Quote
goingmad

Quote
ohmercy61
Hackney is by far my most favorite album since some girls I freaking love this album.

Yep, same here.

Quote
ohmercy61
Hackney is by far my most favorite album since some girls I freaking love this album.

It's amazing, given how long it's been since A BIGGER BANG, that we got HACKNEY DIAMONDS.

What's way better is... it's awesome!

Aside from what they were going for with UNDERCOVER, it's their most solid album since TATOO YOU but in regard to being new, absolutely, SOME GIRLS.

All of their moments post-1981 until, the very least, Living In A Ghost Town... don't hold up to the solidity of HD.

It doesn't matter what kind of fan one is: bootlegs, studio and live, every official release, collectors of every single, EP and LP release, variations included - it truly is an excellent album.

Someone tell Charlie it's released, he can stop wondering.

cleaned



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-27 14:23 by wiredallnight.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ohmercy61
Hackney is by far my most favorite album since some girls I freaking love this album.

It's amazing, given how long it's been since A BIGGER BANG, that we got HACKNEY DIAMONDS.

What's way better is... it's awesome!

Aside from what they were going for with UNDERCOVER, it's their most solid album since TATOO YOU but in regard to being new, absolutely, SOME GIRLS.

All of their moments post-1981 until, the very least, Living In A Ghost Town... don't hold up to the solidity of HD.

It doesn't matter what kind of fan one is: bootlegs, studio and live, every official release, collectors of every single, EP and LP release, variations included - it truly is an excellent album.

Someone tell Charlie it's released, he can stop wondering.

I hope he does’nt hear about the huge amount of praise this first stones album without him is getting. I find it kind of disrespectful actually. I mean is a good record of the 3 remaining members of the band, but without Charlie there is no chance in hell this is one of their best.Come on guys. It’s like an album without Mick. Or Keith



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-27 13:59 by dedospegajosos.

Quote
ohmercy61
Hackney is by far my most favorite album since some girls I freaking love this album.

I love this album but i think that Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You are superior.
So, imo Hackney Diamonds it's the best since Tattoo You even if Undercover it's a really interesting album and still fresh and enjoyable after 40 years.
Let's see how HD will grow over the years!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-27 14:16 by HardRiffin.

Quote
dedospegajosos

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ohmercy61
Hackney is by far my most favorite album since some girls I freaking love this album.

It's amazing, given how long it's been since A BIGGER BANG, that we got HACKNEY DIAMONDS.

What's way better is... it's awesome!

Aside from what they were going for with UNDERCOVER, it's their most solid album since TATOO YOU but in regard to being new, absolutely, SOME GIRLS.

All of their moments post-1981 until, the very least, Living In A Ghost Town... don't hold up to the solidity of HD.

It doesn't matter what kind of fan one is: bootlegs, studio and live, every official release, collectors of every single, EP and LP release, variations included - it truly is an excellent album.

Someone tell Charlie it's released, he can stop wondering.

I hope he does’nt hear about the huge amount of praise this first stones album without him is getting. I find it kind of disrespectful actually. I mean is a good record of the 3 remaining members of the band, but without Charlie there is no chance in hell this is one of their best.Come on guys. It’s like an album without Mick. Or Keith

It's not without Charlie, though.

I know, 2 songs, love them, I like the others.

Quote
dedospegajosos

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ohmercy61
Hackney is by far my most favorite album since some girls I freaking love this album.

It's amazing, given how long it's been since A BIGGER BANG, that we got HACKNEY DIAMONDS.

What's way better is... it's awesome!

Aside from what they were going for with UNDERCOVER, it's their most solid album since TATOO YOU but in regard to being new, absolutely, SOME GIRLS.

All of their moments post-1981 until, the very least, Living In A Ghost Town... don't hold up to the solidity of HD.

It doesn't matter what kind of fan one is: bootlegs, studio and live, every official release, collectors of every single, EP and LP release, variations included - it truly is an excellent album.

Someone tell Charlie it's released, he can stop wondering.

