Dreamy & Tell Me Straight ....
Clever stuff from Wattsee and them Glimmers guys
Hey remember those early Al Green albums .... like 15 mins a side ...
good way to put it, definitely leaves me wanting more
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 04:39 by snoopy2.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
ColdFandango
()
Date: October 25, 2023 07:00
Me too, Spud! You can kind of get that with the extras on Some Girls.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 25, 2023 09:47
Its ridiculous to say I'm not a Stones fan because i can't understand the new album, i remember how thrilled i was when i first played Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge, it's surely okay to be confused by the direction you see 80 year old Keith take.
It's not that I'm not a Stones fan it's that this is a Jagger/ Andrew Watts solo album with Keith on it.
It's not a Stones album and i stand by that and no one can convince me otherwise. Its an abomination of a Stones album period, why only 2 tracks with Charlie, what happened to those sessions, why disregard those, he himself said what happened to the album to Ronnie in an interview, it's like they dumped that album for this solo album.
It's not that I'm not a Stones fan it's that this is a Jagger/ Andrew Watts solo album with Keith on it.
It's not a Stones album and i stand by that and no one can convince me otherwise. Its an abomination of a Stones album period, why only 2 tracks with Charlie, what happened to those sessions, why disregard those, he himself said what happened to the album to Ronnie in an interview, it's like they dumped that album for this solo album.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
MonkeyMan2000
()
Date: October 25, 2023 10:11
Quote
keefriffhards
Its ridiculous to say I'm not a Stones fan because i can't understand the new album, i remember how thrilled i was when i first played Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge, it's surely okay to be confused by the direction you see 80 year old Keith take.
It's not that I'm not a Stones fan it's that this is a Jagger/ Andrew Watts solo album with Keith on it.
It's not a Stones album and i stand by that and no one can convince me otherwise. Its an abomination of a Stones album period, why only 2 tracks with Charlie, what happened to those sessions, why disregard those, he himself said what happened to the album to Ronnie in an interview, it's like they dumped that album for this solo album.
It's NOT a solo album and you have not been able to make a analytical distinction from other albums like Sticky Fingers, where just as much of the songs have originated from Mick and the rest of the group made musical rather than compositional contributions. You have failed to give convincing definitions of what you call a solo-album and you have proven to not know much about production, thinking Mick's voice just sounds good because of some ominous, mysterious studio effects, for example. You're just getting a kick out of trolling. Now give us our well-deserved break that you've promised.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
powerage78
()
Date: October 25, 2023 10:18
Quote
georgelicksQuote
DoxaQuote
georgelicks
Final US sales predictions are in, it looks like the album will sell more in the UK this week...
Interestingly, the trend of BLUE & LONESOME seem to continue here - the album selling about the same amount of copies in UK and US market despite the latter being five times bigger or something. For decades - especially during the 70's - the Stones were relatively taken much better seller in USA than at their home market (actually for years The US sales covered about 50% of their worldwide sales). The British seemingly have re-established their love for their prodigal sons, while the Americans have lost interest in them as recording artists (or buying albums altogether if someone's name is not Taylor Swift). Since VOODOO LOUNGE the following new studio album always drops about half in sales in US market (almost like a mathematical model no matter how many years there are between the releases...). The British Invasion is finally over?
Anyway, if we compare the first week sales of the blues album (UK: 106 000, #1; US: 123 000, #4), the approximated numbers of HACKNEY DIAMONDS will be seemingly pretty far behind in both markets. Same chartings, though. Reflects pretty much the change of people buying albums in 7 years I guess. That's shit, but it is what it is.
- Doxa
The american market could care less about new Stones music, their last Hot 100 hit was in 2003 (with a new song in 1998 with Saint Of Me) and outside the die hard fan base (which drops every year due to age) the general audience only cares about the hits and that's all, the tours are hits but the new music don't move a thing outside the die hards.
In the UK for example the general people still care, Angry was a Top 40 hit and a Top 10 Airplay hit, Ghost Town and Doom And Gloom were minor hits too, the album sales are way better in a market 6-7 times lower than the US.
In Germany, the Stones are selling almost the same in 2023 than Taylor Swift, as crazy as that, in many european markets too.
Sadly not in the US.
It's not a problem for the Stones only in the US, almost every act of certain age (+40-45) is ignored with their new stuff there, let alone from an artist with a recording carrer dating from over 60 years ago.
From that point of view, a Top 4-5 debut in the biggest world market in 2023 which is 90% stream based is not a bad thing at all, it's impressive actually.
Yes, almost. In the United States, last AC/DC album Power Up debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 chart, with 117,000 album-equivalent units (including 111,000 pure sales) in its opening week in November 2020.
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Bastion
()
Date: October 25, 2023 10:27
Quote
Rockman
YEah thats right Palace ....
I usually live by the play 5 times before ya listen
rule... But Hack has to be lived with ...
its a new to the ear wall of sound at first but ya gotta
let it move in and live with ya ..... ...
Then ya start to learn more about Hack everyday .....
It just keeps on giving ...........
Musta hammered Angry a few thousand times before Hack release
but it still bursts open the album ..... stunning stuff still rips me...
Second hand embarrassment.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1272
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10