Quote
dedospegajosos
...
I agree with anynone who says this is a good album, and I also agree with anyone who says it is their worst album. Never happened to me before with any other stones album

I think all the months and years of anticipation maybe messed with our heads when it finally appeared

Firstly, it was a good thing that they finally released a new album. Much better than another tour or re-release. It was the best thing that could happen. A breath of fresh air.
Secondly, I think there is a pattern of hyperbole for a long time when a new album is released. This was the case even for "Super Heavy". The negative criticism usually comes later on.

I love everything the Stones do but I understand that expressing negative criticism is healthy and necessary. But that criticism has zero influence on my appreciation of the rolling stones.
Rockandroll,
Mops

If you imagine Hackney Diamonds has avoided negative criticism, you have not been paying attention to this site!
Still it's been a good mix and more in favour than against - and I see more people coming out to say how much they like the album now than in the first six months of post-release 'hyperbole'

As I hinted at earlier. Time is perhaps giving a bit more perspective.

Leaving any conscious analysis to one side...I simply feel that I'm developing a lasting affection and "relationship" with this album that didn't happen for example with VL or ABB .
[B2B kind of tried to seduce me ..but never really got me ]

.........update to my previous post about the album, which I didn't think of at the time; we do not have the luxury of constant radio airplay, even WZLX in Boston, which in the late 60's early 70's was pioneering FM station WBCN, doesn't play it.

Something about turning up the volume while riding along in your "cah" certainly makes you appreciate the album even more.

Quote
jigsaw69
You're entitled to your opinion sir. Don't know if i'd have wasted so much time being negative.

Personally I think it's a great album. SSoH is possibly in my Stones top 10. It's The Stones in 2023, not '78. In the same way it was the Stones in '71, not '63.

It's amazing how they have evolved. The evolution may not be what you/we wanted. It's their life tho. They lived it as they wanted. We are just passengers who are along for the ride.....

I am just incredibly appreciative that guys who are late 70s/early 80s, can knock out an album like this, really care about it, and feel good enough to play it live in NYC the week it gets released.

This aint gonna last forever. Time lasts for no one as they said. Clock is ticking on them and all of us. Let's cherish they are still here and able to be creative and tour....

Imagine having this (iorr, etc) in 1973 after that run of albums came out:

Mick has lost his senses - he's singing about dragons in the sky!

Keith has lost is way! He doesn't write like he used to!

Etc.

Since the beginning of chat rooms and obviously socail media and fan sites, more and more opinions are expressed EVERY DAY. Aside from iorr.org being "localised" in regards to one band, overall, opinions, fortunately, lose site of the past, and in regard to recorded music, the print doesn't change.

Before chat rooms etc DIRTY WORK was - and remains - their worst album, with TSMR second (they should've made it an EP with the obvious tracks being key). Some say UNDERCOVER, some say STEEL WHEELS, some say VOODOO LOUNGE, some say A BIGGER BANG.

But to say that HACKNEY DIAMONDS is their worst?

That's ludicrous. SSOH, Angry, WWW, Tell Me Straight... and a few others: excellent songs for The Rolling Stones overall, and, most importantly, excellent songs for The Rolling Stones in 2023 and beyond.

But, you know, there's no accounting for people's taste, just the judgement of it (avoiding them).

It's fun to go off the rails about how bad something is - I've done it a lot about DIRTY WORK - yet, bizarrely, I still listen to some of the damn thing - occasionally: it's the absolute least listened to LP of their discography, and even with reducing it to an EP, like TSMR, it's still not remotely anything to listen to.

It doesn't matter that it's critically an awful album and the Stones themselves think poorly of it (they've played only 2 songs from it live, ever). They think poorly of obvious good albums as well.

The Stones will praise any new release as... hyperbole can be entered here... and a few years latter it's slagged or lightly mentioned or extremely highlighted. Depends on when and what.

HACKNEY DIAMONDS is absolutely the best thing, in my mind, since UNDERCOVER, in that inventive/creative way (although slightly less), but certainly since TATTOO YOU/SOME GIRLS in the songwriting way.

But!

That doesn't matter.

Just like someone hating it.

Is HD still in the charts in some countries?

