Quote
matxil
If we forget for a bit about what Stones-fans think of their old and new albums, a sterile debate that has filled many pages, we could think about what people who don't particularly like the Stones think.

The last time the Stones really impressed people (like making a impression, either good of bad) was with Start Me Up and up to a point Undercover of the Night. Most of my friends don't give two hoots about the Stones, but they will know those songs and probably recognize their "specialness" (they won't necessarily like them).

Since then, they have not achieved this. Not with Mixed Emotions, not with Doom and Gloom and certainly not with Angry. The net total reaction these songs achieved (if anything) was just a shrug. "Typical Stones, whatever".
The same can be said about the Stones solo albums. Even though I think Keith's solo albums are very interesting and with great stuff on it, none of it made a mark outside Stones world. A good friend of mine, a musician, on listening to Keith's Crosseyed Heart switched it off halfway because he found it "typical Stones, boring." Maybe he's not a very good musician, whatever.

Of course, the question is should the Stones care about this. Maybe not. But in that case, any discussion about post-DW albums is a bit sterile.
Keith probably gave up on impressing anyone a long time ago. I think "Thief in the Night" or "Illusion" or "Hate It When You Leave" really are something new and different, but since not many people think the same, certainly not outside Stones world, I am probably wrong.
Mick in the past seemed more interested in "doing something new".

Of course, the Stones often needed inspiration from outside (soul, guitar rock, reggae, disco even). But currently, what's there outside? Electronic auto-tune nonsense (Carli CX or whatever) and grungy garage-rock which they left behind ages ago. And somehow, I think post-punk seems a bit out of their alley. But maybe I am wrong, and there's interesting stuff out there that could move them into something new. The only thing I can think of is going back to something simple, bare and "honest", in the way of the last albums of Johnny Cash or Leonard Cohen or Nick Cave. But... I don't know...

For any of this to happen, we need a guy like Andrew Loog Oldham who locks them up in a kitchen.

(Sorry, if part of this ridiculous long post belongs rather in the "new album" thread, but it seemed to me that the other half doesn't)

Well said. I agree with all that. I know it's late in the game, but I still hope that they might take the same approach to live shows, that you brought up re. songwriting. Jagger is barely singing bc he is working a stadium at age 80.
It most likely comes down to a strong minded producer, which IMO Watt is. (And Don Was never was). This next album could be even better than HD bc Watt might have settled down a bit, and deliver more original ideas. seems like Mick and Keith trust him.

Good post, Matxil. Basically the Stones is a 60-70s blues based rock band. Their golden years, album wise, were 1968 to 1972. Their last big hit was SMU and the last album that really mattered was TY.
TY set up the stadium era.

U is the best album after that. Easily. With the exception of DW I think you can rate the albums chronologically after that (up-down). There was, of course, a reason they stopped making albums for 18 years.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
matxil
If we forget for a bit about what Stones-fans think of their old and new albums, a sterile debate that has filled many pages, we could think about what people who don't particularly like the Stones think.

The last time the Stones really impressed people (like making a impression, either good of bad) was with Start Me Up and up to a point Undercover of the Night. Most of my friends don't give two hoots about the Stones, but they will know those songs and probably recognize their "specialness" (they won't necessarily like them).

Since then, they have not achieved this. Not with Mixed Emotions, not with Doom and Gloom and certainly not with Angry. The net total reaction these songs achieved (if anything) was just a shrug. "Typical Stones, whatever".
The same can be said about the Stones solo albums. Even though I think Keith's solo albums are very interesting and with great stuff on it, none of it made a mark outside Stones world. A good friend of mine, a musician, on listening to Keith's Crosseyed Heart switched it off halfway because he found it "typical Stones, boring." Maybe he's not a very good musician, whatever.

Of course, the question is should the Stones care about this. Maybe not. But in that case, any discussion about post-DW albums is a bit sterile.
Keith probably gave up on impressing anyone a long time ago. I think "Thief in the Night" or "Illusion" or "Hate It When You Leave" really are something new and different, but since not many people think the same, certainly not outside Stones world, I am probably wrong.
Mick in the past seemed more interested in "doing something new".