I hope he does’nt hear about the huge amount of praise this first stones album without him is getting. I find it kind of disrespectful actually. I mean is a good record of the 3 remaining members of the band, but without Charlie there is no chance in hell this is one of their best.Come on guys. It’s like an album without Mick. Or Keith

Most people on this site could watch each member of the band be replaced one by one and still argue it's the Rolling Stones

Quote
Bastion

Most people on this site could watch each member of the band be replaced one by one and still argue it's the Rolling Stones

Agreed. That's why I never listen to the studio versions of You Can't Always Get What You Want or Sister Morphine or It's Only Rock 'n' Roll. Not The Rolling Stones.

Quote
dedospegajosos

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ohmercy61
Hackney is by far my most favorite album since some girls I freaking love this album.

It's amazing, given how long it's been since A BIGGER BANG, that we got HACKNEY DIAMONDS.

What's way better is... it's awesome!

Aside from what they were going for with UNDERCOVER, it's their most solid album since TATOO YOU but in regard to being new, absolutely, SOME GIRLS.

All of their moments post-1981 until, the very least, Living In A Ghost Town... don't hold up to the solidity of HD.

It doesn't matter what kind of fan one is: bootlegs, studio and live, every official release, collectors of every single, EP and LP release, variations included - it truly is an excellent album.

Someone tell Charlie it's released, he can stop wondering.

I hope he does’nt hear about the huge amount of praise this first stones album without him is getting. I find it kind of disrespectful actually. I mean is a good record of the 3 remaining members of the band, but without Charlie there is no chance in hell this is one of their best.Come on guys. It’s like an album without Mick. Or Keith

Do you think the Estate of Watts is offended that we like the new album? Or that Charlie would be crushed if he were to be aware? I think he'd be thrilled.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
Bastion

Most people on this site could watch each member of the band be replaced one by one and still argue it's the Rolling Stones

Agreed. That's why I never listen to the studio versions of You Can't Always Get What You Want or Sister Morphine or It's Only Rock 'n' Roll. Not The Rolling Stones.

Imagine if during the recording of some girls bill and charlie had a violent diarrea attack and mick, keith and ron had to use session musicians instead for the whole record. The same album. Would you consider it a stones album? Even if it was really good and entertaining? Maybe a casual fan would.You know you wouldnt. It would be a nice and enjoiable rarity in the discography.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-27 16:07 by dedospegajosos.

Quote
dedospegajosos

Imagine if during the recording of some girls bill and charlie had a violent diarrea attack and mick, keith and ron had to use session musicians instead for the whole record. The same album. Would you consider it a stones album? Even if it was really good and entertaining? Maybe a casual fan would.You know you wouldnt. It would be a nice and enjoiable rarity in the discography.

I don't know why anyone thinks it's The Rolling Stones once Brian wasn't there. Call yourself purists. That's a laugh.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
dedospegajosos

Imagine if during the recording of some girls bill and charlie had a violent diarrea attack and mick, keith and ron had to use session musicians instead for the whole record. The same album. Would you consider it a stones album? Even if it was really good and entertaining? Maybe a casual fan would.You know you wouldnt. It would be a nice and enjoiable rarity in the discography.

I don't know why anyone thinks it's The Rolling Stones once Brian wasn't there. Call yourself purists. That's a laugh.

My point is that when Charlie died, he took a HUGE chunk of the stones magic with him, he was irreplaceable,he is irreplaceable, like Mick and Keith. Unlike Ron, Taylor,Brian, even Bill. Even the stones agree with this. Again, its like the stones without Mick. Its not a purity thing, I couldn’t care less about that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-27 19:20 by dedospegajosos.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
dedospegajosos

Imagine if during the recording of some girls bill and charlie had a violent diarrea attack and mick, keith and ron had to use session musicians instead for the whole record. The same album. Would you consider it a stones album? Even if it was really good and entertaining? Maybe a casual fan would.You know you wouldnt. It would be a nice and enjoiable rarity in the discography.

I don't know why anyone thinks it's The Rolling Stones once Brian wasn't there. Call yourself purists. That's a laugh.

LOL. The Stones haven't been the same since Dick Taylor and Tony Chapman left.

