Tell Me :
Talk
Hi Voodoo Lounge 13. I want to preface this by saying this isn’t a negative post towards you. In fact while I don’t post often I read the forum religiously for years going back into around BtB timeframe. I always enjoy your posts as I believe we are similar in age and timeline of getting seriously into the Stones. In fact I love VL and often said were it released in the 70s it would have been a monster hits To me it still is.
Anyway when I saw your reactions to HD it kinda saddened me in a way, as I loved it from start to finish. As our tasted seemed so similar I guess expected the same for you maybe lol. But as we know everyone is different. But I did want to mention something that may help especially based on the “sound”/as you explained. And I do get what you’re saying. However I’ve discovered with this album, as with many others prior, that I discover other layers in further listenings. But especially, and this may help improve it for you if you haven’t tried this yet, I use Apple products a lot, phone, HomePod and AirPods most especially using good earbuds like AirPods Pro 2. And it’s amazing you do get to hear the Stones sound more. With individual guitar parts more distinct especially if using the spatial audio they have and dolby atmos. I’m sure non apple products may do similar. Anyway just wanted to mention that to you. If you haven’t listened that way yet perhaps it might give you more enjoyment.
And if not, blast Voodoo Lounge loud for me, my Stones friend.
Love is Strong would EASILY not only fit on HD, but add to it, or could be on ANY STONES record, I’d think.
Rod
Well said mate. Top posting. And, specifically, your comment that HD is 'simple, spontaneous and full of energy'. Exactly my friend.
I appreciate that many fans like to get deep into the technical aspects of every album. Or compare and contrast recordings and tracks from different eras of the band. Good luck to 'em I say. To each their own. For me The Stones were all about the very things you mention. The simplicity. The energy. The spontaneity. I liked the impertinence. The insouciance. The 'could'nt give a f**k' attitude. Coming to their music at a time of medium wave radio broadcasts, of tiny transistor radios with an uncertain signal strength suffused with hiss and crackle, and with some songs being faded out way before they ended so another commercial could be aired, I was grateful for every Stones track I heard, regardless of clarity and the quality of reproduction. In a strange way I think the various imperfections and shortcomings of those long-ago days somehow added to the allure of the band.
To now be in my 70's and still excited about what The Stones record. To see their albums still getting to the top of the charts, regardless of how debased the charts may now be, filles me with a very particular pleasure.
In 1965, my dad, God bless him, said to me 'How can you listen to that racket? All these long haired singers will be long gone to a proper job in a year or two. you mark my words...'
He got an awful lot right did my dad. And he got very VERY little wrong. But The Stones finding a proper job was one one of them...
Well, if owning a multimillion Dollar corporation is not a proper job in the truest sense of the word, then I don't know what is...
So, all things considered, your dad was not that wrong after all!
Yes I know that hahaha of crackling broadcasts on the radio. I used to record the broadcasts with an old tape recorder with microphone. And indeed the quality did not interest me either. It was the excitement. The uniqueness of HD is the fun and collaboration. Mick sings his lungs out of his chest with abandon, and instrument fit together flawlessly.
What do you mean?
I simply pointed out that Charlie is not on every Rolling Stones track, regardless of the albums being of their best or worst.
That's just facts: very few Stones albums don't feature Charlie on every song, with exception being HD, of course.
I was speaking in regards to your opinion of Voodoo as pedestrian and OOfT as the best song. I actually think it’s the weakest, and for me, HD can’t even get IN to the Voodoo Lounge!!! Charlie alone is worth the price of admission. Bombastic playing and sneering guitars thru out. The whole album is a giant FU to the grunge scene going on at the time.
But again to each their own.
Well, what I observed back then when it was released at numerous parties was that people put the CD in the player 'cause "it's the new Stones!" and stopped playing it after a few songs... It mainly disappeared from the focus of, let's call them, "general rock fans" after a very short while.
My personal main gripe with VL is that while it may have been well produced and sounded excellent, the song material was second-rate compared to their recent solo albums, the (very) few exceptions notwithstanding. That's what happens when the two main songwriters keep the best material for themselves...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-07 17:38 by retired_dog.
As the first album after Steel Wheels, (that had Mixed Emotions at what, #5 single on the charts?), in some respects it was the beginning of their songs not doing much chartwise. I saw the Love Is Strong video everywhere, but no one bought the single. The album itself was of course a very big seller.
I love some of the songs on VL but I agree, it's too long and for me too much middling material, crappy lyrics (sharks will cry, i was a butcher, cuttin' up meat). HD is miles above this...it's like they really tried and of course succeeded.
I believe Don Was not a good influence overall with these guys, and it took Watt to finally get them out of their rut. He doesn't get all the blame but he didn't help things.
I don't agree.
There are some albums it would've fit on.
However...
There are a lot of albums it wouldn't fit on. Then take in the cultural aspect of it (within The Rolling Stones world, that is) and it's got a window that, as some know, sonically possibly works through A BIGGER BANG. As in, it wouldn't fit in on any album except BLACK AND BLUE in regard to the 1980s.
Yeah, I know, it's origin is in 1992 but you get the point: BLACK AND BLUE was the closest to that sleazy riffage/sound. Nothing pre-BLACK AND BLUE where it would've fit with one exception: GOATS HEAD SOUP.
The way Love Is Strong works would not've been possible on previous albums in general. Mainly because Keith hadn't come to that style and cadence of riffage.
If 1973 Keith heard 1992 or 1994 Keith doing that riff he'd probably, through a haze, wonder what the hell he was hearing.
Hey TD!!!
Thanks for this response. I've listened to the album on my laptop, on my iPhone, and the CD in my car. I'm years away from having a home surround sound system, and atm don't even have a stereo system!!! Gotta love divorces! LOL I do look forward to listening to the Dolby version of the album one day!!! Guess I'll try giving a listen to the album on my lined iPhone earbuds - don't have airpods. Got nothing to lose at this point.
For me, B2B is the last great album they did. And I think it's a damn masterpiece!!! And that's despite the inclusion of MAWGJ, which is the ONLY song in their entire catalog that I actually skip!! As much as I despise Shattered, Beast of Burden, Angie, Rambler, and now Miss You too, I will let those play thru. Not MAWGJ. I just can't stand that song and am not sure what the hell Mick was thinking, but still B2B deserves to be right up there alongside the hallowed 4.5, along, ofc with Voodoo. I'm just saying B2B is the last time that they made an album of that caliber. They've had some good/great songs since then, but not a complete masterful effort from start to finish.
