Quote
MadMetaphoricalMax

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
keefriffhards

First off with only two original members left it's not a Stones album, the fact there are no killer riffs therefore Keith doesn't really give a damn for this album leaves us with Mick, so it's a Mick album ( other than a few Keith tracks ) with Ronnie on it as a session musician.
Basically it's a Jagger/ Andrew Watts album with Keith and Ronnie contractually obligated to play on it abd promote it, I haven't heard Keith praise this album once, like he said he's just riding the wave now.
Got to hand it to Mick though, it's a good solo album after nearly 20 years of writers block, hey wait a minute maybe this is a Andrew Watts written album with a few of his Stones chums playing on it

Whatever it is it's good, but it isn't the Stones.

Oh yeah, Merry Christmas.

I agree 100%. We may be in the minority on this board, but there are others who agree. As one critic wrote here

Watt did what he does and heavily processed and compressed Jagger’s vocals throughout the album so that the unique bottom end of his voice and his great sense of dynamics are totally missing. Pitch correction is constant and frequently obvious, eliminating the blues and R&B note-bending that is the hallmark of his style. Just enough essence of Jagger remains to satisfy the fans. Watt also mixed the vocals way up above the band, making Hackney Diamonds sound like a Jagger solo album. The signature Ronnie/Keith interplay is all but unheard because the guitars are so heavily compressed, distorted and equalized that they are hard to tell apart amid the grunge. Most importantly, the band’s unique, simultaneously ahead and behind the beat swing that made Jagger and Richards rock gods is quantized and “corrected” into that contemporary, generic stiff pound-and-thud.

This is not the band that I fell in love with. It's got sparks of brilliance here and there, and overall it is quite an accomplishment given their age. SSOH makes me tingle, but for the most part I'll pass.

Drew

That review is striving to be authoritative, but it's an opinion that doesnt ring true to my ears when I put on the album. There's wonderful Ronnie Keith weaving, I don't hear jagger too high in the mix, and yes, it is 'produced' heavily, but it works so well, it;'s become an album I love, and I do hear and feel Keith all over it. To call it a Jagger solo album, as KeefRiffhards does, doesnt ring to true to me. And Ronnie is a Rolling Stone and he is in no wayt session musician but integral and at his very best on record here! But hey, that's also just my opinion. Merry Christmas....

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
treaclefingers
"I just am not stuck in the Brian, MT, Bill, RW era's like some others is all."

Don't take this the wrong way Voodoo, but I kinda feel sorry for you in that you're suggesting that because we enjoy the Brian or MT era's for instance, means we're "stuck". I do not believe you know what you're missing. In my opinion, that also comes out in your view of "the 60s albums".

I understand that everyone's taste is different and it's great you've found a connection to the Stones latter day material. It's just sort of interesting that you're suggesting a lot of us are stuck in different eras, when I can see your "era" is Steel Wheels through ABB. 4 albums. Four albums where they tried to recapture what they had during their golden eras, with varying degrees of success.

I guess a lot of what we like comes from when we became fans. For me it was via She's So Cold and then the Emotional Rescue album followed by Some Girls, Hot Rocks, Sucking in the 70s and Tattoo You. I love that era, but I also love everything before and to Undercover. They were peerless in terms of output over 20 years, 63-83. Since then it's been a bit hit and miss - lots of still great output but no where near their previous successes - but with HD they seem to have found a consistency of their material and able to sustain it at a very high level; and they are having fun.

It's too bad you're not enjoying it on one of your 15 copies!

I do definitely get the irony of now owning SIXTEEN copies of an album that isn't that great LOL

Quote
georgelicks
Number #1 in UK again confirmed:

[www.officialcharts.com]

Quote
georgelicks
Number #1 in UK again confirmed:

[www.officialcharts.com]

Quote
FoolToCry
Number #1 in Germany again:

[www.facebook.com]

Quote
georgelicks
Charts analysis: Rolling Stones score first Christmas No.1 with a resurgent Hackney Diamonds
by Alan Jones
December 22nd 2023 at 6:00PM

Eight weeks after debuting at No.1, Hackney Diamonds returns to the summit for The Rolling Stones following the release on CD and digitally of a new ‘live’ edition featuring an additional seven tracks recorded at an October gig at New York’s Racket club. Overall consumption of the album of 16,460 units is the lowest on record for a Christmas No.1 album, and comprises 13,204 CDs, 2,536 vinyl albums, 43 blu-ray discs, 252 digital downloads and 425 sales-equivalent streams.