Quote
dedospegajosos

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
dedospegajosos

Imagine if during the recording of some girls bill and charlie had a violent diarrea attack and mick, keith and ron had to use session musicians instead for the whole record. The same album. Would you consider it a stones album? Even if it was really good and entertaining? Maybe a casual fan would.You know you wouldnt. It would be a nice and enjoiable rarity in the discography.

I don't know why anyone thinks it's The Rolling Stones once Brian wasn't there. Call yourself purists. That's a laugh.

My point is that when Charlie died, he took a HUGE chunk of the stones magic with him, he was irreplaceable,he is irreplaceable, like Mick and Keith. Unlike Ron, Taylor,Brian, even Bill. Even the stones agree with this. Again, its like the stones without Mick. Its not a purity thing, I couldn’t care less about that.

You could make the exact same argument when Bill left. No more "wobble", or "roll".

Face it, everyone's position is replaceable, even if they're sound is not.

The Mick Taylor Stones didn't sound like the Brian Jones Stones, and the Ronnie Wood Stones not like the ones before, etc.

You get the point. You may not like it, but that doesn't matter.

It's your hanging matter, no one else's.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
dedospegajosos

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
dedospegajosos

Imagine if during the recording of some girls bill and charlie had a violent diarrea attack and mick, keith and ron had to use session musicians instead for the whole record. The same album. Would you consider it a stones album? Even if it was really good and entertaining? Maybe a casual fan would.You know you wouldnt. It would be a nice and enjoiable rarity in the discography.

I don't know why anyone thinks it's The Rolling Stones once Brian wasn't there. Call yourself purists. That's a laugh.

My point is that when Charlie died, he took a HUGE chunk of the stones magic with him, he was irreplaceable,he is irreplaceable, like Mick and Keith. Unlike Ron, Taylor,Brian, even Bill. Even the stones agree with this. Again, its like the stones without Mick. Its not a purity thing, I couldn’t care less about that.

You could make the exact same argument when Bill left. No more "wobble", or "roll".

Face it, everyone's position is replaceable, even if they're sound is not.

The Mick Taylor Stones didn't sound like the Brian Jones Stones, and the Ronnie Wood Stones not like the ones before, etc.

You get the point. You may not like it, but that doesn't matter.

It's your hanging matter, no one else's.

When Bill left it was a blow, sure, but not fatal, we still had Charlie. Anyway acording to your logic, you would be fine with the rolling stones being just ronnie with some session musicians. No? Where do you draw the line then? And I believe a lot of people here agree with me



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-27 21:58 by dedospegajosos.

Only Mick and Keith is irreplaceable,no one else

Quote
harlem shuffle
Only Mick and Keith is irreplaceable,no one else

You are welcome to your opinion. I completely disagree with it, but live and let live I say.

Hackney Diamonds is great, I keep playing over and over...

To the extent that I didn't mind buying the two disc set with the live show, because I can put the main disc in my second car's CD player, instead of trying to remember to move the first one back and forth. I know, I should be using those streaming things, or Apple Play, etc. but I'm old fashioned, still playing the CDs....

and enjoying playing a new Stones album over and over....

I say, I'm really enjoying the Hackney Diamonds live songs. I really like the sound mix. I guess there are quite some editing work on it but I don't mind - it sounds good in my speakers/headphones.
Even Tumbling Dice sounds fresh - which it hasn't for decades live.

Now that we've established that it doesn't matter one bit who is in the band at all, we can all console ourselves with the notion that, as long as Mike Love is in there, they will still be The Beatles

Let's see:

Jimmy Miller: drums on YCAGWYW - so it's not a Rolling Stones song.

Jimmy Miller: drums on the end of Tumbling Dice - so it's not a Rolling Stones song.

Jimmy Miller: drums on Shine A Light - so it's not a Rolling Stones song.

Oh but Mick Taylor was on two of those three so - not Rolling Stones songs.

Ok, forget Mick Taylor being a Rolling Stone. Apparently he wasn't.

Next:

BLACK AND BLUE.

