Quote
Maindefender

Quote
HalfNanker
as a lifelong die heard Stones fan who rarely finds fault in what they do, i have to admit that im pretty shocked at all the positive comments for this song around here.

Its seems to be a mish mosh of past Stones songs (after my first listen, it didn't stick in my head, but rather Doom and Gloom did) and feels more like a throwaway that shouldn't have made the album or it added at the end to fill out side 2.

While clearly not for mass appeal, Rough and Twisted was a much better offering.

I hope FT proves to be a good album, but like so many others, i worry it is tracks 13-26 from the HD sessions.

Hello. I guess the most confusing part from you is that FT contains 10 songs from 2025 sessions, one with Charlie from 2021 and three from HD sessions.

surely some of the 2025 sessions originated back in the days of HD.

we heard repeatedly back then they had enough for 2 albums and the rest w/b used for the next one.

If in the stars in indicative of brand new stuff, then they should have used the retreads!

Anyone would think you don't like In The Stars mate.

Quote
HalfNanker

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
HalfNanker
as a lifelong die heard Stones fan who rarely finds fault in what they do, i have to admit that im pretty shocked at all the positive comments for this song around here.

Its seems to be a mish mosh of past Stones songs (after my first listen, it didn't stick in my head, but rather Doom and Gloom did) and feels more like a throwaway that shouldn't have made the album or it added at the end to fill out side 2.

While clearly not for mass appeal, Rough and Twisted was a much better offering.

I hope FT proves to be a good album, but like so many others, i worry it is tracks 13-26 from the HD sessions.

Hello. I guess the most confusing part from you is that FT contains 10 songs from 2025 sessions, one with Charlie from 2021 and three from HD sessions.

surely some of the 2025 sessions originated back in the days of HD.

we heard repeatedly back then they had enough for 2 albums and the rest w/b used for the next one.

If in the stars in indicative of brand new stuff, then they should have used the retreads!

No, they didn't. Only the three other tracks did.

There are talks of a trilogy. That's probably where the last HD tracks will wind up. I'm sure you also read georgelicks' post.

In the stars grows up with time. After repeated listening the similarity with doom and gloom is less apparent. Guitar work and other parts than verses are clearly different. Actually it is a very good song with catchy chorus. As a follow-up to Rough and Twisted works great. Looking forward to the whole album.

Quote
jumpingjackflash5
In the stars grows up with time. After repeated listening the similarity with doom and gloom is less apparent. Guitar work and other parts than verses are clearly different. Actually it is a very good song with catchy chorus. As a follow-up to Rough and Twisted works great. Looking forward to the whole album.

I'm grateful the Stones are still rolling in 2026!

I've been enjoying "In the Stars." At first, I noticed the song sounds like modern-day Rolling Stones. Yes, it does sound like the cousin of "Hirewire" and a few others, but it's "In the Stars," not those other songs.

My advice is to keep playing the song until you forget its cousins and just enjoy the song. Think of what the song is about. What's in the Stars for you and me?

+++++



In The Stars by The Rolling Stones Meaning: Fate, Luck, and Stones Swagger
by Nicholas Ciminelli, May 7, 2026


What is “In The Stars” About?

“In The Stars” by The Rolling Stones is about fate, luck, and the feeling that some things in life are already moving before we fully understand them. The song plays with the idea of destiny, but it does it in a very Stones way. It is not soft or overly sentimental. It has grit, motion, and that familiar sense of Mick Jagger staring down life with a mix of confidence, humor, and defiance.

The title points to the old idea that love, chance, and direction can be written somewhere beyond us. But the song does not feel passive. It is not just saying, “whatever happens, happens.” It feels more like a person looking at the chaos around them and deciding that maybe the wild turns, close calls, and lucky breaks were part of the path all along.

There is also a romantic reading here. “In The Stars” can be heard as a song about two people who feel pulled together by something bigger than timing or choice. It has that classic rock and roll belief that love can be messy, dangerous, lucky, and meant to be all at once.