If it would fit on BAB there might have been a slot for it on TY as well?
Of course he was not wrong at all as it turned out. But back in the day who could have foreseen how huge the entire shebang would get? By my dad's definition of a proper job - a nice 9-5 existence, pension plan, good promotion prospects, gold watch on retirement - The Stones never did get THAT kind of proper job. Hence my statement. But as you rightly point out, in the truest sense of the word, didn't the boys do good?
I used to do that too. Record from the radio I mean. On a Bush reel-to-reel tape recorder using a microphone, while 'shushing' everyone to stay quiet so the music would not be drowned out. The first Stones track I recorded in that fashion was All Over Now. I messed up pressing the 'record' and 'play' buttons simultaneously and missed the first couple of words. To this day I still think that track begins with the words 'Stay out all night long' and not 'Baby used to...'
I found an old box of these tapes several years back. Been in storage for years. Most are still playable, some with rather heartbreaking fragments of talk in the background from my long deceased parents dating from over fifty years ago. A poignant reminder, if needed, of just how long The Stones have been in my own life. And another reminder of those long-ago days comes in the sound of my teenage bedside alarm clock, ticking away in the background to my recording of 'Have You Seen Your Mother Baby?' Itself complete with a voiceover by the late great Alan Fluff Freeman, all the way from 1966, telling us 'And now pop-pickers at Number Five we have the one called, ummmm....' As only he could!
So here we are in 2024. I'm 72 years old and The Stones have just had a Number One album with Hackney Diamonds. Who knows, maybe they really will go on forever...??
+1
That's funny...I think I do remember it being very maligned. The best I think that could be said was that it was a bit like a "tour poster" or "t-shirt"...a sampler at best.
Probably had to do with the fact that it probably had less than half the songs in a typical concert from that tour. At any rate my "entry point" to the band is the same as yours, and I love Tattoo You and the sound of the band on this tour. Sure Mick sounds a bit coked up, but so much energy. The final tour before all the polish crept in.
Oh.
Okay.
Well now it makes sense.
Well, for one thing, Out Of Tears is a fantastic ballad. It bizarrely responds to Fool To Cry and Memory Motel and, to a to a point, Til The Next Goodbye and is sonically extremely well done - Ronnie's slide on it is fantastic.
Love Is Strong is insanely awesome but it suffers in one regard - it's just Wicked As It Seems 2. They didn't go very far - or far enough - from the solo aspect of a song (Bite My Head Off is just different enough, slightly, from Eazy Sleazy).
There's The Worst, which is excellent. I Go Wild is excellent, especially since it fits in the same sleaze vein of Crazy Mama and maybe a few others like Rocks Off, Casino Boogie, maybe Tumbling Dice, Silver Train, If You Can't Rock Me, Dance Little Sister, Short And Curlies, Hey Negrita, When The Whip Comes Down, Some Girls. It gives presence to that aspect of The Rolling Stones.
Moon Is Up is way outside. I still think Suck On The Jugular is good funky funk. Yet New Faces is a bit too Ruby Tuesday or As Tears Go By and Sweethearts Together - really? Someone let them think that was good to put on the album? It's really stiche.
Baby Break It Down... casual good Stones. Nothing defining.
Oh ok we'll sound like this Stones.
VOODOO LOUNGE sounds like The Rolling Stones poorly imitating themselves. Some of the better musical aspects were left off.
It also sounds like they just didn't do a lot of work with it.
So that's why I said "pedestrian" - they were literally just walking by as The Rolling Stones. New producer, new bass player and not in line with Mick's other ideas, making the album sound familiar.
Nothing as different and challenging as UNDERCOVER or SOME GIRLS.
The kind of got is dialed in with BRIDGES.
But in those two albums there's one thing missing - Mick's intensity that's all over HACKNEY.
I never took VOODOO, or the Stones, giving the finger to grunge. They were just doing what they do, even with it being restricted because of Don Was. None of this has anything to do with Charlie. A lot of people have no idea that Jimmy Miller played drums on YCAGWYW, Tumbling Dice, Shine A Light and Happy. And who knows what else.
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:
tumblingdice
()
Date: January 6, 2024 07:34
Quote
VoodooLounge13
Could it be the lack of Charlie?? For me, it just doesn't SOUND like a Stones record. Specifically, it doesn't SOUND like the Stones. I hear Mick singing loud and clear, and it's the best he's sounded since B2B IMHO, but the album lacks the distinctive Stones sound....
I am happy it's doing so well in the charts though!! Very happy for them, and well deserved!! It just seems to be an album that sounds like almost all the other modern rock acts. Nothing is drawing me in. Started listening to it again in the car on the way home from my pup's groomer. I do like Angry, and thought the video was great. After 18 years it is great to have new music from them, finally!! Never thought we would, especially post-Charlie. But it's not very memorable to me. There's not a single song that sticks in the brain as catchy. LBTS might come closest. But there's no riff like RJ had. Nothing really that sounds different like RFD.
Hi Voodoo Lounge 13. I want to preface this by saying this isn’t a negative post towards you. In fact while I don’t post often I read the forum religiously for years going back into around BtB timeframe. I always enjoy your posts as I believe we are similar in age and timeline of getting seriously into the Stones. In fact I love VL and often said were it released in the 70s it would have been a monster hits To me it still is.
Anyway when I saw your reactions to HD it kinda saddened me in a way, as I loved it from start to finish. As our tasted seemed so similar I guess expected the same for you maybe lol. But as we know everyone is different. But I did want to mention something that may help especially based on the “sound”/as you explained. And I do get what you’re saying. However I’ve discovered with this album, as with many others prior, that I discover other layers in further listenings. But especially, and this may help improve it for you if you haven’t tried this yet, I use Apple products a lot, phone, HomePod and AirPods most especially using good earbuds like AirPods Pro 2. And it’s amazing you do get to hear the Stones sound more. With individual guitar parts more distinct especially if using the spatial audio they have and dolby atmos. I’m sure non apple products may do similar. Anyway just wanted to mention that to you. If you haven’t listened that way yet perhaps it might give you more enjoyment.
And if not, blast Voodoo Lounge loud for me, my Stones friend.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: January 6, 2024 09:35
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
VoodooLounge13
Could it be the lack of Charlie?? For me, it just doesn't SOUND like a Stones record. Specifically, it doesn't SOUND like the Stones. I hear Mick singing loud and clear, and it's the best he's sounded since B2B IMHO, but the album lacks the distinctive Stones sound....
