The Rolling Stones release new music

The first single has just been released from their new album Hackney Diamonds. The first single is Angry. Really good song and the video is cool too. Not bad for 80 year old farts.

a reply to: Blueracer

If there's a nuclear war, the only things left will be cockroaches and Keith Richards.

a reply to: DAVID64
You nearly owed me a new keyboard!

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: Blueracer

Thanks for posting. I'll always be a Stones fan. IMHO, their best music was when they had Mick Taylor. The old classic stuff with Brian Jones is a close second.

youtu.be...

Had heard they were releasing new material.
Immediate reaction?
Oh good lord! They're in the same boat as Rod Stewart!! Have to work forever to make money for their long term
commitments.

Heres a very recent interview with the Stones.
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Blueracer

Shut the front door, how cool is that?

Sounding as good as ever. Thanks for posting.

They could write a song with few lyrics in repetition and
easily pull it off.



Not one song ever in the same direction as another.

True musicians.

a reply to: ColeYounger

IMHO, their best music was when they had Mick Taylor.

Agreed. But it had very little to do with Taylor. Jagger and Richards found their métier as songwriters at about the time of Beggars’ Banquet and just kept on rolling through the next three albums − Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street. Jagger was also in his pomp as a performer over that same four-year period, as evinced by the live album they released at that time, Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out, as well as in the pre-Altamont concert footage shown in the Maysles Brothers’ film Gimme Shelter and in Robert Frank’s infamous documentary, the one with the title I can’t type here.

Mick Taylor never really fit into the Stones. He is a solo-playing lead guitarist, and the Stones neither need nor want any such thing in their band. His solo on Can’t You Hear Me Knocking is one of the few occasions on which he got to stretch out; another is Winter on Goat’s Head Soup. Most of the time, though, he was firmly reduced to a supporting role. As Philip Norman wrote, the job of the Stones’ lead guitarist is to provide a descant over Keith Richards’s rhythm work: ‘the sound of the Rolling Stones is the sound of chords’. Or as Keith himself put it, talking of Mick Taylor, ‘Glyn Johns was always telling me, ‘Tell that kid not to play there.’

Oft mocked, adequately competent but never in any danger of being thought a virtuoso, Ron Wood is the perfect Rolling Stones ‘lead’ (i.e. second) guitarist. He complements Keith − and more important, the Stones’ music − perfectly, on stage and off. Unfortunately he joined the band just as Mick and Keith lost their songwriting mojo. But that, again, had little if anything to do with the change of guitarist: it was due to Keith sinking deeper into heroin apathy and Mick being distracted with women/money/business problems. Despite a respectable album now and then (Undercover, Steel Wheels, A Bigger Bang) they never really attained anything like that 1968-72 rush of genius again. As for Mick Taylor, his post-Stones career tells the tale − aside from being ‘official’ musical director on Bob Dylan’s Infidels album, a position from which he was (in reality) quickly displaced by Mark Knopfler, his output has been scanty and rarely finds public acceptance.

One of my favourite things of his is Sway from Sticky Fingers, where he plays some exquisite slide guitar.

a reply to: Astyanax

Good observations...I agree. I also like Taylor's playing on "Time waits for no one". That was the last album he did with the Stones, I believe. Very interesting solo.

Two bands from that era that I never liked or understood why they were so popular, The Stones and Zeppelin. Neither one floats my boat. At least Zep had a few good songs but The Stones just bore me to death.

I was more of a Purple, Sabbath, ELP and Yes kinda guy, the more progressive types. Though Sabbath wasn't so much progressive as bludgeoning.

Different strokes and all that, eh?

a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

I think you're missing what it is with the two bands you mentioned.

It's called genius and versatility that still allows who each member is
to flow easily thru every recording seeming like it's own type
of music. The early stones were masters at going a new direction
with every song. And Zep just had the ability to dramatize every
human emotion, into lyrics that mystified listeners in mid evil
settings. And often different realms.

