Lurv HD .... its such a friend ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
ProfessorWolf
hackney diamonds

is it good?

is it bad?

who cares

let's talk about the real scandal the abysmal qaulity of the vinyl pressings

i bought not one but two different copies one the transparent version from my local record store the other just a normal black vinyl one

BOTH somehow despite being sealed and upon close inspect looking pristine had a tremendous amount of surface noise that was very audible between tracks and during several songs

am i just unlucky or is this a common issue with this album on vinyl?

It's the new thing: make 1-23 versions of "vinyl" and... will buy it and expect it to sound pristine.

Fake.

Even with one song being on 24 track 2" tape it's still digitally mastered. UMG doesn't give a shit about quality just as long as someone buys it.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ProfessorWolf
hackney diamonds

is it good?

is it bad?

who cares

let's talk about the real scandal the abysmal qaulity of the vinyl pressings

i bought not one but two different copies one the transparent version from my local record store the other just a normal black vinyl one

BOTH somehow despite being sealed and upon close inspect looking pristine had a tremendous amount of surface noise that was very audible between tracks and during several songs

am i just unlucky or is this a common issue with this album on vinyl?

It's the new thing: make 1-23 versions of "vinyl" and... will buy it and expect it to sound pristine.

Fake.

Even with one song being on 24 track 2" tape it's still digitally mastered. UMG doesn't give a shit about quality just as long as someone buys it.

what do your mean by fake do you mean wrong?

i agree with you on the absurdity of buying new vinyl that's been digitally remastered

usaully i only buy vintage vinyl pressings that are all analog

but i make exceptions for certain new stuff from the band like hackney diamonds

the only other time i ran into an issue with new vinyl was with the 10" remix of doom and gloom which had a glob of plastic melted into one corner of the record

another reason i often avoid new vinyl is bassed on the horror stories i've read about the current state of qaulity control

For what matters, my vinyl copy of HD sounds great.

C

It sounds fine on Spotify

Quote
Big Al
It sounds fine on Spotify

And the ATMOS version even better!

C

Quote
liddas
For what matters, my vinyl copy of HD sounds great.

C

mine does too if you can get past the annoying grinding noise

i'll just have to buy another copy at some point

can't happen three times in a row right?

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ProfessorWolf
hackney diamonds

is it good?

is it bad?

who cares

let's talk about the real scandal the abysmal qaulity of the vinyl pressings

i bought not one but two different copies one the transparent version from my local record store the other just a normal black vinyl one

BOTH somehow despite being sealed and upon close inspect looking pristine had a tremendous amount of surface noise that was very audible between tracks and during several songs

am i just unlucky or is this a common issue with this album on vinyl?

It's the new thing: make 1-23 versions of "vinyl" and... will buy it and expect it to sound pristine.

Fake.

Even with one song being on 24 track 2" tape it's still digitally mastered. UMG doesn't give a shit about quality just as long as someone buys it.

what do your mean by fake do you mean wrong?

i agree with you on the absurdity of buying new vinyl that's been digitally remastered

usaully i only buy vintage vinyl pressings that are all analog

but i make exceptions for certain new stuff from the band like hackney diamonds

the only other time i ran into an issue with new vinyl was with the 10" remix of doom and gloom which had a glob of plastic melted into one corner of the record

another reason i often avoid new vinyl is bassed on the horror stories i've read about the current state of qaulity control

Fake as in it's not for the audio it's just to sell something that looks cool.

Decades ago I got Def Leppard's picture disc of HYSTERIA. Knowing that playing it would ruin it, I never played it and I've never bought another picture disc.

I can get a poster.

Digitally recorded albums on vinyl are absurd for the audio, although they probably aren't brickwalled, so in that sense they sound better, but great for the art.

It appears that vinyl pressings in the 2020s have been rushed and below standard material used regarding quality control. There are specific releases, the 180 mg releases, that probably do sound fantastic and I've never read anything bad about the half-speed remasters but overall it's a bit much to expect more from a vinyl release that's available streaming or on CD - except for the mastering or remastering, which alters the listening experience as some have discovered between the Atlantic, CBS, Virgin and UMe/UMG digital, well, specifically, CD releases.