I am happy it's doing so well in the charts though!! Very happy for them, and well deserved!! It just seems to be an album that sounds like almost all the other modern rock acts. Nothing is drawing me in. Started listening to it again in the car on the way home from my pup's groomer. I do like Angry, and thought the video was great. After 18 years it is great to have new music from them, finally!! Never thought we would, especially post-Charlie. But it's not very memorable to me. There's not a single song that sticks in the brain as catchy. LBTS might come closest. But there's no riff like RJ had. Nothing really that sounds different like RFD.
Except for Out Of Tears there's not one song on VOODOO LOUNGE that is equal to anything on HACKNEY DIAMONDS.
It's a little different with BRIDGES.
Just a few on BANG.
Whatever. It's all how we hear - and take - songs, albums. HD is excellent, regardless of only two Charlie songs.
Consider the opposite - the worst Rolling Stones album has Charlie on all but two songs.
Two of the greatest Rolling Stones albums has a song without Charlie.
Pedestrian albums like VOODOO LOUNGE and STEEL WHEELS have Charlie on them.
They felt it was worthy, HD. What the fans think, well, it's released so that's that.
The Stones do what they want. They don't care what you or I think. They never have. They shouldn't. They never will.
Love is Strong would EASILY not only fit on HD, but add to it, or could be on ANY STONES record, I’d think.
Rod
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Idorh
()
Date: January 6, 2024 16:05
I still enjoy HD daily. Nice and simple and spontaneous and full of energy. Incredible that I can still experience this new material now at 76. In 1973 I asked in a disco for a Stones song.
They started laughing, and said these are old men, and their music is out of date. And then 50 years later on their 80th birthday, this record comes out. It's like a dream. Who cares which album is better, for me it's a topper that I enjoy listening to every song. Fine enjoyment in my old age.
They started laughing, and said these are old men, and their music is out of date. And then 50 years later on their 80th birthday, this record comes out. It's like a dream. Who cares which album is better, for me it's a topper that I enjoy listening to every song. Fine enjoyment in my old age.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
GerardHennessy
()
Date: January 6, 2024 17:15
Quote
Idorh
I still enjoy HD daily. Nice and simple and spontaneous and full of energy. Incredible that I can still experience this new material now at 76. In 1973 I asked in a disco for a Stones song.
They started laughing, and said these are old men, and their music is out of date. And then 50 years later on their 80th birthday, this record comes out. It's like a dream. Who cares which album is better, for me it's a topper that I enjoy listening to every song. Fine enjoyment in my old age.
Well said mate. Top posting. And, specifically, your comment that HD is 'simple, spontaneous and full of energy'. Exactly my friend.
I appreciate that many fans like to get deep into the technical aspects of every album. Or compare and contrast recordings and tracks from different eras of the band. Good luck to 'em I say. To each their own. For me The Stones were all about the very things you mention. The simplicity. The energy. The spontaneity. I liked the impertinence. The insouciance. The 'could'nt give a f**k' attitude. Coming to their music at a time of medium wave radio broadcasts, of tiny transistor radios with an uncertain signal strength suffused with hiss and crackle, and with some songs being faded out way before they ended so another commercial could be aired, I was grateful for every Stones track I heard, regardless of clarity and the quality of reproduction. In a strange way I think the various imperfections and shortcomings of those long-ago days somehow added to the allure of the band.
To now be in my 70's and still excited about what The Stones record. To see their albums still getting to the top of the charts, regardless of how debased the charts may now be, filles me with a very particular pleasure.
In 1965, my dad, God bless him, said to me 'How can you listen to that racket? All these long haired singers will be long gone to a proper job in a year or two. you mark my words...'
He got an awful lot right did my dad. And he got very VERY little wrong. But The Stones finding a proper job was one one of them...
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: January 6, 2024 19:22
Quote
GerardHennessyQuote
Idorh
I still enjoy HD daily. Nice and simple and spontaneous and full of energy. Incredible that I can still experience this new material now at 76. In 1973 I asked in a disco for a Stones song.
They started laughing, and said these are old men, and their music is out of date. And then 50 years later on their 80th birthday, this record comes out. It's like a dream. Who cares which album is better, for me it's a topper that I enjoy listening to every song. Fine enjoyment in my old age.
Well said mate. Top posting. And, specifically, your comment that HD is 'simple, spontaneous and full of energy'. Exactly my friend.
I appreciate that many fans like to get deep into the technical aspects of every album. Or compare and contrast recordings and tracks from different eras of the band. Good luck to 'em I say. To each their own. For me The Stones were all about the very things you mention. The simplicity. The energy. The spontaneity. I liked the impertinence. The insouciance. The 'could'nt give a f**k' attitude. Coming to their music at a time of medium wave radio broadcasts, of tiny transistor radios with an uncertain signal strength suffused with hiss and crackle, and with some songs being faded out way before they ended so another commercial could be aired, I was grateful for every Stones track I heard, regardless of clarity and the quality of reproduction. In a strange way I think the various imperfections and shortcomings of those long-ago days somehow added to the allure of the band.
To now be in my 70's and still excited about what The Stones record. To see their albums still getting to the top of the charts, regardless of how debased the charts may now be, filles me with a very particular pleasure.
In 1965, my dad, God bless him, said to me 'How can you listen to that racket? All these long haired singers will be long gone to a proper job in a year or two. you mark my words...'
He got an awful lot right did my dad. And he got very VERY little wrong. But The Stones finding a proper job was one one of them...
Well, if owning a multimillion Dollar corporation is not a proper job in the truest sense of the word, then I don't know what is...
So, all things considered, your dad was not that wrong after all!
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Idorh
()
Date: January 6, 2024 20:44
Quote
GerardHennessyQuote
Idorh
I still enjoy HD daily. Nice and simple and spontaneous and full of energy. Incredible that I can still experience this new material now at 76. In 1973 I asked in a disco for a Stones song.
They started laughing, and said these are old men, and their music is out of date. And then 50 years later on their 80th birthday, this record comes out. It's like a dream. Who cares which album is better, for me it's a topper that I enjoy listening to every song. Fine enjoyment in my old age.
Well said mate. Top posting. And, specifically, your comment that HD is 'simple, spontaneous and full of energy'. Exactly my friend.
