Tell Me :
Talk
Probably both - that of hating or loving (to use those stupid terms) - can get boring or annoying after a while if repeted too much. Of course, when one is endorsing the stance it is easier to stomach...
But generally I have personally tried to apply our moderator's advice here: If you don't have anything positive to say, don't say anything. No matter how much I like good criticism - that is something else than being negative, at least in a theory - I have learned to see the practical wisdom in BV's words. Of course, I fail many times, but, shit, at least I try!
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-11 16:12 by Doxa.
Well, all comparisons are silly of course. But I think I saw his point. And I actually like Aerosmith. At least, I like "Pump". But it's an album that stands out for his melodies, his verse/chorus/bridge like songs. Maybe that's what he meant.
I think it's unquestionable that HD is an album that puts more emphasis on melody and melodic variation than the Stones did in the past. (Of course, this sounds like an invitation for people to mention Ruby Tuesday, She's a Rainbow, and a few others). You might compare that to the development of Aerosmith.
Of course, endless repeating criticisms can get boring, more boring than endless praise (or quotes about which # an album is on the national hitlist of ... (I won't say Lituania because some people seemed to think that was a slur on that country)). Positivity is less boring than negativity, unless it's on a 80's revival party and Joy Division is the way to go.
The question is: if a band changes some of its fundamental essence (which of course on itself is a subjective qualification), is there a way one can debate about that? Can one really put into words how one hears certain music, rhythms, songs, groove versus melody, riffs versus strumming, raw versus smooth, mayonaise versus ketchup, etc...? Probably not, is my guess. One's Dire Straits is the other one's Cliff Richard (hoping I don't offend anyone with this comparison).
And in any case, in a world which isn't exactly full of positive news, the fact that at least some people find at least some enjoyment in at least some albums of at least some bands, is at least something.
So there.
Well going overboard on either side can become boring. And this isn't at all directed at you Stoneage, but just a general observation.
For the positive peeps, I guess because this is a "Fan Board" you might expect and accept that POV more. People like the Stones, which is why they keep coming back. It's sort of why we're here.
The other side of it, not liking something is naturally fine as we all have different opinions and tastes. I don't like Dirty Work too much; I didn't love the song "Live By The Sword" all that much. But to feel the need to repeat it over and over again, "campaign-style", I don't understand that - what does it achieve? Does it give you cognitive dissonance that most people disagree with you?
Can't you just be satisfied in not liking something, is it that you have to convince everyone else not to like it too? Is there some sort of "satisfaction" in that? I don't get it and eventually you invite criticism to that "campaign".
To act all shocked that you "can't be sour" on an album is ludicrous. No one is stopping people from posting their opinions. However, others then can also be critical and question why it's necessary to do it over an over. And of course there has been no reason given.
"You hate the album, we hear you. Now unless you have something new to add to the discussion, why not go and find something you do like and revel in that, instead of the constant negativity?".
My guees is they will only play Angry, unless they want people looking at their phones (99% of the audience will not recognize the new material except for Angry maybe)...it would be nice indeed if they release Hackney Diamonds 2 before the tour, wouldn´t be a bad idea at all...a perfect moment and great press for the tour
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-11 19:28 by dedospegajosos.
But that is my point, the Stones have resorted to imitating the band that imitated them.
Believe me i get plenty of positives from this band, not a week passes where i don't rediscover the brilliant albums and live performances from the archives, it's a healthy obsession, the Stones i believe keep me young and healthy mentally and physically.
Yeah too bad for me i haven't got exited by the albums since Voodoo Lounge, big deal, it's not to say I'm not the fan i once was. You don't judge a person's life on their last few years and it's the same with the Stones.
Not even close, but nice try. A couple of times? ... try looking thru the thread. It's HMS all over again. It's a blatant attempt to ruin it for those that enjoy it.
"Imitating" someone or something necessarily requires a conscious decision - and I seriously doubt that the Stones had Aerosmith in mind when they recorded HD. Instead, what they had in mind was the serious intention: "a good album is not enough this time, it has to be a great one!". Take it from there. If they think that the new songs require a bit more melodic finesse to make them more instantly recognizable and distinguishable than, let's say, Driving Too Fast, Dangerous Beauty, Mean Disposition, One More Shot, Gunface, Lowdown, SNC and the like, it's a conscious artistic decision that leads us back to their 60's and 70's heydays more than anything else - and something I really appreciate.
I guess this is what I meant when I said it's highly subjective, what one considers "more melodic" or "less melodic". Nothing wrong with melodies either of course.
But I think what made the Stones stand out were songs like Satisfaction, JJF, Sympathy, Start Me Up, Midnight Rambler, or most of Exile, which I would think less melodic than the ones you mentioned and more characterized by "groove". What I used to say when the Stones were compared to the Beatles was: "Sure, the Stones never could have written Hey Jude, and yes, the Beatles might have come up with the chords of Midnight Rambler, but they couldn't have played it like the Stones". (And then it would always make me smile trying to image the Beatles playing it).
But of course, I think we can all agree that trying to imitate their past would be the worst they could have done. So, at least they tried a different angle.
I posted in February that I hadn’t listened to HD in months and took some spit in the face for it from some angry fans. For me to return in March (and perhaps again in April, May and June etc.) just to remind others that I’m still not listening to HD would be classless and base. I would be inviting more spit..I get that. But I take issue with your use of the word ‘hate.’ I don’t believe anybody on this forum ‘hates’ the new record or the Stones…or even Mick. Yes, there was a certain sense of betrayal after the first few listens, a bitter taste in one’s mouth but it was quickly spat out And that first bite was actually tasty. Am I making any sense?
Let me explain it like this. I remember going through that collection of 50 or so studio outtakes that was released a few years back and really enjoying it. Not that the songs were very good. Oh maybe a handful of the songs could’ve served as decent filler but for the most part one can only applaud the Stones for having the good sense to bury them. Of course that’s not quite true because the songs were ultimately released. Someone obviously felt those songs had value. And they do. But to me it is a very disposable product. You listen to it once, twice, maybe a third time and then throw it in the trash, so to speak.
