Quote
matxil
Let me add that I like the Stones because they were special in the sense that they combined groovy American roots music (blues and soul mainly) with a certain pop-sense, but without loosing their rawness. As exemplified especially at their start, and later from late-60s until mid-70s, with a small revival at the end of the 70s. I recently read an interview with the former Police drummer, Stewart Copeland, who said that with the Stones everyone was part of the rhythm section: Charlie, Bill, the guitars and Mick Jagger. It was their aproach to rhythm. Added to that, the particular approach (and sound) of Keith's guitars (licks, riffs and just strumming) and - of course - Mick's voice both in sound, dynamics and - again - rhythm.

I wouldn't quarrel with any of that.

It's the unique groove...and the mechanics of it have oft been discussed on these pages.

Bill leaving and Charlie's sad passing have both been bemoaned as dilutions of a potent formula ...

...but sometimes all it needs to give the lift is Mick's audacious phrasing or Keith's idiosyncratic timing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-25 15:30 by Spud.

There's a lot of crafting, care and detail on these songs, even if it's just where the handclaps begin, or where there is a little twist of a counter-riff to strengthen the whole structure. More so than on quite a number of their albums, and if it's a different modus operandi, then fine - because the result to me is a joyous, classic album, still on repeated listen, still making you jump about and sing along. Love it to death!

Quote
MadMetaphoricalMax
There's a lot of crafting, care and detail on these songs, even if it's just where the handclaps begin, or where there is a little twist of a counter-riff to strengthen the whole structure. More so than on quite a number of their albums, and if it's a different modus operandi, then fine - because the result to me is a joyous, classic album, still on repeated listen, still making you jump about and sing along. Love it to death!

Yep...that as well ;^)

Quote
shadooby

Quote
aranbee

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
shadooby
Just got another from Amazon and it also skips and hangs 8 seconds into Whole Wide World-live on all my cd players. Surely someone else is having this. Not sure what the hell to do now.

Am I the only one who bought the deluxe 2cd set? I didn’t see another thread on it.

Haven't opened my deluxe boxset, but all my stand alone editions play fine.

Just got mine from the mailbox, from the Stones, and WWW on the live disc (disc 2, track 3)plays all the way through. This is the 2 disc set, disc 1 is HD, and disc 2 is the Racket live set. So far, about 6 tracks have played well, no skips.

Aranbee

Have you tried ripping into itunes? That’s when I noticed it locked up at the beginning of track 3 of live disc. Then when I tried playing it on my 2 cd decks it either skipped or got stuck at that same spot. Got another from Amazon and same exact thing. I’m clueless as to what to do now. Do I keep it just for the good tracks?

Still waiting on mine to ship, but I will be quite annoyed if I find that issue too. Sorry about your copies!

Quote
shadooby
I’m talking about the new 2cd with live disc just released.

My version of this plays just fine.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
windmelody

Quote
bakersfield
...

It is great if you enjoy Hackney Diamonds, Bakersfield, and you definitely have a point: Many Stones songs depend on the band's performance: Jagger's voice, the weaving of the guitars, the rhythm section. Yet, to my impression, many songs on Hackney Diamonds sound fresh, but very constructed. An example for that is Angry. And Sweet Sounds of Heaven is nice, but nothing more. I have to think it through, but I do not find it too overwhelming, when the Stones try to find an approach like any other band.

This is true. However, many aren't: Dreamy Skies, Live By The Sword, Tell Me Straight, Rolling Stone Blues. Driving Me Too Hard isn't really that constructed, either.

Looking back on the Stones classics, for instance, JJF, YCAGWYW, HTW, TD, MY, SMU. They are pretty much constructed as well, aren't they?

Maybe they made a bit more songs that were single material/contenders for this album? After all, 18 years had passed since their last album of original songs.

I'm a bit confused (and curious) about the concept constructed. Why do you think the songs you mention are constructed? The songs you mention seem pretty straightforward to me, chord-structure wise rather obvious. But maybe I don't understand what you guys mean with constructed?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-25 21:41 by matxil.

