Tell Me :
Talk
I'm glad you're enjoying it, retired dog! It was worth waiting for
I consider it a pop album, because the main distinctions of most of the songs are the melody and the chorus/verse(2x)/bridge structure. There are some guitar licks, sure, but they don't dominate or really define the songs. Maybe Angry up to a point is an exception, but even here the song is very much defined by the melody. There is hardly any roughness or jam-like feeling to it.
Blues songs are in general not pop, because their main attraction is not so much the melody or the chorus/verse/bridge thing. And if you think of the Stones' classics (Satisfaction, JJF, Sympathy, Midnight Rambler, Gimme Shelter, Tumbing Dice) or something like Slave (which for some odd reason has been compared with Get Close), those songs are mainly defined by a (often quite repetitive) riff, or a rhythm, a sound, a groove, almost a "trance" if you like.
The songs HD album are mainly defined by how the chorus kicks in after the verse. Also, with pop, in general the lyrics might carry less weight than with other music styles. If you listen to recent interviews with Mick about the way he likes to write songs, it sort of confirms what I am saying.
There's nothing bad about "pop", but it's not what the Stones up until "Tattoo You" were mainly about, for me. (With exceptions, of course, like indeed Aftermath (which I like), Between the Buttons (which I strongly dislike) and Their Satanic (of which I like for 50%, both the poppy Rainbow as the groovy Citadel) or a charming song like Angie.)
For me, the main distinction between the Beatles (brilliant popsong writers) and the Stones was always that the Beatles came up with fantastic melodies like "I Feel Fine" or "Hey Jude" and the Stones came up with simple-chord repetitions like "Midnight Rambler". Anyone could "write" Midnight Rambler, but only the Stones could play it right.
Now, does this mean I want the Stones to re-do their old work like Exile or Let It Bleed? No. What I really would like (but I am very well aware that this is not going to happen), is that the Stones would have moved outside of the realm of pop and songs for the masses. That they would go out on a limb (and maybe fail miserably) and try something out-worldy, and "honest". Artists like Nick Cave or Tom Waits have done that (not always with good results).
But anyway, as a pop album, the HD is certainly not bad. The melodies are often very catchy and stick in your head. I can understand people are happy to listen to it. I am rather happy to listen to it as well (apart from the awful Get Close), but it doesn't give me any "deep vibes" (whatever that means and I am aware it might sound a bit pretentious).
Yes, Doxa, I fall more or less into that group. Although I don't agree with some of the wording. No, I don't think it's a "crime" to make pop music. And yes, I know Jagger/Richards always have written very good pop songs too. But if I think of what made the Stones special, it was not their (albeit great) pop songs, but those other things they did.
And yes, it's true that Keith on his solo albums got closer to what I would like to hear. But no, I don't think the Stones should repeat Keith's solo albums.
Anyway, in my previous post, I explained it more in detail.
It was definitely worth the wait. No one can force me or anyone else to like anything. Music is emotional. In my 76 years and a fan since 1963, I have never before had the experience of liking a new album right from beginning to end. I play it from morning to night. It's addictive, you even get used to certain bridges. HD gets better and better for my liking. I'm talking for myself, of course. If a Stones fan doesn't like it and compares it to their music of 50 years ago, that's their right. I had a brain attack 2 years ago. I have come out of it well so far. I am lucky to have been able to experience this with the Stones. Just enjoying it.
Wittily put.
I see your point, but:
> Bite My Head Off
As far as I am concerned, "punk" is not really a music style. It's simplified rock music played without extras. "Punk" was mainly an attitude thing. And that attitude is a bit outdated, whether it's done by Blink-something, Greenday or the Stones. And in fact, I find this song rather "poppy" (like Greenday).
> Dreamy Skies.
Yes, I like this one
> Live By The Sword.
I don't like the rhythm of it. I can't help it, it reminds me of "Get it On" played by Powerstation (somewhere in the 80s). And why that unnecessary bridge?
> Driving Me Too Hard
It's alright, yes.
> Tell Me Straight
This one is actually growing on me. I even woke up this morning with the melody in my head. I am such a huge fan of "Thief in the Night" (also the Rio live version), that Tell Me Straight was a let down to me first, but, fair enough, I like it.
> Rolling Stone Blues
Yes, I like this one. As covers go, it's certainly one of their better blues covers. Also because of that rough guitar sound.