But it also feels like a statement from the band itself. The Rolling Stones are still here, still making new music, still finding another riff, another groove, another reason to keep going. At this stage, that almost feels like fate too.

That is what makes “In The Stars” work. It takes a big idea like destiny and gives it a barroom edge. There is fortune, risk, romance, and survival all wrapped into one.

++

The Music

Musically, “In The Stars” has the kind of forward push you want from a late-era Rolling Stones single. It is not trying to reinvent the band. It is trying to prove that the engine still runs.

Mick Jagger sounds energized, and the guitars carry that familiar Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood bite. There is a sharpness to the track that keeps it from feeling too polished. Even with Andrew Watt’s modern production, the song still feels built around the thing that has always made the Stones work: rhythm, attitude, and guitars that sound like they are talking to each other.

The official Rolling Stones shop describes the track as a “blistering new rocker” driven by Jagger’s vocals and riff-heavy guitar work from Richards and Wood, which is a pretty accurate way to frame the song’s first impression.

What stands out is that the song does not sound tired. It has that loose, almost cocky energy that the Stones can still pull off better than almost anyone. It may not carry the same dark, dangerous edge as “Rough and Twisted,” but it still has a pulse. It still moves.





Where “In The Stars” Fits in the Rolling Stones’ Late Era


“In The Stars” feels connected to the energy of Hackney Diamonds, which to me was one of the best late-career rock albums ever made. It has that same sense of a legendary band that still sounds alive, rather than just leaning on its history.

What makes this new era exciting is that the songs already seem to be showing different sides of the Stones. “In The Stars” has the big, bright late-career swagger, while “Rough and Twisted” brings more of that rougher Classic Stones edge. Paired together, they make Foreign Tongues feel like an album longtime Stones fans have every reason to be excited about.

The band is not presenting this as nostalgia. They are treating it like a continuation. The guitars still have bite, Jagger still knows how to sell a line, and the whole thing feels like a band that knows its legacy but refuses to act finished.




Final Thoughts

“In The Stars” is a fun, confident late-era Rolling Stones song. It has the fate-and-luck theme, the big chorus, and enough guitar swagger to remind you why this band still matters.

What I like most is that it does not feel like the Stones are forcing some grand final statement. It just sounds like them doing what they do: turning a simple idea into a rock and roll moment. The song is about destiny, but the real charm is in how alive it feels.

For fans, “In The Stars” is another reminder that the Rolling Stones are still capable of sounding present, not just legendary. And with this song sitting next to the rougher edge of “Rough and Twisted,” it makes the rest of Foreign Tongues feel even more exciting.

more:
[nickandtiffmusicblog.com]

+++++

An overview of the lyrics was found online:

"In The Stars" by The Rolling Stones (from Hackney Diamonds) explores themes of fate, luck, and destiny. The lyrics suggest that life’s chaotic, uncontrollable, and fortuitous moments are preordained ("written in the stars"), with a defiant tone that embraces both, or perhaps even romanticizes, the wilder, "meant to be" turns in life.

Key Aspects of the lyrics' meaning:

Destiny and Fortune: The song focuses on fate rather than just chance, with lyrics mentioning seeking fortune through luck.

A "Rolling Stones" Interpretation of Fate: It isn't passive or soft; it’s a gritty, high-energy acknowledgment that chaotic, lucky, and even dangerous experiences are part of a pre-written path (fate).

Romantic Connection: The chorus, "It’s in the stars, written you and me," suggests a deep, fated connection between two people (you and Mick) that feels larger than just timing.

Defiance and Resilience: The song reflects the band’s enduring presence, staring down life with confidence and humor.

Contextual Imagery: The lyrics mention "poisonous clouds" and "sickness in the land," suggesting a challenging world context, yet the focus remains on personal destiny amidst that backdrop.

Essentially, it's about accepting that certain things—both good and bad—are inevitable, and choosing to own that journey.

Please tell me that’s AI slop and not thoughts from an actual human.

Does the snippet of the video release indicate a slightly different version of the? Studio talk and Jagger doing a demo type Oooo intro, his voice sounds like Stuck Out All Alone so cool



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-05-13 20:52 by Maindefender.

