Tell Me :
Talk
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!
Maybe they could do (Get) Close To You?
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.
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.
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:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: June 8, 2025 14:17
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.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: June 8, 2025 15:02
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.
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.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 8, 2025 17:09
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
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!
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: June 8, 2025 18:05
Still, I think it wouldn't kill them to try a Sabrina Carpenter cover...evreyone loves the Carpenters
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 8, 2025 20:12
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?
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: June 8, 2025 20:57
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.
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
dedospegajosos
()
Date: June 9, 2025 02:23
I think we are reading too much into this album, the happy fans and the disappointed..
Re: Hackney Diamonds - Album Talk
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: June 9, 2025 04:57
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.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1185
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10