BOC I would also compliment this way and of course the bands you
mentioned were superb with their own style. And being less commerxial
was always attractive to hardcore music lovers of the time.

Ah what the hell we really had it goin on to be a part of that time
in music history. Our desire for peace was often relayed with
disgust and anger for politicians and the MIC.

a reply to: Saloon

I think you're missing what it is with the two bands you mentioned. It's called genius and versatility...

I think it's called the blues.

'Purple, Sabbath, ELP and Yes' were bands with only traces of the blues in their style wardrobe. Deep Purple did have a touch more than the others, but even at their bluesiest (Strange Kind of Woman, Place in Line) it was boogie-rock at best, never anything that sounded authentically blues.

(Curious fact: Ritchie Blackmore for years deliberately avoided using finger vibrato, a signature blues guitar technique perfected by people like B.B. King. It's derived ultimately ftom Delta blues slide guitar, the effect of which it is designed to mimic. But for Ritchie it was more a case of 'not wanting to sound like Eric.')

Conversely, the Stones' and Zeppelin's music is draped in the rootsiest of blues, from the Mississippi Delta to Chicago R&B. I"m guessing that is why they don't appeal to this poster. He or she just don't like that blues thang.

a reply to: Astyanax

It's really cool talking music with people just to hear the
perspectives of others. I always come away with even more
appreciation being reminded. I'll share this with you.

When I was a kid back in the late sixties early seventies.
Sunday nights I'd ditch my pals down the street early and
haul ass home so I could watch Liberace'. LMAO

I never let my friends know, because you know kids are
vicious. And the guys on my street it was like a law to
be that way. So even at that young age I was fascinated by
people who had a gift of talent for what they were
doing.

And they were actually able to find that gift in
a world that puts the odds against us ever doing that.
But yeah I've always had an appreciation for phenomenal
talent. Don't give a damn who it is and Liberace was a
master musician ande showman as well.

Ahh what the hell at the risk of being off topic.

a reply to: Saloon

Well, Liberace is a bit of a reach, isn't he, for a Stones thread? Kudos to you, though, for 'fessing up to something few people would ever dare publicly to admit. Liberace isn't exactly considered the acme of good taste and musical discernment, is he?

Still, as my mother used to say, good taste can be an abominable handicap in life. Though Liberace definitely isn't my cup of tea, never was. I saw him on TV for about fifteen seconds, forty years or so ago, and that was quite enough for me.

I believe Freddie Mercury once modelled an ermine-edged cape and a crown on stage in a sort of tribute to Liberace. Of course, being Fred, he coordinated them with a muscle-Mary 'tache and tight white satin Adidas running shorts. More Libidorace, reslly, than Liberace.

a reply to: Astyanax

Well, Liberace is a bit of a reach, isn't he, for a Stones thread? Kudos to you, though, for 'fessing up to something few people would ever dare publicly to admit. Liberace isn't exactly considered the acme of good taste and musical discernment, is he?

It was a reach indeed good member. An attemot to simply illustrate an
appreciation for fine talent in any genre despite ones personal life.
I didn't expect Liberace to be your "Cup of tea". And the type of music
he offered was never mine either.

I just found the way he played with so much talent fascinating. I never seen
anyone play the piano like that. I'm still fascinated. And I am not gay by a
damn sight.


But hell ya Freddie is another example of exactly my point. Talent like that to
me seems magical. It's like there's just no way to keep certain people from
stardom short of death. Some people are perfectly born for it.

a reply to: Saloon

Some people are perfectly born for it.

It's a slightly monstrous state of being.

Here is another new song released by the Rolling Stones...

Sweet Sounds of Heaven

Finally I can post an update. The new album came out on October 20th. Did anyone listen to it? One song I really like besides the two I previously posted is Bite My Head Off. Paul McCartney plays bass. A really good song IMHO.