Of course, the Stones often needed inspiration from outside (soul, guitar rock, reggae, disco even). But currently, what's there outside? Electronic auto-tune nonsense (Carli CX or whatever) and grungy garage-rock which they left behind ages ago. And somehow, I think post-punk seems a bit out of their alley. But maybe I am wrong, and there's interesting stuff out there that could move them into something new. The only thing I can think of is going back to something simple, bare and "honest", in the way of the last albums of Johnny Cash or Leonard Cohen or Nick Cave. But... I don't know...

For any of this to happen, we need a guy like Andrew Loog Oldham who locks them up in a kitchen.

(Sorry, if part of this ridiculous long post belongs rather in the "new album" thread, but it seemed to me that the other half doesn't)

Well said. I agree with all that. I know it's late in the game, but I still hope that they might take the same approach to live shows, that you brought up re. songwriting. Jagger is barely singing bc he is working a stadium at age 80.
It most likely comes down to a strong minded producer, which IMO Watt is. (And Don Was never was). This next album could be even better than HD bc Watt might have settled down a bit, and deliver more original ideas. seems like Mick and Keith trust him.

I do think you're wrong here Maxtil, because as evidenced from HD, I don't think they need to find "something new". If they deliver another amazing HD-like surprise next time, well that would be a major achievement.

It doesn't matter that they don't sell or stream in the numbers that contemporary artists do. They are well beyond the demographic that move those numbers.

All they have is us...but we're worth it!

Still, I think it wouldn't kill them to try a Sabrina Carpenter cover...evreyone loves the Carpenters

Quote
Munichhilton
Still, I think it wouldn't kill them to try a Sabrina Carpenter cover...evreyone loves the Carpenters

Maybe they could do (Get) Close To You?

Quote
matxil
If we forget for a bit about what Stones-fans think of their old and new albums, a sterile debate that has filled many pages, we could think about what people who don't particularly like the Stones think.

The last time the Stones really impressed people (like making a impression, either good of bad) was with Start Me Up and up to a point Undercover of the Night. Most of my friends don't give two hoots about the Stones, but they will know those songs and probably recognize their "specialness" (they won't necessarily like them).

Since then, they have not achieved this. Not with Mixed Emotions, not with Doom and Gloom and certainly not with Angry. The net total reaction these songs achieved (if anything) was just a shrug. "Typical Stones, whatever".
The same can be said about the Stones solo albums. Even though I think Keith's solo albums are very interesting and with great stuff on it, none of it made a mark outside Stones world. A good friend of mine, a musician, on listening to Keith's Crosseyed Heart switched it off halfway because he found it "typical Stones, boring." Maybe he's not a very good musician, whatever.

Of course, the question is should the Stones care about this. Maybe not. But in that case, any discussion about post-DW albums is a bit sterile.
Keith probably gave up on impressing anyone a long time ago. I think "Thief in the Night" or "Illusion" or "Hate It When You Leave" really are something new and different, but since not many people think the same, certainly not outside Stones world, I am probably wrong.
Mick in the past seemed more interested in "doing something new".

Of course, the Stones often needed inspiration from outside (soul, guitar rock, reggae, disco even). But currently, what's there outside? Electronic auto-tune nonsense (Carli CX or whatever) and grungy garage-rock which they left behind ages ago. And somehow, I think post-punk seems a bit out of their alley. But maybe I am wrong, and there's interesting stuff out there that could move them into something new. The only thing I can think of is going back to something simple, bare and "honest", in the way of the last albums of Johnny Cash or Leonard Cohen or Nick Cave. But... I don't know...

For any of this to happen, we need a guy like Andrew Loog Oldham who locks them up in a kitchen.

(Sorry, if part of this ridiculous long post belongs rather in the "new album" thread, but it seemed to me that the other half doesn't)

When did the Stones stop sounding like the Stones?

Think of that in context, not 1986 onward, but as a creative force - including the aspect of outside influence like how they experimented with R&B, Philly soul and disco and funk with I Got The Blues, Can You Hear The Music, If You Really Want To Be My Friend, Hot Stuff, Fool To Cry, Memory Motel and obviously Miss You and Emotional Rescue.