In Germany, Hackney Diamonds is still #37 after 18 weeks - [www.OffizielleCharts.de] .

Quote
Spud
As I hinted at earlier. Time is perhaps giving a bit more perspective.

Leaving any conscious analysis to one side...I simply feel that I'm developing a lasting affection and "relationship" with this album that didn't happen for example with VL or ABB .
[B2B kind of tried to seduce me ..but never really got me ]

Great observation.

I'd like to get blunt and say HD is both a show-er and a grower.

Quote
mailexile67
Is HD still in the charts in some countries?

Universal did an amazing job to keep the album high in the charts until Christmas, but after that it went from Top 10 to out of the Top 100/200 in less than a month almost everywere.

In a trend that had already started with Blue and Lonesome, a new Stones release is treated as a seasonal album, a Christmas album, which has excellent sales in October/December and disappears from the radar after December 25.

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
mailexile67
Is HD still in the charts in some countries?

Universal did an amazing job to keep the album high in the charts until Christmas, but after that it went from Top 10 to out of the Top 100/200 in less than a month almost everywere.

In a trend that had already started with Blue and Lonesome, a new Stones release is treated as a seasonal album, a Christmas album, which has excellent sales in October/December and disappears from the radar after December 25.

And I was thinking HD was the exception to the rule. It stayed high on almost all the charts for weeks on end, instead of charting high in the first week and dropping off the charts in the usual two or three weeks like almost every other record does nowadays. HD even managed to climb up the charts again after dropping a few places. Clever marketing, yes, but marketing works the same for everyone. And I don't consider an October release to be Christmas related or else half of my collection would be Christmas albums



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-02-25 20:20 by SomeGuy.

Over 1,200,000 sold so far worldwide righe now is a great result, nowadays...

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
mailexile67
Is HD still in the charts in some countries?

Universal did an amazing job to keep the album high in the charts until Christmas, but after that it went from Top 10 to out of the Top 100/200 in less than a month almost everywere.

In a trend that had already started with Blue and Lonesome, a new Stones release is treated as a seasonal album, a Christmas album, which has excellent sales in October/December and disappears from the radar after December 25.

...this album did not followed the trend..it was exeptionnal..HD had nearly the curse of "Sticky fingers " and other greats Stones 70's albums in the world, ,except USA...see the numbers in the charts..!

Quote
Swayed1967
My review of HD. Let me preface it by saying I haven’t listened to it in months.

Angry – Vacuous lyrics (sad when compared to Mick’s truly provocative lyrics in the 60s and 70s but I suppose we should all be used to it by now) but the mediocrity of the song is partially concealed by the production. It kinda sounds like ‘Sweethearts Together’ on steroids. It’s ok, I guess, if you’re the kind of Stones fan who goes gaga over Voodoo Lounge. I stopped listening to VL 30 years ago (except ‘The Worst’) and I’ve already stopped listening to ‘Angry.’

Get Close – The verses are vaguely reminiscent of Jagger’s ‘Too Far Gone’ (a rare Jagger solo song that I don’t despise) but don’t think I’ll be returning to this song either unless I have a craving for a good sax solo because that’s the only highlight. ‘I wanna get close to you?’ Sheesh. A song about ‘Glenn Close’ would probably be far more interesting than this tired cliché.

Depending on You – This is the song that lasted the longest in my YouTube rotation. I have nothing bad to say about it except it’s not really a song that requires the presence of Keith and Ronnie. It’s also a song that suffers somewhat from Jagger’s nasally delivery so I’m not even sure it belongs on one of his solo records. Would love to hear what Leo Sayer could do with this.

Bite My Head Off – Puerile…McCartney deserved better.

Whole Wide World - The lyrics aren’t as half-assed as usual and for that alone I’m calling this the best song on the record. But why they decided to write a song that mimics the style of Depeche Mode baffles the hell out of me. No, it’s more than just baffling. It’s not like, say, Miss You where they give disco a Stonesy treatment. It’s almost like the Stones had a sex-change operation. And forgive me but that makes me say ‘ooh.’

Dreamy Skies – More 80 y/o muscle flexing by the boys here with this fantastic addition to the lullaby genre.

Mess It Up – This one truly belongs on a Jagger solo album..you know, those albums you own but never play.