The new album is simply too much calculated on how it is presumably received by the widest possible audience and less designed according to artistic core competencies. What the Stones can do best are the classic blues (Blue and Lonesome) incl. excellent original compositions like Back of My Hand and the aggressive rock variant in blues patterns (Stray Cat Blues, Midnight Rambler) as well as Lost and Lonely ballads like No Expectations and Till the Next Goodbye. None of this can be found on the new album except for the Muddy Waters adaptation, which is neutered in terms of production, however, and the Keith thing. The saddest thing about the whole event is that I can only give the album the rating that is the worst for music: boring.
Why are you feeding the weird troll. Just ignore him. He is on a wind up.
Yes, but you don't have to like them per se I was merely pointing out that half of the album doesn't classify as pop musically.
Whether it's good or not is up to you, mate
PS: Punk is indeed a musical genre within rock.
Just like Ronnie said on the press conference
True, you're right: your point was not about liking or not liking. But 2 of the 6 songs you mention I would consider pop. Two other ones are country, which is not the same as rough, unpolished grooves either.
Anyway, I will keep on listening to the album (minus one song) some more, so at least they've achieved that. And it's not unpleasant to listen to.
Someone in this thread mentioned Aerosmith and I think that was rather a good comparison. The splendid post-comeback "Pump" album is definitely more pop than their early work.
But I think Swayed1967, a few posts back, came up with the best test of "pop": can one sing it under the shower?
Great nickname >
<
And you're so right about this album
I would also say that Sweet Sounds of Heaven is hardly a pop song.
Rod
Oh yeah, you did explain it beautifully, and it was a treat to read. (The same with the shower test review by Swayed1967- great stuff). In the end it is up to one's taste, and there is much one argue with them. Agree to disagree, etc.
- Doxa
Hey Keefriff, I see your points. And they're valid points. I appreciate that you stick with your opinions, regardless of this uncalled for flack that you seem to catch.
But I say - let Mick have this one. He's kind of earned it. I don't think I have ever seen him so unapologetically excited, and gushing about a new album. He does a good job.
I do think this is what the Stones can give us at this time. And Watt pulled a lot of guitar out of Keith and esp Ronnie. After 'Crosseyed Heart' I really got the sense that Keith was done. Not 'done' as in fried; but more like a content feeling. "I said what I wanted to say, and now I'm chilling". Even Keith himself gives most credit to Jagger for HD. The only secret wish I have is that he would have pumped the brakes on SSOH, and told the room "Whoah; this sounds fukin awful".
I mean there are great things about the album: it's length. Like Doxa says, the CD age has been unkind to the album format. And while Watt's production takes some getting used to, and I still hope they do another low-key follow up album, this is what an artist should do: change. When they put out 'Satanic', I'm sure the reviews were not kind at all.
The only thing I disagree with you on, is that there should be more of Charlie. IMO the 2 tracks is right.
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:
Swayed1967
()
Date: October 25, 2023 10:45
Who sings Honky Tonk Women in the shower?
I’ll answer that question but first let me just say that I’m enjoying the new album immensely while recognizing that it doesn’t have long legs. By that I mean I won’t be spinning this a year from now. For me this is ‘She’s The Boss’ all over again. Although Wandering Spirit obviously has more Stonesy sex appeal I’ve long considered ‘She’s The Boss’ to be Mick’s best solo work but I rarely listen to it because, as I once ‘wittily’ remarked, I’m a hard Stones fan to please and that’s my way of letting Mick know.
Now HD isn’t a Mick solo project (or is it?) but after catching myself singing ‘Whole Wide World’ in the shower this morning I’m reluctant to call it a Rolling Stones record either. Rolling Stones songs aren’t meant to be sung in the shower. You don’t sing Honky Tonk Women and Gimme Shelter in the shower, am I right? Of course I am. But ‘Whole Wide World’ has me dancing and singing like a pimply-awssed teenager. It has become my second favorite song of 1983 after 99 Luftballons by Nena. That doesn’t make sense and yet it rings true. I have a feeling of dread that this may be the most satanic song they’ve ever recorded. Pop-rock songs like ‘Get Close’ we’ve heard before but ‘Whole Wide World’ is a different puppy to my ears. When played backwards one can hear the Devil strangling Keith with his unused sixth string. It truly is the antithesis of the beautiful buzz music for which they are rightfully famous. I curse the Devil for making me sing this in the shower.