It becomes a singular thing almost, with One Hit, Sad Sad Sad, I Go Wild... which have basically become Stones-by-numbers.

Here's what Mick said about Hot Stuff:

That's just a lick, you know, just one of those licks, licks with no words – and that's your 'disco departure' you're talking about. We opened with it because Hand of Fate or Crazy Mama would seem too familiar, you know. So we thought it'd be nice to open the side with something that wasn't sounding quite exactly like the Rolling Stones... (The singing is n)ot really (like Dr. John). It's supposed to sound more like . . . the Ohio Players!

- Mick Jagger, 1976

[timeisonourside.com]


By 1976 Mick was talking about Stones tracks being too familiar. Yet they continued to create new sounds that became familiar, thanks to radio, with Miss You and ER and Start Me Up and Waiting On A Friend, while still sounding like the Stones with If You Can't Rock Me, Crazy Mama, When The Whip Comes Down and Beast Of Burden, Summer Romance and She's So Cold, Hang Fire and Neighbours.

So say the real jumping point of the Stones not sounding like the Stones started in 1983. All The Way Down, One Hit, Sad... and whatever, up through Too Tight, are just a couple handful of songs that "sound like the Stones" - the singular aspect.

HACKNEY DIAMONDS is the most Stones sounding album since TATTOO YOU. It might be arguable to say A BIGGER BANG is the most Stones sounding album since TY because of its consistency but HD has a much bigger and better sound (ABB sounds like a bunch of beer cans in a dryer).

I would think of a casual Stones fan or someone that isn't a Stones fan listened to ABB and then HD they'd pick HD.

Tell Me Straight could've been on BRDIGES. Keith's songs, more than less, have been geared more as soul ballads, with the odd black hole like Can't Be Seen and Infamy bringing the albums down. Some of Mick's songs the same. But then a few sounds like the Stones sounding songs.

Mick talked about HD having to be really good so maybe this time they cared.

Maybe it's because for the first (and last) time in their career they're not required to deliver a new album via a record (distribution) contract. Although the CBS deal was for up to four albums they didn't have to give them four albums, which they didn't.

I think we are reading too much into this album, the happy fans and the disappointed..

Quote
dedospegajosos
I think we are reading too much into this album, the happy fans and the disappointed..

For some it's the enjoyment of having a new studio album.

Partially, possibly, because it's the first original LP since 2005.

Think of 1978 and 1980. Very short time between LPs, in the UK an anthology was released in 1979... LOVE YOU LIVE was 1977 just off the 1976 tour for BLACK AND BLUE and the 1975 tour... which was preceded by... they were active. All four SG singles were in 1978.


To my knowledge the first year without a Rolling Stones release was 1985... yet someone released a solo album (others as well with more off years). So, with exception to Mick inducting The Beatles in the 2nd annual R&RHOF Awards (it's incorrectly listed as the 3rd annual), for the first time since 1960 whatever there wasn't a Stones release.

Between BANG and DIAMONDS there's been 3 non-LP singles, a blues cover album, loads of live releases and a few deluxe LP reissues, including STRIPPED. And the various whatever videos, live and other.

No one is forcing anyone to talk about it. It's part of the culture of this place, a fan board, because, well, the obvious.

Here is an interesting track by track analysis...for the most part I think it's spot on:

[audiophix.com]



'Hackney Diamonds' by the Rolling Stones: A track-by-track analysis
W try to crack the mystery of how the Rolling Stones made such a good album in 2023.
By
MIchael Atkins-Prescott
|
Oct 22, 2023


Something's changed. Contrary to popular belief, the Rolling Stones did not stop making albums after "Start Me Up," but Hackey Diamonds is the first Stones album since the early 80s that, as Rolling Stone titled it, "You’ll Want to Play More Than Once." Exactly what changed will be a matter of debate for critics, and personally, I'm still trying to work it out myself.

My working theory is that this is the first Rolling Stones album since "Dirty Work," where all the others were "Rolling Stones albums" (in air quotes).