Now if you actually purchased a hard copy rather than listening to it on YouTube like I did you’re bound to feel differently on this point. But I would wager that few people are listening to those outtakes these days. Figuratively at least those songs are in the dustbin. I certainly haven’t noticed anyone on this board gushing how three years later those outtakes still make them glad to be alive.
HD is no different IMO. I was chuffed to hear the new music but it too is a disposable product. And for my money I’d rather buy their rum than any of their records of the last 30 years. Maybe it’s just the way the music industry has changed or the way I listen to music these days but Sticky Fingers is still on my shelf. That one and a few others are keepers.
Nothing wrong with melodies, of course. Songs like Paint It, Black, Ruby Tuesday, Moonlight Mile, Shine A Light, 100 Years Ago, Miss You and Anybody Seen My Baby are very melodic, yet still very Stones.
On HD we have songs like Depending On You (yes, it is kinda Aerosmith-ish at times, Riffie! But who mastered that style first?) and Whole Wide World. The latter might be more melodic (and by melodic I mean melodic like most other bands would be - more «normal», so to speak) than we've been used to since the 70s. There are exceptions, of course.
However, that's what I like about the Stones. They tease an apparent pointless groove into a masterpiece, or place a genius melody on top of a wonky-sounding song with an arrangement that nearly falls apart. It still sounds great. Most bands don't dare to do that (for a reason), but that's their style.
WWW could have been The Jonas Brothers (The structure, the phrasing, the bridge and chorus), but it isn't. When the Stones play it, it will never sound anything remotely like them - although it sounds clumsily «modern», because of the production. When a band has obtained a signature sound, they are also freer to play around with different types of music, often with good results.
WWW sounds like it could have been on London Calling (playing-wise), imo, with fifth or sixth generation rock'n'roll hooks and choruses - so sometimes the results of what the Stones do can take unexpected turns.
Needless to say, WWW is my favourite track on HD. First and foremost because it's a good song, but also because of all the above.
True! And Wanna Hold You isn't that far off, either
However, with WWW the melodies are more developed and well-crafted - on the verses as well. More so than we've heard for a long time, imo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 12:06 by DandelionPowderman.
I think we could come up with dozens examples like that. In many cases, people are get used to the songs so well that their melodies and even poppish features are not that recognizable. Or they hear other things there that they they prefer more; the melodic pop features are served in such a form that they are not that easy to notice. For example, the chorus of "Happy" is nothing but pure pop in its easy catchniness.
I think the above-mentioned comparison to the Beatles, and how the Stones differ from them do not justice to Jagger/Richards as song-writers. Surely, they are not any John or Paul as far as catchy or even genius melodic features go, but they also have their own sense of musical melodies, an ability they are masters using in their own songs. It's not just about 'groove' or 'riffs' - in where, of course, they are non-disputed masters - especially if compared to the Beatles. I have always felt that the Stones dudes - Mick and Keith, that is - have a pretty unique, holistic attitude to a song, probably something they've learned from the blues masters. They see there more features than just the pure musical elements in terms of melody or classical chords to make the impact. The riffs, the groove, the timing, the sounds... all that - but still the melodies and other traditional Western musical elements do have a role there, but not that constitutional as it was, for example, with the (many) Beatles songs. One way to put it - in Richardsian way - is that it needs to serve the song, not to shine in its own. The less is more. But the result or cost is that if Stones songs are reduced into chords and melodies, unlike, say, many Lennon-McCartney, Paul Simon or Dylan songs they probably will lose some of their essential charm.
I think Mick and Keith mastered their shit by the time of BEGGARS BANQUET - before that they were like pupils learning the game, and many times taking a pretty traditional route in song-writing. They were great in that too: "Paint It Black", "Ruby Tuesday", "Under My Thumb", "As Tears Go By", etc. etc. But when they were able to adapt their natural song-writing skill - Keith once was like a fountain of melodies - into the form that did justice to their blues-based essence the results were simply out of this world. The Big Four is a testimony of that brilliance and inspiration. Listen, for example, how the distinctive melody line of "Sympathy For The Devil" goes through the incredible groove. Or the way the humble, but incredibly well-written melody goes through the dark blues rock of "Sway". The chords and melody of "Wild Horses" is one of the best ever crafted songs ever - even Dylan wished had written that. But there is still something more in that song than just its genius traditional musical features. For example, the chorus is not really that well-written and drags a bit. But that sounds intentional. They knew what they were doing. Then the melodical, and sometimes structural richness of YCAGWYW, "Moonlight Mile", "Let It Loose", "Shine A Light", "Loving Cup"... The melodic catchiness of such basically overtly simple pieces like "No Expectations" or "Sweet Black Angel"... EXILE is full of genius melodic lines all over the riff fiesta: "Rocks Off", "Soul Survivor", "All Down The Line"... I could go on...
There were attempts to catch that unique, holistic way of writing earlier. But I think they were like lucky incidents, happy results of trial and error, of experimentation. For example - and especially - "Satisfaction" was a result of such a luck. It really came out of the blue, and all of its components suddenly falling into right place, its creators probably most wondering 'what the hell happened - what did we do?'. They would try to imitate that, but it wasn't that easy. I think it took until "Jumpin' Jack Flash" they had matured enough as song-writers to come up into such results by other means. Not just by luck, the stars being in a right position. But to achieve that asked them experimenting with whatever things, going through 'pop era', not the least important being the psychedelic phase of SATANIC MAJESTIES.
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 14:36 by Doxa.
And when Mick was asked if they had became a disco band (this was when "Emotional Rescue" was following the success of "Miss You"), he answered, "no, we are a blues band"....
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 15:25 by Doxa.
And while Emotional Rescue was a great song if you think about it, when it came out 1980, we're already more or less past the disco era so the timing of its release is a bit off. I do recall it being mocked by my 15 year old friends who were into Back In Black at the time.
EDIT - and yet there they are a year later releasing If I Was A Dancer.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 15:49 by treaclefingers.
The issue isn't whether or not you like the album or hate it or not - you're also allowed to hate it, really. You didn't include that part of what I said in your quoting of my post so I mention it to clarify.