I’m only half in jest. HD isn’t a MJ solo project – it’s about half a MJ solo project. And I hate to say it but songs like ‘Depending On You,’ ‘Get Close,’ ‘Mess It Up’ and of course the aforementioned abomination that is ‘Whole Wide World’ which in less enlightened times would only be allowed to exist on Jagger’s own records are by far the stronger offerings here – they’ve got no soul, no roll but they’re catchy and liberating. Some of the ‘Stonesier’ songs like ‘Dreamy Skies’ and ‘Driving Me Too Hard’ are rather insipid by comparison. So I’ll continue to sing HD in the shower but only the devil knows for how long.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 10:47 by Swayed1967.
I’ll answer that question but first let me just say that I’m enjoying the new album immensely while recognizing that it doesn’t have long legs. By that I mean I won’t be spinning this a year from now. For me this is ‘She’s The Boss’ all over again. Although Wandering Spirit obviously has more Stonesy sex appeal I’ve long considered ‘She’s The Boss’ to be Mick’s best solo work but I rarely listen to it because, as I once ‘wittily’ remarked, I’m a hard Stones fan to please and that’s my way of letting Mick know.
Now HD isn’t a Mick solo project (or is it?) but after catching myself singing ‘Whole Wide World’ in the shower this morning I’m reluctant to call it a Rolling Stones record either. Rolling Stones songs aren’t meant to be sung in the shower. You don’t sing Honky Tonk Women and Gimme Shelter in the shower, am I right? Of course I am. But ‘Whole Wide World’ has me dancing and singing like a pimply-awssed teenager. It has become my second favorite song of 1983 after 99 Luftballons by Nena. That doesn’t make sense and yet it rings true. I have a feeling of dread that this may be the most satanic song they’ve ever recorded. Pop-rock songs like ‘Get Close’ we’ve heard before but ‘Whole Wide World’ is a different puppy to my ears. When played backwards one can hear the Devil strangling Keith with his unused sixth string. It truly is the antithesis of the beautiful buzz music for which they are rightfully famous. I curse the Devil for making me sing this in the shower.
I’m only half in jest. HD isn’t a MJ solo project – it’s about half a MJ solo project. And I hate to say it but songs like ‘Depending On You,’ ‘Get Close,’ ‘Mess It Up’ and of course the aforementioned abomination that is ‘Whole Wide World’ which in less enlightened times would only be allowed to exist on Jagger’s own records are by far the stronger offerings here – they’ve got no soul, no roll but they’re catchy and liberating. Some of the ‘Stonesier’ songs like ‘Dreamy Skies’ and ‘Driving Me Too Hard’ are rather insipid by comparison. So I’ll continue to sing HD in the shower but only the devil knows for how long.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 10:47 by Swayed1967.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 25, 2023 11:03
Quote
retired_dog
For the time being, I'm just happy that the band is back in form with an album that is entirely worth my precious listening time...
I'm glad you're enjoying it, retired dog! It was worth waiting for
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 25, 2023 11:19
Yeah Bastion ...
you should see what the kid from Colac wrote ....
ROCKMAN
you should see what the kid from Colac wrote ....
ROCKMAN
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: October 25, 2023 11:25
Quote
Witness
Myself I don't know at all what to think about this album. It probably will be rather long before I know. I read some posts, but abstain from others that disturb my own experience too much in my humble approach to it.
All the same, there is one idea I read about that puzzles me. It is the suggested point of view that this is rather much a pop album. Myself I have used that term with the important qualification "progressive pop" about the sequence of albums made up of AFTERMATH, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST and the singles from, say (with some uncertainty), "Satisfaction" up to and including "We Love You"/ "Dandelion". Apart from that, not. Now I wonder in what sense some posters consider this album a pop album.
I consider it a pop album, because the main distinctions of most of the songs are the melody and the chorus/verse(2x)/bridge structure. There are some guitar licks, sure, but they don't dominate or really define the songs. Maybe Angry up to a point is an exception, but even here the song is very much defined by the melody. There is hardly any roughness or jam-like feeling to it.
Blues songs are in general not pop, because their main attraction is not so much the melody or the chorus/verse/bridge thing. And if you think of the Stones' classics (Satisfaction, JJF, Sympathy, Midnight Rambler, Gimme Shelter, Tumbing Dice) or something like Slave (which for some odd reason has been compared with Get Close), those songs are mainly defined by a (often quite repetitive) riff, or a rhythm, a sound, a groove, almost a "trance" if you like.
