The guitars sound like Keith. The drums do not sound like Charlie because they aren't. Only two of the ten tracks on "Hackney Diamonds," the new album from the Stones due on October 20th, feature Charlie Watts, even though he recorded ten. At 3:45, "Angry" is a minute too long, but I liked it. It's not earth shattering, but something about it feels different, and I'm going to say that is because Andrew Watt was behind the boards and Don Wasn't. Thank God for small favors.
Okay, have at it.
What say you?
38 comments:
Maybe I'm grading on a curve but I really like this song.
always happy for new stones, even weak over-slick stones. get these old dudes out of a posh studio, record them like a 90's Guided By Voices. hate to say it but, this video with the vintage images is kind'a pathetic. Mick's voice sounds a tad melodyned. i still want the record ... oh, well, maybe next time.
Listened once and I was not overly impressed. Sounds like a distant cousin to Start Me Up. I was a big Stones fan through Exile. Have not been overly impressed with their recordings since.
I liked the single and I’m looking forward to the album. Additionally, the video suggests I’ve not been using my convertible to its fullest potential.
I'm worried that poor Sydney Sweeney is going to fall out of that convertible. Guess I'm getting old.
I kind of like this. I think I preferred Living in a Ghost Town from a couple of years ago, but this will at least boil water.
Bill
Dull two-chord rocker that I'll never listen to again (which, you could say about "Start Me Up", but that has a groove that this one does not.)
Something about the production on Mick's vocal did not work for me, too.
If this was anybody but the Rolling Stones, you wouldn't give it a second thought.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
Both the song and the performance are okay, but I'm really struggling with the production and, particularly, with the drum track.
Oh to be Sydney Sweeney again. Vogueing up Sunset where the billboards come alive. As far as new tune goes, it's about what I expected. We can only hope that this isn't the best track. Another hot shot producer that'll probably F everything up. Makes you long for the days of Jimmy Miller. Why don't they get a less trendy producer like Ray Kennedy or David Barbe.
Thanks for the Rails this morning, Sal.
VR
The only saving grace about Charlie being on only two tracks is that it's one more than Lady Gaga is on. Sorry, but a Stones album without Charlie isn't a Stones album. ("You Can't Always Get What You Want", "Happy", and the coda of "Tumbling Dice" notwithstanding.)
Wardo,
While I won't disagree with you regarding "no Charlie, no Stones," I don't beliefve it would matter. It's been 18 years since their last studio album, and the comments are exactly the same as in 2005, which were exactly the same as those in 1997, and so on. It seems like everyone is still waiting, 50 year later for "Sticky Fingers, Two."
It ain't happening!
Oddly enough, one of the worst sounding records and a 100% missed opportunity, was "Blue & Lonesome," which people seemed to love, even though the production was hotter than a Def Leppard record. THAT should have been a classic, but instead was a mediocre covers record with production that makes the new single sound understated by comparison.
"Angry" has some very hooky moments, including that breakdown of just bass, piano and drums right before the guitar solo. I personally, would give the new track a second and third thought if it wasn't the Stones.
But as VR said, let's hope it isn't the best track on the album.
Fuckin'-A, Sal, you're dead right about Blue and Lonesome's production. They should have just kept it basic and honest. Gave it some room to breathe. As it is, it hurts my ears. Is it too late for a do over?
VR
Agreed, Sal. I'm not expecting anything earth-shattering here. I liked about half of Bridges, Voodoo, and Bigger Bang. The handful of songs scattered through the last 20 years from 40 Licks and reissues have not been embarrassing. I also think Steve Jordan is a wonderful drummer. I just don't like them branding this "a new era" for the band.
As for Blue & Lonesome, I haven't listened to it since I reviewed it (3 on Everybody's Dummy, plug plug). I know I've listened to Jamming With Edward several times since then.
Sounds good to me, but I'm not expecting them to sound like they did in '71. The autotune's unnecessary, at least it's mild. Good riffs for air guitaring. Like the man said- things ain't what they used to be, but it'll do.
"Blue & Lonesome" was a huge disappointment.
I knew you’d be glad that Don Was was not at the helm. The sound is good. Mick is in fine voice. The guitars are in full flight and Steve is doing a fine job behind the kit. Love the bridge and the ending. Is this a wow moment? No but it’s damn fine. For a bunch of 80 year olds they’re doing just fine. I’ll probably be drooling in a bucket by the time I’m their ages
yeah - definitely something electronic or auto-tuney going on that i don't like and is unnessary, as previously stated. That is the first thing negative that I noticed immediately.
Mick and Keith are 80.
Mick and Keith are 80.
Mick and Keith are 80.
Mick and Keith are 80.
Mick and Keith are 80.
Mick and Keith are 80.
Mick and Keith are 80.
Mick and Keith are 80.
Mick and Keith are 80.
Mick and Keith are 80.
Mick and Keith are 80.
Hard to argue with a good riff or a great pun.
Whatever!
Ask me how I feel about the album in 10 years. I'm still processing "Blue & Lonesome".
Captain Al
A b-side at best. The poster stuff in the video is clever, though.
The single aside, however, I can't believe the Stones violated the crucial French Rule when they named the album "Hackney Diamonds."
Specifically, in France, you never call a book or a movie or whatever "La Nuit" (the night) because it rhymes with "L'ennui," which means boredom. Because if you do, some reviewer will call your new thing boring.