Live By The Sword – ‘Filler’ is the most generous word I can think of to describe this tuneless masterclass in inept songwriting.

Driving Me Too Hard – Pleasantly repetitive song for life after the lobotomy.

Tell Me Straight – OK, Keith, I’ll tell ya straight – wait, what was the question again? Oh yeah, no you’ll never write a song as good as ‘Happy’ again.

Sweet Sounds of Heaven – If this is a tribute to Charlie, then it’s OK and Mick you’re forgiven for that stupid line about dusty motels.

Rolling Stone Blues – Well, this one’s alright, innit?

Well that's all just silly isn't it. Just say you're not keen - you don't need to try to convince everyone else by writing 'funny' little captions. Especially when you're on your own :'D

Give Swayed1967 a break. All his posts miles the same vein. That's his niche here on IORR (and at times he's quite good I must say).

I bet he enjoyed HD at some point

Indeed, it does seem a bit odd to spend so much time detailing why you don't like something (especially so long after the initial rush of responses). I, personally, don't care for SSOH at all, but I just skip it and concentrate on the other tracks that I love. And am happy for you guys that do rate that song.

Quote
Barkerboy2

Quote
Swayed1967
My review of HD. Let me preface it by saying I haven’t listened to it in months.

[...]

Well that's all just silly isn't it. Just say you're not keen - you don't need to try to convince everyone else by writing 'funny' little captions. Especially when you're on your own :'D

He's not on his own. And anyway, I wonder why people get so upset if someone posts something else than the eternal "HD is the best things since the invention of the wheel" and "HD is still at #3 in top-sales in Lituania".
Personally, if someone would post here a list of songs from Exile, explaining why he doesn't like them, I would find that refreshing to read, even though I personally think Exile might very well indeed be the best thing since the invention of ... well, at least rock n roll.
Just as I found it refreshing in the past to read HMS going on about how great DW is. He didn't convince me, but I kind of like the idea that there might be more angles to a song or an album than the most popular view.
And face it: Bite My Head Off ís infantile. So was Oh No No Not You Again, but I found that one funnier.

Quote
matxil

Quote
Barkerboy2

Quote
Swayed1967
My review of HD. Let me preface it by saying I haven’t listened to it in months.

[...]

Well that's all just silly isn't it. Just say you're not keen - you don't need to try to convince everyone else by writing 'funny' little captions. Especially when you're on your own :'D

He's not on his own. And anyway, I wonder why people get so upset if someone posts something else than the eternal "HD is the best things since the invention of the wheel" and "HD is still at #3 in top-sales in Lituania".
Personally, if someone would post here a list of songs from Exile, explaining why he doesn't like them, I would find that refreshing to read, even though I personally think Exile might very well indeed be the best thing since the invention of ... well, at least rock n roll.
Just as I found it refreshing in the past to read HMS going on about how great DW is. He didn't convince me, but I kind of like the idea that there might be more angles to a song or an album than the most popular view.
And face it: Bite My Head Off ís infantile. So was Oh No No Not You Again, but I found that one funnier.

but on repeat listens, I find myself enjoying that one more than ever. Whereas WWW was excellent from the get go, BMHO took a bit to truly appreciate.

Damn, I've missed all those pages where ' the eternal "HD is the best things since the invention of the [steel] wheel". It's more intriguing that some people get exercised on a fan board by people who really *like* the new album, rather than offloading thirty years of disappointment at meh studio albums onto what is a really brilliant new one, which is something that no one at all expected from our boys...
Bite My Head Off is indeed puerile, childish and tasteless, it lets Mick down, the band down, it lets us all down, and I love it. Especially the immortal lines

"Why you bite my head off
acting like a despot
just because you're red hot
why you bite my head off noooooowwwwwwww"

Quote
MadMetaphoricalMax
Damn, I've missed all those pages where ' the eternal "HD is the best things since the invention of the [steel] wheel"
[...]

Good one.

Curious will the Racket RSD release count toward the sales of HD or will it stand on its own now since it's a new release/new title?

Quote
matxil

Quote
Barkerboy2

Quote
Swayed1967
My review of HD. Let me preface it by saying I haven’t listened to it in months.