I appreciate that many fans like to get deep into the technical aspects of every album. Or compare and contrast recordings and tracks from different eras of the band. Good luck to 'em I say. To each their own. For me The Stones were all about the very things you mention. The simplicity. The energy. The spontaneity. I liked the impertinence. The insouciance. The 'could'nt give a f**k' attitude. Coming to their music at a time of medium wave radio broadcasts, of tiny transistor radios with an uncertain signal strength suffused with hiss and crackle, and with some songs being faded out way before they ended so another commercial could be aired, I was grateful for every Stones track I heard, regardless of clarity and the quality of reproduction. In a strange way I think the various imperfections and shortcomings of those long-ago days somehow added to the allure of the band.
To now be in my 70's and still excited about what The Stones record. To see their albums still getting to the top of the charts, regardless of how debased the charts may now be, filles me with a very particular pleasure.
In 1965, my dad, God bless him, said to me 'How can you listen to that racket? All these long haired singers will be long gone to a proper job in a year or two. you mark my words...'
He got an awful lot right did my dad. And he got very VERY little wrong. But The Stones finding a proper job was one one of them...
Yes I know that hahaha of crackling broadcasts on the radio. I used to record the broadcasts with an old tape recorder with microphone. And indeed the quality did not interest me either. It was the excitement. The uniqueness of HD is the fun and collaboration. Mick sings his lungs out of his chest with abandon, and instrument fit together flawlessly.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 7, 2024 05:30
Quote
VoodooLounge13
I literally will not even comment on that GasLight. Wow. To each their own. No doubt.
What do you mean?
I simply pointed out that Charlie is not on every Rolling Stones track, regardless of the albums being of their best or worst.
That's just facts: very few Stones albums don't feature Charlie on every song, with exception being HD, of course.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
VoodooLounge13
()
Date: January 7, 2024 09:10
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
VoodooLounge13
I literally will not even comment on that GasLight. Wow. To each their own. No doubt.
What do you mean?
I simply pointed out that Charlie is not on every Rolling Stones track, regardless of the albums being of their best or worst.
That's just facts: very few Stones albums don't feature Charlie on every song, with exception being HD, of course.
I was speaking in regards to your opinion of Voodoo as pedestrian and OOfT as the best song. I actually think it’s the weakest, and for me, HD can’t even get IN to the Voodoo Lounge!!! Charlie alone is worth the price of admission. Bombastic playing and sneering guitars thru out. The whole album is a giant FU to the grunge scene going on at the time.
But again to each their own.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
harlem shuffle
()
Date: January 7, 2024 16:47
Voodoo Lounge is not a very good album,it,s some good songs on it,but after a while is a bit boring
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: January 7, 2024 17:34
Quote
harlem shuffle
Voodoo Lounge is not a very good album,it,s some good songs on it,but after a while is a bit boring
Well, what I observed back then when it was released at numerous parties was that people put the CD in the player 'cause "it's the new Stones!" and stopped playing it after a few songs... It mainly disappeared from the focus of, let's call them, "general rock fans" after a very short while.
My personal main gripe with VL is that while it may have been well produced and sounded excellent, the song material was second-rate compared to their recent solo albums, the (very) few exceptions notwithstanding. That's what happens when the two main songwriters keep the best material for themselves...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-07 17:38 by retired_dog.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
SomeGuy
()
Date: January 7, 2024 18:11
Funny how people can have different experiences. When VL came out no one seemed to be interested here: listening parties at shops went by unattended, people said it was a commercial flop (which it wasn't, of course).
I think it is one of the better 'latter day' albums, but the production is a bit lame, whereas the songs are (mostly) reasonably good. Also, I don't get the Exile comparisons at all. And the album is way too long.
However, HD is for me the best of the lot: better production (the other day it reminded me a bit of the guitar sound of IORR, but that's just me perhaps) and better songs, and a playing time that is more like the albums of the 70s.
I think it is one of the better 'latter day' albums, but the production is a bit lame, whereas the songs are (mostly) reasonably good. Also, I don't get the Exile comparisons at all. And the album is way too long.
However, HD is for me the best of the lot: better production (the other day it reminded me a bit of the guitar sound of IORR, but that's just me perhaps) and better songs, and a playing time that is more like the albums of the 70s.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 7, 2024 20:18
Quote
SomeGuy
Funny how people can have different experiences. When VL came out no one seemed to be interested here: listening parties at shops went by unattended, people said it was a commercial flop (which it wasn't, of course).
I think it is one of the better 'latter day' albums, but the production is a bit lame, whereas the songs are (mostly) reasonably good. Also, I don't get the Exile comparisons at all. And the album is way too long.
However, HD is for me the best of the lot: better production (the other day it reminded me a bit of the guitar sound of IORR, but that's just me perhaps) and better songs, and a playing time that is more like the albums of the 70s.
As the first album after Steel Wheels, (that had Mixed Emotions at what, #5 single on the charts?), in some respects it was the beginning of their songs not doing much chartwise. I saw the Love Is Strong video everywhere, but no one bought the single. The album itself was of course a very big seller.
I love some of the songs on VL but I agree, it's too long and for me too much middling material, crappy lyrics (sharks will cry, i was a butcher, cuttin' up meat). HD is miles above this...it's like they really tried and of course succeeded.
I believe Don Was not a good influence overall with these guys, and it took Watt to finally get them out of their rut. He doesn't get all the blame but he didn't help things.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: January 7, 2024 20:35
I think how you view albums also has a lot to do with your age and when you be become a fan. My first take on them was Tattoo You and the Still Life (81/82) tour.
So I will always have a special love for that album and that tour. Even the Still Life album which at the time in Sweden was reviewed as maybe the worst live album
by any band in rock history...
So I will always have a special love for that album and that tour. Even the Still Life album which at the time in Sweden was reviewed as maybe the worst live album
by any band in rock history...
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
MadMax
()
Date: January 7, 2024 22:43
Quote
VoodooLounge13
Could it be the lack of Charlie?? For me, it just doesn't SOUND like a Stones record. Specifically, it doesn't SOUND like the Stones. I hear Mick singing loud and clear, and it's the best he's sounded since B2B IMHO, but the album lacks the distinctive Stones sound....
I am happy it's doing so well in the charts though!! Very happy for them, and well deserved!! It just seems to be an album that sounds like almost all the other modern rock acts. Nothing is drawing me in. Started listening to it again in the car on the way home from my pup's groomer. I do like Angry, and thought the video was great. After 18 years it is great to have new music from them, finally!! Never thought we would, especially post-Charlie. But it's not very memorable to me. There's not a single song that sticks in the brain as catchy. LBTS might come closest. But there's no riff like RJ had. Nothing really that sounds different like RFD.[/ote]
I agree 100%
Except for Mess It Up, Live By The Sword, Tell Me Straight, Angry and obviously Rolling Stone Blues it sounds like any old MOR.