The issue is that to keep bringing it up incessantly...it's completely unnecessary. And further, if you do, don't be surprised when you are "challenged" for doing so...but that was probably the intent anyway, let's face it. Someone just needs "attention".
Yes this one just keeps getting better for me...and also surprisingly Bite Me Head Off, which I just saw as a bit of a throwaway rocker in the first place but it is such a great performance. Sort of in the tradition of a song like She's So Cold, which on paper isn't anything special but the performance takes it to a completely other level, so much so that they can't do it in concert and do it justice.
I think you nailed it there.
Oh, yeah - so probably Mick thought 'blues band' sounded cooler at the time...
But I have some very deep personal recollections of that 'innocent' comment, no matter what Mick meant by that. Namely, I recall it was in one of the very first Jagger interviews I read. I was hooked by just released TATTOO YOU and so I checked out my old pop magazines to find recent stories about them. So I discovered this interview and I was totally confused by that comment. A blues band? Aren't they supposed to be a rock and roll band, even the greatest of them all? Blues was a total oddity to me, and in my uneducated teenager mind - what I was? 12 or 13? - something to do with jazz, slow music, nothing to do with rock music really (that mostly meant to me punk, new wave, post-punk, heavy rock, 50's rock'n'roll or rock-a-billy, etc - the sort of stuff that was popular at the time here in Finland). But that very comment and term stuck into my mind, and I started to study the bloody thing - and I was totally blown away by what I discovered: you know, it being not just the root for anything else to come, but at itself greatest shit I ever heard. Muddy, John Lee, Robert Johnson, then later Otis, James Brown, Sam Cooke, Aretha, etc.... More I get to know, and also understand the Stones, the more I started to understand what Mick meant by that. It opened up a whole new world to me.
So it is funny that without me knowing that the history was repeating itself: The Rolling Stones was an introduction into realm of blues... Brian's old mission still working...
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 16:33 by Doxa.
Same!
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:
MadMetaphoricalMax
()
Date: March 11, 2024 13:40
People get in to different songs and albums in a variety of ways, which can be interesting to hear about and identify with, if you are a fan of the band. But when people hate an album, what they have to say about gets boring and repetitive REAL quick. And I've had a lifetime of haters in print or in person telling everyone how much they hate the Rolling Stones. 80s music hacks were the worst...
Though I did laugh at CliffReefhards 'Stones trying to imitate Aerosmith' line, given what cartoonish copycats that band were and are. Hopeless clowns at handling their drugs, for one thing, and now getting sued for sexual assault.
It's got to be the ultimate insult to suggest the Stones are trying to sound like them, one deserving its own Tom & Jerry-style barroom brawl lol - but I did laugh aa lot at that one....
Though I did laugh at CliffReefhards 'Stones trying to imitate Aerosmith' line, given what cartoonish copycats that band were and are. Hopeless clowns at handling their drugs, for one thing, and now getting sued for sexual assault.
It's got to be the ultimate insult to suggest the Stones are trying to sound like them, one deserving its own Tom & Jerry-style barroom brawl lol - but I did laugh aa lot at that one....
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 11, 2024 16:07
Quote
Stoneage
So, the logic is: If you don't like it you're allowed to state it once, maybe a couple of times, but if you like it there is no such limit? I get it if people tend to be repetitive though...
Probably both - that of hating or loving (to use those stupid terms) - can get boring or annoying after a while if repeted too much. Of course, when one is endorsing the stance it is easier to stomach...
But generally I have personally tried to apply our moderator's advice here: If you don't have anything positive to say, don't say anything. No matter how much I like good criticism - that is something else than being negative, at least in a theory - I have learned to see the practical wisdom in BV's words. Of course, I fail many times, but, shit, at least I try!
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-11 16:12 by Doxa.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 11, 2024 16:37
Just what my granny used to say
...if you can't think of anything nice to say...keep yer gob shut.
That said, there's a huge difference between a sensible critical discussion and the repeated spouting of the same opinions and arguments.
...if you can't think of anything nice to say...keep yer gob shut.
That said, there's a huge difference between a sensible critical discussion and the repeated spouting of the same opinions and arguments.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: March 11, 2024 16:54
Quote
MadMetaphoricalMax
[...]
Though I did laugh at CliffReefhards 'Stones trying to imitate Aerosmith' line
...
[...]
Well, all comparisons are silly of course. But I think I saw his point. And I actually like Aerosmith. At least, I like "Pump". But it's an album that stands out for his melodies, his verse/chorus/bridge like songs. Maybe that's what he meant.
I think it's unquestionable that HD is an album that puts more emphasis on melody and melodic variation than the Stones did in the past. (Of course, this sounds like an invitation for people to mention Ruby Tuesday, She's a Rainbow, and a few others). You might compare that to the development of Aerosmith.
Of course, endless repeating criticisms can get boring, more boring than endless praise (or quotes about which # an album is on the national hitlist of ... (I won't say Lituania because some people seemed to think that was a slur on that country)). Positivity is less boring than negativity, unless it's on a 80's revival party and Joy Division is the way to go.
The question is: if a band changes some of its fundamental essence (which of course on itself is a subjective qualification), is there a way one can debate about that? Can one really put into words how one hears certain music, rhythms, songs, groove versus melody, riffs versus strumming, raw versus smooth, mayonaise versus ketchup, etc...? Probably not, is my guess. One's Dire Straits is the other one's Cliff Richard (hoping I don't offend anyone with this comparison).
And in any case, in a world which isn't exactly full of positive news, the fact that at least some people find at least some enjoyment in at least some albums of at least some bands, is at least something.
So there.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 11, 2024 17:26
<I think it's unquestionable that HD is an album that puts more emphasis on melody and melodic variation than the Stones did in the past>
On some songs, yes. Bite My Head Off, Dreamy Skies, Live By The Sword, Driving Me Too Hard, Tell Me Straight, Sweet Sounds Of Heaven and Rolling Stone Blues are pretty standard Stones, imo. Get Close, too. That's 8 out of 12 songs. «Incidentally», those are also the «less» produced tracks as well.