The songs HD album are mainly defined by how the chorus kicks in after the verse. Also, with pop, in general the lyrics might carry less weight than with other music styles. If you listen to recent interviews with Mick about the way he likes to write songs, it sort of confirms what I am saying.
There's nothing bad about "pop", but it's not what the Stones up until "Tattoo You" were mainly about, for me. (With exceptions, of course, like indeed Aftermath (which I like), Between the Buttons (which I strongly dislike) and Their Satanic (of which I like for 50%, both the poppy Rainbow as the groovy Citadel) or a charming song like Angie.)
For me, the main distinction between the Beatles (brilliant popsong writers) and the Stones was always that the Beatles came up with fantastic melodies like "I Feel Fine" or "Hey Jude" and the Stones came up with simple-chord repetitions like "Midnight Rambler". Anyone could "write" Midnight Rambler, but only the Stones could play it right.
Now, does this mean I want the Stones to re-do their old work like Exile or Let It Bleed? No. What I really would like (but I am very well aware that this is not going to happen), is that the Stones would have moved outside of the realm of pop and songs for the masses. That they would go out on a limb (and maybe fail miserably) and try something out-worldy, and "honest". Artists like Nick Cave or Tom Waits have done that (not always with good results).
But anyway, as a pop album, the HD is certainly not bad. The melodies are often very catchy and stick in your head. I can understand people are happy to listen to it. I am rather happy to listen to it as well (apart from the awful Get Close), but it doesn't give me any "deep vibes" (whatever that means and I am aware it might sound a bit pretentious).
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: October 25, 2023 11:31
Quote
Doxa
[...]
Or then, it is something to do with the songs having so many melodic elements in them - hooks, catchy choruses, bridges - that it has been pretty rare in latter-day Stones records. Like it is a crime in a Stones recording to have some actual, well-written musical portions. Like Mick and Keith cannot be actually good song-writers knowing their craft. The Stones are not the Beatles, and Jagger/Richards not Lennon/McCartney (the poster boys of pop music), but if this idea is taken too seriously, lots of recorded Stones history will vanish and The Great Jagger/Richards Song Book will remain rather thin.
So put these two 'complaints' together, my conclusion that this being a pop album means that it is not MAIN OFFENDER or something.
[...]
- Doxa
Yes, Doxa, I fall more or less into that group. Although I don't agree with some of the wording. No, I don't think it's a "crime" to make pop music. And yes, I know Jagger/Richards always have written very good pop songs too. But if I think of what made the Stones special, it was not their (albeit great) pop songs, but those other things they did.
And yes, it's true that Keith on his solo albums got closer to what I would like to hear. But no, I don't think the Stones should repeat Keith's solo albums.
Anyway, in my previous post, I explained it more in detail.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 25, 2023 11:37
A good portion – half of the album, actually – isn't pop, though:
Bite My Head Off
Dreamy Skies
Live By The Sword
Driving Me Too Hard
Tell Me Straight
Rolling Stone Blues
So there's something for everyone here, imo.
Bite My Head Off
Dreamy Skies
Live By The Sword
Driving Me Too Hard
Tell Me Straight
Rolling Stone Blues
So there's something for everyone here, imo.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Idorh
()
Date: October 25, 2023 11:43
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
retired_dog
For the time being, I'm just happy that the band is back in form with an album that is entirely worth my precious listening time...
I'm glad you're enjoying it, retired dog! It was worth waiting for
It was definitely worth the wait. No one can force me or anyone else to like anything. Music is emotional. In my 76 years and a fan since 1963, I have never before had the experience of liking a new album right from beginning to end. I play it from morning to night. It's addictive, you even get used to certain bridges. HD gets better and better for my liking. I'm talking for myself, of course. If a Stones fan doesn't like it and compares it to their music of 50 years ago, that's their right. I had a brain attack 2 years ago. I have come out of it well so far. I am lucky to have been able to experience this with the Stones. Just enjoying it.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: October 25, 2023 11:51
Quote
Swayed1967
Who sings Honky Tonk Women in the shower?