The 7 other songs lack all that Stones Magic which made the band the greatest in the world. I'll have VL over HD every day of the week, Don understood Stones, Mr Watt not so much. Gimme that dry funky Stones Sound instead of this wet mess. Just listen to the first bars of Keep Up Blues to get what HD is not.
Don captured the essence.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 8, 2024 05:57
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
VoodooLounge13
Could it be the lack of Charlie?? For me, it just doesn't SOUND like a Stones record. Specifically, it doesn't SOUND like the Stones. I hear Mick singing loud and clear, and it's the best he's sounded since B2B IMHO, but the album lacks the distinctive Stones sound....
I am happy it's doing so well in the charts though!! Very happy for them, and well deserved!! It just seems to be an album that sounds like almost all the other modern rock acts. Nothing is drawing me in. Started listening to it again in the car on the way home from my pup's groomer. I do like Angry, and thought the video was great. After 18 years it is great to have new music from them, finally!! Never thought we would, especially post-Charlie. But it's not very memorable to me. There's not a single song that sticks in the brain as catchy. LBTS might come closest. But there's no riff like RJ had. Nothing really that sounds different like RFD.
Except for Out Of Tears there's not one song on VOODOO LOUNGE that is equal to anything on HACKNEY DIAMONDS.
It's a little different with BRIDGES.
Just a few on BANG.
Whatever. It's all how we hear - and take - songs, albums. HD is excellent, regardless of only two Charlie songs.
Consider the opposite - the worst Rolling Stones album has Charlie on all but two songs.
Two of the greatest Rolling Stones albums has a song without Charlie.
Pedestrian albums like VOODOO LOUNGE and STEEL WHEELS have Charlie on them.
They felt it was worthy, HD. What the fans think, well, it's released so that's that.
The Stones do what they want. They don't care what you or I think. They never have. They shouldn't. They never will.
Love is Strong would EASILY not only fit on HD, but add to it, or could be on ANY STONES record, I’d think.
I don't agree.
There are some albums it would've fit on.
However...
There are a lot of albums it wouldn't fit on. Then take in the cultural aspect of it (within The Rolling Stones world, that is) and it's got a window that, as some know, sonically possibly works through A BIGGER BANG. As in, it wouldn't fit in on any album except BLACK AND BLUE in regard to the 1980s.
Yeah, I know, it's origin is in 1992 but you get the point: BLACK AND BLUE was the closest to that sleazy riffage/sound. Nothing pre-BLACK AND BLUE where it would've fit with one exception: GOATS HEAD SOUP.
The way Love Is Strong works would not've been possible on previous albums in general. Mainly because Keith hadn't come to that style and cadence of riffage.
If 1973 Keith heard 1992 or 1994 Keith doing that riff he'd probably, through a haze, wonder what the hell he was hearing.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
georgemcdonnell314
()
Date: January 8, 2024 15:00
Maybe I am alone in this thought but after listening to the album several times the songs sound like songs I have heard for years.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
VoodooLounge13
()
Date: January 8, 2024 15:20
Perhaps that's part of why I love Voodoo so much, and also prefer Main Offender to TIC. That sneering guitar riffage, as you call it. Some of it carries into B2B as well, and to a much lesser extent ABB. It's biting, it's 1000000000% attitude.
I listened to every original album on Saturday backwards from HD thru ER, and for me, there's just no comparison. If I were forced to rank just those albums, it would probably look something like this:
1. Voodoo Lounge
2. Bridges to Babylon
3. Tattoo You
4. Dirty Work
5. Steel Wheels
6. A Bigger Bang
7. Emotional Rescue
8. Undercover
9. Hackney Diamonds
7 & 8 are interchangeable and could switch depending on my mood. Had a hard time placing them just here. Each have songs I think are lesser quality, but each have some gems, too, and Let Me Go is one of my all-time favorite Stones songs, so that gave ER the edge.
I won't go on and on about it, as I think all know how underwhelmed I am. If the album hadn't taken 18 years to make - say 8 like ABB - perhaps it would be better received for me. After the long wait, I expected to be blown away, with the riffage, the song quality. For me, it just sounds like a band trying to immitate the Stones in modern times. SSOH I don't get the love at all, and honestly, I dread seeing this one live this year. It's a cheap/inferior attempt at recreating YCAGWYW IMHO. I think the closest comparison in their catalog to this album is Sticky Fingers. BMHO has that B*^&* feel to it. Dreamy Skies is the new Dead Flowers. RSB is You Gotta Move. Mick hasn't sounded this good in years, but it's flat overall. The music/sound. It's not pushing any limits. It's safe. It's mediocre. I was hoping for more cutting edge/rocking riffage. More Dance/Beats and Rock. With all the guests and rumored producers, I really was expecting more a B2B pt 2, and perhaps that's part of the problem. I had expectations, and based on that, I'm letdown with the end result. There's no warmth in the production to me. It doesn't invite me in and make me want to dance around, or throw it on while making dinner.
There is a little difference in MIU from the non-Charlie songs, but not as much as LBTS. I do prefer the video snippet that leaked online with a more pronounced guitar from Mick in the fold. However, I can't help but wonder what that scrapped 2015 album might have sounded like, based on LIAGT, MIU, and LBTS. Those 3 are 1/3 of what could have been a very eclectic sounding album. I do think there's some truth - for me anyway - of Charlie's playing being absent. There's good reason why I think WWW and LBTS are the 2 stand out tracks, with LBTS probably edging out the top spot. And to have the full band together again!!! Wow. A much better collab than the Ben Waters song they did with Bill some years ago!!!!
Angry, Whole Wide World, Tell Me Straight, Live By The Sword, Mess It Up are the only songs that are decent, IMHO, and I would put Angry and MIU just below the other 3. Even as an EP that isn't a strong release....
Maybe, too, it's all a product of where I'm at in life, post-Divorce II, and trying to still recreate/rebuild/reimagine myself 20 months later; being a first time solo homeowner and establishing life in the mountains with just me and my now 2 dogs. The lyrics and music of Whiskey Myers are far more in tune with my thoughts and emotions these days. As are many Eddie Vedder songs, and very recently, I've been listening to Zep more and more, and Zep is a band that I think is quite possible THE most overrated band in the history of RNR. Aside from Four, which really is a masterpiece.