On some songs, yes. Bite My Head Off, Dreamy Skies, Live By The Sword, Driving Me Too Hard, Tell Me Straight, Sweet Sounds Of Heaven and Rolling Stone Blues are pretty standard Stones, imo. Get Close, too. That's 8 out of 12 songs. «Incidentally», those are also the «less» produced tracks as well.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 11, 2024 17:39
Quote
Stoneage
So, the logic is: If you don't like it you're allowed to state it once, maybe a couple of times, but if you like it there is no such limit? I get it if people tend to be repetitive though...
Well going overboard on either side can become boring. And this isn't at all directed at you Stoneage, but just a general observation.
For the positive peeps, I guess because this is a "Fan Board" you might expect and accept that POV more. People like the Stones, which is why they keep coming back. It's sort of why we're here.
The other side of it, not liking something is naturally fine as we all have different opinions and tastes. I don't like Dirty Work too much; I didn't love the song "Live By The Sword" all that much. But to feel the need to repeat it over and over again, "campaign-style", I don't understand that - what does it achieve? Does it give you cognitive dissonance that most people disagree with you?
Can't you just be satisfied in not liking something, is it that you have to convince everyone else not to like it too? Is there some sort of "satisfaction" in that? I don't get it and eventually you invite criticism to that "campaign".
To act all shocked that you "can't be sour" on an album is ludicrous. No one is stopping people from posting their opinions. However, others then can also be critical and question why it's necessary to do it over an over. And of course there has been no reason given.
"You hate the album, we hear you. Now unless you have something new to add to the discussion, why not go and find something you do like and revel in that, instead of the constant negativity?".
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 11, 2024 18:30
I find it interesting that with the start of the tour now less than 2 months out, that there's no album promotion or likely singles still to emerge.
Was that badly timed? I mean there's nothing quite like a new album and a single on the charts while the band is touring it. It's still on the charts (though falling) in places like Germany but in the US/Canada it disappeared long ago.
Could the timing have been better for release?
Or might they have something up their sleeve before the tour kicks off...my head would explode if they dropped something else before April 28 - not that that is likely, but hey, Mick said it was 3/4s done!
Was that badly timed? I mean there's nothing quite like a new album and a single on the charts while the band is touring it. It's still on the charts (though falling) in places like Germany but in the US/Canada it disappeared long ago.
Could the timing have been better for release?
Or might they have something up their sleeve before the tour kicks off...my head would explode if they dropped something else before April 28 - not that that is likely, but hey, Mick said it was 3/4s done!
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
dedospegajosos
()
Date: March 11, 2024 19:26
Quote
treaclefingers
I find it interesting that with the start of the tour now less than 2 months out, that there's no album promotion or likely singles still to emerge.
Was that badly timed? I mean there's nothing quite like a new album and a single on the charts while the band is touring it. It's still on the charts (though falling) in places like Germany but in the US/Canada it disappeared long ago.
Could the timing have been better for release?
Or might they have something up their sleeve before the tour kicks off...my head would explode if they dropped something else before April 28 - not that that is likely, but hey, Mick said it was 3/4s done!
My guees is they will only play Angry, unless they want people looking at their phones (99% of the audience will not recognize the new material except for Angry maybe)...it would be nice indeed if they release Hackney Diamonds 2 before the tour, wouldn´t be a bad idea at all...a perfect moment and great press for the tour
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-11 19:28 by dedospegajosos.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: March 11, 2024 19:30
Quote
MadMetaphoricalMax
People get in to different songs and albums in a variety of ways, which can be interesting to hear about and identify with, if you are a fan of the band. But when people hate an album, what they have to say about gets boring and repetitive REAL quick. And I've had a lifetime of haters in print or in person telling everyone how much they hate the Rolling Stones. 80s music hacks were the worst...
Though I did laugh at CliffReefhards 'Stones trying to imitate Aerosmith' line, given what cartoonish copycats that band were and are. Hopeless clowns at handling their drugs, for one thing, and now getting sued for sexual assault.
It's got to be the ultimate insult to suggest the Stones are trying to sound like them, one deserving its own Tom & Jerry-style barroom brawl lol - but I did laugh aa lot at that one....
But that is my point, the Stones have resorted to imitating the band that imitated them.
Believe me i get plenty of positives from this band, not a week passes where i don't rediscover the brilliant albums and live performances from the archives, it's a healthy obsession, the Stones i believe keep me young and healthy mentally and physically.
Yeah too bad for me i haven't got exited by the albums since Voodoo Lounge, big deal, it's not to say I'm not the fan i once was. You don't judge a person's life on their last few years and it's the same with the Stones.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: March 11, 2024 19:58
Quote
Stoneage
So, the logic is: If you don't like it you're allowed to state it once, maybe a couple of times, but if you like it there is no such limit? I get it if people tend to be repetitive though...
Not even close, but nice try. A couple of times? ... try looking thru the thread. It's HMS all over again. It's a blatant attempt to ruin it for those that enjoy it.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: March 11, 2024 21:19
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
MadMetaphoricalMax
People get in to different songs and albums in a variety of ways, which can be interesting to hear about and identify with, if you are a fan of the band. But when people hate an album, what they have to say about gets boring and repetitive REAL quick. And I've had a lifetime of haters in print or in person telling everyone how much they hate the Rolling Stones. 80s music hacks were the worst...
Though I did laugh at CliffReefhards 'Stones trying to imitate Aerosmith' line, given what cartoonish copycats that band were and are. Hopeless clowns at handling their drugs, for one thing, and now getting sued for sexual assault.
It's got to be the ultimate insult to suggest the Stones are trying to sound like them, one deserving its own Tom & Jerry-style barroom brawl lol - but I did laugh aa lot at that one....
But that is my point, the Stones have resorted to imitating the band that imitated them.
Believe me i get plenty of positives from this band, not a week passes where i don't rediscover the brilliant albums and live performances from the archives, it's a healthy obsession, the Stones i believe keep me young and healthy mentally and physically.
Yeah too bad for me i haven't got exited by the albums since Voodoo Lounge, big deal, it's not to say I'm not the fan i once was. You don't judge a person's life on their last few years and it's the same with the Stones.