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
windmelody

Quote
bakersfield
...

It is great if you enjoy Hackney Diamonds, Bakersfield, and you definitely have a point: Many Stones songs depend on the band's performance: Jagger's voice, the weaving of the guitars, the rhythm section. Yet, to my impression, many songs on Hackney Diamonds sound fresh, but very constructed. An example for that is Angry. And Sweet Sounds of Heaven is nice, but nothing more. I have to think it through, but I do not find it too overwhelming, when the Stones try to find an approach like any other band.

This is true. However, many aren't: Dreamy Skies, Live By The Sword, Tell Me Straight, Rolling Stone Blues. Driving Me Too Hard isn't really that constructed, either.

Looking back on the Stones classics, for instance, JJF, YCAGWYW, HTW, TD, MY, SMU. They are pretty much constructed as well, aren't they?

Maybe they made a bit more songs that were single material/contenders for this album? After all, 18 years had passed since their last album of original songs.

I'm a bit confused (and curious) about the concept constructed. Why do you think the songs you mention are constructed? The songs you mention seem pretty straightforward to me, chord-structure wise rather obvious. But maybe I don't understand what you guys mean with constructed?

Well-written, well-produced, singalong chorus, constructed to be hits.

Quote
Spud

Quote
matxil
Let me add that I like the Stones because they were special in the sense that they combined groovy American roots music (blues and soul mainly) with a certain pop-sense, but without loosing their rawness. As exemplified especially at their start, and later from late-60s until mid-70s, with a small revival at the end of the 70s. I recently read an interview with the former Police drummer, Stewart Copeland, who said that with the Stones everyone was part of the rhythm section: Charlie, Bill, the guitars and Mick Jagger. It was their aproach to rhythm. Added to that, the particular approach (and sound) of Keith's guitars (licks, riffs and just strumming) and - of course - Mick's voice both in sound, dynamics and - again - rhythm.

I wouldn't quarrel with any of that.

It's the unique groove...and the mechanics of it have oft been discussed on these pages.

Bill leaving and Charlie's sad passing have both been bemoaned as dilutions of a potent formula ...

...but sometimes all it needs to give the lift is Mick's audacious phrasing or Keith's idiosyncratic timing.

Had the Stones gotten a New Orleans (or Gulf Coast) drummer... it would be so completely different. By no means saying the Stones would've/could've become a more funk oriented band - Steve Jordan, barring any other drummer possible - without Charlie's nod - is it.

The beauty of all previous studio - and live - albums is that preservation of Charlie.

If you don't think Steve Jordan is capable etc... stop listening.

With Charlie's nod, The Rolling Stones continue.

It's that simple.

Mick had heart valve surgery. Ronnie has had two bouts of cancer. Keith hit his head on a tree branch. Charlie got cancer again and died.

They're still going.

They have their legacy. 'Oh it's not The Rolling Stones.'

Yes it is.

It's really that simple.

Quote
GasLightStreet

...They're still going.

They have their legacy. 'Oh it's not The Rolling Stones.'

Yes it is.

It's really that simple.

Too right.

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
windmelody

Quote
bakersfield
...

It is great if you enjoy Hackney Diamonds, Bakersfield, and you definitely have a point: Many Stones songs depend on the band's performance: Jagger's voice, the weaving of the guitars, the rhythm section. Yet, to my impression, many songs on Hackney Diamonds sound fresh, but very constructed. An example for that is Angry. And Sweet Sounds of Heaven is nice, but nothing more. I have to think it through, but I do not find it too overwhelming, when the Stones try to find an approach like any other band.

This is true. However, many aren't: Dreamy Skies, Live By The Sword, Tell Me Straight, Rolling Stone Blues. Driving Me Too Hard isn't really that constructed, either.

Looking back on the Stones classics, for instance, JJF, YCAGWYW, HTW, TD, MY, SMU. They are pretty much constructed as well, aren't they?