I will take Voodoo over Sticky. I prefer the guitar sound and the production. Charlie's booming drums mixed upfront. It drives the sound of the album. It's a slight edge these days. The gap has narrowed immensely over the years, but I don't ever see SF overtaking it. And I will take it by a long shot over EOMS. GHS might one day overtake SF for the #2 slot, but those 3 will not change.
HD rolls, but it definitely doesn't rock, or swing.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-08 19:47 by VoodooLounge13.
I listened to every original album on Saturday backwards from HD thru ER, and for me, there's just no comparison. If I were forced to rank just those albums, it would probably look something like this:
1. Voodoo Lounge
2. Bridges to Babylon
3. Tattoo You
4. Dirty Work
5. Steel Wheels
6. A Bigger Bang
7. Emotional Rescue
8. Undercover
9. Hackney Diamonds
7 & 8 are interchangeable and could switch depending on my mood. Had a hard time placing them just here. Each have songs I think are lesser quality, but each have some gems, too, and Let Me Go is one of my all-time favorite Stones songs, so that gave ER the edge.
I won't go on and on about it, as I think all know how underwhelmed I am. If the album hadn't taken 18 years to make - say 8 like ABB - perhaps it would be better received for me. After the long wait, I expected to be blown away, with the riffage, the song quality. For me, it just sounds like a band trying to immitate the Stones in modern times. SSOH I don't get the love at all, and honestly, I dread seeing this one live this year. It's a cheap/inferior attempt at recreating YCAGWYW IMHO. I think the closest comparison in their catalog to this album is Sticky Fingers. BMHO has that B*^&* feel to it. Dreamy Skies is the new Dead Flowers. RSB is You Gotta Move. Mick hasn't sounded this good in years, but it's flat overall. The music/sound. It's not pushing any limits. It's safe. It's mediocre. I was hoping for more cutting edge/rocking riffage. More Dance/Beats and Rock. With all the guests and rumored producers, I really was expecting more a B2B pt 2, and perhaps that's part of the problem. I had expectations, and based on that, I'm letdown with the end result. There's no warmth in the production to me. It doesn't invite me in and make me want to dance around, or throw it on while making dinner.
There is a little difference in MIU from the non-Charlie songs, but not as much as LBTS. I do prefer the video snippet that leaked online with a more pronounced guitar from Mick in the fold. However, I can't help but wonder what that scrapped 2015 album might have sounded like, based on LIAGT, MIU, and LBTS. Those 3 are 1/3 of what could have been a very eclectic sounding album. I do think there's some truth - for me anyway - of Charlie's playing being absent. There's good reason why I think WWW and LBTS are the 2 stand out tracks, with LBTS probably edging out the top spot. And to have the full band together again!!! Wow. A much better collab than the Ben Waters song they did with Bill some years ago!!!!
Angry, Whole Wide World, Tell Me Straight, Live By The Sword, Mess It Up are the only songs that are decent, IMHO, and I would put Angry and MIU just below the other 3. Even as an EP that isn't a strong release....
Maybe, too, it's all a product of where I'm at in life, post-Divorce II, and trying to still recreate/rebuild/reimagine myself 20 months later; being a first time solo homeowner and establishing life in the mountains with just me and my now 2 dogs. The lyrics and music of Whiskey Myers are far more in tune with my thoughts and emotions these days. As are many Eddie Vedder songs, and very recently, I've been listening to Zep more and more, and Zep is a band that I think is quite possible THE most overrated band in the history of RNR. Aside from Four, which really is a masterpiece.
I will take Voodoo over Sticky. I prefer the guitar sound and the production. Charlie's booming drums mixed upfront. It drives the sound of the album. It's a slight edge these days. The gap has narrowed immensely over the years, but I don't ever see SF overtaking it. And I will take it by a long shot over EOMS. GHS might one day overtake SF for the #2 slot, but those 3 will not change.
HD rolls, but it definitely doesn't rock, or swing.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-08 19:47 by VoodooLounge13.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
VoodooLounge13
()
Date: January 8, 2024 15:27
Quote
tumblingdiceQuote
VoodooLounge13
Could it be the lack of Charlie?? For me, it just doesn't SOUND like a Stones record. Specifically, it doesn't SOUND like the Stones. I hear Mick singing loud and clear, and it's the best he's sounded since B2B IMHO, but the album lacks the distinctive Stones sound....
I am happy it's doing so well in the charts though!! Very happy for them, and well deserved!! It just seems to be an album that sounds like almost all the other modern rock acts. Nothing is drawing me in. Started listening to it again in the car on the way home from my pup's groomer. I do like Angry, and thought the video was great. After 18 years it is great to have new music from them, finally!! Never thought we would, especially post-Charlie. But it's not very memorable to me. There's not a single song that sticks in the brain as catchy. LBTS might come closest. But there's no riff like RJ had. Nothing really that sounds different like RFD.
Hi Voodoo Lounge 13. I want to preface this by saying this isn’t a negative post towards you. In fact while I don’t post often I read the forum religiously for years going back into around BtB timeframe. I always enjoy your posts as I believe we are similar in age and timeline of getting seriously into the Stones. In fact I love VL and often said were it released in the 70s it would have been a monster hits To me it still is.
Anyway when I saw your reactions to HD it kinda saddened me in a way, as I loved it from start to finish. As our tasted seemed so similar I guess expected the same for you maybe lol. But as we know everyone is different. But I did want to mention something that may help especially based on the “sound”/as you explained. And I do get what you’re saying. However I’ve discovered with this album, as with many others prior, that I discover other layers in further listenings. But especially, and this may help improve it for you if you haven’t tried this yet, I use Apple products a lot, phone, HomePod and AirPods most especially using good earbuds like AirPods Pro 2. And it’s amazing you do get to hear the Stones sound more. With individual guitar parts more distinct especially if using the spatial audio they have and dolby atmos. I’m sure non apple products may do similar. Anyway just wanted to mention that to you. If you haven’t listened that way yet perhaps it might give you more enjoyment.
And if not, blast Voodoo Lounge loud for me, my Stones friend.
Hey TD!!!
Thanks for this response. I've listened to the album on my laptop, on my iPhone, and the CD in my car. I'm years away from having a home surround sound system, and atm don't even have a stereo system!!! Gotta love divorces! LOL I do look forward to listening to the Dolby version of the album one day!!! Guess I'll try giving a listen to the album on my lined iPhone earbuds - don't have airpods. Got nothing to lose at this point.