[...]

Well that's all just silly isn't it. Just say you're not keen - you don't need to try to convince everyone else by writing 'funny' little captions. Especially when you're on your own :'D

He's not on his own. And anyway, I wonder why people get so upset if someone posts something else than the eternal "HD is the best things since the invention of the wheel" and "HD is still at #3 in top-sales in Lituania".
Personally, if someone would post here a list of songs from Exile, explaining why he doesn't like them, I would find that refreshing to read, even though I personally think Exile might very well indeed be the best thing since the invention of ... well, at least rock n roll.
Just as I found it refreshing in the past to read HMS going on about how great DW is. He didn't convince me, but I kind of like the idea that there might be more angles to a song or an album than the most popular view.
And face it: Bite My Head Off ís infantile. So was Oh No No Not You Again, but I found that one funnier.

A few years ago, on some thread, I opined on why I thought EOMS would've been better as a single album minus whatever (one of the few things HMS and I agreed on!), the songs on it that just don't do it for me, and, probably, exclaimed how SF could've been a double album (considering a bit of some SF leftovers make up a chunk of EOMS).

And I don't just mean the ABKCO Music tracks that are on EOMS just like all of SF is (except one). They were a little sneaky with some of them it seems - and rightfully so.

As I recall, anyway (later used for GHS). Could be wrong.

Then the deluxe reissue came out and it was clear why some of the France recordings didn't make the album - they just aren't good enough. Pass The Wine, Plundered and I'm Not Signifying are excellent - but two of those three weren't finished, and Signifying was closer and possibly could've been finished, since they did different multiple takes of it, especially when you consider that they finished EOMS in Los Angeles with overdubs and possibly recording from scratch with some (and the excellent dirty version of Signifying used in that movie is not what made the deluxe, which, uhhhhh, come guys, why not include that version?).

Then again, if they'd finished some songs for GHS (Tops, Criss Cross, Waiting On A Friend) and BAB (Worried, supposedly Start Me Up, Slave) and SG and ER (the rest of the album, give or take Start Me Up) those albums could/would be different.

Instead we got what there is, which works no matter what. Hindsight might be 20/20, and has Mick expressed, not verbatim, 'unfinished songs meant we didn't like them but turns out they were good' well there you have that Stones gumbo working - they started them, had an idea, finished 1-25, left 26-40 for later, got to some of those later, left the rest, and it turns out 'the rest', some of them, anyway, were absolutely viable, just not at the time.

That Jagger/Richards lens hasn't always been clear, overall, just at that moment, and, admittedly, via Mick, not the best at that moment, either.

Oh well!

In all of that regard, all the recordings they did after B&L, all but 3 as is sit in the can and apparently are waiting to be released - or done again.

For example, Bite My Head Off being skewed by many: The Stones (Mick) thought it was a viable song for HD (of course it's an updated Eazy Sleazy).

So it made the album because it fit their idea at the moment.

Yet that Midnight Rambler-esque song has been left alone. And the Tell The Truth song got left off.

And loads of others, what, they supposedly worked on 40 something songs of Mick's 40 some demos and some (three!!??) of Keith's, somehow amassing 60 to 100 recorded songs ... and then started completely over with Andrew Watt (holy crap I almost typed JJ Watt!). They did 40 some for SG and 40 some for ER. Some of those not chosen LP tracks went on TY. Just from those two albums' sessions there was a lot leftover to choose from for TY nevermind going back to leftovers from BAB, IORR and GHS. But they did.

I've got three songs and they‘re dynamite. I don‘t want to make any decisions about this until this record comes out, because I think it might radically change Mick‘s attitude; it might change mine. I want to see the fallout from (Blue & Lonesome) before I decide whether I want to record 40 of Mick‘s songs or whether he wants to sit down with me and record some songs together. That‘s my thing. That‘s my ball there. I‘ve always got a few songs on the back burner and so does Mick - he writes a lot. I don‘t. I tend to concentrate on two or three really interesting riffs or ideas, rather than being prolific... We did (record new songs) but they're still being worked on.
- Keith Richards, October-November 2016