Hackney Diamonds is the first Rolling Stones album to be No.1 at Christmas, and their first album to return to No.1 since 2020 when an expanded version of 1973 chart-topper Goats Head Soup did so. It is also No.1 for Christmas in Germany.

The only seasonally-themed artist album ever to top the chart at Christmas is Michael Bublé’s Christmas, which did so in 2011. It came close to doing so again this week, but ultimately remains at No.2 on consumption of 15,307 units.

Top 10
01 16,460 The Rolling Stones - Hackney Diamonds [156,306 total after 9 weeks, sales for this week inc. 13,204 CDs, 2,536 vinyl, 43 blu-ray, 252 downloads, 425 streaming]
02 15,307 Michael Bublé - Christmas
03 12,559 Taylor Swift - 1989 (Taylor's Version)
04 8,057 Nicki Minaj - Pink Friday 2
05 7,905 Cher - Christmas
06 7,446 Noah Kahan - Stick Season
07 7,365 Olivia Rodrigo - GUTS
08 7,311 André Rieu & Johann Strauss Orchestra - Jewels of Romance
09 7,246 The Weeknd - The Highlights
10 6,490 Eminem - Curtain Call: The Hits

[www.musicweek.com]

Quote
Paddy

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
treaclefingers
"I just am not stuck in the Brian, MT, Bill, RW era's like some others is all."

Don't take this the wrong way Voodoo, but I kinda feel sorry for you in that you're suggesting that because we enjoy the Brian or MT era's for instance, means we're "stuck". I do not believe you know what you're missing. In my opinion, that also comes out in your view of "the 60s albums".

I understand that everyone's taste is different and it's great you've found a connection to the Stones latter day material. It's just sort of interesting that you're suggesting a lot of us are stuck in different eras, when I can see your "era" is Steel Wheels through ABB. 4 albums. Four albums where they tried to recapture what they had during their golden eras, with varying degrees of success.

I guess a lot of what we like comes from when we became fans. For me it was via She's So Cold and then the Emotional Rescue album followed by Some Girls, Hot Rocks, Sucking in the 70s and Tattoo You. I love that era, but I also love everything before and to Undercover. They were peerless in terms of output over 20 years, 63-83. Since then it's been a bit hit and miss - lots of still great output but no where near their previous successes - but with HD they seem to have found a consistency of their material and able to sustain it at a very high level; and they are having fun.

It's too bad you're not enjoying it on one of your 15 copies!

I do definitely get the irony of now owning SIXTEEN copies of an album that isn't that great LOL

Is it ironic or moronic?
Why buy 16 copies of an album you don’t really like. Music collecting ain’t music loving. I’m happy I have 1 copy on vinyl that I do enjoy.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Paddy

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
treaclefingers
"I just am not stuck in the Brian, MT, Bill, RW era's like some others is all."

Don't take this the wrong way Voodoo, but I kinda feel sorry for you in that you're suggesting that because we enjoy the Brian or MT era's for instance, means we're "stuck". I do not believe you know what you're missing. In my opinion, that also comes out in your view of "the 60s albums".

I understand that everyone's taste is different and it's great you've found a connection to the Stones latter day material. It's just sort of interesting that you're suggesting a lot of us are stuck in different eras, when I can see your "era" is Steel Wheels through ABB. 4 albums. Four albums where they tried to recapture what they had during their golden eras, with varying degrees of success.

I guess a lot of what we like comes from when we became fans. For me it was via She's So Cold and then the Emotional Rescue album followed by Some Girls, Hot Rocks, Sucking in the 70s and Tattoo You. I love that era, but I also love everything before and to Undercover. They were peerless in terms of output over 20 years, 63-83. Since then it's been a bit hit and miss - lots of still great output but no where near their previous successes - but with HD they seem to have found a consistency of their material and able to sustain it at a very high level; and they are having fun.

It's too bad you're not enjoying it on one of your 15 copies!

I do definitely get the irony of now owning SIXTEEN copies of an album that isn't that great LOL

Is it ironic or moronic?
Why buy 16 copies of an album you don’t really like. Music collecting ain’t music loving. I’m happy I have 1 copy on vinyl that I do enjoy.

That really isn't called for Paddy.

Quote
keefriffhards
Reflecting on this album, played it in my car for a couple weeks until i put something else in the CD player, it's a good album but i doubt i will go back to it very often as it's not what i consider a Stones album.
That's not saying it's not good, just saying if i wanted that sound I'd listen to it from another band, as said before it will go on the back burner along with ABB.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
bobo

Quote
keefriffhards
Reflecting on this album, played it in my car for a couple weeks until i put something else in the CD player, it's a good album but i doubt i will go back to it very often as it's not what i consider a Stones album.
That's not saying it's not good, just saying if i wanted that sound I'd listen to it from another band, as said before it will go on the back burner along with ABB.