Quote
Irix
Hackney Diamonds 3D statue (22cm/8.5" , $198) :



Pre-order: [KnuckleBonz.com] . More Rolling Stones statues: [KnuckleBonz.com] .

That is so cool! I am tempted...

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Irix
Hackney Diamonds 3D statue (22cm/8.5" , $198) :



Pre-order: [KnuckleBonz.com] . More Rolling Stones statues: [KnuckleBonz.com] .

That is so cool! I am tempted...

That would be a bitch to dust...

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ProfessorWolf
hackney diamonds

is it good?

is it bad?

who cares

let's talk about the real scandal the abysmal qaulity of the vinyl pressings

i bought not one but two different copies one the transparent version from my local record store the other just a normal black vinyl one

BOTH somehow despite being sealed and upon close inspect looking pristine had a tremendous amount of surface noise that was very audible between tracks and during several songs

am i just unlucky or is this a common issue with this album on vinyl?

It's the new thing: make 1-23 versions of "vinyl" and... will buy it and expect it to sound pristine.

Fake.

Even with one song being on 24 track 2" tape it's still digitally mastered. UMG doesn't give a shit about quality just as long as someone buys it.

what do your mean by fake do you mean wrong?

i agree with you on the absurdity of buying new vinyl that's been digitally remastered

usaully i only buy vintage vinyl pressings that are all analog

but i make exceptions for certain new stuff from the band like hackney diamonds

the only other time i ran into an issue with new vinyl was with the 10" remix of doom and gloom which had a glob of plastic melted into one corner of the record

another reason i often avoid new vinyl is bassed on the horror stories i've read about the current state of qaulity control

Fake as in it's not for the audio it's just to sell something that looks cool.

Decades ago I got Def Leppard's picture disc of HYSTERIA. Knowing that playing it would ruin it, I never played it and I've never bought another picture disc.

I can get a poster.

Digitally recorded albums on vinyl are absurd for the audio, although they probably aren't brickwalled, so in that sense they sound better, but great for the art.

It appears that vinyl pressings in the 2020s have been rushed and below standard material used regarding quality control. There are specific releases, the 180 mg releases, that probably do sound fantastic and I've never read anything bad about the half-speed remasters but overall it's a bit much to expect more from a vinyl release that's available streaming or on CD - except for the mastering or remastering, which alters the listening experience as some have discovered between the Atlantic, CBS, Virgin and UMe/UMG digital, well, specifically, CD releases.

pretty much agree

some new vinyl i get because it's not brickwalled as bad as the cds

the bigger bang vinyl is the only way i have to listen to that album at volume thru headphones without my ears bleeding

speaking of picture discs you might consider picking up the still life picture disc it's not to expensive and if i remember correctly you like that album

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ProfessorWolf
hackney diamonds

is it good?

is it bad?

who cares

let's talk about the real scandal the abysmal qaulity of the vinyl pressings

i bought not one but two different copies one the transparent version from my local record store the other just a normal black vinyl one

BOTH somehow despite being sealed and upon close inspect looking pristine had a tremendous amount of surface noise that was very audible between tracks and during several songs

am i just unlucky or is this a common issue with this album on vinyl?

It's the new thing: make 1-23 versions of "vinyl" and... will buy it and expect it to sound pristine.

Fake.

Even with one song being on 24 track 2" tape it's still digitally mastered. UMG doesn't give a shit about quality just as long as someone buys it.

what do your mean by fake do you mean wrong?

i agree with you on the absurdity of buying new vinyl that's been digitally remastered

usaully i only buy vintage vinyl pressings that are all analog

but i make exceptions for certain new stuff from the band like hackney diamonds

the only other time i ran into an issue with new vinyl was with the 10" remix of doom and gloom which had a glob of plastic melted into one corner of the record

another reason i often avoid new vinyl is bassed on the horror stories i've read about the current state of qaulity control

Fake as in it's not for the audio it's just to sell something that looks cool.

Decades ago I got Def Leppard's picture disc of HYSTERIA. Knowing that playing it would ruin it, I never played it and I've never bought another picture disc.

I can get a poster.

Digitally recorded albums on vinyl are absurd for the audio, although they probably aren't brickwalled, so in that sense they sound better, but great for the art.

