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.

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 11:27pm:


I agree with you to a point, but as the Stones arent ordinarily that sort of band, I'd like to think that it WOULDNT be a "pop oriented" release. However, the decision to relaunch the 'greatest rock n roll band in the world' as a recording act after eight years with a piece of MOR crap like 'Streets of Love' beggared belief in it's sheer stupidity. If anyone was wanting to get the message out that the band had returned with a back to basics, raw sounding new release, then this was a funny way of doing so.

"Radio friendly" is another thing entirely. New Stones records dont get played on the radio anymore for one reason and one reason alone. The dudes are old and radio has become more and more ageist since they were last releasing new material. Its got little to do with how commercial or un-commercial their music sounds.

I have moved on already, thanks.

speedfreakjive wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 12:30pm:



it wasn't poorly produced, you just can't force rough and raw, it is or in't. You listen to The first Stooges record, and then think how many people have tried to recreate that in million dollar studios. Some things are just created organically and you can't manipulate or force it to happen...

Pdog wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 2:31pm:



organic. why live stones is the best
in the studio. its like sex with a condom

mojoman wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 4:43pm:


Exile is one of those organic albums... then again, take Some Gilrs, which is a very direct attempt to make very specific styled songs, and that worked too. The other part is, they just don't have any thing pushing them to create... How can you write good blues when you live like a king?

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 10:20pm:


HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 12:58pm:


WOULDNT FAGS LIKE IT TOO?

IAN,YOUR PROBLEM IS HAVE OPINIONS THAT YOU CONVINCE YOURSELF ARE FACTS..

I thought Rough Justice was the first single?? It was the first ABB song I heard on the radio.

Holden wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 10:38am:


SOL, Rough Justice, Back Of My Hand were the songs on the first CD single. SOL was credited as album version, I often wondered, b/c I can't tell if the other two are slightly dif. RJ is the 1st song on the single...

Here's some data, Ian.  My wife loved Rain Fall Down but didn't care for SOL.  Never sang along to it.  In fact, that's it's problem.  You feel stupid singing along to SOL.  Try it.

Pdog wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 10:47am:


The BonJovial formula.....pander to the statistics. 

>Secondly, SOL is more of a song females would enjoy.

No..its a song more likely to appeal to Barry Manilow fans if anyone at all. However, as they are unlikely to like it enough to buy it, it fails on two counts.

> Females buy more music much more than men do today.

No they dont. Evidence? They certainly dont buy more Rolling Stones records.

>RFD is more geared towards a male reception.

and most Rolling Stones fans are male.


>This is why SOL was chosen. It was a good call, regardless of the out-come. No other tunes would of fit that mold. It is all about FM.

How was it a 'good call' when airplay was minimal and most Stones fans thought the song sucked? It failed in every regard imaginable. Most Stones fans thought it was weak to the point of embarrassment. It gave a poor indication of the album it was taken from and sent out the wrong signal which implied that after so many years without a new record, the Stones had come back with a single with less balls than a tribe of eunuchs. Most of the potential cross over market ignored it or simply thought it a laughable song. Airplay was non existent, and the Stones obviously had so much faith in it it took them almost a year to have the balls to perform it.


>Just by general reaction I've seen. Also the lyrical content. The song speaks about the streets of Paris directly at one point.


So do some versions of that well known wimpy ballad "Honky Tonk Women". Who on earth is going to buy a record just because it mentions the 'streets of Paris' (and for the record, it doesnt mention Paris at any point in the song)

>A girl would enjoy this song because it is a new "heart felt" ballad versus revamped disco-era Rolling Stones (again both are songs that are quite good). A dude may like Rain Fall Down better over all. SOL is a "female friendly" tune.

Stereotypical nonsense. Most female Stones fans that I know are perfectly capable of differentiating between a good Stones song and a bad one regardless of whether its a ballad or not....and most of the female Stones fans I know thought the song was ...to quote the word Mick uses repeatedly at the start....'awful'

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 1:31pm:



Theres only a few thousand diehards who would buy anything the Stones put out even if it consisted of Keith farting in the bath.