Yes, "Dirty Work" was a worthy album. Fight me.

Hackney Diamonds by The Rolling Stones is confoundingly good
1. "Angry"
What changed may be a mystery, but the result isn't, and Hackney Diamonds spells it out early on with "Angry," an up-tempo rocker that sounds fresher and more vital than it has any right to be. "Angry" works as an opener because it's exactly the statement that the Rolling Stones want to make right now.

"Angry," like a lot on this record, feels effortless, which is something we haven't heard from the Stones in a very long time. It's built around a riff that's excellent in its simplicity, and everything just flows from there. Perhaps the death of rock 'n' roll as the preeminent popular music genre took away the pressure to compete. With no young bucks making a play for the rock god throne, the Stones can simply make riff-heavy rock without having to show the kids how it's done.



2. "Get Close"
One problem with the Rolling Stones' late-period output is that everyone wants a "back-to-basics" Rolling Stones album, but what would that even look like? The Rolling Stones dabbled in every genre from folk to psychedelia to disco to country to reggae; and in my favourite example of Rolling Stoned chutzpah, they put their most aggressively country song on their disco album.

So The Rolling Stones can't just do 12 up-tempo rockers and call it a day. Get Close is slightly more AOR, and less straightforward than "Angry," with a sax solo and harmonies that sound ridiculously fresh and free for elements that are so un-trendy.

The more I listen to Hackney Diamonds the more I think that the secret to its success is the Stones being unselfconscious about not being hip.


3. "Depending On You"
Of course, we were going to get to genre-hopping sooner rather than later. "Depending On You" is a country ballad. The ballads are where the other late-period Stones albums really faltered, especially when they aimed for sincerity. So "Depending On You" has the big sound of modern radio-friendly country, making it a fun little exercise in artifice. The music may be artificial, but man if those swelling strings don't just make you feel good.

4. "Bite My Head Off"
Let's not beat around the bush... with Hackney Diamonds the Rolling Stones do have something to prove. While they don't have to prove themselves against the kids of today, they do have to prove that they can stand up against the passage of time itself. Secretly we're all wondering if this will be the last Rolling Stones album, they're down to one album per decade, and MIck Jagger's just hit 80.


"Bite My Head Off" is a song of such ferocious energy that it's hard to imagine it's not the work of young men. I can't think of another Stones song with this much energy more recent than "Rip This Joint" from 1972's Exile on Main Street. But with its punk energy, and hair-metal solo, "Bite My Head Off" is a walking anachronism.

Having fellow octogenarian Paul McCartney onboard for this one is especially ironic.

5. Whole Wide World
Just for balance, "Bite My Head Off" is followed by the closest thing Hackney Diamonds has to a song about aging. Again, "Whole Wide World" isn't lacking in energy, and it's not a lament about the ravages of time. It's a song of youth's excesses and pitfalls told from the perspective of someone who's been through it all and lived to tell the tale.


This is a refreshing take on the subject. Without "Whole Wide World," the Stones could be accused of denying their age (the way the video for "Angry" only shows old footage of the younger Stones feels like such a denial, and that still annoys me.) But like with the previous track, "Whole Wide World's" energy is a defiant statement that age doesn't have to hold you back.

6. "Dreamy Skies"
Where to start with "Dreamy Skies," my vote for hidden gem of the album.

One thing that I love about the vinyl renaissance is that artists have started constructing albums with an a-side/b-side split in the middle. "Dreamy Skies" is the final track on the a-side, and it's a perfect closer.


"Dreamy Skies" is another country ballad, but it's somehow sincerely believable. It's the equal-opposite of "Depending on You," it's modest where that one went big, and it's daringly sincere, where that one was safely artificial.

It's also got the confident contented energy that comes of having nothing to prove. But it does prove one thing, that you can tone down the energy for a quieter number, without sounding tired.

7. "Mess It Up"
The fake-out intro might be a bit of a cheap trick, but it works... it doesn't matter how many times we hear it, it still sounds like we're really there in the studio.

