Hard to beleive 3 years ago I was as giddy as I was at 13 waiting for Tattoo You. Anyone else remember the electricity and excitement. Was digging through Stones disc the past few days, came across ABB. Passed on it a few times, remembered how much bashing I gave it... I remembered how much have done this to The Stones over the years with new albums.
I'm listening to it right now. I'm 4 songs in... The funk'd RFD is on...
I'm not hating on it as much... I'm really looking forward to B2B after this... That album really grew on my in the early double aughts.
I think 8-22 will be 3 years since ABB came out...

I like the music in neo-con, and I love the harmonica intro. Jagger did a horrible job at being liberal looney, bless his heart, at least he made the point, Bush/Cheney et all suck ass and are to freedom what Yugo's are to race cars.

Pdog wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 6:09pm:



HE REALLY DRIVES ME NUTS WITH HIS LYRICS..TOO MANY ARE MAILED IN AND INSIPID.

TOO ME,THEY DID SO MANY THINGS RIGHT ON THIS RECORD..BUT MOST OF THE LYRICS ARE WRETCHED :

whatapostronnie

I listened to infamy and Look what the cat dragged in today. They both really rock. Infamy reminds me of miss you a lot.

It was a solid album, shoulda stopped at track 12, but what can you do? I'm tired of reading crap like that MSN.com Top 10 of artists who should stop making music. ABB was as good as Springsteen's "Magic" (also solid, but overrated), better than Dylan's "Modern Times" (overrated, and not as good as "Love and Theft") and better than anything Neil Young has put out in 20 years.

For people who say they're no good at making records anymore, I play 'em "How Can I Stop" and say Shut the hell up, suck on your frappuccino ... and your Coldplay.

The album is very good. It is what everyone here always gripped about before it came out. Everyone wanted a stripped down, minus all the excess studio musicians, not-over produced album that rocks. ...well in my opinion they got just that.

In addition, they even did much of it at Mick's House in France. Something many had mentioned they should try doing ...which is getting together in someones house versus the carribean or some other luxurious place to do an album, like they used to without the million dollar recording affair at a major studio.

More-over, they did that too. Probably three fourths of the album was written and recorded at Micks (mixing was done in LA I believe).  Still people gripe.

People wanted an album without any "pop" influences ....they got just that.

A Bigger Bang is harder than their more recent releases, basic, direct, and rocks...without all the gloss. Just what the doc ordered in my ears.

Sure the songs are basic and simple, but that was the whole point of A Bigger Bang. It wasn't even promoted like their other albums. It was supposed to be an album to get back to basics and rock with just them playing on it. It was supposed to sound like a non-commercial affair. Period.

Thats what they did and that's what it is. I still don't get the complaining from folks.

The songs on ABB are good. The Stones sound GREAT (plenty better than I thought they could still sound), and it is solid all the way through.

I dig it.


Ian

Pdog wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 5:33pm:



The tour started on 21st August 2005.

ABB was released on 4th September (the following day in the US)

At the time, I said it was the best album theyd done since Tattoo You.  Three years later, I dont think its as good as BTB, but its still a very good album.

I just wish the band's belief in the songs they had released had lasted longer than a couple of months. It certainly deserved better than that.

I'm telling you, I know talent when I see it.

This Billen character understands nuance and insight.

He's going places, mark my words.

Don't forget the lube!

i have not listened to a bigger bang front to back in at least 6-7 months.  the only songs i hear from that cd come from the dvd's i listen to...rough justice, back of my hand and oh no not you again.
i bought bridges to babylon second hand for something like 3.99 a couple of months ago and i have been jamming that a lot more the bb.  the 1 song i dislike from b2b is gunface...the rest, i think, are keepers.

The album is not a masterprice, I think that SW, VL and B2B are better albums with better songs.

>In addition, they even did much of it at Mick's House in France. Something many had mentioned they should try doing ...


eh? who said that? What difference would THAT make anyway?

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

I seen it quite a few times here. The difference is that many felt The Stones needed to get "down-and-dirty" again and quit being on vacation when writing/recording an album. None-the-less, many Stones albums were recorded through-out the years in quite nice places. It was just a notion to some some how they wanted The Stones to do another Exile style scenario. Even Keith told Mick "your turn" in reference to them doing an album as they did with Exile (Mick wanted to eventually go into the studio, until he realized Keith was right in that things were going great right there and they wouldn't need it).


>People wanted an album without any "pop" influences ....they got just that. 

I seem to recall the first single being the wimpiest ballad theyve released in decades.  Roll Eyes

________________________________________

SOL is radio friendly. I know that. However 90% of the album is straight ahead Rock, Blues or Funk. The rockers do not sound anything like "Don't Stop", which was poppy. It is the most non-radio friendly album they have made since ....hmmmm,  I can't even remember. ..I would say since 1976's Black and Blue (although this album sounds completely different from that album). So take one (maybe two tops) pop friendly/radio friendly songs out of 16. That is basically the ratio. More-over, it is simply not a pop oriented release at all.


>Sure the songs are basic and simple, but that was the whole point of A Bigger Bang. It wasn't even promoted like their other albums.


In terms of being played live, thats certainly true. 

> It was supposed to be an album to get back to basics and rock with just them playing on it. It was supposed to sound like a non-commercial affair. 

said who? 

_____________________________

Keith, Mick, and Ron very clearly when talking about how the album was to go:

Mick said he wanted a "simplistic" album that was "very hard hitting" and "direct".
Keith said the album was "screaming" at them not to over produce it and just keep it bare-bones and stripped down. So they did.
Ron said the album was sounding "earthy" when they were working on it. I suppose that means pretty down-to-earth and "real" in a recording sense ...minus all the gloss.

Simplistic, earthy, hard hitting, direct, "don't over produce me". I think that the fact that they wanted a non-commercial sounding venture has been known since 2005??? That's pretty clear and always has been.

Just look at the cover. It looks almost "boot-leggish"


Ian

I'll say this again. They should have released Driving Too Fast as the first tune.   I played it 2 years ago at a pool party with 30 mixed age people. No one had heard it but all thought it was an old classic and were digging it large.When I expliained they were amazed it was new.It rocks despite its basic chords etc.