I’ll answer that question but first let me just say that I’m enjoying the new album immensely while recognizing that it doesn’t have long legs. By that I mean I won’t be spinning this a year from now. For me this is ‘She’s The Boss’ all over again. Although Wandering Spirit obviously has more Stonesy sex appeal I’ve long considered ‘She’s The Boss’ to be Mick’s best solo work but I rarely listen to it because, as I once ‘wittily’ remarked, I’m a hard Stones fan to please and that’s my way of letting Mick know.
Now HD isn’t a Mick solo project (or is it?) but after catching myself singing ‘Whole Wide World’ in the shower this morning I’m reluctant to call it a Rolling Stones record either. Rolling Stones songs aren’t meant to be sung in the shower. You don’t sing Honky Tonk Women and Gimme Shelter in the shower, am I right? Of course I am. But ‘Whole Wide World’ has me dancing and singing like a pimply-awssed teenager. It has become my second favorite song of 1983 after 99 Luftballons by Nena. That doesn’t make sense and yet it rings true. I have a feeling of dread that this may be the most satanic song they’ve ever recorded. Pop-rock songs like ‘Get Close’ we’ve heard before but ‘Whole Wide World’ is a different puppy to my ears. When played backwards one can hear the Devil strangling Keith with his unused sixth string. It truly is the antithesis of the beautiful buzz music for which they are rightfully famous. I curse the Devil for making me sing this in the shower.
I’m only half in jest. HD isn’t a MJ solo project – it’s about half a MJ solo project. And I hate to say it but songs like ‘Depending On You,’ ‘Get Close,’ ‘Mess It Up’ and of course the aforementioned abomination that is ‘Whole Wide World’ which in less enlightened times would only be allowed to exist on Jagger’s own records are by far the stronger offerings here – they’ve got no soul, no roll but they’re catchy and liberating. Some of the ‘Stonesier’ songs like ‘Dreamy Skies’ and ‘Driving Me Too Hard’ are rather insipid by comparison. So I’ll continue to sing HD in the shower but only the devil knows for how long.
Wittily put.Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: October 25, 2023 11:58
In HD I hear not only lot's of Mick's recent output, but also lot's of Keith's (if we can call Crosseyed "recent"). For sure, it is not "cool" - rather kitsch I'd say, it is shallow and poppish, it follows whatever the current music trends are, it's only rock and roll .... So, yes, HD is a "honest" stones album.
C
C
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: October 25, 2023 12:01
for those that keep track of this kind of thing
how's the album doing outside of the us and europe?
how's the album doing outside of the us and europe?
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: October 25, 2023 12:02
Quote
DandelionPowderman
A good portion – half of the album, actually – isn't pop, though:
Bite My Head Off
Dreamy Skies
Live By The Sword
Driving Me Too Hard
Tell Me Straight
Rolling Stone Blues
So there's something for everyone here, imo.
I see your point, but:
> Bite My Head Off
As far as I am concerned, "punk" is not really a music style. It's simplified rock music played without extras. "Punk" was mainly an attitude thing. And that attitude is a bit outdated, whether it's done by Blink-something, Greenday or the Stones. And in fact, I find this song rather "poppy" (like Greenday).
> Dreamy Skies.
Yes, I like this one
> Live By The Sword.
I don't like the rhythm of it. I can't help it, it reminds me of "Get it On" played by Powerstation (somewhere in the 80s). And why that unnecessary bridge?
> Driving Me Too Hard
It's alright, yes.
> Tell Me Straight
This one is actually growing on me. I even woke up this morning with the melody in my head. I am such a huge fan of "Thief in the Night" (also the Rio live version), that Tell Me Straight was a let down to me first, but, fair enough, I like it.
> Rolling Stone Blues
Yes, I like this one. As covers go, it's certainly one of their better blues covers. Also because of that rough guitar sound.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
RobertJohnson
()
Date: October 25, 2023 12:13
Quote
matxilQuote
Witness
Myself I don't know at all what to think about this album. It probably will be rather long before I know. I read some posts, but abstain from others that disturb my own experience too much in my humble approach to it.
All the same, there is one idea I read about that puzzles me. It is the suggested point of view that this is rather much a pop album. Myself I have used that term with the important qualification "progressive pop" about the sequence of albums made up of AFTERMATH, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST and the singles from, say (with some uncertainty), "Satisfaction" up to and including "We Love You"/ "Dandelion". Apart from that, not. Now I wonder in what sense some posters consider this album a pop album.