Maybe they made a bit more songs that were single material/contenders for this album? After all, 18 years had passed since their last album of original songs.

I'm a bit confused (and curious) about the concept constructed. Why do you think the songs you mention are constructed? The songs you mention seem pretty straightforward to me, chord-structure wise rather obvious. But maybe I don't understand what you guys mean with constructed?

Angry for example consists of parts, which sound like snippets of different songs attached to each other - the song to me does not seem to be from one piece. If others enjoy it - fine. I begin to like it when the coda with the guitar licks, the drums and the keyboards set in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-26 17:52 by windmelody.

Mr Trout made his own SSOH, I guess...[www.youtube.com]

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
shadooby
I’m talking about the new 2cd with live disc just released.

My version of this plays just fine.

Also tried both on my car cd deck. Same result. I’m replacing with another from Amazon. Maybe third times a charm and not three strikes and I’m out.

Quote
shadooby

Also tried both on my car cd deck. Same result.

Have you tried a CD player from friends or in a HiFi-shop? Maybe your CD players have dust on the lens, e.g. due to smoking?

Nope don’t smoke. Two separate copies skipping or hanging at exact same spot on 3 different cd decks and 1 pc can rule that out. It’s a manufacturing defect.

Quote
shadooby
Nope don’t smoke. Two separate copies skipping or hanging at exact same spot on 3 different cd decks and 1 pc can rule that out. It’s a manufacturing defect.

Sounds like a problem with the batch from Amazon.

First was from Rolling Stones official store second was from Amazon.

Quote
shadooby
First was from Rolling Stones official store second was from Amazon.

...and you're quite sure you don't smoke?

Smoke what?

..... the back-wheels of ya Goggomobile .... HHHHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



ROCKMAN

Quote
MadMetaphoricalMax
There's a lot of crafting, care and detail on these songs, even if it's just where the handclaps begin, or where there is a little twist of a counter-riff to strengthen the whole structure. More so than on quite a number of their albums, and if it's a different modus operandi, then fine - because the result to me is a joyous, classic album, still on repeated listen, still making you jump about and sing along. Love it to death!

You could say the same thing about Start Me Up - including the cowbell.

Quote
Spud

Quote
matxil
Let me add that I like the Stones because they were special in the sense that they combined groovy American roots music (blues and soul mainly) with a certain pop-sense, but without loosing their rawness. As exemplified especially at their start, and later from late-60s until mid-70s, with a small revival at the end of the 70s. I recently read an interview with the former Police drummer, Stewart Copeland, who said that with the Stones everyone was part of the rhythm section: Charlie, Bill, the guitars and Mick Jagger. It was their aproach to rhythm. Added to that, the particular approach (and sound) of Keith's guitars (licks, riffs and just strumming) and - of course - Mick's voice both in sound, dynamics and - again - rhythm.

I wouldn't quarrel with any of that.

It's the unique groove...and the mechanics of it have oft been discussed on these pages.

Bill leaving and Charlie's sad passing have both been bemoaned as dilutions of a potent formula ...

...but sometimes all it needs to give the lift is Mick's audacious phrasing or Keith's idiosyncratic timing.

And... change.

If some other band had done equivalent to Angry - Oh they're trying to sound like the Stones!

Keep rolling with the Stones or stop, because of ABC.

At this point... obviously... it's about continuing on.

There's what Charlie said... and there's reality.

Quote
shadooby

First was from Rolling Stones official store second was from Amazon.

Try Japanese SHM-CD instead - [www.CDJapan.co.jp] , [www.Amazon.co.jp] , [www.jpc.de] . Different pressing due to different material.

Just got my third replacement. Rips fine and plays fine. Finally.

Quote
shadooby

Just got my third replacement. Rips fine and plays fine.

Problem solved.

Quote
MadMetaphoricalMax
There's a lot of crafting, care and detail on these songs, even if it's just where the handclaps begin, or where there is a little twist of a counter-riff to strengthen the whole structure. More so than on quite a number of their albums, and if it's a different modus operandi, then fine - because the result to me is a joyous, classic album, still on repeated listen, still making you jump about and sing along. Love it to death!