Those new songs we worked on? To be honest with you, we don't really have a handle on it yet. The clay is on the table, but it doesn't look like President Lincoln yet! I will say that for this new album, Mick has played me probably 40 songs that he has been working on, and they really run the gamut.
- Don Was, October-November 2016

In mid-October, I flew to Paris to get with Mick. We listened to everything they recorded at Electric Lady, and we listened to stuff they recorded in Jamaica. We listened to stuff from the past that they recorded with Don. We listened to demos. We listened to over 100 songs, no question. We started picking the things that we liked and talking about things that could change.
- Andrew Watt, September 2023


(The Stones brought me) 60, 70, 80 songs.
- Andrew Watt, September 2023

[timeisonourside.com]

Quote
matxil

Quote
Barkerboy2

Quote
Swayed1967
My review of HD. Let me preface it by saying I haven’t listened to it in months.

[...]

Well that's all just silly isn't it. Just say you're not keen - you don't need to try to convince everyone else by writing 'funny' little captions. Especially when you're on your own :'D

He's not on his own. And anyway, I wonder why people get so upset if someone posts something else than the eternal "HD is the best things since the invention of the wheel" and "HD is still at #3 in top-sales in Lituania".
Personally, if someone would post here a list of songs from Exile, explaining why he doesn't like them, I would find that refreshing to read, even though I personally think Exile might very well indeed be the best thing since the invention of ... well, at least rock n roll.
Just as I found it refreshing in the past to read HMS going on about how great DW is. He didn't convince me, but I kind of like the idea that there might be more angles to a song or an album than the most popular view.
And face it: Bite My Head Off ís infantile. So was Oh No No Not You Again, but I found that one funnier.

Now this is embarrassing. Obviously you think very little of Lituania, but one of my relatives is from there, Lituania is a great country with nice people, and having HD so high in the charts is a great achievement, tells a lot about lituanian musical taste and really means something, last but not least for the Stones themselves. Putting Lituania down in this way is totally unjustified. Or did you mean Lampukistan?

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Curious will the Racket RSD release count toward the sales of HD or will it stand on its own now since it's a new release/new title?

new release.

The combo version at least has the original album with Racket as a 'bonus'.

Quote
GasLightStreet

A few years ago, on some thread, I opined on why I thought EOMS would've been better as a single album minus whatever (one of the few things HMS and I agreed on!), the songs on it that just don't do it for me, and, probably, exclaimed how SF could've been a double album (considering a bit of some SF leftovers make up a chunk of EOMS).

And I don't just mean the ABKCO Music tracks that are on EOMS just like all of SF is (except one). They were a little sneaky with some of them it seems - and rightfully so.

As I recall, anyway (later used for GHS). Could be wrong.

Then the deluxe reissue came out and it was clear why some of the France recordings didn't make the album - they just aren't good enough. Pass The Wine, Plundered and I'm Not Signifying are excellent - but two of those three weren't finished, and Signifying was closer and possibly could've been finished, since they did different multiple takes of it, especially when you consider that they finished EOMS in Los Angeles with overdubs and possibly recording from scratch with some (and the excellent dirty version of Signifying used in that movie is not what made the deluxe, which, uhhhhh, come guys, why not include that version?).

Then again, if they'd finished some songs for GHS (Tops, Criss Cross, Waiting On A Friend) and BAB (Worried, supposedly Start Me Up, Slave) and SG and ER (the rest of the album, give or take Start Me Up) those albums could/would be different.

Instead we got what there is, which works no matter what. Hindsight might be 20/20, and has Mick expressed, not verbatim, 'unfinished songs meant we didn't like them but turns out they were good' well there you have that Stones gumbo working - they started them, had an idea, finished 1-25, left 26-40 for later, got to some of those later, left the rest, and it turns out 'the rest', some of them, anyway, were absolutely viable, just not at the time.

That Jagger/Richards lens hasn't always been clear, overall, just at that moment, and, admittedly, via Mick, not the best at that moment, either.

Oh well!

In all of that regard, all the recordings they did after B&L, all but 3 as is sit in the can and apparently are waiting to be released - or done again.

For example, Bite My Head Off being skewed by many: The Stones (Mick) thought it was a viable song for HD (of course it's an updated Eazy Sleazy).

So it made the album because it fit their idea at the moment.

