For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
JadedFaded
Friday was a crazy busy day for me, so I didn’t buy HD until Saturday. After listening to it twice, I am not disappointed. I like hearing Mick and Keith sing together on Dreamy Skies and I like Live by the Sword. I love every time Mick plays harp. Rolling Stones Blues is a gem. And I really love SSOH. But the record is a bit more pop than rock, which is unfortunate. But I know many of these songs will grow on me, the way Stones songs always do. If I could make one change to it, I’d get rid of those strings on Depending on You.
Good grief, no. The strings on Depending on You are it’s icing on the cake.
Sort of like saying get rid of the strings on Moonlight Mile!!
Quote
keefriffhards
If it didn't far exceed what some of us expected is that okay, is it tolerable for a few of us real Stones fans of Stones music to be disappointed.
Quote
georgelicks
It won't chart at #1 in the US, #3 ir #4 is the best bet.
THESE NEW RELEASES ROCK
Major rock albums by blink-182 and The Rolling Stones will lead next week's debuts. Can either catch Drake’s For All the Dogs (OVO/Republic), which has the edge to return to #1, with 109-115k? Could Bad Bunny also be in the mix for a repeat? Stay tuned.
blink-182 (Columbia): 95-105k
The Rolling Stones (Geffen): 75-85k
Fuerza Regida (Rancho Humilde/Street Mob/Sony Latin): 30-35k
[m.hitsdailydouble.com]
Quote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.
Quote
keefriffhards
Ok let's have a discussion about this album because although most love it something happened during the making of this album that no one seems brave enough to mention other than you Robert.
It's probably their last album and some of us are allowed to be disappointed with the outcome, the men who made Crosseyed Heart clearly didn't have much input on HD other than to play on it. The new Stones album is actually a Mick Jagger/ Andrew Watt solo album with Keith playing on it.
I understand that is great for most iorrians, but what happened to the album they shelved and why has Keith apparently just given up his half of being a Glimmer Twin other than to sprinkle some fairy dust ?
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.
Ok let's have a discussion about this album because although most love it something happened during the making of this album that no one seems brave enough to mention other than you Robert.
It's probably their last album and some of us are allowed to be disappointed with the outcome, the men who made Crosseyed Heart clearly didn't have much input on HD other than to play on it. The new Stones album is actually a Mick Jagger/ Andrew Watt solo album with Keith playing on it.
I understand that is great for most iorrians, but what happened to the album they shelved and why has Keith apparently just given up his half of being a Glimmer Twin other than to sprinkle some fairy dust ?
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.
Ok let's have a discussion about this album because although most love it something happened during the making of this album that no one seems brave enough to mention other than you Robert.
It's probably their last album and some of us are allowed to be disappointed with the outcome, the men who made Crosseyed Heart clearly didn't have much input on HD other than to play on it. The new Stones album is actually a Mick Jagger/ Andrew Watt solo album with Keith playing on it.
I understand that is great for most iorrians, but what happened to the album they shelved and why has Keith apparently just given up his half of being a Glimmer Twin other than to sprinkle some fairy dust ?
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.
Ok let's have a discussion about this album because although most love it something happened during the making of this album that no one seems brave enough to mention other than you Robert.
It's probably their last album and some of us are allowed to be disappointed with the outcome, the men who made Crosseyed Heart clearly didn't have much input on HD other than to play on it. The new Stones album is actually a Mick Jagger/ Andrew Watt solo album with Keith playing on it.
I understand that is great for most iorrians, but what happened to the album they shelved and why has Keith apparently just given up his half of being a Glimmer Twin other than to sprinkle some fairy dust ?
Quote
gotdablouseQuote
Steen G
Isn't this the first album including the voice of CW?
Where are you hearing him ?
Quote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.
Quote
john lomaxQuote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.
I think you are completely wrong here. I agree that Mick was the driving force, but when I listen to this album I hear Keith and Ronnie’s stamp all over it. Mick himself has said in a few interviews that Keith worked extremely hard on this album, and Andrew Watt said the same thing. As a guitar player myself, I would say the playing and the contributions from both Keith and Ronnie are stronger and more innovative than anything they have done since Exile. I think this is a great Stones album, and a great team effort by the band. The fact that all members of the band are so positive about it reinforces this for me. It’s a great, cohesive band album full of great and innovative songs.
Quote
slewanQuote
DoxaQuote
slewanQuote
DoxaQuote
slewanQuote
wesley
(…)
This album compares to Bob Dylan's two modern classics from the 2000s; Modern Times and Time out of Mind, at least I still play them continuously.
hahaha – joke of the year.