One might assume that the tragic death of the Stones' original drummer Charlie Watts in 2021 is probably what shook the Stones out of their torpor and that If Watts were still around, Hackney Diamonds wouldn't be as good as it is (if it existed at all.) The first two tracks from the B-side were recorded with Watts, and they fit right in with the rest of Hackney Diamonds, suggesting that we don't in fact have the great man's death to thank for Hackney Diamonds.


What makes "Mess It Up," and "Live By The Sword" fit in so well is their confidence. Of all the genre-hopping the Stones did, disco was probably the most hit-and-miss. Some Girls was fantastic, but there were diminishing returns after Emotional Rescue, which is a shame because Jagger does the disco falsetto so well. "Mess It Up" starts off sounding a little fillery, but becomes an essential track when the disco beat kicks in. And that stomping piano break is dazzling.

8. "Live By The Sword"
Being the two tracks with Charlie Watts, it's tempting to see "Mess It Up" and "Live By The Sword" as two-of-a-kind. What they have in common is that they are both driven by lively piano riffs. "Live By The Sword" is more honky-tonk than disco, and its riff is provided by none other than Elton John. Elton's piano riff is the structure that holds the whole song together, and it does so with flair.


What makes it stand out is Mick Jagger's vocal gymnastics. It's a list song, which can start to feel oppressive without vocal flair, so this really is a track where Mick Jagger gets to do what he does best.

Just don't think too hard about the lyrics.

9. "Driving Me Too Hard"
At about this point, you start to worry. Surely there must be a few duds in here, and at this stage they're due. In that regard "Driving Me Too Hard" is a bit of a scare. When The Stones resort to self-plagiarism, redoing old riffs in their late-period work, it's never good because it just makes for an unfortunate comparison to a better song. "Driving Me Too Hard" starts off sounding like "Tumbling Dice," an unimpeachable classic. Not a good start.


"Driving Me Too Hard" is the only track I'd call filler. But in its defense, it's not a straight copy of "Tumbling Dice;" "Driving Me Too Hard" riffs on the "Tumbling Dice" groove, turning out a perfectly pleasant AOR ballad. And it's nice to sit and stew in that groove for a little while, "Driving Me Too Hard" doesn't outstay its welcome.

10. "Tell Me Straight"
In a lot of ways, Hackney Diamonds is like an alternate history of the last 35 years of the Rolling Stones. It sounds like where they'd be now if those years had gone completely differently. "Tell Me Straight" is the only track that owes a debt to anything that's happened since the early 80s. 1989's Steel Wheels closed with "Slipping Away" a song so good they've tried to repeat it on every album since, and "Tell Me Straight" is Hackney Diamonds' "Slipping Away" song.


Keith Richards often took on vocal duties, but always for dirty rockers like "Happy," "Before They Make Me Run," and "Little T&A," or twangy country ballads like "You Got The Silver." "Slipping Away" was different; it was a slow ballad sung by Richards, and his rough and cracked voice gave it heartbreaking gravitas. The "Slipping Away" copies were often the low points of the late-period albums, but "Tell Me Straight" avoids that same fate by not labouring the point or wallowing in misery.

Writing a song contemplative minor-key ballad that doesn't sound miserable is a tough balance.

And again, it doesn't overstay its welcome, in fact, it could be longer. It's not for nothing that Hackney Diamonds is a perfectly reasonable 48 minutes long, while the average length of previous late-period Stones albums was about six weeks.


11. "Sweet Sounds of Heaven"

There's a long list of guests on Hackney Diamonds, including Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney, and Elton John, but for the most part, they don't have much impact. I struggled to hear Elton John on "Get Close", and Mick Jagger has to yell "come on, Paul" on "BIte My Head Off" to let us know that Paul McCartney is there. But "Sweet Sounds of Heaven" features Stevie Wonder and Lady Gaga, and it really is their song. The Stones are featured players on their own track.

"Sweet Sounds Of Heaven" is the longest song on Hackney Diamonds, and its run time is filled out by a section that's just Wonder and Lady Gaga, and it's probably the highlight of the album. The Stones deserve credit for pulling it all together and stepping back, but Lady Gaga's showstopping vocals demand the spotlight whether everyone else voluntarily steps back or not. When Jagger comes back in, and the two powerhouse voices begin to duel, it's breathtaking.