Not considered a Stones album? I wish you well and a merry christmas

First off with only two original members left it's not a Stones album,

Quote
keefriffhards
the fact there are no killer riffs therefore Keith doesn't really give a damn for this album leaves us with Mick, so it's a Mick album ( other than a few Keith tracks ) with Ronnie on it as a session musician.

Quote
keefriffhards
Basically it's a Jagger/ Andrew Watts album with Keith and Ronnie contractually obligated to play on it abd promote it, I haven't heard Keith praise this album once, like he said he's just riding the wave now.

Quote
keefriffhards
Got to hand it to Mick though, it's a good solo album after nearly 20 years of writers block, hey wait a minute maybe this is a Andrew Watts written album with a few of his Stones chums playing on it

Whatever it is it's good, but it isn't the Stones.

Quote
Paddy

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
treaclefingers
"I just am not stuck in the Brian, MT, Bill, RW era's like some others is all."

Don't take this the wrong way Voodoo, but I kinda feel sorry for you in that you're suggesting that because we enjoy the Brian or MT era's for instance, means we're "stuck". I do not believe you know what you're missing. In my opinion, that also comes out in your view of "the 60s albums".

I understand that everyone's taste is different and it's great you've found a connection to the Stones latter day material. It's just sort of interesting that you're suggesting a lot of us are stuck in different eras, when I can see your "era" is Steel Wheels through ABB. 4 albums. Four albums where they tried to recapture what they had during their golden eras, with varying degrees of success.

I guess a lot of what we like comes from when we became fans. For me it was via She's So Cold and then the Emotional Rescue album followed by Some Girls, Hot Rocks, Sucking in the 70s and Tattoo You. I love that era, but I also love everything before and to Undercover. They were peerless in terms of output over 20 years, 63-83. Since then it's been a bit hit and miss - lots of still great output but no where near their previous successes - but with HD they seem to have found a consistency of their material and able to sustain it at a very high level; and they are having fun.

It's too bad you're not enjoying it on one of your 15 copies!

I do definitely get the irony of now owning SIXTEEN copies of an album that isn't that great LOL

Is it ironic or moronic?
Why buy 16 copies of an album you don’t really like. Music collecting ain’t music loving. I’m happy I have 1 copy on vinyl that I do enjoy.

Quote
VoodooLounge13
For me, it just sounds sterile - the whole thing. I cleared time out of my schedule and listened to it start to finish upon receiving the CD. I was excited to have a new album to listen to after 18 long years. There are some standout tracks no doubt - WWW & LBTS being the absolute gems, and TMS could have been one but it's too short and lacks really any lyrics. It's more of a throwaway if ever there was one, but I do LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE the line is my future all in the past. Just brilliant!!!! But the rest is good at best. I loathe the part where Mick asks Paul to play some bass when he's already in the middle of his solo. It should have been at the beginning. Don't see the epicness that all love about SSOH, and I dislike the extra 2 minutes tacked onto the end. To me, that would have been better to blend into a boogie track ala something on EOMS. Angry is better'n I expected, but it is no RJ, which for me is a modern-day sounding Stones classic. For as little as I go back to ABB these days, there are more songs on that album that I find memorable than I do on HD.

I get that HD was supposed to sound like a contemporary Stones album for the ages, and it definitely sounds contemporary. I think that might be part of my problem with it. It sounds like a buncha modern drivel that some 20-year olds coulda done. I don't get any emotion with it. I don't feel an attachment to a single song aside from my TMS, but by the time that connection builds up, it's over, which sucks. For me, I just find the album to be 'authentic' if you will.

I would much rather listen to Whiskey Myers' stuff on repeat for the 100000x time this year - a band I only discovered about 5 months ago - than to try and see what I'm missing with HD. Whiskey Myers sound real and authentic. There's an honesty and a bit of a rawness to their lyrics, and the music is simply amazing.

I don't know where HD will end up ranking for me in the grand scope of things, but it will be well down the list, mixed in somewhere along IORR, ER, U, all of which are just a tad ahead of most of their 60's albums. But then I have a very different listing of Stones best albums than the average fan on this board, so there is that!!!! VL @ #1, and DW would most likely make the Top 10.........