It appears that vinyl pressings in the 2020s have been rushed and below standard material used regarding quality control. There are specific releases, the 180 mg releases, that probably do sound fantastic and I've never read anything bad about the half-speed remasters but overall it's a bit much to expect more from a vinyl release that's available streaming or on CD - except for the mastering or remastering, which alters the listening experience as some have discovered between the Atlantic, CBS, Virgin and UMe/UMG digital, well, specifically, CD releases.

pretty much agree

some new vinyl i get because it's not brickwalled as bad as the cds

the bigger bang vinyl is the only way i have to listen to that album at volume thru headphones without my ears bleeding

speaking of picture discs you might consider picking up the still life picture disc it's not to expensive and if i remember correctly you like that album

Yes. It's a fantastic live album, even considering, and thankfully, what was left off and presented with HAMPTON. Too bad there hasn't been a PHOENIX live album from that.

STILL LIFE is a really good live album. Amongst the official live albums it's second best.

HD sounds quite good on vinyl [by today's standards anyway] in terms of the the mastering and sound .

I think this is kind of by accident though

It's quite a long record for a single LP but, thankfully , universal didn't put it out as a two disc album as is too often the trend with modern vinyl.

This has resulted in them not being able cut it too loud and it retains a reasonably natural dynamics.

It is however, as folks have commented, quite noisy .

This is simply due to the rubbish vinyl quality which is today sadly too common.

I've got scores of records that I've played constantly for 50 years and which remain virtually silent between tracks.

We used to moan about vinyl quality in the "oil crisis" days of the 70s but compared to the stuff we're palmed off with today, it was all like virgin JVC/ RCA Victor super vinyl !

And all this 180gm vinyl is just b*llocks.

Instead, why not try to make flat records, with the hole in the middle ?

edited to add...

I'd quite like to see an Abbey Road half speed master of HD to update the box set.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-06-04 13:26 by Spud.

But if the term of comparison is the rubbish LPs I used to buy in the 80s even the LPs that are made today sound like virgin JVC/ RCA Victor super vinyl!

C

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ProfessorWolf
hackney diamonds

is it good?

is it bad?

who cares

let's talk about the real scandal the abysmal qaulity of the vinyl pressings

i bought not one but two different copies one the transparent version from my local record store the other just a normal black vinyl one

BOTH somehow despite being sealed and upon close inspect looking pristine had a tremendous amount of surface noise that was very audible between tracks and during several songs

am i just unlucky or is this a common issue with this album on vinyl?

It's the new thing: make 1-23 versions of "vinyl" and... will buy it and expect it to sound pristine.

Fake.

Even with one song being on 24 track 2" tape it's still digitally mastered. UMG doesn't give a shit about quality just as long as someone buys it.

what do your mean by fake do you mean wrong?

i agree with you on the absurdity of buying new vinyl that's been digitally remastered

usaully i only buy vintage vinyl pressings that are all analog

but i make exceptions for certain new stuff from the band like hackney diamonds

the only other time i ran into an issue with new vinyl was with the 10" remix of doom and gloom which had a glob of plastic melted into one corner of the record

another reason i often avoid new vinyl is bassed on the horror stories i've read about the current state of qaulity control

Fake as in it's not for the audio it's just to sell something that looks cool.

Decades ago I got Def Leppard's picture disc of HYSTERIA. Knowing that playing it would ruin it, I never played it and I've never bought another picture disc.

I can get a poster.

Digitally recorded albums on vinyl are absurd for the audio, although they probably aren't brickwalled, so in that sense they sound better, but great for the art.

It appears that vinyl pressings in the 2020s have been rushed and below standard material used regarding quality control. There are specific releases, the 180 mg releases, that probably do sound fantastic and I've never read anything bad about the half-speed remasters but overall it's a bit much to expect more from a vinyl release that's available streaming or on CD - except for the mastering or remastering, which alters the listening experience as some have discovered between the Atlantic, CBS, Virgin and UMe/UMG digital, well, specifically, CD releases.

pretty much agree

some new vinyl i get because it's not brickwalled as bad as the cds

the bigger bang vinyl is the only way i have to listen to that album at volume thru headphones without my ears bleeding

speaking of picture discs you might consider picking up the still life picture disc it's not to expensive and if i remember correctly you like that album

Yes. It's a fantastic live album, even considering, and thankfully, what was left off and presented with HAMPTON. Too bad there hasn't been a PHOENIX live album from that.