Similarly, you don't name your first album in 18 years "Hackney" anything because some reviewer is going to dismiss it as "Hackneyed."
It's not rocket science.
The fucking Rolling Stones will never amount to anything!
Upon further inspection of the album cover, the shades of red and mauve are nothing like the shades found on the "Let It Bleed" cover.
Seriously the last good colors the Stones used on an album cover were 50 years ago.
Why the fuck is Keith's hair gray? This album is gonna suck.
Has anyone noticed the glockenspiel in the third verse? Fake.
Someone tell Steve that he's always gonna lose when he starts out his comment with "Oh, no, the Stones violated a rule...."
I was literally just coming here to post it in the Shout-Box !
I am so surprised at all the dismay in the comments so far. I LOVE this track, in the same way I loved XTC's "Stupidly Happy" (which I guess is the antidote to being "Angry").
First, the song is vintage Keef riffery. Second, Mick can sometimes be a liability to the Stones (there, I said it!) but here, he's in perfect peacock-preening form, confident, insouciant.
There's no Charlie here, and I lament that. But I also lament no Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, or even Bill Wyman.
I'm a loyalist. But I'm also a Stones fan. So I didn't want them to fold when Charlie passed.
So I pro'ly like this track better than all who have commented here, from what I can tell. And I think the video is an absolute hoot.
Oh, and what I meant by referencing "Stupidly Happy," aside from the play on the name, is to say I can't believe some other commenters (not here) who have dissected the lyrics and thoughts about "Angry." Some songs, like "Stupidly Happy," or "Angry," are just about feeling good.
Who gives a heck about the lyrics here, man. It's a Keef riff! It's Mick in full flower! Just dig it.
Steve’s Jordan sounds like a program drum machine but the guitars sound vital and clashing song goes on in about 30 seconds to long but Mixels a good voice. When did they ever play it live another story warm fort noise cell I can’t wait to hear the track with Stevie Wonder.
I like it WAY more then. I was expecting to. Not looking for "Exile" these days and thus will do just fine. Excited for the album
I love the song. A chordy riff, slightly Start Me Up-ish,. It rocks, it's catchy.
It's the Stones.
Yes, Mick and Keith are 80. God bless them for still creating new music.
I'm all for the classic bands churning out new stuff.
Dismissing the great's new stuff is just lazy.
The album is pre-ordered.
I think it's great. I just want to know which member of the band's grand-daughter is doing the gyrating on the convertible?
Seriously, though, it's better than most of the canned dreck that gets shoved down our earholes these days.
The video is fun to watch with all the billboards, and of course Sydney Sweeney.
"Angry" might be a little too much like "You Got Me Rockin'" for my taste.
Autotune? Really? Why?
I sincerely hope the album is better than the usual "best album since "Some Girls", which isn't saying much.
I regret falling for the hype and buying "A Bigger Bang". And "Under Cover".
Yes they're '80.
Still my fingers are crossed.
I will say this, which I seem to always say when the Stones are a topic of discussion.
"Dirty Work" is the only genuinely terrible record.
And both "Steel Wheels" and "Bridges To Babylon" are genuinely very good.
I also fell for the hype around "Bigger Bang." It isn;t very good at all.
I can't. I just can't.
I listened again today (Sunday) and I liked the track a lot better!
So maybe there is hope for the album.
Captain Al
So many different phases for them I can see why people prefer their favorite era. However, I always find something to like on every Stones record, even the ones I initially dismissed. Their lyrics seemed to take a turn for the worse after Tattoo You but a lot of the music is still good. I even like most of Dirty Work. The lyrics on Winning Ugly and Back to Zero aren't great but the tunes themselves are ok 80s Stones. Sleep Tonight sounds more like Steel Wheels which I agree is very good. Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, and Bigger Bang have too many songs and are too long. If you cut 4-5 songs off each they play much better I think. I'll have to see how the rest of the new album plays in total but the new song sounds like what I would expect at this point which is enjoyable but not earth shattering. I'd rather have it than not though that's for sure.
Gave this a few listens in my Helsinki hotel room but couldn't "Finnish" it the first time around. See what I did there? Anyway, a couple of plays later and it was pretty much doing the business for me, even if I had been expecting Sydney to be a bloke. Cheers!
Tried to comment a few days ago but it didn't go through. But I'm glad because this conversation has now widened to "latter-day" Stones (which is anything in the last 40 years, of course). My favorite topic!
I'm with Robert Christgau. I LOVE "Dirty Work". The nastiness of the songs gives them life. The lyrics are blunt instruments and one-dimensionally stupid but the music feels vital. Although Mick shouting through literally the entire album is admittedly an odd choice. The way he fully commits to nasty songs that Keith wrote about HIM, however, is hilarious.
Love "Steel Wheels". Genuinely. I agree that that and "Bridges" are actually very good. "Bigger Bang" bores me. "Voodoo Lounge" has its moments but the terrible songs "You Got Me Rockin'", "Brand New Car" are god-awful.
I listened to "Blue and Lonesome" exactly twice. And that was 2 times too many.
Which brings us to the new song, which kinda sounds like Lazarus rising from the dead. There's a good groove here. Mick isn't just shouting. Who had any right to expect anything like this from a band of 80 year olds!??
Am I insane to hope for a good album from these guys?
Oh, but I flat out love the video. Super imaginative.
Post a Comment