For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
Quote
VoodooLounge13
I literally will not even comment on that GasLight. Wow. To each their own. No doubt.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Quote
Stoneage
I miss Hairball...
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...
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.