One must remember, I have basically been a fan nearly entirely in a Bill-less era. SW was my first album, and his departure really didn't mean anything to me at the time other than the bass player left. OK. The album was pretty good, but by the time VL came out with its HUGE sound, wall of guitars, and hard hitting drums and bass - holy F!!! It was like light years ahead of SW. And similarly with B2B, the beats and bass were equally pronounced - more so than Sw for me. At the time, while I read the liner notes, I didn't study them to the degree of memorizing who was playing on which track on each album and what not. I just knew that the bass sounded more and bigger on the albums that followed. And that's not taking anything away from Bill, for whom I've come to enjoy and respect. I love the new track with Bill - more so than the one on the Ben Waters' tribute album from several years ago.

None of this is an attempt to diminish or take away from anything Bill accomplished. I just am not stuck in the Brian, MT, Bill, RW era's like some others is all. Though the loss of Charlie is devastating and noticeable I think. And maybe that feeling is the same that others feel toward the end of whichever era is one's favorite???

Quote
Paddy

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Paddy

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
treaclefingers
"I just am not stuck in the Brian, MT, Bill, RW era's like some others is all."

Don't take this the wrong way Voodoo, but I kinda feel sorry for you in that you're suggesting that because we enjoy the Brian or MT era's for instance, means we're "stuck". I do not believe you know what you're missing. In my opinion, that also comes out in your view of "the 60s albums".

I understand that everyone's taste is different and it's great you've found a connection to the Stones latter day material. It's just sort of interesting that you're suggesting a lot of us are stuck in different eras, when I can see your "era" is Steel Wheels through ABB. 4 albums. Four albums where they tried to recapture what they had during their golden eras, with varying degrees of success.

I guess a lot of what we like comes from when we became fans. For me it was via She's So Cold and then the Emotional Rescue album followed by Some Girls, Hot Rocks, Sucking in the 70s and Tattoo You. I love that era, but I also love everything before and to Undercover. They were peerless in terms of output over 20 years, 63-83. Since then it's been a bit hit and miss - lots of still great output but no where near their previous successes - but with HD they seem to have found a consistency of their material and able to sustain it at a very high level; and they are having fun.

It's too bad you're not enjoying it on one of your 15 copies!

I do definitely get the irony of now owning SIXTEEN copies of an album that isn't that great LOL

Is it ironic or moronic?
Why buy 16 copies of an album you don’t really like. Music collecting ain’t music loving. I’m happy I have 1 copy on vinyl that I do enjoy.

That really isn't called for Paddy.

Well my apologies if offended. I don’t personally see the point in buying 16 of something you don’t enjoy. Ironic is a strange term to describe that, I just went with the first word that came to mind and rhymed with Ironic. Silly might have been better. But you’re right, my take wasn’t called for.

Mea Culpa.

Quote
IrelandCalling4
156k in UK alone in 9 weeks, and a second time atop the charts. Amazing.

I love the album. It had a magic and a charm to it that first day - after 18 years since ABB - two days prior to release, shut myself off from the noise of the house, an ice cold Coke, good set of headphones - an hour plus, full album through, selected tracks repeated. Sounded so good, and for me its lost none of its charm. Every few days I give it a blast, find myself skipping nothing, feeling the need to play it straight through.

Have added Mess It Up Remix, Ghost Town, and Sweet Sounds edit/alt to the album playlist. The live disc I think is terrific, far superior than I thought it would be.

Later tonight, finally on holidays, time to key it up again for a listening.

Quote
keefriffhards
GasLightStreet Merry Christmas.

I don't have the time or inclination to respond to a rant like that.
I love all Stones albums up to and including Voodoo Lounge, even Dirty Work.
As far as I'm concerned the Stones don't change enough, as i said a few days ago they have been playing the same show since 89' they absolutely don't like change, they play the same hits every tour.

It's all opinions, it's all good, nothing personal about it, one man's meat is another man's poison, i like the album but i should love it, if anything it's Stones by numbers, it's not change, although it's worth the price of the CD alone for SSOH.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
VoodooLounge13
For me, it just sounds sterile - the whole thing. I cleared time out of my schedule and listened to it start to finish upon receiving the CD. I was excited to have a new album to listen to after 18 long years. There are some standout tracks no doubt - WWW & LBTS being the absolute gems, and TMS could have been one but it's too short and lacks really any lyrics. It's more of a throwaway if ever there was one, but I do LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE the line is my future all in the past. Just brilliant!!!! But the rest is good at best. I loathe the part where Mick asks Paul to play some bass when he's already in the middle of his solo. It should have been at the beginning. Don't see the epicness that all love about SSOH, and I dislike the extra 2 minutes tacked onto the end. To me, that would have been better to blend into a boogie track ala something on EOMS. Angry is better'n I expected, but it is no RJ, which for me is a modern-day sounding Stones classic. For as little as I go back to ABB these days, there are more songs on that album that I find memorable than I do on HD.