Wow they've actually used AI. Creatively and morally bankrupt.

Using AI equals to a moral bankrupt?????? Oh my

Quote
maumau
Using AI equals to a moral bankrupt?????? Oh my

It does yes. I'd have thought being a fan of this band would help you understand that, but I guess not.

Being a fan of this band makes me very demanding when it comes to the new music they produce, and also critical of their creative choices. But to say that using artificial intelligence to make a music video for a new song in 2026 amounts per se to a ‘moral bankruptcy’ strikes me as a highly ideological stance. Let's see what they have used it for and how

I just heard In the Stars on the radio of my car here in Buenos Aires and I’ve gotta say, it sounded really good — it came on right after a Foo Fighters song, and the sound quality felt perfect for radio, with a really modern production.
The song is definitely growing on me!

--------------------------------------------


"I'm gonna walk... before they make me run"

--------------------------------------------

Quote
maumau
Being a fan of this band makes me very demanding when it comes to the new music they produce, and also critical of their creative choices. But to say that using artificial intelligence to make a music video for a new song in 2026 amounts per se to a ‘moral bankruptcy’ strikes me as a highly ideological stance. Let's see what they have used it for and how

I don't want to start something here or derail the topic, so would politely acknowledge that we have different and equally valid opinions on the subject

fair

I don’t see any AI.

as i understand it the de-aging process used for things like this can either be entirely cgi or a mix of cgi and ai but usually not entirely ai

so humans are still involved in the creation of the effect plus i assume everything else in the video

my personal knee jerk reaction is i don't like them even using cgi in a video let alone ai

but a wise man would withhold ultimate judgment until he's actually seen the thing and so will i

Quote
MelBelli
Please tell me that’s AI slop and not thoughts from an actual human.

Because of the "preordained" it reeks of a human but since AI collects, well, the rest of it reads AI: welcome to the garbage of the future which is now.

My initial reaction to this single is it feels like three parts of songs meshed together, Doom And Gloom etc, you also get tiny bits of Some Girls and Gimme Shelter, it feels deconstructed or reverse engineered and then put back together, but boy is sounds good.

There is a difference between digitally de-aging someone (see Scorsese's The Irishman) and AI.

[youtu.be]

It´s out !!!!

I feel like they should have just had them at the age they are now without de-aging them.

This video is ridiculous. Did Keith approve this? Maybe they meant this as a joke?

What a weird video. Wonder why they did it that way? Mick looks like Mick. Ronnie looks like “a” Ronnie, of sorts, but apart from when Keith comes to the mic to harmonise with Mick at the end, Keith does not look like Keith .. at all. He looks like someone in the Black Crowes ! Still, I like the song. Didn’t much dig it initially, but it’s crept up on me.

Rod

--

AI Stones in a roomful of drummers. Hmm...

Several listens and I feel the same as I did a few days ago after a first listen: album-filler material. Mick sounds like someone doing an impression of Mick delivering an over the top/hammy version of Mick. Some good riffs and reminders of the Stones. But not a great (or good) song. IMO

The video is just an endless stream of Easter Eggs.

I spotted visual references to Marianne Faithful, recording the backing vocals for SFTD,Keith coming up to share a microphone like in 72, and there is much, much more

I think it's hilarious

I like the song and I like the video too.

Yes, I do too.

Some critical posts here could in the same way criticise e.g. start me up video with Jagger in exercising mode.

It's a good song, good video targeted at broad (younger) audience.

Mick Jagger has often rejected nostalgia and discussed the audience's, and critics', obsession with the Rolling Stones mimicking their 1969 sound acknowledging that people often want them to stay frozen in that specific, "golden" era. In this video they revisit visually their youth going all-in on visual AI back into a hedonistic setting I imagine as a Nellcote house party, but big as an ICA Maxi, paying tribute to many long gone reincarnated friends and sneaking in references to the past. I love this rock’n roll band. I love this catchy song. I love this beautiful video.