"Imitating" someone or something necessarily requires a conscious decision - and I seriously doubt that the Stones had Aerosmith in mind when they recorded HD. Instead, what they had in mind was the serious intention: "a good album is not enough this time, it has to be a great one!". Take it from there. If they think that the new songs require a bit more melodic finesse to make them more instantly recognizable and distinguishable than, let's say, Driving Too Fast, Dangerous Beauty, Mean Disposition, One More Shot, Gunface, Lowdown, SNC and the like, it's a conscious artistic decision that leads us back to their 60's and 70's heydays more than anything else - and something I really appreciate.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: March 11, 2024 21:29
Quote
DandelionPowderman
On some songs, yes. Bite My Head Off, Dreamy Skies, Live By The Sword, Driving Me Too Hard, Tell Me Straight, Sweet Sounds Of Heaven and Rolling Stone Blues are pretty standard Stones, imo. Get Close, too. That's 8 out of 12 songs. «Incidentally», those are also the «less» produced tracks as well.
I guess this is what I meant when I said it's highly subjective, what one considers "more melodic" or "less melodic". Nothing wrong with melodies either of course.
But I think what made the Stones stand out were songs like Satisfaction, JJF, Sympathy, Start Me Up, Midnight Rambler, or most of Exile, which I would think less melodic than the ones you mentioned and more characterized by "groove". What I used to say when the Stones were compared to the Beatles was: "Sure, the Stones never could have written Hey Jude, and yes, the Beatles might have come up with the chords of Midnight Rambler, but they couldn't have played it like the Stones". (And then it would always make me smile trying to image the Beatles playing it).
But of course, I think we can all agree that trying to imitate their past would be the worst they could have done. So, at least they tried a different angle.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Swayed1967
()
Date: March 12, 2024 09:17
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Stoneage
So, the logic is: If you don't like it you're allowed to state it once, maybe a couple of times, but if you like it there is no such limit? I get it if people tend to be repetitive though...
Can't you just be satisfied in not liking something, is it that you have to convince everyone else not to like it too? Is there some sort of "satisfaction" in that? I don't get it and eventually you invite criticism to that "campaign".
To act all shocked that you "can't be sour" on an album is ludicrous. No one is stopping people from posting their opinions. However, others then can also be critical and question why it's necessary to do it over an over. And of course there has been no reason given.
"You hate the album, we hear you. Now unless you have something new to add to the discussion, why not go and find something you do like and revel in that, instead of the constant negativity?".
I posted in February that I hadn’t listened to HD in months and took some spit in the face for it from some angry fans. For me to return in March (and perhaps again in April, May and June etc.) just to remind others that I’m still not listening to HD would be classless and base. I would be inviting more spit..I get that. But I take issue with your use of the word ‘hate.’ I don’t believe anybody on this forum ‘hates’ the new record or the Stones…or even Mick. Yes, there was a certain sense of betrayal after the first few listens, a bitter taste in one’s mouth but it was quickly spat out And that first bite was actually tasty. Am I making any sense?
Let me explain it like this. I remember going through that collection of 50 or so studio outtakes that was released a few years back and really enjoying it. Not that the songs were very good. Oh maybe a handful of the songs could’ve served as decent filler but for the most part one can only applaud the Stones for having the good sense to bury them. Of course that’s not quite true because the songs were ultimately released. Someone obviously felt those songs had value. And they do. But to me it is a very disposable product. You listen to it once, twice, maybe a third time and then throw it in the trash, so to speak.
Now if you actually purchased a hard copy rather than listening to it on YouTube like I did you’re bound to feel differently on this point. But I would wager that few people are listening to those outtakes these days. Figuratively at least those songs are in the dustbin. I certainly haven’t noticed anyone on this board gushing how three years later those outtakes still make them glad to be alive.
HD is no different IMO. I was chuffed to hear the new music but it too is a disposable product. And for my money I’d rather buy their rum than any of their records of the last 30 years. Maybe it’s just the way the music industry has changed or the way I listen to music these days but Sticky Fingers is still on my shelf. That one and a few others are keepers.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: March 12, 2024 10:27
Swayed you completely nailed it, no one on here hates the album the Stones or Mick. Just disappointed with as you put it a throw away product
I honestly love the 2 singles and the 2 Keith written songs ( although dislike the production)so it's not all bad and I said that many times, I've enjoyed playing the album after i got used to it.
No hate, still can't wait to here the Stones play these songs live.
One other thing i have to say, the very posters that claim posters like me are putting them off HD are the same people that put me off of Dirty Work.
I was torn to shreds for saying there are some Gems on Dirty Work.
I honestly love the 2 singles and the 2 Keith written songs ( although dislike the production)so it's not all bad and I said that many times, I've enjoyed playing the album after i got used to it.
No hate, still can't wait to here the Stones play these songs live.
One other thing i have to say, the very posters that claim posters like me are putting them off HD are the same people that put me off of Dirty Work.
I was torn to shreds for saying there are some Gems on Dirty Work.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 12, 2024 11:22
Well, as the two posts above show is not hard to come up with respectful, adult-like and even constructive critical posts spelling out why a certain album do not move one that much. Unlike the childish, provocative one keefriffhards started this shit - the one that caused a natural reaction here. But the positive effect I hope is that this meta-talk helps people have some manners in future (and the hell freezes, the cows fly, etc.)
I wholeheartidly agree with the criticism of the loose use of the word 'hate'. I'm not comfy with the easy use of 'love' either. Big words. But I guess they do not have that strong literal meaning any longer.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 11:34 by Doxa.
)I wholeheartidly agree with the criticism of the loose use of the word 'hate'. I'm not comfy with the easy use of 'love' either. Big words. But I guess they do not have that strong literal meaning any longer.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 11:34 by Doxa.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 12, 2024 11:32
Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
On some songs, yes. Bite My Head Off, Dreamy Skies, Live By The Sword, Driving Me Too Hard, Tell Me Straight, Sweet Sounds Of Heaven and Rolling Stone Blues are pretty standard Stones, imo. Get Close, too. That's 8 out of 12 songs. «Incidentally», those are also the «less» produced tracks as well.
