For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
SomeGuy
I sort of have a natural habit to want to 'see' through the obvious sound aspects of a record and immediately estimate what I think about the songs as compositions and the performance. Therefore, I was aware of the Watt production but it was not in any way a hindrance to enjoy the album.
What I'm thinking right now is, is the Watt approach really so '2023'? What struck me about the sound is not that it sounds trendy or modern so much, as much as it sounds like what loud rock music usually sounds like. Remember that Watt has something of a heavy rock background. To me, the heavier side of rock music sounds as it has sounded for the past 40 years or more, and he, more or less simply, turned up the guitars a bit, basically, in order to make the Stones sound more like what a rock band should sound like as it were. The way I described the new album to someone when I had first heard it, was: think of Aerosmith, Joe Perry. As opposed to their previous albums of the past 35 years, where Keith and Ronnie often sounded strangely idiosyncratic, almost as if they were refusing to sound like other, cooler guitar players. Or maybe that was Don Was' fault.
Just musings on my part. I'm curious to see if I'm totally off the mark here
Quote
MartinBQuote
SomeGuy
I sort of have a natural habit to want to 'see' through the obvious sound aspects of a record and immediately estimate what I think about the songs as compositions and the performance. Therefore, I was aware of the Watt production but it was not in any way a hindrance to enjoy the album.
What I'm thinking right now is, is the Watt approach really so '2023'? What struck me about the sound is not that it sounds trendy or modern so much, as much as it sounds like what loud rock music usually sounds like. Remember that Watt has something of a heavy rock background. To me, the heavier side of rock music sounds as it has sounded for the past 40 years or more, and he, more or less simply, turned up the guitars a bit, basically, in order to make the Stones sound more like what a rock band should sound like as it were. The way I described the new album to someone when I had first heard it, was: think of Aerosmith, Joe Perry. As opposed to their previous albums of the past 35 years, where Keith and Ronnie often sounded strangely idiosyncratic, almost as if they were refusing to sound like other, cooler guitar players. Or maybe that was Don Was' fault.
Just musings on my part. I'm curious to see if I'm totally off the mark here
"other, cooler guitar players" Ouch!
Quote
GerardHennessy
I like Hackney Diamonds. I think it is an excellent album. I'm THRILLED it has sold as well as it has so far. And ecstatic it is back at No. 1 in the UK for Christmas. And also no.1 in Germany.
Some good people here like the album. Other good people don't. Some like the Andrew Watt production. Others don't. Some think it is a fairly typical Stones album. Others think it is absolutely NOT! Basically I don't care.
Two years ago I was one of those who felt The Stones were a busted flush. That they were incapable of ever producing ANYTHING new again. I was WRONG! totally wrong. I also thought that IF they did get something made it would sink without trace in a week or two. Again, I was WRONG. Totally wrong. Okay, okay, the actual sales of Hackney Diamonds, roughly 150,000 units, are hardly earth shattering. But, again, I don't care. Record sales, in every format, are now flatlining. It is how the world works.
The Stones continue to amaze us all. They continue to annoy some of us. They delight more of us. Long may it remain so!
Quote
georgelicks
Of the Rolling Stones 14 UK #1 Albums, 'Hackney Diamonds' is only the 3rd
to return to #1 in the same 'Chart Run'.
It is also their 1st Album to do so since 'Sticky Fingers' in 1971.
Their return to No.1 'Chart Runs' are:
1 - 'Rolling Stones No.2' -- (1965) -- 1-1-1-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-1
2 - 'Sticky Fingers' -- (1971) -- 1-1-1-1-2-2-1
3 - 'Hackney Diamonds' -- (2023) -- 1-3-4-8-4-3-5-6-1
Exile On Main Street was #1 in 1972 and 2010 with the re-issue, the same with Goats Head Soup in 1973 and 2020.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
GerardHennessy
I like Hackney Diamonds. I think it is an excellent album. I'm THRILLED it has sold as well as it has so far. And ecstatic it is back at No. 1 in the UK for Christmas. And also no.1 in Germany.
Some good people here like the album. Other good people don't. Some like the Andrew Watt production. Others don't. Some think it is a fairly typical Stones album. Others think it is absolutely NOT! Basically I don't care.