STILL LIFE is a really good live album. Amongst the official live albums it's second best.

I've also always liked it. For me, it is the most "LIVE" sounding album, as if you were actually there.

Quote
Spud
HD sounds quite good on vinyl [by today's standards anyway] in terms of the the mastering and sound .

I think this is kind of by accident though

It's quite a long record for a single LP but, thankfully , universal didn't put it out as a two disc album as is too often the trend with modern vinyl.

This has resulted in them not being able cut it too loud and it retains a reasonably natural dynamics.

It is however, as folks have commented, quite noisy .

This is simply due to the rubbish vinyl quality which is today sadly too common.

I've got scores of records that I've played constantly for 50 years and which remain virtually silent between tracks.

We used to moan about vinyl quality in the "oil crisis" days of the 70s but compared to the stuff we're palmed off with today, it was all like virgin JVC/ RCA Victor super vinyl !

And all this 180gm vinyl is just b*llocks.

Instead, why not try to make flat records, with the hole in the middle ?

edited to add...

I'd quite like to see an Abbey Road half speed master of HD to update the box set.]

Nice. Thanks for the info. That's very interesting about the vinyl issue of HD being noisy.

Essentially tidies things up about the rash of "vinyl" albums - just a money grab, quality control is zero.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Spud
HD sounds quite good on vinyl [by today's standards anyway] in terms of the the mastering and sound .

I think this is kind of by accident though

It's quite a long record for a single LP but, thankfully , universal didn't put it out as a two disc album as is too often the trend with modern vinyl.

This has resulted in them not being able cut it too loud and it retains a reasonably natural dynamics.

It is however, as folks have commented, quite noisy .

This is simply due to the rubbish vinyl quality which is today sadly too common.

I've got scores of records that I've played constantly for 50 years and which remain virtually silent between tracks.

We used to moan about vinyl quality in the "oil crisis" days of the 70s but compared to the stuff we're palmed off with today, it was all like virgin JVC/ RCA Victor super vinyl !

And all this 180gm vinyl is just b*llocks.

Instead, why not try to make flat records, with the hole in the middle ?

edited to add...

I'd quite like to see an Abbey Road half speed master of HD to update the box set.]

Nice. Thanks for the info. That's very interesting about the vinyl issue of HD being noisy.

Essentially tidies things up about the rash of "vinyl" albums - just a money grab, quality control is zero.

I really didn't notice the album being "noisy" for what it's worth. But that's just one the one vinyl copy, the Amazon green one, that I've played.

Quote
RisingStone
I liked HD on the first listen. I still do.
The argument over this ‘un sounding more like a Mick solo album rather than the old school Stones albums doesn’t bother me. It’s still a Rolling Stones record and very good at that.
To me, the vintage Stones and the modern Stones are one, both Rolling Stones in different phases, disguises and musical approaches. Simple as that.

It is no use trying to persuade those who like it into believing it is a dud , or convert naysayers to lovers. You like it or not, and leave it as that.

It's funny, since about Dirty Work I've found myself listening to each new release on repeat, on purpose, until I "get" the album. I haven't always liked every album but in most cases they grow on you.

I think in that time, probably Steel Wheels is the only album I've fully appreciated...I like a lot of ABB and Voodoo but they're just so long and don't deserve to be in the way that Exile does.

So upon reflection, HD was and still is a revelation. Angry was an interesting choice as first single, it has the fist-pumping appeal but is far from the best cut on the album. You go from that to Get Close and Depending on You, 2 completely awesome tracks, amongst the best they've done in the last 40 years, and you are off to an amazing start.

Bite My Head off is a grower and gets better with each listen, even though it's really only just a bit of toss off fun as only the Stones can give justice too (in a She's So Cold kind of way).

Then Whole Wide World...another highlight not only on the album but in the last 40 years worth of material. Arguably the best cut on the album, certainly on side one. Side 2 ends with Dreamy Skies which is a beautiful shift in tempo and mood and easily could have fit on Exile. What an absolutely bullet proof side one.