Yet that Midnight Rambler-esque song has been left alone. And the Tell The Truth song got left off.

And loads of others, what, they supposedly worked on 40 something songs of Mick's 40 some demos and some (three!!??) of Keith's, somehow amassing 60 to 100 recorded songs ... and then started completely over with Andrew Watt (holy crap I almost typed JJ Watt!). They did 40 some for SG and 40 some for ER. Some of those not chosen LP tracks went on TY. Just from those two albums' sessions there was a lot leftover to choose from for TY nevermind going back to leftovers from BAB, IORR and GHS. But they did.

I've got three songs and they‘re dynamite. I don‘t want to make any decisions about this until this record comes out, because I think it might radically change Mick‘s attitude; it might change mine. I want to see the fallout from (Blue & Lonesome) before I decide whether I want to record 40 of Mick‘s songs or whether he wants to sit down with me and record some songs together. That‘s my thing. That‘s my ball there. I‘ve always got a few songs on the back burner and so does Mick - he writes a lot. I don‘t. I tend to concentrate on two or three really interesting riffs or ideas, rather than being prolific... We did (record new songs) but they're still being worked on.
- Keith Richards, October-November 2016


Those new songs we worked on? To be honest with you, we don't really have a handle on it yet. The clay is on the table, but it doesn't look like President Lincoln yet! I will say that for this new album, Mick has played me probably 40 songs that he has been working on, and they really run the gamut.
- Don Was, October-November 2016

In mid-October, I flew to Paris to get with Mick. We listened to everything they recorded at Electric Lady, and we listened to stuff they recorded in Jamaica. We listened to stuff from the past that they recorded with Don. We listened to demos. We listened to over 100 songs, no question. We started picking the things that we liked and talking about things that could change.
- Andrew Watt, September 2023


(The Stones brought me) 60, 70, 80 songs.
- Andrew Watt, September 2023

[timeisonourside.com]

Cheers, Skippy. Good stuff.

But I think the greatness of HACKNEY DIAMONDS, like it was once the case with SOME GIRLS, is that it was not a collection of best songs available, but finding the fitting ones to contribute the whole. The album needs to have a purpose of its own, to stand on its own feet and to distinguish from the others. This seemingly was the idea Jagger was after. For the album being not 'just good, but a great one'. Yeah, there were lots of songs from various sessions, but as Mick has said, he didn't want the album to be a collection of best pieces from those. Something was missing. Probably he thought there were lots of songs, but not an album there.

I am pretty sure that we will hear some day some other tunes from those past sessions, and I am also pretty sure there will be tunes people find superior to the ones released on HACKNEY DIAMONDS. Probably some traditional more 'Stonesy' pieces were rejected for the album sounding fresh and novel, you know, hackneydiamonds-like. Not probably something like "Start Me Up" was rejected to get room for a more fitting "Lies", but one gets the picture I hope.

The more I listen HACKNEY DIAMONDS I am impressed how distinguished it manages to sound. The way it is cooked - using damn old raw material (no way there was a wheel invented) - but somehow managing to sound different but still delicious is not an easy task.

Actually that was my fear. Can the Stones really add anything to what they have already said.

We might think that A BIGGER BANG, released ages ago, is the point of reference here. Probably to an extent it was (although I don't trust their memory or interest here), but I think the bigger problem was the stuff the Stones have been releasing during the last couple of years, the stuff especially Mick was very familiar with: the bonus material to their old albums. That material is as classic Stones as it ever can be, but served more or less in a modern clothing. Like we know the idea was not to be authentic but the material polished for current needs. Especially Jagger worked for it like new material (his muse doesn't seem to avoid that). It wasn't done just a historically-oriented die-hard fanbase in mind. It was considered more commercial, although, as it turned out to be, there was no interest for it outside the hardcore fanbase (and even them, let's be frank my fellow IORRians, they were not that excited either).

So just to my enjoyment, I made a sort of best of collection of that bonus material. You know, of the tracks I like most. The result is a very good Stones album, much better I think than their previous albums. Listening to it made me going (this was prior the release of HACKNEY DIAMONDS): can the current Stones ever top that? Or how would the new album sound like compared to that? And what we are here talking about basically it was just second-rate material from the past.