I guess this is what I meant when I said it's highly subjective, what one considers "more melodic" or "less melodic". Nothing wrong with melodies either of course.
But I think what made the Stones stand out were songs like Satisfaction, JJF, Sympathy, Start Me Up, Midnight Rambler, or most of Exile, which I would think less melodic than the ones you mentioned and more characterized by "groove". What I used to say when the Stones were compared to the Beatles was: "Sure, the Stones never could have written Hey Jude, and yes, the Beatles might have come up with the chords of Midnight Rambler, but they couldn't have played it like the Stones". (And then it would always make me smile trying to image the Beatles playing it).
But of course, I think we can all agree that trying to imitate their past would be the worst they could have done. So, at least they tried a different angle.
Nothing wrong with melodies, of course. Songs like Paint It, Black, Ruby Tuesday, Moonlight Mile, Shine A Light, 100 Years Ago, Miss You and Anybody Seen My Baby are very melodic, yet still very Stones.
On HD we have songs like Depending On You (yes, it is kinda Aerosmith-ish at times, Riffie! But who mastered that style first?) and Whole Wide World. The latter might be more melodic (and by melodic I mean melodic like most other bands would be - more «normal», so to speak) than we've been used to since the 70s. There are exceptions, of course.
However, that's what I like about the Stones. They tease an apparent pointless groove into a masterpiece, or place a genius melody on top of a wonky-sounding song with an arrangement that nearly falls apart. It still sounds great. Most bands don't dare to do that (for a reason), but that's their style.
WWW could have been The Jonas Brothers (The structure, the phrasing, the bridge and chorus), but it isn't. When the Stones play it, it will never sound anything remotely like them - although it sounds clumsily «modern», because of the production. When a band has obtained a signature sound, they are also freer to play around with different types of music, often with good results.
WWW sounds like it could have been on London Calling (playing-wise), imo, with fifth or sixth generation rock'n'roll hooks and choruses - so sometimes the results of what the Stones do can take unexpected turns.
Needless to say, WWW is my favourite track on HD. First and foremost because it's a good song, but also because of all the above.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 12, 2024 11:46
An excellent post, Dandie!
But think of WWW - my favourite song as well - and its catchy, melodic chorus, that sort of decision or idea is not oddity in Stones songs. Even an album that is not so famous for its melodic excellence, UNDERCOVER, has two pretty similar attempts in a rock song: "She Was Hot" and "Too Tough".
- Doxa
But think of WWW - my favourite song as well - and its catchy, melodic chorus, that sort of decision or idea is not oddity in Stones songs. Even an album that is not so famous for its melodic excellence, UNDERCOVER, has two pretty similar attempts in a rock song: "She Was Hot" and "Too Tough".
- Doxa
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 12, 2024 12:05
Quote
Doxa
An excellent post, Dandie!
But think of WWW - my favourite song as well - and its catchy, melodic chorus, that sort of decision or idea is not oddity in Stones songs. Even an album that is not so famous for its melodic excellence, UNDERCOVER, has two pretty similar attempts in a rock song: "She Was Hot" and "Too Tough".
- Doxa
True! And Wanna Hold You isn't that far off, either
However, with WWW the melodies are more developed and well-crafted - on the verses as well. More so than we've heard for a long time, imo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 12:06 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 12, 2024 12:12
Let Me Down Slow from ABB was a great "poppy" type number too.
Very underated song for my money.
Very underated song for my money.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: March 12, 2024 12:20
You're making some interesting points. I might give it another chance.
Also, the fact that HD is an album on which all of the three remaining Stones seem to agree about the songs is certainly something to applaud compared to previous albums, on which there were "Mick-songs" (which Keith probably didn't like) and "Keith-songs" (which Mick probably didn't like).
It saved us from things like sweet neocon or infamy.
Also, the fact that HD is an album on which all of the three remaining Stones seem to agree about the songs is certainly something to applaud compared to previous albums, on which there were "Mick-songs" (which Keith probably didn't like) and "Keith-songs" (which Mick probably didn't like).
It saved us from things like sweet neocon or infamy.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 12, 2024 13:52
Quote
Spud
Let Me Down Slow from ABB was a great "poppy" type number too.
Very underated song for my money.
I think we could come up with dozens examples like that. In many cases, people are get used to the songs so well that their melodies and even poppish features are not that recognizable. Or they hear other things there that they they prefer more; the melodic pop features are served in such a form that they are not that easy to notice. For example, the chorus of "Happy" is nothing but pure pop in its easy catchniness.
I think the above-mentioned comparison to the Beatles, and how the Stones differ from them do not justice to Jagger/Richards as song-writers. Surely, they are not any John or Paul as far as catchy or even genius melodic features go, but they also have their own sense of musical melodies, an ability they are masters using in their own songs. It's not just about 'groove' or 'riffs' - in where, of course, they are non-disputed masters - especially if compared to the Beatles. I have always felt that the Stones dudes - Mick and Keith, that is - have a pretty unique, holistic attitude to a song, probably something they've learned from the blues masters. They see there more features than just the pure musical elements in terms of melody or classical chords to make the impact. The riffs, the groove, the timing, the sounds... all that - but still the melodies and other traditional Western musical elements do have a role there, but not that constitutional as it was, for example, with the (many) Beatles songs. One way to put it - in Richardsian way - is that it needs to serve the song, not to shine in its own. The less is more. But the result or cost is that if Stones songs are reduced into chords and melodies, unlike, say, many Lennon-McCartney, Paul Simon or Dylan songs they probably will lose some of their essential charm.