The biggest difference between Hackney Diamonds and Time Out Of Mind as well as Love & Theft is that Hackney Diamonds in in the vein with a lot of things the Stones done before while Time Out Of Mind as well as Love & Theft break away from almost everything Dylan has done before. Those two Dylan albums offer a complete new sound and feeling while Hackney Diamonds is a rather typical Stones/Jagger album. That doesn't mean it's bad, of course.
Why a joke? Those two Dylan albums are modern classics - well, at least TIME OUT OF MIND non-disputed is, released 26 years ago - but not because Dylan, once again, re-invented himself, but because those are great albums. Like HACKNEY DIAMONDS is.
Re-inventing oneself is not a guarantee of greatness in itself or even a value of its own. It is the quality of the results that matter.
- Doxa
you're surely right – re-invention oneself and/or taking new directions is no guarantee for anything.
But I still think it's a joke to compare Hackney Diamonds to TOOM.
1. As I said before TOOM added something fresh to Dylan's works. I don't think that can be said of Hackney Diamonds.
2. it is way too early to tell if Hackney Diamonds will stand the test of time. I completely understand that anyone (including me) tends to overrate new albums by their favorite artists when they are first released. As far as I remember quite a few Stones albums were hailed as the best since Some Girls (just as new Dylan albums tend to be hailed as the best since Blood On The Tracks (or – nowadays – the best since TOOM). So it's a kind of joke to me compare a new album on it's release day with stuff that has surely stood the test of time.
So is the point that if one has something negative to say in its release day it is more valid than saying something positive about it? So one can be more objective about seeing the crap than the gold there? The former observation will stand the test of time better?
In my book, feeling at the moment like HACKNEY DIAMONDS is OUT OF MY MIND caliber masterpiece is as valid as feeling it is not. My stance is Carpe Diem: who cares about what one feels like about the album some day in future, if it feels wonderful now. We might not live then. Be wesley's instinct impression whatever, I don't find much point in trying 'objectively' to prove why a 1997 Dylan album must be superior in the very release day of a new Stones album. What's the point really? Personally, I don't give a flying fvck about how TODAY RELEASED new Stones album compares to an old Dylan album (that, by the way, happens to be one of my personal all-time favourites).
- Doxa
my point is not about saying anything postive or negative about new album. But I'd carefully to rate a new album shortly after it's release. It takes time to judge. Rating on the first day(s) is like judging things while (still) being drunk. I understand that people like to shoot from their hips – but shooting from your hip is not a very wise move
Quote
powerage78
HD is an album full of desire and energy, and for me that's the most important thing. Comparable in this sense to the last AC/DC album. Well done to the Stones.
Quote
DoxaQuote
slewanQuote
DoxaQuote
slewanQuote
DoxaQuote
slewanQuote
wesley
(…)
This album compares to Bob Dylan's two modern classics from the 2000s; Modern Times and Time out of Mind, at least I still play them continuously.
hahaha – joke of the year.
The biggest difference between Hackney Diamonds and Time Out Of Mind as well as Love & Theft is that Hackney Diamonds in in the vein with a lot of things the Stones done before while Time Out Of Mind as well as Love & Theft break away from almost everything Dylan has done before. Those two Dylan albums offer a complete new sound and feeling while Hackney Diamonds is a rather typical Stones/Jagger album. That doesn't mean it's bad, of course.
Why a joke? Those two Dylan albums are modern classics - well, at least TIME OUT OF MIND non-disputed is, released 26 years ago - but not because Dylan, once again, re-invented himself, but because those are great albums. Like HACKNEY DIAMONDS is.
Re-inventing oneself is not a guarantee of greatness in itself or even a value of its own. It is the quality of the results that matter.
- Doxa
you're surely right – re-invention oneself and/or taking new directions is no guarantee for anything.
But I still think it's a joke to compare Hackney Diamonds to TOOM.
1. As I said before TOOM added something fresh to Dylan's works. I don't think that can be said of Hackney Diamonds.
2. it is way too early to tell if Hackney Diamonds will stand the test of time. I completely understand that anyone (including me) tends to overrate new albums by their favorite artists when they are first released. As far as I remember quite a few Stones albums were hailed as the best since Some Girls (just as new Dylan albums tend to be hailed as the best since Blood On The Tracks (or – nowadays – the best since TOOM). So it's a kind of joke to me compare a new album on it's release day with stuff that has surely stood the test of time.