SIDE 2...almost as good. Mess It Up is a bit of pop/dance fun but certainly not with the "Miss You" type of power that you'd hope from them, if they were going to try this sort of song.

Live by the Sword is a tale of two songs, music is great, lyrics are horrific. I just can't get past them.

But then we're back to it...Driving Me Too Hard, Tell Me Straight (so poignant - my fave Keith track since Thief), the album's gospel showstopper, SSoH, and the brilliant conclusion to the album Mick and Keith dueting on Rolling Stone Blues.

When I think of the best Stones albums since the big 4, there's always a duff track on there, a throwaway. Some Girls had Lies, Tattoo You had Neighbours, Black and Blue had Cherry Oh Baby, IORR had Short and Curlies, so for me, LBTS is that track on HD.

A stellar album that will add to their legacy and here's hoping we get one on the same level this year.

Well said, Treacle. I agree totally with your review.

I struggled with Get Close for a while, though, as it reminded me too much of Too Far Gone. No problems with it now.

My favourite has grown to be Driving Me Too Hard - a track I found rather anonymous at first.

Whole Wide World is one of Mick’s best songs.Great lyrics.Ditto Sweet Sounds of Heaven.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well said, Treacle. I agree totally with your review.

I struggled with Get Close for a while, though, as it reminded me too much of Too Far Gone. No problems with it now.

My favourite has grown to be Driving Me Too Hard - a track I found rather anonymous at first.

Thank you Dandy your are very kind. It took them awhile...too long...but they were able to pull together an excellent assortment of tracks that easily bears repeat listening.

Quote
treaclefingers
When I think of the best Stones albums since the big 4, there's always a duff track on there, a throwaway. Some Girls had Lies, Tattoo You had Neighbours, Black and Blue had Cherry Oh Baby, IORR had Short and Curlies, so for me, LBTS is that track on HD.

Eh, Imagination is the throwaway track for me on SG. Lies is excellent and has certainly found new poignancy in recent years.

TY is a 10, not one bad track.

Regarding Cherry Oh Baby, at least musically it's a straight up honoring. Mick ruins it. Perhaps Keith should've sung it.

Short And Curlies... ha ha... a GHS leftover, I love it. Song wise IORR is also a 10.

I think of A, BB, LIB, SF, GHS, IORR and TY as albums with no bunk tracks. All fantastic albums to listen to regardless.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well said, Treacle. I agree totally with your review.

I struggled with Get Close for a while, though, as it reminded me too much of Too Far Gone. No problems with it now.

My favourite has grown to be Driving Me Too Hard - a track I found rather anonymous at first.

This is one of my favorites off the album too. I’m surprised there isn’t more love for it. I think it would’ve been a great first single release.

Quote
TrulyMicks1

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well said, Treacle. I agree totally with your review.

I struggled with Get Close for a while, though, as it reminded me too much of Too Far Gone. No problems with it now.

My favourite has grown to be Driving Me Too Hard - a track I found rather anonymous at first.

This is one of my favorites off the album too. I’m surprised there isn’t more love for it. I think it would’ve been a great first single release.

Which one, Get Close or Driving Me Too Hard?

Get Close is still my favorite song HD. Just love it, wish they played it live.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
TrulyMicks1

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well said, Treacle. I agree totally with your review.

I struggled with Get Close for a while, though, as it reminded me too much of Too Far Gone. No problems with it now.

My favourite has grown to be Driving Me Too Hard - a track I found rather anonymous at first.

This is one of my favorites off the album too. I’m surprised there isn’t more love for it. I think it would’ve been a great first single release.

Which one, Get Close or Driving Me Too Hard?

I was talking about Driving Me Too Hard but both have been favorites since the first listen.

Listening to HD now for the first time in 11 months - I stopped right after the July 4 Vancouver concert - as Rockman said, like a friend.

This is even better than I remembered. Just so good.

Green vinyl...no noise, sounds fabulous.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
kovach

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Stonesfan2146
I also do still listen to Hackney Diamonds a lot. And many songs have even grown for me from first not liking them to then having them in my car driving playlist, for example Get Close. The saxophone solo gives me 1981 tour vibes, making me think they could have played this in the stadium on that great evening in the lets spend the night together concert movie. It fits the vibe.
And that's why I think the next album will be just as amazing and they still have so much left in the can. They are still the rolling Stones, just a bit older.