I consider it a pop album, because the main distinctions of most of the songs are the melody and the chorus/verse(2x)/bridge structure. There are some guitar licks, sure, but they don't dominate or really define the songs. Maybe Angry up to a point is an exception, but even here the song is very much defined by the melody. There is hardly any roughness or jam-like feeling to it.
Blues songs are in general not pop, because their main attraction is not so much the melody or the chorus/verse/bridge thing. And if you think of the Stones' classics (Satisfaction, JJF, Sympathy, Midnight Rambler, Gimme Shelter, Tumbing Dice) or something like Slave (which for some odd reason has been compared with Get Close), those songs are mainly defined by a (often quite repetitive) riff, or a rhythm, a sound, a groove, almost a "trance" if you like.
The songs HD album are mainly defined by how the chorus kicks in after the verse. Also, with pop, in general the lyrics might carry less weight than with other music styles. If you listen to recent interviews with Mick about the way he likes to write songs, it sort of confirms what I am saying.
There's nothing bad about "pop", but it's not what the Stones up until "Tattoo You" were mainly about, for me. (With exceptions, of course, like indeed Aftermath (which I like), Between the Buttons (which I strongly dislike) and Their Satanic (of which I like for 50%, both the poppy Rainbow as the groovy Citadel) or a charming song like Angie.)
For me, the main distinction between the Beatles (brilliant popsong writers) and the Stones was always that the Beatles came up with fantastic melodies like "I Feel Fine" or "Hey Jude" and the Stones came up with simple-chord repetitions like "Midnight Rambler". Anyone could "write" Midnight Rambler, but only the Stones could play it right.
Now, does this mean I want the Stones to re-do their old work like Exile or Let It Bleed? No. What I really would like (but I am very well aware that this is not going to happen), is that the Stones would have moved outside of the realm of pop and songs for the masses. That they would go out on a limb (and maybe fail miserably) and try something out-worldy, and "honest". Artists like Nick Cave or Tom Waits have done that (not always with good results).
But anyway, as a pop album, the HD is certainly not bad. The melodies are often very catchy and stick in your head. I can understand people are happy to listen to it. I am rather happy to listen to it as well (apart from the awful Get Close), but it doesn't give me any "deep vibes" (whatever that means and I am aware it might sound a bit pretentious).
The new album is simply too much calculated on how it is presumably received by the widest possible audience and less designed according to artistic core competencies. What the Stones can do best are the classic blues (Blue and Lonesome) incl. excellent original compositions like Back of My Hand and the aggressive rock variant in blues patterns (Stray Cat Blues, Midnight Rambler) as well as Lost and Lonely ballads like No Expectations and Till the Next Goodbye. None of this can be found on the new album except for the Muddy Waters adaptation, which is neutered in terms of production, however, and the Keith thing. The saddest thing about the whole event is that I can only give the album the rating that is the worst for music: boring.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
strat72
()
Date: October 25, 2023 12:13
Quote
MonkeyMan2000Quote
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.
Why are you feeding the weird troll. Just ignore him. He is on a wind up.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 25, 2023 12:20
Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
A good portion – half of the album, actually – isn't pop, though:
Bite My Head Off
Dreamy Skies
Live By The Sword
Driving Me Too Hard
Tell Me Straight
Rolling Stone Blues
So there's something for everyone here, imo.
I see your point, but:
> Bite My Head Off
As far as I am concerned, "punk" is not really a music style. It's simplified rock music played without extras. "Punk" was mainly an attitude thing. And that attitude is a bit outdated, whether it's done by Blink-something, Greenday or the Stones. And in fact, I find this song rather "poppy" (like Greenday).
> Dreamy Skies.
Yes, I like this one
> Live By The Sword.
I don't like the rhythm of it. I can't help it, it reminds me of "Get it On" played by Powerstation (somewhere in the 80s). And why that unnecessary bridge?
> Driving Me Too Hard
It's alright, yes.
> Tell Me Straight
This one is actually growing on me. I even woke up this morning with the melody in my head. I am such a huge fan of "Thief in the Night" (also the Rio live version), that Tell Me Straight was a let down to me first, but, fair enough, I like it.
> Rolling Stone Blues
Yes, I like this one. As covers go, it's certainly one of their better blues covers. Also because of that rough guitar sound.
Yes, but you don't have to like them per se
I was merely pointing out that half of the album doesn't classify as pop musically.Whether it's good or not is up to you, mate
PS: Punk is indeed a musical genre within rock.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
petewasbristol
()
Date: October 25, 2023 12:32
For me, the past few days have been about listening to the music, digesting each individual track and just letting it all soak in. With any album of this nature you have to give it time to work its way in.