Agreed. Totally. Love this album.

Rod

Quote
shadooby
Nope don’t smoke. Two separate copies skipping or hanging at exact same spot on 3 different cd decks and 1 pc can rule that out. It’s a manufacturing defect.

Sounds like 2000s style copy protection.

Quote
shadooby
Just got my third replacement. Rips fine and plays fine. Finally.

My first copy of Live Racket just arrived from Amazon. It plays completely fine for me, but my jewel case came 'shattered' in pieces.

That's some Hackney Diamonds right there!!!

I just came to look at it as it’s a bonus if the jewel case isn’t broken or cracked from Amazon. I’ve watched them just toss the package onto the concrete step. Luckily I have a ton of extra single cases but not the double. It does get old.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-29 02:58 by shadooby.

When I bought my first Rolling Stones album I was enamored with it, albeit Side A mostly. Then again, the big red cover and the name ROLLING STONES.

I had just turned 11 years old 10 days prior to its US release and not long after started 6th grade. Heard Start Me Up on an AM radio (from inside a teddy bear).

A girl in my class, the daughter of a local grocery store (where I bought the album, along with AC/DC's FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK - hey mom, look, an album with a canon on it, it's gotta be good; Ok... and Asia's AISA - a grocery store that sold albums - can you imagine going in to get some salad, whatever, some bananas, some kind of steak, whatever else, AND a Rolling Stones album?), asked me one day in that year, I can't recall exactly when, obviously late fall/early winter, upon seeing me scribble the tongue logo on a notebook, "Have you seen Mick in his UK/US flag cape?"

I was completely dumbfounded.

What?

"Oh it's really cool!" she said.

What are you talking about?

"Mick Jagger."

What about him.

"The Stones tour."

What?

To this day I have no idea what she was talking about in regard to what she was talking about: how she knew that. Maybe it was some magazine. Maybe it was MTV. Maybe it was the PPV.

She never said.

I eventually figured out what she was talking about a while later, as in, 1989.

A couple years later I saw the Undercover Of The Night video on MTV while at piano lessons. I heard Mick singing "Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo" etc on the school bus radio and thought, I've got to get that album.

Turns out the school bus song wasn't on the album but the MTV song was.

Finally figured it out via an older friend that is a Stones fan and magically for Christmas (this makes no sense but it's what happened) GOATS HEAD SOUP finally delivered the Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo song.

Then I got REWIND and started back tracking to the albums my dad had (BIG HITS, BEGGARS, BLEED, YA-YA'S and HOT ROCKS 1 and 2).

Not in order.

It makes no sense how I came to discover the post-1969 discog sans GHS pre-TY.

But I did.

EXILE was the last album I got into.

In the spring of 1982 a girlfriend got me SUCKING IN THE SEVENTIES as a present, maybe Valentine's, I'm not really sure.

It was pretty funny: she heard me say, with no context at all, that I wish I could get that album with the tongue on it (not knowing what I was saying). Well, the cellophane wrapper had the tongue on it so... she got me that album!

She said something like, Here's what you asked for!

I had no idea. I recognized two songs on it and thought, I already have those (SOME GIRLS). But I accepted it and gleefully went home.

That may be the origin of why I think SITS is such a fantastic comp...

The enjoyment of HACKNEY DIAMONDS is different than me getting those albums back then yet it has the same wonderment: what is this?

For a kid not knowing the gap between TATTOO YOU and basically LET IT BLEED... it's no wonder TY and UNERCOVER have such weight (and why DIRTY WORK is so disappointing).

HD has the energy, creativity and attitude that is TY and SG and... is weirdly more of a Stones album than STEEL WHEELS or VOODOO LOUNGE, the last albums before the tinkering got involved.

HD is refreshing.

If it is their last album it's an excellent way to end. If not, fine, whatever.