So is the point that if one has something negative to say in its release day it is more valid than saying something positive about it? So one can be more objective about seeing the crap than the gold there? The former observation will stand the test of time better?
In my book, feeling at the moment like HACKNEY DIAMONDS is OUT OF MY MIND caliber masterpiece is as valid as feeling it is not. My stance is Carpe Diem: who cares about what one feels like about the album some day in future, if it feels wonderful now. We might not live then. Be wesley's instinct impression whatever, I don't find much point in trying 'objectively' to prove why a 1997 Dylan album must be superior in the very release day of a new Stones album. What's the point really? Personally, I don't give a flying fvck about how TODAY RELEASED new Stones album compares to an old Dylan album (that, by the way, happens to be one of my personal all-time favourites).
- Doxa
my point is not about saying anything postive or negative about new album. But I'd carefully to rate a new album shortly after it's release. It takes time to judge. Rating on the first day(s) is like judging things while (still) being drunk. I understand that people like to shoot from their hips – but shooting from your hip is not a very wise move
Well, as far as judging go, we are pretty similar - it takes time - as I tried to explain in a post above.
But I think is judging - putting things rationally into some kind of 'right' perspective in relation to anything else - is over-rated - and I, if anyone, is more than guilty for that habit.It has its point, and it can be fun and intellectually challenging sometimes (like trying to scrutiny if, say, UNDERCOVER is a better than album, say, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS, like that would actually mean something) but the best thing in art is just to enjoy, just to experience the shit!
Besides, it is the impressions that matter. That it moves you. Maybe one gets tired of it sooner or later, sometimes never, but let's cherish it while it lasts. While it does, it is always as significant as ever. If that happens, even for a sec, the music has had a function in your life.
- Doxa
Quote
RobertJohnsonQuote
john lomaxQuote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.
I think you are completely wrong here. I agree that Mick was the driving force, but when I listen to this album I hear Keith and Ronnie’s stamp all over it. Mick himself has said in a few interviews that Keith worked extremely hard on this album, and Andrew Watt said the same thing. As a guitar player myself, I would say the playing and the contributions from both Keith and Ronnie are stronger and more innovative than anything they have done since Exile. I think this is a great Stones album, and a great team effort by the band. The fact that all members of the band are so positive about it reinforces this for me. It’s a great, cohesive band album full of great and innovative songs.
I hear typical sound patterns from Mick Jagger's solo albums in almost every song. Nothing is innovative there. It's a pretty mediocre retro show of Mick's solo efforts. Let there be no misunderstanding. I like Mick's solo albums, but they are not Rolling Stones albums. Keith's and Ronnie's solo albums of the last decades are another matter. They are totally underrated, far above HD in quality.
Quote
DoxaQuote
RobertJohnsonQuote
john lomaxQuote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.
I think you are completely wrong here. I agree that Mick was the driving force, but when I listen to this album I hear Keith and Ronnie’s stamp all over it. Mick himself has said in a few interviews that Keith worked extremely hard on this album, and Andrew Watt said the same thing. As a guitar player myself, I would say the playing and the contributions from both Keith and Ronnie are stronger and more innovative than anything they have done since Exile. I think this is a great Stones album, and a great team effort by the band. The fact that all members of the band are so positive about it reinforces this for me. It’s a great, cohesive band album full of great and innovative songs.
I hear typical sound patterns from Mick Jagger's solo albums in almost every song. Nothing is innovative there. It's a pretty mediocre retro show of Mick's solo efforts. Let there be no misunderstanding. I like Mick's solo albums, but they are not Rolling Stones albums. Keith's and Ronnie's solo albums of the last decades are another matter. They are totally underrated, far above HD in quality.
As long as Mick Jagger is a Rolling Stones member and the main song-writer of the group it is pretty natural that the Stones albums sound mickjaggerish. He is only one person and artist and his tone and voice will be heard in anything he does, be the template whatever. Maybe in some alternative reality there is Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger and all your dreams will come true. Who knows, maybe Jagger might even resign some day, and the band will all be Richards/Wood heaven for you.