I think Mick and Keith mastered their shit by the time of BEGGARS BANQUET - before that they were like pupils learning the game, and many times taking a pretty traditional route in song-writing. They were great in that too: "Paint It Black", "Ruby Tuesday", "Under My Thumb", "As Tears Go By", etc. etc. But when they were able to adapt their natural song-writing skill - Keith once was like a fountain of melodies - into the form that did justice to their blues-based essence the results were simply out of this world. The Big Four is a testimony of that brilliance and inspiration. Listen, for example, how the distinctive melody line of "Sympathy For The Devil" goes through the incredible groove. Or the way the humble, but incredibly well-written melody goes through the dark blues rock of "Sway". The chords and melody of "Wild Horses" is one of the best ever crafted songs ever - even Dylan wished had written that. But there is still something more in that song than just its genius traditional musical features. For example, the chorus is not really that well-written and drags a bit. But that sounds intentional. They knew what they were doing. Then the melodical, and sometimes structural richness of YCAGWYW, "Moonlight Mile", "Let It Loose", "Shine A Light", "Loving Cup"... The melodic catchiness of such basically overtly simple pieces like "No Expectations" or "Sweet Black Angel"... EXILE is full of genius melodic lines all over the riff fiesta: "Rocks Off", "Soul Survivor", "All Down The Line"... I could go on...
There were attempts to catch that unique, holistic way of writing earlier. But I think they were like lucky incidents, happy results of trial and error, of experimentation. For example - and especially - "Satisfaction" was a result of such a luck. It really came out of the blue, and all of its components suddenly falling into right place, its creators probably most wondering 'what the hell happened - what did we do?'. They would try to imitate that, but it wasn't that easy. I think it took until "Jumpin' Jack Flash" they had matured enough as song-writers to come up into such results by other means. Not just by luck, the stars being in a right position. But to achieve that asked them experimenting with whatever things, going through 'pop era', not the least important being the psychedelic phase of SATANIC MAJESTIES.
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 14:36 by Doxa.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 12, 2024 14:42
Let's just stop talking...
...put the record back on...and start dancin'
[ Half the trouble around here is due to some folks liking just certain elements of what this band is or what they think it should be.
When asked about having been a Blues band Mick said himself that the Stones are "..an everything band".
..and part of their greatness is that, most of the time, they're pretty bloody good at most everything.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 14:58 by Spud.
...put the record back on...and start dancin'
[ Half the trouble around here is due to some folks liking just certain elements of what this band is or what they think it should be.
When asked about having been a Blues band Mick said himself that the Stones are "..an everything band".
..and part of their greatness is that, most of the time, they're pretty bloody good at most everything.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 14:58 by Spud.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 12, 2024 15:24
Quote
Spud
When asked about having been a Blues band Mick said himself that the Stones are "..an everything band".
..and part of their greatness is that, most of the time, they're pretty bloody good at most everything.
And when Mick was asked if they had became a disco band (this was when "Emotional Rescue" was following the success of "Miss You"), he answered, "no, we are a blues band"....
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 15:25 by Doxa.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 12, 2024 15:42
Quote
DoxaQuote
Spud
When asked about having been a Blues band Mick said himself that the Stones are "..an everything band".
..and part of their greatness is that, most of the time, they're pretty bloody good at most everything.
And when Mick was asked if they had became a disco band (this was when "Emotional Rescue" was following the success of "Miss You"), he answered, "no, we are a blues band"....
- Doxa
And while Emotional Rescue was a great song if you think about it, when it came out 1980, we're already more or less past the disco era so the timing of its release is a bit off. I do recall it being mocked by my 15 year old friends who were into Back In Black at the time.
EDIT - and yet there they are a year later releasing If I Was A Dancer.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 15:49 by treaclefingers.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 12, 2024 16:19
Quote
Swayed1967Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Stoneage
So, the logic is: If you don't like it you're allowed to state it once, maybe a couple of times, but if you like it there is no such limit? I get it if people tend to be repetitive though...
Can't you just be satisfied in not liking something, is it that you have to convince everyone else not to like it too? Is there some sort of "satisfaction" in that? I don't get it and eventually you invite criticism to that "campaign".
To act all shocked that you "can't be sour" on an album is ludicrous. No one is stopping people from posting their opinions. However, others then can also be critical and question why it's necessary to do it over an over. And of course there has been no reason given.
"You hate the album, we hear you. Now unless you have something new to add to the discussion, why not go and find something you do like and revel in that, instead of the constant negativity?".
I posted in February that I hadn’t listened to HD in months and took some spit in the face for it from some angry fans. For me to return in March (and perhaps again in April, May and June etc.) just to remind others that I’m still not listening to HD would be classless and base. I would be inviting more spit..I get that. But I take issue with your use of the word ‘hate.’ I don’t believe anybody on this forum ‘hates’ the new record or the Stones…or even Mick. Yes, there was a certain sense of betrayal after the first few listens, a bitter taste in one’s mouth but it was quickly spat out And that first bite was actually tasty. Am I making any sense?
Let me explain it like this. I remember going through that collection of 50 or so studio outtakes that was released a few years back and really enjoying it. Not that the songs were very good. Oh maybe a handful of the songs could’ve served as decent filler but for the most part one can only applaud the Stones for having the good sense to bury them. Of course that’s not quite true because the songs were ultimately released. Someone obviously felt those songs had value. And they do. But to me it is a very disposable product. You listen to it once, twice, maybe a third time and then throw it in the trash, so to speak.
Now if you actually purchased a hard copy rather than listening to it on YouTube like I did you’re bound to feel differently on this point. But I would wager that few people are listening to those outtakes these days. Figuratively at least those songs are in the dustbin. I certainly haven’t noticed anyone on this board gushing how three years later those outtakes still make them glad to be alive.
HD is no different IMO. I was chuffed to hear the new music but it too is a disposable product. And for my money I’d rather buy their rum than any of their records of the last 30 years. Maybe it’s just the way the music industry has changed or the way I listen to music these days but Sticky Fingers is still on my shelf. That one and a few others are keepers.
The issue isn't whether or not you like the album or hate it or not - you're also allowed to hate it, really. You didn't include that part of what I said in your quoting of my post so I mention it to clarify.
The issue is that to keep bringing it up incessantly...it's completely unnecessary. And further, if you do, don't be surprised when you are "challenged" for doing so...but that was probably the intent anyway, let's face it. Someone just needs "attention".