I get that HD was supposed to sound like a contemporary Stones album for the ages, and it definitely sounds contemporary. I think that might be part of my problem with it. It sounds like a buncha modern drivel that some 20-year olds coulda done. I don't get any emotion with it. I don't feel an attachment to a single song aside from my TMS, but by the time that connection builds up, it's over, which sucks. For me, I just find the album to be 'authentic' if you will.

I would much rather listen to Whiskey Myers' stuff on repeat for the 100000x time this year - a band I only discovered about 5 months ago - than to try and see what I'm missing with HD. Whiskey Myers sound real and authentic. There's an honesty and a bit of a rawness to their lyrics, and the music is simply amazing.

I don't know where HD will end up ranking for me in the grand scope of things, but it will be well down the list, mixed in somewhere along IORR, ER, U, all of which are just a tad ahead of most of their 60's albums. But then I have a very different listing of Stones best albums than the average fan on this board, so there is that!!!! VL @ #1, and DW would most likely make the Top 10.........

One must remember, I have basically been a fan nearly entirely in a Bill-less era. SW was my first album, and his departure really didn't mean anything to me at the time other than the bass player left. OK. The album was pretty good, but by the time VL came out with its HUGE sound, wall of guitars, and hard hitting drums and bass - holy F!!! It was like light years ahead of SW. And similarly with B2B, the beats and bass were equally pronounced - more so than Sw for me. At the time, while I read the liner notes, I didn't study them to the degree of memorizing who was playing on which track on each album and what not. I just knew that the bass sounded more and bigger on the albums that followed. And that's not taking anything away from Bill, for whom I've come to enjoy and respect. I love the new track with Bill - more so than the one on the Ben Waters' tribute album from several years ago.

None of this is an attempt to diminish or take away from anything Bill accomplished. I just am not stuck in the Brian, MT, Bill, RW era's like some others is all. Though the loss of Charlie is devastating and noticeable I think. And maybe that feeling is the same that others feel toward the end of whichever era is one's favorite???

It's way less produced than UNDERCOVER and way better produced than STEEL WHEELS and VOODOO LOUNGE.

Contemporary? Way off.

Sterile?

One could nitpick at albums with that term.

Quote
Big Al
Was Voodoo Lounge not an attempt by Don Was to ‘recreate’ the sound of Exile on Main Street? If not that precisely, it was, at least, a determined effort to make the Stones’ ‘sound’ more ‘classic’ I do think the album has a nice warmth to its feel, and I do, very much, like it’s 60’s-like vibe in tracks like New Faces and The Worst. Love Is Strong is another nod to a sort-of classic and familiar sensibility. It’s a ‘good’ album, in my opinion.

A question for those who appreciate the above, but not Hackney Diamonds: is it the songwriting, or the production? Would you like the record that much more if Was, or anyone else with ‘retro’, traditional leanings were at the helm?

Quote
MartinB

Quote
Big Al
Was Voodoo Lounge not an attempt by Don Was to ‘recreate’ the sound of Exile on Main Street? If not that precisely, it was, at least, a determined effort to make the Stones’ ‘sound’ more ‘classic’ I do think the album has a nice warmth to its feel, and I do, very much, like it’s 60’s-like vibe in tracks like New Faces and The Worst. Love Is Strong is another nod to a sort-of classic and familiar sensibility. It’s a ‘good’ album, in my opinion.

A question for those who appreciate the above, but not Hackney Diamonds: is it the songwriting, or the production? Would you like the record that much more if Was, or anyone else with ‘retro’, traditional leanings were at the helm?

I would prefer more traditional production but I don't think this is a make or break point of the album.

Quote
MartinB

Quote
Big Al
Was Voodoo Lounge not an attempt by Don Was to ‘recreate’ the sound of Exile on Main Street? If not that precisely, it was, at least, a determined effort to make the Stones’ ‘sound’ more ‘classic’ I do think the album has a nice warmth to its feel, and I do, very much, like it’s 60’s-like vibe in tracks like New Faces and The Worst. Love Is Strong is another nod to a sort-of classic and familiar sensibility. It’s a ‘good’ album, in my opinion.

A question for those who appreciate the above, but not Hackney Diamonds: is it the songwriting, or the production? Would you like the record that much more if Was, or anyone else with ‘retro’, traditional leanings were at the helm?

I would prefer more traditional production but I don't think this is a make or break point of the album.