Well, a few years after tooting around Hyde Park saying he'd be in the Stones someday, Ronnie got his wish - kind of - in 1973, with Black Limousine and, of course, It's Only Rock'N'Roll, although zero actual credit on that one, and then he's on the cover of BLACK AND BLUE. And ever since then...

Charlie told Keith way back in 1986 or whenever... Steve Jordan.

The Notting Stones.

They recently had a number one album in the UK - again.

Huh.

I also disagree, and/but would note that part of what makes HD special for me is that Charlie and Bill are on some tracks. Also that the band members play bass on some others. I respect Darryl Jones as a player but he is not Bill Wyman. Ditto Steve. I would say they are great players, even. But Bill Wyman has enormous sensitivity and taste when he picks up a bass and was at the heart of the Stones alongside Charlie, just as much as Keith or Mick were.

Overall and as much as I love HD - I think we are settling on it being their best record in 40 years, from what I can read - I have of late become pretty turned off by the Stones' marketing machine and that's why I don't post here much at all.

Still think Around and around would be a terrific opener.

Quote
harlem shuffle
Only Mick and Keith is irreplaceable,no one else

(which is basically what Charlie said: that as along as there is Mick and Keith, the Stones should keep rolling as long as those two want / can.)

Quote
Bastion

Quote
dedospegajosos

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ohmercy61
Hackney is by far my most favorite album since some girls I freaking love this album.

It's amazing, given how long it's been since A BIGGER BANG, that we got HACKNEY DIAMONDS.

What's way better is... it's awesome!

Aside from what they were going for with UNDERCOVER, it's their most solid album since TATOO YOU but in regard to being new, absolutely, SOME GIRLS.

All of their moments post-1981 until, the very least, Living In A Ghost Town... don't hold up to the solidity of HD.

It doesn't matter what kind of fan one is: bootlegs, studio and live, every official release, collectors of every single, EP and LP release, variations included - it truly is an excellent album.

Someone tell Charlie it's released, he can stop wondering.

I hope he does’nt hear about the huge amount of praise this first stones album without him is getting. I find it kind of disrespectful actually. I mean is a good record of the 3 remaining members of the band, but without Charlie there is no chance in hell this is one of their best.Come on guys. It’s like an album without Mick. Or Keith

Most people on this site could watch each member of the band be replaced one by one and still argue it's the Rolling Stones

No, they're just a new Rolling Stones version, as there have been many in the past.
The fact that Charlie, Brian and Bill are no longer in RS for different reasons doesn't mean that they can't continue to make good music, is it different? For some yes, for others no and for others it is not essential.
I have a friend who claims that the Stones after Brian are no longer the Stones, for me and for many others this is not the case.
Among other things, I remember some criticism of the last Charlie.

Quote
Jimmer

Quote
harlem shuffle
Only Mick and Keith is irreplaceable,no one else

(which is basically what Charlie said: that as along as there is Mick and Keith, the Stones should keep rolling as long as those two want / can.)

Charlie always made me chuckle .

A far as he was concerned, Keith & Mick were the Rolling Stones... it was nothing to do with him .

He just helped them out by playing the drums from time to time.

Quote
stargroover
Still think Around and around would be a terrific opener.

I stil think to one hit to the body…

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
harlem shuffle
Only Mick and Keith is irreplaceable,no one else

You are welcome to your opinion. I completely disagree with it, but live and let live I say.

I remember Charlie Watts being quoted as saying that, in Roy Carr's Illustrated Record book, so it has pedigree, as an opinion, from the heart of the band....

Quote
MadMetaphoricalMax

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
harlem shuffle
Only Mick and Keith is irreplaceable,no one else

You are welcome to your opinion. I completely disagree with it, but live and let live I say.

I remember Charlie Watts being quoted as saying that, in Roy Carr's Illustrated Record book, so it has pedigree, as an opinion, from the heart of the band....

Charlie was a very humble man, to the point that he never saw how essential he was in giving this band his charm, personality and uniqueness. He may have thought he wasn´t, but I surely heard many times Ron and Keith say the exact opposite. And I agree with them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-28 14:19 by dedospegajosos.