So I think the real challenge was for them not to sound like that. The new album need to distinguished from the classic Stones sound - something we have been treated for years and probably not even recognizing that (since it is taken for granted). Would it be even absurd if the 'modern' Stones sound exactly like the second-rate material from over 40 years old sessions? What would be the point of a new album in that case? Like the Stones making a final statement that they are artistically totally dead and gone?

So the first impression I had of HACKNEY DIAMONDS was: oh man, they did it! They managed to update their thing. That alone made a huge impression for me.

Funny thing is that if I read the criticism of HACKNEY DIAMONDS in terms of it 'not sounding like the Stones', the point of reference - them sounding like the classical Stones - is actually the bonus material in those albums (do people recognize that or not). But are people really that excited when they listen to that bonus material? C'mon, be honest...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2024-02-27 16:34 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

But are people really that excited when they listen to that bonus material? C'mon, be honest...

- Doxa

Honest? The songs are good, but while I loved the "genuine" outtakes, never got into the old/new concept. Sort of old black and white photos colorized by computers years later. That is what spoiled my appreciation for those songs.

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
Doxa

But are people really that excited when they listen to that bonus material? C'mon, be honest...

- Doxa

Honest? The songs are good, but while I loved the "genuine" outtakes, never got into the old/new concept. Sort of old black and white photos colorized by computers years later. That is what spoiled my appreciation for those songs.

C

Thanks for your reply. I think that is quite popular opinion about the 'Frankenstein' tracks among us diehards. Had we not being familiar with the original out-takes, it could have been probably easier to appreciate the results. You know, listening the tunes as they are, not comparing them to anything. It was easier to like, say, "Plundered My Soul" or "Scarlet", since there was nothing to compare there.

The knowledge causes pain sometimes...

But anyway, I think the moral of that point can be generalized to apply to new studio material as well. We know how they once sounded like - listening our old records - and that could be used as a point of reference: I know how they supposed to sound like, and they do not manage to do that any longer. I think I have had that problem with some of their past albums. The concept 'Stones-by-numbers' derives from that. Them like mimicking themselves. Too many times I have 'oh, this sounds like that, but its like its poor relative, not the real thing'. That's been probably my main issue with an album like VOODOO LOUNGE - why should I listen to it as I can listen to EXILE ON MAIN STREET or STICKY FINGERS? it could be, have I had not known those albums, I might like VOODOO LOUNGE more.

But that's why I am so stunned and surprised by HACKNEY DIAMONDS. It sounds fresh and novel. It is full of nods to the past - bloody hell, the whole album is nothing but recicling old ideas - but it manages to use them in such a novel or even genius way that I don't find myself missing the old records. I would even put it - I did argue for this many pages ago here in this thread - to the company of AFTERMATH, BEGGARS BANQUET, SOME GIRLS and STEEL WHEELS in their recorded album history - those landmark albums them suddenly finding a new angle and focus to their doings and delivering it convincingly. That's art at its best. Even if I know it's only rock'n'roll...

- Doxa

I am afraid I cannot provide any interesting contribution to your point, Doxa, because the words you use to praise HD are my thoughts on just about any album that followed the "golden era" ...

There are times when I play the producer game, I try to change things and see what happens. Be it the running order of an album, the inclusion of an outtake, a re-mix (when the single tracks of a song are available, remember Shelter and Love is Strong), a different edit of a song (cutting and pasting choruses and verses in different sequences) and so on. Usually I am pleased with my creations.

But at the same time, I also gain respect for the original release!

C

Quote
GasLightStreet
And the Tell The Truth song got left off.

"Tell the Truth" is an early version of "Mess It Up" and yes, it sounds like they really, really, really, really, really, really lost something. Incidentally Don Was brought in Andy Watt to work on that song with Mick a few years before Macca's dinner with Ronnie.

Don't forget "Driving Me Too Hard" is on Ronnie's setlist from the December 2015 British Grove sessions so that one was around a good long while. "Live by the Sword" was from the "Living in a Ghost Town" sessions in 2019. "Tell Me Straight" sounds suspiciously like it was developed from "Right, Off You Go" from the UNDERCOVER sessions.