Two years ago I was one of those who felt The Stones were a busted flush. That they were incapable of ever producing ANYTHING new again. I was WRONG! totally wrong. I also thought that IF they did get something made it would sink without trace in a week or two. Again, I was WRONG. Totally wrong. Okay, okay, the actual sales of Hackney Diamonds, roughly 150,000 units, are hardly earth shattering. But, again, I don't care. Record sales, in every format, are now flatlining. It is how the world works.
The Stones continue to amaze us all. They continue to annoy some of us. They delight more of us. Long may it remain so!
Great points...have a great holidays Gerald!
Quote
keefriffhards
GasLightStreet Merry Christmas.
I don't have the time or inclination to respond to a rant like that.
I love all Stones albums up to and including Voodoo Lounge, even Dirty Work.
As far as I'm concerned the Stones don't change enough, as i said a few days ago they have been playing the same show since 89' they absolutely don't like change, they play the same hits every tour.
It's all opinions, it's all good, nothing personal about it, one man's meat is another man's poison, i like the album but i should love it, if anything it's Stones by numbers, it's not change, although it's worth the price of the CD alone for SSOH.
Quote
SomeGuy
I sort of have a natural habit to want to 'see' through the obvious sound aspects of a record and immediately estimate what I think about the songs as compositions and the performance. Therefore, I was aware of the Watt production but it was not in any way a hindrance to enjoy the album.
What I'm thinking right now is, is the Watt approach really so '2023'? What struck me about the sound is not that it sounds trendy or modern so much, as much as it sounds like what loud rock music usually sounds like. Remember that Watt has something of a heavy rock background. To me, the heavier side of rock music sounds as it has sounded for the past 40 years or more, and he, more or less simply, turned up the guitars a bit, basically, in order to make the Stones sound more like what a rock band should sound like as it were. The way I described the new album to someone when I had first heard it, was: think of Aerosmith, Joe Perry. As opposed to their previous albums of the past 35 years, where Keith and Ronnie often sounded strangely idiosyncratic, almost as if they were refusing to sound like other, cooler guitar players. Or maybe that was Don Was' fault.
Just musings on my part. I'm curious to see if I'm totally off the mark here
Quote
SomeGuyQuote
MartinBQuote
SomeGuy
I sort of have a natural habit to want to 'see' through the obvious sound aspects of a record and immediately estimate what I think about the songs as compositions and the performance. Therefore, I was aware of the Watt production but it was not in any way a hindrance to enjoy the album.
What I'm thinking right now is, is the Watt approach really so '2023'? What struck me about the sound is not that it sounds trendy or modern so much, as much as it sounds like what loud rock music usually sounds like. Remember that Watt has something of a heavy rock background. To me, the heavier side of rock music sounds as it has sounded for the past 40 years or more, and he, more or less simply, turned up the guitars a bit, basically, in order to make the Stones sound more like what a rock band should sound like as it were. The way I described the new album to someone when I had first heard it, was: think of Aerosmith, Joe Perry. As opposed to their previous albums of the past 35 years, where Keith and Ronnie often sounded strangely idiosyncratic, almost as if they were refusing to sound like other, cooler guitar players. Or maybe that was Don Was' fault.
Just musings on my part. I'm curious to see if I'm totally off the mark here
"other, cooler guitar players" Ouch!
Let me rephrase that. Other, more generic guitar players, considered to be cool by the public.
Quote
matxilQuote
SomeGuyQuote
MartinBQuote
SomeGuy
I sort of have a natural habit to want to 'see' through the obvious sound aspects of a record and immediately estimate what I think about the songs as compositions and the performance. Therefore, I was aware of the Watt production but it was not in any way a hindrance to enjoy the album.
What I'm thinking right now is, is the Watt approach really so '2023'? What struck me about the sound is not that it sounds trendy or modern so much, as much as it sounds like what loud rock music usually sounds like. Remember that Watt has something of a heavy rock background. To me, the heavier side of rock music sounds as it has sounded for the past 40 years or more, and he, more or less simply, turned up the guitars a bit, basically, in order to make the Stones sound more like what a rock band should sound like as it were. The way I described the new album to someone when I had first heard it, was: think of Aerosmith, Joe Perry. As opposed to their previous albums of the past 35 years, where Keith and Ronnie often sounded strangely idiosyncratic, almost as if they were refusing to sound like other, cooler guitar players. Or maybe that was Don Was' fault.