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 12, 2024 16:22
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
On some songs, yes. Bite My Head Off, Dreamy Skies, Live By The Sword, Driving Me Too Hard, Tell Me Straight, Sweet Sounds Of Heaven and Rolling Stone Blues are pretty standard Stones, imo. Get Close, too. That's 8 out of 12 songs. «Incidentally», those are also the «less» produced tracks as well.
I guess this is what I meant when I said it's highly subjective, what one considers "more melodic" or "less melodic". Nothing wrong with melodies either of course.
But I think what made the Stones stand out were songs like Satisfaction, JJF, Sympathy, Start Me Up, Midnight Rambler, or most of Exile, which I would think less melodic than the ones you mentioned and more characterized by "groove". What I used to say when the Stones were compared to the Beatles was: "Sure, the Stones never could have written Hey Jude, and yes, the Beatles might have come up with the chords of Midnight Rambler, but they couldn't have played it like the Stones". (And then it would always make me smile trying to image the Beatles playing it).
But of course, I think we can all agree that trying to imitate their past would be the worst they could have done. So, at least they tried a different angle.
Nothing wrong with melodies, of course. Songs like Paint It, Black, Ruby Tuesday, Moonlight Mile, Shine A Light, 100 Years Ago, Miss You and Anybody Seen My Baby are very melodic, yet still very Stones.
On HD we have songs like Depending On You (yes, it is kinda Aerosmith-ish at times, Riffie! But who mastered that style first?) and Whole Wide World. The latter might be more melodic (and by melodic I mean melodic like most other bands would be - more «normal», so to speak) than we've been used to since the 70s. There are exceptions, of course.
However, that's what I like about the Stones. They tease an apparent pointless groove into a masterpiece, or place a genius melody on top of a wonky-sounding song with an arrangement that nearly falls apart. It still sounds great. Most bands don't dare to do that (for a reason), but that's their style.
WWW could have been The Jonas Brothers (The structure, the phrasing, the bridge and chorus), but it isn't. When the Stones play it, it will never sound anything remotely like them - although it sounds clumsily «modern», because of the production. When a band has obtained a signature sound, they are also freer to play around with different types of music, often with good results.
WWW sounds like it could have been on London Calling (playing-wise), imo, with fifth or sixth generation rock'n'roll hooks and choruses - so sometimes the results of what the Stones do can take unexpected turns.
Needless to say, WWW is my favourite track on HD. First and foremost because it's a good song, but also because of all the above.
Yes this one just keeps getting better for me...and also surprisingly Bite Me Head Off, which I just saw as a bit of a throwaway rocker in the first place but it is such a great performance. Sort of in the tradition of a song like She's So Cold, which on paper isn't anything special but the performance takes it to a completely other level, so much so that they can't do it in concert and do it justice.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 12, 2024 16:23
Quote
matxil
You're making some interesting points. I might give it another chance.
Also, the fact that HD is an album on which all of the three remaining Stones seem to agree about the songs is certainly something to applaud compared to previous albums, on which there were "Mick-songs" (which Keith probably didn't like) and "Keith-songs" (which Mick probably didn't like).
It saved us from things like sweet neocon or infamy.
I think you nailed it there.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 12, 2024 16:25
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DoxaQuote
Spud
When asked about having been a Blues band Mick said himself that the Stones are "..an everything band".
..and part of their greatness is that, most of the time, they're pretty bloody good at most everything.
And when Mick was asked if they had became a disco band (this was when "Emotional Rescue" was following the success of "Miss You"), he answered, "no, we are a blues band"....
- Doxa
And while Emotional Rescue was a great song if you think about it, when it came out 1980, we're already more or less past the disco era so the timing of its release is a bit off. I do recall it being mocked by my 15 year old friends who were into Back In Black at the time.
EDIT - and yet there they are a year later releasing If I Was A Dancer.
Oh, yeah - so probably Mick thought 'blues band' sounded cooler at the time...
But I have some very deep personal recollections of that 'innocent' comment, no matter what Mick meant by that. Namely, I recall it was in one of the very first Jagger interviews I read. I was hooked by just released TATTOO YOU and so I checked out my old pop magazines to find recent stories about them. So I discovered this interview and I was totally confused by that comment. A blues band? Aren't they supposed to be a rock and roll band, even the greatest of them all? Blues was a total oddity to me, and in my uneducated teenager mind - what I was? 12 or 13? - something to do with jazz, slow music, nothing to do with rock music really (that mostly meant to me punk, new wave, post-punk, heavy rock, 50's rock'n'roll or rock-a-billy, etc - the sort of stuff that was popular at the time here in Finland). But that very comment and term stuck into my mind, and I started to study the bloody thing - and I was totally blown away by what I discovered: you know, it being not just the root for anything else to come, but at itself greatest shit I ever heard. Muddy, John Lee, Robert Johnson, then later Otis, James Brown, Sam Cooke, Aretha, etc.... More I get to know, and also understand the Stones, the more I started to understand what Mick meant by that. It opened up a whole new world to me.
So it is funny that without me knowing that the history was repeating itself: The Rolling Stones was an introduction into realm of blues... Brian's old mission still working...
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2024-03-12 16:33 by Doxa.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 12, 2024 17:05
Yep ,
And subsequently for me an introduction to Country, Soul, Reggae ..
All genres that the teenage Spud would never have investigated were it not for the Stones.
How much great music would I have missed out on!
For that , I've always thanked them...and can forgive them a lot.
And subsequently for me an introduction to Country, Soul, Reggae ..
All genres that the teenage Spud would never have investigated were it not for the Stones.
How much great music would I have missed out on!
For that , I've always thanked them...and can forgive them a lot.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
ChrisL
()
Date: March 12, 2024 17:08
Quote
Spud
Yep ,
And subsequently for me an introduction to Country, Soul, Reggae ..
All genres that the teenage Spud would never have investigated were it not for the Stones.
How much great music would I have missed out on!
For that , I've always thanked them...and can forgive them a lot.
Same!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
crholmstrom , DandelionPowderman , edwinholland , keef62 , micha063 , Nankstone , nbutton , pjb , Scooby , Slop , snarf2014 , stein , tiffanyblu
Guests:
2485
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10