I'm sure I will comment on the individual tracks in coming weeks, but at this moment in time I am feeling very satisfied about the album as a whole.
I'm sure I will comment on the individual tracks in coming weeks, but at this moment in time I am feeling very satisfied about the album as a whole.
What is it about this album?
Posted by:
stonesman87
()
Date: October 25, 2023 06:57
Hackney Diamonds.
I find myself wanting to listen to it over and over again. It's like an addiction. It's certainly highly compelling.
It's like a life review of everything they've done, with elements of so many wide and varied group and solo tracks that keep triggereing instinctive recognition.
I want to keep hearing all the nostalgic and familiar sounds that appear in so many ways, and keep listening for even more.
Who else thinks the same way?
I find myself wanting to listen to it over and over again. It's like an addiction. It's certainly highly compelling.
It's like a life review of everything they've done, with elements of so many wide and varied group and solo tracks that keep triggereing instinctive recognition.
I want to keep hearing all the nostalgic and familiar sounds that appear in so many ways, and keep listening for even more.
Who else thinks the same way?
Re: What is it about this album?
Posted by:
jumpingjackflash5
()
Date: October 25, 2023 08:50
Smart and solid production, great melodies, real collaboration (esp. Mick-Keith), interesting guests, catchy tunes.
A nice piece of work!
A nice piece of work!
Re: What is it about this album?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 25, 2023 10:28
The songwriting, the melodies and not least the performances. That strikes me as the main reason HD is better than the other latter-day albums.
Regarding the production, the modern sound isn't there on all songs. Live By The Sword, Driving Me Too Hard, Tell Me Straight and Rolling Stone Blues all sound different and more «old school». That's a third of the album.
Still loving it!
Regarding the production, the modern sound isn't there on all songs. Live By The Sword, Driving Me Too Hard, Tell Me Straight and Rolling Stone Blues all sound different and more «old school». That's a third of the album.
Still loving it!
Re: What is it about this album?
Posted by:
sandandglue
()
Date: October 25, 2023 10:44
It’s the first in 18 years that we have from them that’s original - it fills its virtue as being a very good album but we’re surely smitten with the image of the band.
I don’t think it’s as classic as the 1968 - ‘73 albums but what is? It’s very, very joyous to hear.
I don’t think it’s as classic as the 1968 - ‘73 albums but what is? It’s very, very joyous to hear.
Re: What is it about this album?
Posted by:
powerage78
()
Date: October 25, 2023 10:59
Definitely a good album, full of energy and desire, which for me is the most important thing. Contagious enthusiasm, I'd say. We're in 2023, and we're talking about a new Stones album. It's pretty incredible all the same. How it will age and fit into the band's discography, we'll see. In a good place, I think.
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
Re: What is it about this album?
Posted by:
KeithNacho
()
Date: October 25, 2023 11:36
LAST TIME I HEARD IT ON SPOTIFY, AFTER ROLLING STONE BLUES , SPOTIFY PLAYED RANDOMLY LIVING IN A GHOST TOWN......AND IT WAS MARVELLOUS
Re: What is it about this album?
Posted by:
Virgin Priest
()
Date: October 25, 2023 12:07
The album is INTENSE! Right into your face!
Priest
Priest
Re: What is it about this album?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 25, 2023 12:34
Quote
Virgin Priest
The album is INTENSE! Right into your face!
Priest
Just like Ronnie said on the press conference
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: October 25, 2023 13:33
Quote
DandelionPowderman
[...]
Yes, but you don't have to like them per se
Whether it's good or not is up to you, mate
PS: Punk is indeed a musical genre within rock.
True, you're right: your point was not about liking or not liking. But 2 of the 6 songs you mention I would consider pop. Two other ones are country, which is not the same as rough, unpolished grooves either.
Anyway, I will keep on listening to the album (minus one song) some more, so at least they've achieved that. And it's not unpleasant to listen to.
Someone in this thread mentioned Aerosmith and I think that was rather a good comparison. The splendid post-comeback "Pump" album is definitely more pop than their early work.
But I think Swayed1967, a few posts back, came up with the best test of "pop": can one sing it under the shower?
Re: What is it about this album?
Posted by:
HardRiffin
()
Date: October 25, 2023 13:34
Quote
Virgin Priest
The album is INTENSE! Right into your face!