Just musings on my part. I'm curious to see if I'm totally off the mark here
"other, cooler guitar players" Ouch!
Let me rephrase that. Other, more generic guitar players, considered to be cool by the public.
I think someone else on this thread called it Middle of the Road rock. I think you're right. Guitar-wise, this album lacks what made the Stones stand out from other bands: the funky, wobbly, before/after the beat licks and riffs.
The strength of this album is Jagger's singing and the quality of the song-writing. But, ironically, their song-writing on this album is also very "like other bands": verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, solo, chorus. Indeed, in that sense not so different from latter-day Aerosmith.
It's this what is most noticeable: when you think of the past Stones highlights, their best songs were hardly particularly "clever" songwriting. Gimme Shelter, JJF, Midnight Rambler, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, etc...., none of those is your typical verse, chorus, bridge thing.
Like you, I'm not bothered so much about the Watts production, and I like the album for what it is: a good pop album. But I regret that it lacks some of what made them different from other bands. What's still most recognizable is Jagger's voice and how he sings (his timing), which are excellent.
Quote
matxilQuote
SomeGuyQuote
MartinBQuote
SomeGuy
I sort of have a natural habit to want to 'see' through the obvious sound aspects of a record and immediately estimate what I think about the songs as compositions and the performance. Therefore, I was aware of the Watt production but it was not in any way a hindrance to enjoy the album.
What I'm thinking right now is, is the Watt approach really so '2023'? What struck me about the sound is not that it sounds trendy or modern so much, as much as it sounds like what loud rock music usually sounds like. Remember that Watt has something of a heavy rock background. To me, the heavier side of rock music sounds as it has sounded for the past 40 years or more, and he, more or less simply, turned up the guitars a bit, basically, in order to make the Stones sound more like what a rock band should sound like as it were. The way I described the new album to someone when I had first heard it, was: think of Aerosmith, Joe Perry. As opposed to their previous albums of the past 35 years, where Keith and Ronnie often sounded strangely idiosyncratic, almost as if they were refusing to sound like other, cooler guitar players. Or maybe that was Don Was' fault.
Just musings on my part. I'm curious to see if I'm totally off the mark here
"other, cooler guitar players" Ouch!
Let me rephrase that. Other, more generic guitar players, considered to be cool by the public.
I think someone else on this thread called it Middle of the Road rock. I think you're right. Guitar-wise, this album lacks what made the Stones stand out from other bands: the funky, wobbly, before/after the beat licks and riffs.
The strength of this album is Jagger's singing and the quality of the song-writing. But, ironically, their song-writing on this album is also very "like other bands": verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, solo, chorus. Indeed, in that sense not so different from latter-day Aerosmith.
It's this what is most noticeable: when you think of the past Stones highlights, their best songs were hardly particularly "clever" songwriting. Gimme Shelter, JJF, Midnight Rambler, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up, etc...., none of those is your typical verse, chorus, bridge thing.
Like you, I'm not bothered so much about the Watts production, and I like the album for what it is: a good pop album. But I regret that it lacks some of what made them different from other bands. What's still most recognizable is Jagger's voice and how he sings (his timing), which are excellent.
Quote
harlem shuffle
Noughties maybee better for you to buy some of Keith,s jazzalbums?
Quote
GerardHennessy
I like Hackney Diamonds. I think it is an excellent album. I'm THRILLED it has sold as well as it has so far. And ecstatic it is back at No. 1 in the UK for Christmas. And also no.1 in Germany.
Some good people here like the album. Other good people don't. Some like the Andrew Watt production. Others don't. Some think it is a fairly typical Stones album. Others think it is absolutely NOT! Basically I don't care.
Two years ago I was one of those who felt The Stones were a busted flush. That they were incapable of ever producing ANYTHING new again. I was WRONG! totally wrong. I also thought that IF they did get something made it would sink without trace in a week or two. Again, I was WRONG. Totally wrong. Okay, okay, the actual sales of Hackney Diamonds, roughly 150,000 units, are hardly earth shattering. But, again, I don't care. Record sales, in every format, are now flatlining. It is how the world works.
The Stones continue to amaze us all. They continue to annoy some of us. They delight more of us. Long may it remain so!
Quote
ohmercy61
Hackney is by far my most favorite album since some girls I freaking love this album.