Actually lately I have started re-listening the whole Stones catalogue with the "This is not the Stones, but Mick Jagger solo" criterion in mind. I, for example, noticed that most of STICKY FINGERS is unlistenable. Most of the songs are made by Jagger and in some there is not Wood or even Richards. "Moonlight Mile"? Where is the Stones there? A Jagger solo tune with Taylor noodling something 'unStonesy' all around! Jeez, even the riff of "Brown Sugar" - you know, that dance number - is Mick's. SOME GIRLS, naturally, is nothing but a Mick Jagger solo album. And then, for god's sake, how they dared to start BEGGARS BANQUET with a long Jagger solo song? And damn, isn't his voice so damn upfront there, not buried in the mix like real Stones songs have? And what a hec samba drums do there, in a Rolling Stones recording? And piano? where is the ancient art of weaving - the real Stones sound? Thankfully I have Wood and Richards solo albums with real macho guitarism and loyalty to the roots music to listen instead of that crap.
- Doxa
Quote
Bjorn
The album is fine. Keith live was not. Why doesn´t he help Ronnie? Where there should be power and attack, he just bend a string - if he even tries at all. Whole Wild World - please join the chorus! Dont just stand there! And so on. Makes me kinda sad. But I guess he will sort it out in time for the tour. Maybe it´s just me. I care too much. Always want to see the best in everyone. Want people to shine.
Quote
RobertJohnsonQuote
DoxaQuote
RobertJohnsonQuote
john lomaxQuote
RobertJohnson
Okay, we have the long-awaited solo album of Mick Jagger. Amazingly, Ronnie and Keith were allowed to play on it. And Keith even has a solo song. It's also the best thing on this album along with Rolling Stones Blues. The remarkable thing is that Mick's other solo albums were much better. When I heard about the name dropping list I was already skeptical. Who needs Lady Gaga on a Rolling Stones album? Except the marketing people ... The mostly positive professional reviews are incomprehensible to me. Many journalists probably don't even know what this band can and could do. My hope is that now Keith and Ronnie will also make solo albums. They are certainly better ... And, guys, stand in a studio and record Blue & And Lonesome II.
I think you are completely wrong here. I agree that Mick was the driving force, but when I listen to this album I hear Keith and Ronnie’s stamp all over it. Mick himself has said in a few interviews that Keith worked extremely hard on this album, and Andrew Watt said the same thing. As a guitar player myself, I would say the playing and the contributions from both Keith and Ronnie are stronger and more innovative than anything they have done since Exile. I think this is a great Stones album, and a great team effort by the band. The fact that all members of the band are so positive about it reinforces this for me. It’s a great, cohesive band album full of great and innovative songs.
I hear typical sound patterns from Mick Jagger's solo albums in almost every song. Nothing is innovative there. It's a pretty mediocre retro show of Mick's solo efforts. Let there be no misunderstanding. I like Mick's solo albums, but they are not Rolling Stones albums. Keith's and Ronnie's solo albums of the last decades are another matter. They are totally underrated, far above HD in quality.
As long as Mick Jagger is a Rolling Stones member and the main song-writer of the group it is pretty natural that the Stones albums sound mickjaggerish. He is only one person and artist and his tone and voice will be heard in anything he does, be the template whatever. Maybe in some alternative reality there is Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger and all your dreams will come true. Who knows, maybe Jagger might even resign some day, and the band will all be Richards/Wood heaven for you.
Actually lately I have started re-listening the whole Stones catalogue with the "This is not the Stones, but Mick Jagger solo" criterion in mind. I, for example, noticed that most of STICKY FINGERS is unlistenable. Most of the songs are made by Jagger and in some there is not Wood or even Richards. "Moonlight Mile"? Where is the Stones there? A Jagger solo tune with Taylor noodling something 'unStonesy' all around! Jeez, even the riff of "Brown Sugar" - you know, that dance number - is Mick's. SOME GIRLS, naturally, is nothing but a Mick Jagger solo album. And then, for god's sake, how they dared to start BEGGARS BANQUET with a long Jagger solo song? And damn, isn't his voice so damn upfront there, not buried in the mix like real Stones songs have? And what a hec samba drums do there, in a Rolling Stones recording? And piano? where is the ancient art of weaving - the real Stones sound? Thankfully I have Wood and Richards solo albums with real macho guitarism and loyalty to the roots music to listen instead of that crap.
- Doxa
Here I do not agree. There was a balance of synthesis on the albums mentioned. Mick's contributions did not stand separately next to those of Keith, Ronnie or Mick Taylor. Sway is one of my favorites. It's a collaboration between the two Micks, but just a collaboration. Or another example is Beast of Burden, the ultimate song from the band to my taste. Everything we love about the band meshes here. Mick's solo style, in my opinion, only developed in his later years, especially on Wandering Spirit, undoubtedly a musical masterpiece.