Priest
Great nickname >
<And you're so right about this album
Re: What is it about this album?
Posted by:
HardRiffin
()
Date: October 25, 2023 13:35
Quote
powerage78
Definitely a good album, full of energy and desire, which for me is the most important thing. Contagious enthusiasm, I'd say. We're in 2023, and we're talking about a new Stones album. It's pretty incredible all the same. How it will age and fit into the band's discography, we'll see. In a good place, I think.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: October 25, 2023 14:24
Quote
DandelionPowderman
A good portion – half of the album, actually – isn't pop, though:
Bite My Head Off
Dreamy Skies
Live By The Sword
Driving Me Too Hard
Tell Me Straight
Rolling Stone Blues
So there's something for everyone here, imo.
I would also say that Sweet Sounds of Heaven is hardly a pop song.
Rod
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 25, 2023 15:24
Quote
matxilQuote
Doxa
[...]
Or then, it is something to do with the songs having so many melodic elements in them - hooks, catchy choruses, bridges - that it has been pretty rare in latter-day Stones records. Like it is a crime in a Stones recording to have some actual, well-written musical portions. Like Mick and Keith cannot be actually good song-writers knowing their craft. The Stones are not the Beatles, and Jagger/Richards not Lennon/McCartney (the poster boys of pop music), but if this idea is taken too seriously, lots of recorded Stones history will vanish and The Great Jagger/Richards Song Book will remain rather thin.
So put these two 'complaints' together, my conclusion that this being a pop album means that it is not MAIN OFFENDER or something.
[...]
- Doxa
Yes, Doxa, I fall more or less into that group. Although I don't agree with some of the wording. No, I don't think it's a "crime" to make pop music. And yes, I know Jagger/Richards always have written very good pop songs too. But if I think of what made the Stones special, it was not their (albeit great) pop songs, but those other things they did.
And yes, it's true that Keith on his solo albums got closer to what I would like to hear. But no, I don't think the Stones should repeat Keith's solo albums.
Anyway, in my previous post, I explained it more in detail.
Oh yeah, you did explain it beautifully, and it was a treat to read. (The same with the shower test review by Swayed1967- great stuff). In the end it is up to one's taste, and there is much one argue with them. Agree to disagree, etc.
- Doxa
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
StonesSmeth99
()
Date: October 25, 2023 15:32
Decent interview with Keith on Apple Music 'radio' with Matt Wilkinson.
[music.apple.com]
They were 'doing a video' when the band congregated in London (maybe just for the documentary). Also doesn't rule out touring the UK next year but that was probably a diplomatic way of avoiding saying 'no'. US still on, of course.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 15:32 by StonesSmeth99.
[music.apple.com]
They were 'doing a video' when the band congregated in London (maybe just for the documentary). Also doesn't rule out touring the UK next year but that was probably a diplomatic way of avoiding saying 'no'. US still on, of course.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-25 15:32 by StonesSmeth99.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: October 25, 2023 15:53
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.
Hey Keefriff, I see your points. And they're valid points. I appreciate that you stick with your opinions, regardless of this uncalled for flack that you seem to catch.
But I say - let Mick have this one. He's kind of earned it. I don't think I have ever seen him so unapologetically excited, and gushing about a new album. He does a good job.
I do think this is what the Stones can give us at this time. And Watt pulled a lot of guitar out of Keith and esp Ronnie. After 'Crosseyed Heart' I really got the sense that Keith was done. Not 'done' as in fried; but more like a content feeling. "I said what I wanted to say, and now I'm chilling". Even Keith himself gives most credit to Jagger for HD. The only secret wish I have is that he would have pumped the brakes on SSOH, and told the room "Whoah; this sounds fukin awful".
I mean there are great things about the album: it's length. Like Doxa says, the CD age has been unkind to the album format. And while Watt's production takes some getting used to, and I still hope they do another low-key follow up album, this is what an artist should do: change. When they put out 'Satanic', I'm sure the reviews were not kind at all.
The only thing I disagree with you on, is that there should be more of Charlie. IMO the 2 tracks is right.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Chitown23 , FeelslikeaGhost , Justjon , kstones79 , lima01 , makemeburnthecandle , makustone , mandu , rskinno , shawnriffhard1 , Taylor1 , TumblinDice76 , willprefecture
Guests:
1342
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10