"Sweet Sounds of Heaven" is a gospel number, a spiritual successor to "Salt Of The Earth," except far more massive in scope.

12. "Rolling Stone Blues"
It's crazy to me that The Rolling Stones have been too old to be rock stars for almost as long as I've been alive! It's also an indication of how long they've been around. They've come a long way from the tinny blues covers of their first few records, and it's easy to forget that this is the same band who recorded "Carol," "Not Fade Away," and "It's All Over Now," so as a closing statement, Hackney Diamonds returns us to that past with "Rolling Stone Blues," the Muddy Waters track that gave them their name, and which they'd unbelievably not recorded until now.


It's a faithful modest cover that's bracing after the bombast of "Sweet Sounds of Heaven," but it's a joy to listen to.

I suspect this won't be the last Rolling Stones album. Sure, they can't have too many years left, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hackney Diamonds was part of a burst of creativity that produced enough material for at least one more LP. But if it is the last Rolling Stones album, then "Rolling Stone Blues" is an eerily perfect endcap to a career that's lasted longer than literally anyone thought was possible.

My working theory is that this is the first Rolling Stones album since "Dirty Work," where all the others were "Rolling Stones albums" (in air quotes).


Yes, "Dirty Work" was a worthy album. Fight me.

That dude is running and gunning for one hit (to the ground).

Quote
GasLightStreet
My working theory is that this is the first Rolling Stones album since "Dirty Work," where all the others were "Rolling Stones albums" (in air quotes).


Yes, "Dirty Work" was a worthy album. Fight me.

That dude is running and gunning for one hit (to the ground).

his love for dirty work seems like its a life long affliction that's damaged his brain

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
GasLightStreet
My working theory is that this is the first Rolling Stones album since "Dirty Work," where all the others were "Rolling Stones albums" (in air quotes).


Yes, "Dirty Work" was a worthy album. Fight me.

That dude is running and gunning for one hit (to the ground).

his love for dirty work seems like its a life long affliction that's damaged his brain

Agreed, though despite that, I thought the rest of the observations on HD were pretty good. GLS will not appreciate his take on Driving Me Too Hard, mind you...though it's not like he actually disliked it.

I read that and my first thought was, It sounds nothing like Tumbling Dice but I get why some people pull that comparison because they can't find another one - as far as an intro goes. It resembles Tumbling Dice. But whatever - It Must Be Hell and Highwire resemble Honky Tonk Women. Rock And A Hard Place resembles Soul Survivor. Sad Sad Sad resembles Brown Sugar. Angry resembles I Go Wild (although in this instance nothing musically). Plundered is Tumbling (never figured that one out, they sound nothing alike at all). According to Ronnie, Don't Stop is like Start Me Up (four on the floor, yes, but the riffage is nothing alike, nor is it as decisive as Start Me Up).

9. "Driving Me Too Hard"
At about this point, you start to worry. Surely there must be a few duds in here, and at this stage they're due. In that regard "Driving Me Too Hard" is a bit of a scare. When The Stones resort to self-plagiarism, redoing old riffs in their late-period work, it's never good because it just makes for an unfortunate comparison to a better song. "Driving Me Too Hard" starts off sounding like "Tumbling Dice," an unimpeachable classic. Not a good start.


"Driving Me Too Hard" is the only track I'd call filler. But in its defense, it's not a straight copy of "Tumbling Dice;" "Driving Me Too Hard" riffs on the "Tumbling Dice" groove, turning out a perfectly pleasant AOR ballad. And it's nice to sit and stew in that groove for a little while, "Driving Me Too Hard" doesn't outstay its welcome.

The groove of Driving is nothing like Tumbling Dice's groove, first off. TD is a bit behind and it wobbles, Driving is straight on the numbers and never wobbles.

At least Mick didn't use "6s, 7s and 9s" again or "my cards are on the table" again - although he does say "You never want to show your cards" or his other fave - earthly delights. And he wasn't very concerned with rhyming everything, as the "Morocco or a corner bar" verse chimes and other verses the first two lines rhyme but not the third and fourth with anything prior or themselves.

