For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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...
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Quote
Virgin Priest
The album is INTENSE! Right into your face!
Priest
Quote
DandelionPowderman
[...]
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.
Quote
Virgin Priest
The album is INTENSE! Right into your face!
Priest
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.
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.
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.
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.