Its the 9-10 million people who bought the likes of Tattoo You and their most recent major release (40 Licks) but who arent that interested in the latter day Stones that they needed to get on board when promoting a new release. This song wasnt going to convince them.

USA! USA! USA!

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 1:31pm:



Make this statement fact, a news article an interview, anything that makes this anything more than your opinion. PLEASE, otherwise, stop acting like your opinion is fact, you can't argue opinion. And that's what you're doing...

Gazza Wrote:

"The decision of what song to put out as the first single almost cetainly isnt down to the label - its down to the band."

____________________________

Yes .."Before"... As you stated in the 1980's the band itself choosing which track on an album to be the first single was semi-plausible and occurred but only at times and only with the top of the game major acts. Almost no band (if any, unless your counting the situations in which the occasional Indy label permits such) has the privilege of which single to release first in today's day and age. Today, the record company chooses.

Those days are long gone.


Ian

Holden wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 7:05pm:


i thought back of my hand was terrific each time i saw it, and rj and onnya were always given prime real estate in the setlist (ie: second song deep, second song on the b stage). it seemed like the band had more faith in sol in europe, where they kind of stretched it out a bit.

re: abb
i liked it. i would have liked to see neocon and sol left off, and under the radar included. fwiw, i remember the listening party voodoo set up, and reading sol was the lead off single, and being pretty disappointed with that news - but i knew then that i was not who they were aiming with the single.

i will have to give a listen to b2b again (it has been a while since i had that one on).

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 8:34pm:


I know quite a few, actually.

However, I specifically said "diehards" - not "fans". And this board - and others - are a reflection of the more fanatical end of the fan spectrum. We're not and never will be a microcosm of the sort of people who make up the average 21st century Stones audience or who buy the latest Stones album.

Buying a band's latest album does not make you a 'diehard'. If thats the case, then I must be a diehard fan of about 200 different artists.

I think something like twice as many people saw the Stones on their last tour as bought the album they were touring behind. If you look at the US statistics as a barometer, over 2 million people bought tickets (at an average of $167) yet only half of that amount of people bought A Bigger Bang (which costs, what, $15?). In 2005-2007 - the 3 year timeframe for the last Stones tour - their back catalogue shifted a total of 3 million copies in the United States. In three years. Thats definitely underachieving for a band that can attract a huge amount of revenue from their concerts. Especially when you take into account that Billboard estimates of their total album sales in the United States is something approaching 70 million.

The logical conclusion to draw from all that is that a large % of people who think nothing of paying large sums of money to watch the Stones in concert are not only NOT diehards, but barely buy an average of just over one Stones album (including the new one) every year.

Speaking as someone who's been collecting Stones material avidly for 25 years and who does something similar for a couple of other artists too, the proportion of Stones fans who I'd define as 'diehard' is decreasing. Even more so when compared to other acts who maybe dont sell as many records or as many concert tickets. We're all getting older and fans who have dropped out are not being replaced by a 'new' base of hardcore fans because the Stones dont release a lot of new material, have ignored their archives (something which has introduced  a lot of people to Dylan's music for example as well as rekindling the interest of people who were losing interest) and because their ticket prices arent going to attract new fans.

It speaks volumes to me that approximately a quarter of the shows on the last tour - even with todays recording technology and despite the fact that many of them took place in crowds of over 50,000 people - still arent in circulation amongst collectors. Most of the missing shows - intriguingly - in the US where the ticket prices are so much higher. On previous tours, you would have expected by now to have had access to about 95-98% of the shows, with the missing ones usually being from far away outposts like Singapore or India. Strikes me from that observation that a lot of 'diehards' who would have been going to shows in the past are staying away for various reasons, and that the people who are going to the shows instead arent buying the music.

left shoe shuffle wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 6:10pm:

Damn that Gazza has a "way with words".

Might be interesting if other "sound effects" from the bath were used too!!!!!

I had a lil road trip and spun the cd recently. It is just really bad lyrics and lack of effort. 72 Mick would be humiliated.