Ronnie's B-bender is nice. It's nice that the song takes a break and there's no obligatory guitar solo.

Instead of going for the modern aspect with Mess It Up being the third single, Driving easily could've been the third single. Maybe because it's another Stones-by-numbers tune they opted to stay away from it - but wouldn't that kind of be the point of releasing it as a single?

Angry certainly sounds like The Rolling Stones but it's not Stones-by-numbers, and the arrangement is not straight up 1234 where as Driving is exactly that.

If Driving is filler there's certainly been a plethora of worse filler on albums regardless of their status.

Perhaps there should be a thread about Stones Filler Tracks and see if there's any sense of consensus about what defines a Stones filler track. I can think of a few - and the hilarious part of it is they left better tracks off from whatever sessions but the times dictated certain attitudes so some great songs were left off in favor of...

That happened with HD as well.

What seemed like a whatever track, Really Wanna Tell The Truth, which seems to be in line with Mick's attitude of just doing whatever and singing "Ohhhh" etc, which I can't seem to find anywhere to quote, turned out a little different.

Possibly better but it's 10 more grains of sand.

For me, Live By The Sword is the wobbly one, but really it's the lyrics that I can't stand, not even the vocals.

Although if we never got another "list song" I'd be really happy I think...I was a writer, can't write another book!

Quote
treaclefingers
For me, Live By The Sword is the wobbly one, but really it's the lyrics that I can't stand, not even the vocals.

Although if we never got another "list song" I'd be really happy I think...I was a writer, can't write another book!

LOL, to me it's the 'weary world traveler' that has shown up too often. "Laugh I Nearly Died" is often cited as the best track on ABB. But I always saw it as a weaker SFTD/ Wandering Spirit.

I love GLS's idea of a Filler thread.

I'm still taking the pills
And I'm off to Brazil


Nice tag. Sums it up in a hilarious way.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
treaclefingers
For me, Live By The Sword is the wobbly one, but really it's the lyrics that I can't stand, not even the vocals.

Although if we never got another "list song" I'd be really happy I think...I was a writer, can't write another book!

LOL, to me it's the 'weary world traveler' that has shown up too often. "Laugh I Nearly Died" is often cited as the best track on ABB. But I always saw it as a weaker SFTD/ Wandering Spirit.

I love GLS's idea of a Filler thread.

My fave track on ABB is Dangerous Beauty and it's by no means filler. Just different enough from anything else they've released.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
treaclefingers
For me, Live By The Sword is the wobbly one, but really it's the lyrics that I can't stand, not even the vocals.

Although if we never got another "list song" I'd be really happy I think...I was a writer, can't write another book!

LOL, to me it's the 'weary world traveler' that has shown up too often. "Laugh I Nearly Died" is often cited as the best track on ABB. But I always saw it as a weaker SFTD/ Wandering Spirit.

I love GLS's idea of a Filler thread.

My fave track on ABB is Dangerous Beauty and it's by no means filler. Just different enough from anything else they've released.

She Saw Me Coming is the one for me.

There are others that are great (for the album). Justice, Dangerous, Mistake, It Won't Take Long, Let Me Down Slow, Laugh, Driving Too Slow, Cat - some fantastic songs on BANG.

Outside of the culture of the album, are they?

I've included Justice, Take Long, Mistake, Dangerous, Slow and Laugh on my REWIND DELUXE playlist. They fit in well (especially if it's not loud).

BANG gets a bad mark because it's extremely difficult to listen to to enjoy. HD isn't any different except the songs aren't slammed to begin with.

Mastering (and remastering) has ruined a lot of albums. It's unfortunate that the Stones don't have the overseeing quality control that U2 has to make sure whatever truly sounds fantastic - the Stones don't care.

That's absolutely bizarre.

They defined caring (and a proper lack there of, mix wise) in the quality of their records.

As of 2008, zero care. What, Mick shuffling around his castle in France or Italy saying, "Oh whatever, it doesn't matter. I can't be bothered."

Thanks, Mick.