For me, B2B is the last great album they did. And I think it's a damn masterpiece!!! And that's despite the inclusion of MAWGJ, which is the ONLY song in their entire catalog that I actually skip!! As much as I despise Shattered, Beast of Burden, Angie, Rambler, and now Miss You too, I will let those play thru. Not MAWGJ. I just can't stand that song and am not sure what the hell Mick was thinking, but still B2B deserves to be right up there alongside the hallowed 4.5, along, ofc with Voodoo. I'm just saying B2B is the last time that they made an album of that caliber. They've had some good/great songs since then, but not a complete masterful effort from start to finish.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 8, 2024 16:42
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
bitusa2012Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
VoodooLounge13
Could it be the lack of Charlie?? For me, it just doesn't SOUND like a Stones record. Specifically, it doesn't SOUND like the Stones. I hear Mick singing loud and clear, and it's the best he's sounded since B2B IMHO, but the album lacks the distinctive Stones sound....
I am happy it's doing so well in the charts though!! Very happy for them, and well deserved!! It just seems to be an album that sounds like almost all the other modern rock acts. Nothing is drawing me in. Started listening to it again in the car on the way home from my pup's groomer. I do like Angry, and thought the video was great. After 18 years it is great to have new music from them, finally!! Never thought we would, especially post-Charlie. But it's not very memorable to me. There's not a single song that sticks in the brain as catchy. LBTS might come closest. But there's no riff like RJ had. Nothing really that sounds different like RFD.
Except for Out Of Tears there's not one song on VOODOO LOUNGE that is equal to anything on HACKNEY DIAMONDS.
It's a little different with BRIDGES.
Just a few on BANG.
Whatever. It's all how we hear - and take - songs, albums. HD is excellent, regardless of only two Charlie songs.
Consider the opposite - the worst Rolling Stones album has Charlie on all but two songs.
Two of the greatest Rolling Stones albums has a song without Charlie.
Pedestrian albums like VOODOO LOUNGE and STEEL WHEELS have Charlie on them.
They felt it was worthy, HD. What the fans think, well, it's released so that's that.
The Stones do what they want. They don't care what you or I think. They never have. They shouldn't. They never will.
Love is Strong would EASILY not only fit on HD, but add to it, or could be on ANY STONES record, I’d think.
I don't agree.
There are some albums it would've fit on.
However...
There are a lot of albums it wouldn't fit on. Then take in the cultural aspect of it (within The Rolling Stones world, that is) and it's got a window that, as some know, sonically possibly works through A BIGGER BANG. As in, it wouldn't fit in on any album except BLACK AND BLUE in regard to the 1980s.
Yeah, I know, it's origin is in 1992 but you get the point: BLACK AND BLUE was the closest to that sleazy riffage/sound. Nothing pre-BLACK AND BLUE where it would've fit with one exception: GOATS HEAD SOUP.
The way Love Is Strong works would not've been possible on previous albums in general. Mainly because Keith hadn't come to that style and cadence of riffage.
If 1973 Keith heard 1992 or 1994 Keith doing that riff he'd probably, through a haze, wonder what the hell he was hearing.
If it would fit on BAB there might have been a slot for it on TY as well?
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: January 8, 2024 19:14
I really enjoy HACKNEY DIAMONDS. It hasn't made me turn my back on VOODOO LOUNGE or BRIDGES TO BABYLON. Like every Stones album, it's simply more to enjoy. I'm a Stones fan. I may not love every track they've ever released, but there are plenty of songs I love on every album.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: January 8, 2024 19:45
I miss Hairball...
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
GerardHennessy
()
Date: January 8, 2024 20:17
Quote
retired_dogQuote
GerardHennessyQuote
Idorh
I still enjoy HD daily. Nice and simple and spontaneous and full of energy. Incredible that I can still experience this new material now at 76. In 1973 I asked in a disco for a Stones song.
They started laughing, and said these are old men, and their music is out of date. And then 50 years later on their 80th birthday, this record comes out. It's like a dream. Who cares which album is better, for me it's a topper that I enjoy listening to every song. Fine enjoyment in my old age.
Well said mate. Top posting. And, specifically, your comment that HD is 'simple, spontaneous and full of energy'. Exactly my friend.
I appreciate that many fans like to get deep into the technical aspects of every album. Or compare and contrast recordings and tracks from different eras of the band. Good luck to 'em I say. To each their own. For me The Stones were all about the very things you mention. The simplicity. The energy. The spontaneity. I liked the impertinence. The insouciance. The 'could'nt give a f**k' attitude. Coming to their music at a time of medium wave radio broadcasts, of tiny transistor radios with an uncertain signal strength suffused with hiss and crackle, and with some songs being faded out way before they ended so another commercial could be aired, I was grateful for every Stones track I heard, regardless of clarity and the quality of reproduction. In a strange way I think the various imperfections and shortcomings of those long-ago days somehow added to the allure of the band.
To now be in my 70's and still excited about what The Stones record. To see their albums still getting to the top of the charts, regardless of how debased the charts may now be, filles me with a very particular pleasure.
In 1965, my dad, God bless him, said to me 'How can you listen to that racket? All these long haired singers will be long gone to a proper job in a year or two. you mark my words...'
He got an awful lot right did my dad. And he got very VERY little wrong. But The Stones finding a proper job was one one of them...
Well, if owning a multimillion Dollar corporation is not a proper job in the truest sense of the word, then I don't know what is...
So, all things considered, your dad was not that wrong after all!
Of course he was not wrong at all as it turned out. But back in the day who could have foreseen how huge the entire shebang would get? By my dad's definition of a proper job - a nice 9-5 existence, pension plan, good promotion prospects, gold watch on retirement - The Stones never did get THAT kind of proper job. Hence my statement. But as you rightly point out, in the truest sense of the word, didn't the boys do good?
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
GerardHennessy
()
Date: January 8, 2024 20:41
Quote
IdorhQuote
GerardHennessyQuote
Idorh
I still enjoy HD daily. Nice and simple and spontaneous and full of energy. Incredible that I can still experience this new material now at 76. In 1973 I asked in a disco for a Stones song.
They started laughing, and said these are old men, and their music is out of date. And then 50 years later on their 80th birthday, this record comes out. It's like a dream. Who cares which album is better, for me it's a topper that I enjoy listening to every song. Fine enjoyment in my old age.
Well said mate. Top posting. And, specifically, your comment that HD is 'simple, spontaneous and full of energy'. Exactly my friend.
