Red Mosquito

wease wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:From pitchfork’s review of Hackney Diamonds:

This is the first Stones album Watt has produced—not bad, since it’s only the fifth they’ve released since his birth. Still, he’s been here before. Apart from albums by Post Malone, Miley Cyrus, and Justin Bieber, Watt has helmed sessions by Ozzy Osbourne, Iggy Pop, and Elton John (a frequent guest on Hackney Diamonds). In this realm, Watt is the antithesis of Rick Rubin. Rather than lean into the age and experience of his elders, he drags them toward the present, goading them to sound like their younger selves within ill-fitting contemporary settings. For the Stones, Watt favors the molds of circa-millennium alternative rock, from Collective Soul to Franz Ferdinand, then buffs the results until they gleam like sickly wax figures. Jagger, terrifyingly, has never sounded so youthful. Keith Richards has rarely sounded so normal, his solos all exercises in convention and efficiency. Imagine upgrading a classic muscle car, say the MG Midget or a 1967 Shelby Cobra, with cheap but shiny plastic parts. Posed, patched, and polished until the actual character has all but disappeared, that’s how Hackney Diamonds sounds.

That didn’t read to me all that favorably.

Uh, yeah. That mostly didn’t read favorably to me. He’s basically saying the modern sound he’s forced onto them doesn’t fit their style, and even though he’s able to get individual parts sounding more youthful and vibrant, it lacks character and soul. While they’re trying to recapture the magic of their younger sound, they lose authenticity.

This is exactly what I fear number 12 will sound like. And I couldn’t be happier to be absolutely wrong about that.

if, however, this lends itself to structures of songs that are more basic, rock-guitar oriented, and guitar solo-oriented, they could lend themselves to good performances live

a lot of later-era PJ suffers from brutal over-engineering from a structural perspective, and does not work live

i would be fine with Watt trying to force them back to Ten-era structures that sound more like basic classic rock

I will listen to the Stones album today at some point, but this is exactly what Pearl Jam shouldn’t do. All of Pearl Jam’s better work has a level of character and charm to it, and it’s when they strip that off to make a rock record with too much shine that they miss the mark. We need more No Code and Binaural and less Backspacer and Lightning Bolt.

pearl jam has always written to where they are at that moment in their lives and have never really used a past album as a template - if anything the records tend to directly respond in some subtle but significant way to the one immediately preceding it. So i dont know that more x less y is a touchstone for what something will or even can sound like.

I do think pearl jams strength as a collective is how they play off each other. its why songs substantiatevly written together, rather than finished together, sound better live, and leave more space for everyone’s strengths to come through. Based on the limited info we have it sounds like Watt understands that.

but the backspacer - gigaton run of records is my second favorite 3 record sequence so i wouldnt say no to more of that.

tragabigzanda wrote:From pitchfork’s review of Hackney Diamonds:

This is the first Stones album Watt has produced—not bad, since it’s only the fifth they’ve released since his birth. Still, he’s been here before. Apart from albums by Post Malone, Miley Cyrus, and Justin Bieber, Watt has helmed sessions by Ozzy Osbourne, Iggy Pop, and Elton John (a frequent guest on Hackney Diamonds). In this realm, Watt is the antithesis of Rick Rubin. Rather than lean into the age and experience of his elders, he drags them toward the present, goading them to sound like their younger selves within ill-fitting contemporary settings. For the Stones, Watt favors the molds of circa-millennium alternative rock, from Collective Soul to Franz Ferdinand, then buffs the results until they gleam like sickly wax figures. Jagger, terrifyingly, has never sounded so youthful. Keith Richards has rarely sounded so normal, his solos all exercises in convention and efficiency. Imagine upgrading a classic muscle car, say the MG Midget or a 1967 Shelby Cobra, with cheap but shiny plastic parts. Posed, patched, and polished until the actual character has all but disappeared, that’s how Hackney Diamonds sounds.

i thought the stones record was well received?

stip wrote:but the backspacer - gigaton run of records is my second favorite 3 record sequence so i wouldnt say no to more of that.

I am genuinely happy that there are fans out there that enjoy lightning bolt, even though I don’t. I would not want to yuck your yum.

How do you tend to group their 3 (or 2) record sequences? I tend to group them based on their connections to each other, influenced by what they were dealing with at the time. To your point, in some cases specific records took shape based on how they wanted to respond to previous records. I tend to see them like this:

Ten > Vs: sophomore album building off the momentum and sound they established

Vitalogy > No Code > Yield: Vitalogy has a lot more in common with no code and yield. It was the thrashing before turning away from society and then coming back to it having tired of the fight.