Yes...it is a retro-Tattoo You feel, great observation. It's one of about 5 or 6 songs on the album that could have/should have been singles. I think Whole Wide World and Depending on You were missed opportunities as well. In fact I'd argue that Whole Wide World should have been the follow-up single and tease SSoH out a bit later.

I agree, most memorable album since Tattoo You. Since Some Girls might be a bit of a stretch...

So for me, as one who prefers Tattoo You over Some Girls, I'd say it was maybe the best since Tattoo You because that comes first backwards chronologically (if I accept HD is better than Undercover, which I'm not sure I do)

HOWEVER, even comparing it to Some Girls I don't think it has quite the punch there...it's close though. For me LBTS, the weakest cut, drags it a bit.

But then again, you're comparing 12 songs on HD to 10 songs on SG so if you took top 10 on each it would be still closer.

BUT...you have to consider the strength of the singles too, and in that regard Miss You and Beast are uber-strong. As much as I love HD, it, as in most albums released by the band in the last 40 years, really doesn't have the killer single. That's the missing ingredient. Angry, a great song, isn't really a killer single.

Whole Wide World and Get Close could have been strong singles but apparently they didn't think so!

Angry was a solid single. The big riffage, the snarky chorus, the longing (please just forget about me). It's in the face and immediate.

Nothing else on the album has that but there are some close ones - Driving Me Too Hard is as classic Stones as they got on HD. It's got Mick being revealing, the "Look what you've done to me", while also being standoffish (Morocco or a corner bar). Get Close is another one that's almost there.

Overall, except for the weird Live By The Sword, it's a solid album, which is way more than probably what was expected given the last 3 original albums regarding their consistency - they're mostly equal in the bum tracks.

If Angry was edited to start with the guitars it's possible to contend with UOTN, Mixed Emotions and Love Is Strong is Duhhh, it's the Stones. Perhaps the count in is the weakest aspect but only one other single has a count in and it's a whatever single.

Looking forward to what didn't make HD on the new album. Given the focus of the project some of them are most likely better than some songs on HD.

I'ma disagree with you. I don't think Angry touches the greatness of UOTN. But It's better than Mixed Emotions, and compared to Love is Strong...I dunno they are just so different. But singles aside, this is a strong album. Really my only point on the killer lead single is to sell the album and I just don't think they've been able to do that since Start Me Up.

Singles wear out their welcome earlier though and they serve their purpose if they can introduce you to the deeper more interesting cuts.

Maybe Angry achieves this, but not in the numbers that you would hope. But then again, they're in their 80s so what do you want?

The numbers ended a long time ago and they, well, Keith, stopped caring about #1 hits decades ago.

Perhaps Angry is the one track to say STONES to people upon something new because it's a big sound. It certainly has the energy of Start Me Up or Rough Justice and, considering all the other tracks on HD, is the best track for the LP opener. UOTN remains a time piece. I love the song but it's dated because of the production yet, to me, still sounds immediately fresh (as does the album) and is a nice jarring and brutal song in the sequence of any hits comp ("dated" might be a bit harsh these days considering how there are 1980s sounds coming back).

Upon HD coming out I updated my JUMP BACK/HONK playlist with Angry in the first 5 songs and it fits fantastically. I included Driving Me Too Hard, Tell Me Straight and I think Mess It Up later on that fit in amongst the catalog.

Perhaps Stones fans were spoiled by Start Me Up. In terms of singles they've certainly had their sound, starting with Satisfaction and then 19th Nervous Breakdown and whatever mostly started by guitar, obviously JJF, SFM, Brown Sugar, Tumbling Dice, Angie and Miss You, that, aside from die hard fans, ended with Start Me Up.

Angry fits within that frame considering.

Yeah, Angry sounded really good today. I'm glad I took a year off, I listened to it way to much upon release. Now though it's fresh and it feels like a classic I haven't listened to in awhile.

I think tomorrow I'm gonna try it with Emotional Rescue.

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)