I appreciate that many fans like to get deep into the technical aspects of every album. Or compare and contrast recordings and tracks from different eras of the band. Good luck to 'em I say. To each their own. For me The Stones were all about the very things you mention. The simplicity. The energy. The spontaneity. I liked the impertinence. The insouciance. The 'could'nt give a f**k' attitude. Coming to their music at a time of medium wave radio broadcasts, of tiny transistor radios with an uncertain signal strength suffused with hiss and crackle, and with some songs being faded out way before they ended so another commercial could be aired, I was grateful for every Stones track I heard, regardless of clarity and the quality of reproduction. In a strange way I think the various imperfections and shortcomings of those long-ago days somehow added to the allure of the band.
To now be in my 70's and still excited about what The Stones record. To see their albums still getting to the top of the charts, regardless of how debased the charts may now be, filles me with a very particular pleasure.
In 1965, my dad, God bless him, said to me 'How can you listen to that racket? All these long haired singers will be long gone to a proper job in a year or two. you mark my words...'
He got an awful lot right did my dad. And he got very VERY little wrong. But The Stones finding a proper job was one one of them...
Yes I know that hahaha of crackling broadcasts on the radio. I used to record the broadcasts with an old tape recorder with microphone. And indeed the quality did not interest me either. It was the excitement. The uniqueness of HD is the fun and collaboration. Mick sings his lungs out of his chest with abandon, and instrument fit together flawlessly.
I used to do that too. Record from the radio I mean. On a Bush reel-to-reel tape recorder using a microphone, while 'shushing' everyone to stay quiet so the music would not be drowned out. The first Stones track I recorded in that fashion was All Over Now. I messed up pressing the 'record' and 'play' buttons simultaneously and missed the first couple of words. To this day I still think that track begins with the words 'Stay out all night long' and not 'Baby used to...'
I found an old box of these tapes several years back. Been in storage for years. Most are still playable, some with rather heartbreaking fragments of talk in the background from my long deceased parents dating from over fifty years ago. A poignant reminder, if needed, of just how long The Stones have been in my own life. And another reminder of those long-ago days comes in the sound of my teenage bedside alarm clock, ticking away in the background to my recording of 'Have You Seen Your Mother Baby?' Itself complete with a voiceover by the late great Alan Fluff Freeman, all the way from 1966, telling us 'And now pop-pickers at Number Five we have the one called, ummmm....' As only he could!
So here we are in 2024. I'm 72 years old and The Stones have just had a Number One album with Hackney Diamonds. Who knows, maybe they really will go on forever...??
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: January 8, 2024 21:36
Quote
Stoneage
I miss Hairball...
+1
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 8, 2024 22:45
Quote
Stoneage
I think how you view albums also has a lot to do with your age and when you be become a fan. My first take on them was Tattoo You and the Still Life (81/82) tour.
So I will always have a special love for that album and that tour. Even the Still Life album which at the time in Sweden was reviewed as maybe the worst live album
by any band in rock history...
That's funny...I think I do remember it being very maligned. The best I think that could be said was that it was a bit like a "tour poster" or "t-shirt"...a sampler at best.
Probably had to do with the fact that it probably had less than half the songs in a typical concert from that tour. At any rate my "entry point" to the band is the same as yours, and I love Tattoo You and the sound of the band on this tour. Sure Mick sounds a bit coked up, but so much energy. The final tour before all the polish crept in.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 9, 2024 04:11
Quote
VoodooLounge13Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
VoodooLounge13
I literally will not even comment on that GasLight. Wow. To each their own. No doubt.
What do you mean?
I simply pointed out that Charlie is not on every Rolling Stones track, regardless of the albums being of their best or worst.
That's just facts: very few Stones albums don't feature Charlie on every song, with exception being HD, of course.
I was speaking in regards to your opinion of Voodoo as pedestrian and OOfT as the best song. I actually think it’s the weakest, and for me, HD can’t even get IN to the Voodoo Lounge!!! Charlie alone is worth the price of admission. Bombastic playing and sneering guitars thru out. The whole album is a giant FU to the grunge scene going on at the time.
But again to each their own.
Oh.
Okay.
Well now it makes sense.
Well, for one thing, Out Of Tears is a fantastic ballad. It bizarrely responds to Fool To Cry and Memory Motel and, to a to a point, Til The Next Goodbye and is sonically extremely well done - Ronnie's slide on it is fantastic.
Love Is Strong is insanely awesome but it suffers in one regard - it's just Wicked As It Seems 2. They didn't go very far - or far enough - from the solo aspect of a song (Bite My Head Off is just different enough, slightly, from Eazy Sleazy).
There's The Worst, which is excellent. I Go Wild is excellent, especially since it fits in the same sleaze vein of Crazy Mama and maybe a few others like Rocks Off, Casino Boogie, maybe Tumbling Dice, Silver Train, If You Can't Rock Me, Dance Little Sister, Short And Curlies, Hey Negrita, When The Whip Comes Down, Some Girls. It gives presence to that aspect of The Rolling Stones.
Moon Is Up is way outside. I still think Suck On The Jugular is good funky funk. Yet New Faces is a bit too Ruby Tuesday or As Tears Go By and Sweethearts Together - really? Someone let them think that was good to put on the album? It's really stiche.
Baby Break It Down... casual good Stones. Nothing defining.
Oh ok we'll sound like this Stones.
VOODOO LOUNGE sounds like The Rolling Stones poorly imitating themselves. Some of the better musical aspects were left off.
It also sounds like they just didn't do a lot of work with it.
So that's why I said "pedestrian" - they were literally just walking by as The Rolling Stones. New producer, new bass player and not in line with Mick's other ideas, making the album sound familiar.
Nothing as different and challenging as UNDERCOVER or SOME GIRLS.
The kind of got is dialed in with BRIDGES.
But in those two albums there's one thing missing - Mick's intensity that's all over HACKNEY.
I never took VOODOO, or the Stones, giving the finger to grunge. They were just doing what they do, even with it being restricted because of Don Was. None of this has anything to do with Charlie. A lot of people have no idea that Jimmy Miller played drums on YCAGWYW, Tumbling Dice, Shine A Light and Happy. And who knows what else.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
jahisnotdead
()
Date: January 9, 2024 05:01
Yeah! Sticky fingers again!
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: January 9, 2024 14:21
Voodoo Lounge is way better than a Dirty Work, Emotional Rescue,UndercoverBigger Bang.It has some excellent songs.It won the Grammy award for best album
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Idorh
()
Date: January 9, 2024 14:22
Isn't it great that these 80-year-old men are still releasing such a brilliant new studio album Hackney Diamonds in 2023. And that there are 9 new songs ready on the shelf. I wonder if that will also be a complete new album or if they will release them as singles over the years.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
2346
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10