Binaural > Riot Act: the ‘lost’ and dark period, a sense of hopelessness

Pearl Jam > Backspacer > Lightning Bolt: trying to get back in touch with youthful energy and celebration of lives not wasted, leads the way to a full embrace of hopefulness, joy, and not taking themselves too seriously. Which then leads to less playfulness but more settling into earnest security in their place in life (aka more dad rock territory)

Gigaton > TBD: Gigaton has a lot more in common with LB than appears on the surface, despite the fact that LB is my least favorite record, and I really like gigaton. Gigaton is a more mature and introspectively oriented Lightning bolt, what LB could have been if given the chance to breathe and not be squashed by how it was mixed.

agree w/ you one the ‘written together’ vs ‘finished together’ part … maybe that will be the saving grace that supersedes Watt’s strange synthetic polishes

96583UP wrote:agree w/ you one the ‘written together’ vs ‘finished together’ part … maybe that will be the saving grace that supersedes Watt’s strange synthetic polishes

Here’s hoping!

Maybe we’ll find we enjoy the compositions and how good the band sounds playing off each other but also despise the polish and mix. And then maybe the band will have rediscovered the joy and energy of composing together in studio and continue that with number 13, but with better production.

Is it time to start a thread for #13?

that thread can be created the day of release - not a moment before!

Fattie_Vedder wrote:

stip wrote:but the backspacer - gigaton run of records is my second favorite 3 record sequence so i wouldnt say no to more of that.

I am genuinely happy that there are fans out there that enjoy lightning bolt, even though I don’t. I would not want to yuck your yum.

How do you tend to group their 3 (or 2) record sequences? I tend to group them based on their connections to each other, influenced by what they were dealing with at the time. To your point, in some cases specific records took shape based on how they wanted to respond to previous records. I tend to see them like this:

Ten > Vs: sophomore album building off the momentum and sound they established

Vitalogy > No Code > Yield: Vitalogy has a lot more in common with no code and yield. It was the thrashing before turning away from society and then coming back to it having tired of the fight.

Binaural > Riot Act: the ‘lost’ and dark period, a sense of hopelessness

Pearl Jam > Backspacer > Lightning Bolt: trying to get back in touch with youthful energy and celebration of lives not wasted, leads the way to a full embrace of hopefulness, joy, and not taking themselves too seriously. Which then leads to less playfulness but more settling into earnest security in their place in life (aka more dad rock territory)

Gigaton > TBD: Gigaton has a lot more in common with LB than appears on the surface, despite the fact that LB is my least favorite record, and I really like gigaton. Gigaton is a more mature and introspectively oriented Lightning bolt, what LB could have been if given the chance to breathe and not be squashed by how it was mixed.

as luck would have it there is a whole book coming out about this .

this isnt a phone response question so ill respond in full later. i def see things differently. i do think the albums broadly align like this

ten - vs - vitalogy

no code - yield

binaural - riot act - st - backspacer

backspacer - lightning bolt - gigaton


backspacer really is a pivot record that closes out one arc and introduces the next so i listen twice.

Fallow Edbetter

Just wanted to note I listened to 10 of the 12 songs on Hackney Diamonds and yes, there’s a bit too much polish where grittiness would have served them better, but it still sounds Stones-y. And Bite My Head Off is really the loose Stones I love.

96583UP wrote:agree w/ you one the ‘written together’ vs ‘finished together’ part … maybe that will be the saving grace that supersedes Watt’s strange synthetic polishes

Hope hope hope.

96583UP wrote:Watt’s strange synthetic polishes

This Stones album is really jarring, for this reason. Everyone is saying how it sounds like a real Stones record -- I'm having a hard time getting past how little it sounds like the Stones, aside from Mick's voice, and even that is noticeably processed. And I'm not hearing Keith and Ronnie in any of these guitar tones.

New single Why can’t they see next month album title Pygmalion, from Steve Hoffmen forum?

stip wrote:i thought the stones record was well received?

It has been met with the usual outpouring of hosannas and best-sinces, which is typical for new Stones records and not to be trusted (Pitchfork, in a nod to their roots, have chimed in with an overcompensatory negative review that hinges upon the offense that the Stones are a commercial rock band who make money). When A Bigger Bang, the last Stones album of original material, came out in 2005, it got 4.5/5 stars from Rolling Stone; in RS's review of the new album, they describe A Bigger Bang as "feisty, but not especially memorable." These were different reviewers writing 18 years apart, so the inconsistency is certainly reasonable, but it's emblematic of how these records assume a more honest place in the canon after the excitement surrounding them dies down. (Which I realize is true of a lot of bands, but it seems especially so of the Stones, Dylan, Springsteen, etc.)

That said, for someone like me, to whom the Stones are not particularly special, it's a good record. Mick sounds good, and there are a handful of solid, catchy rock songs throughout. But -- and I say this as someone who does not have audiophile ears at all -- it does seem clear that Watt works within a set of defaults that it seems foolishly optimistic to assume won't be applied to the next PJ record.

Kevin Davis wrote:it does seem clear that Watt works within a set of defaults that it seems foolishly optimistic to assume won't be applied to the next PJ record.

I agree, KD. Earthling, the last Iggy Pop record, and this Stones record all sound more or less the same. It's pretty clear by now what Watt does.