And I can’t find the time to listen to it yet, there’s been something else old or new that trumps it. No doubt I’ll take a listen in time, I just fear they will sound like a parody of themselves just going through the motions.
Most boring post ever.
I think that the votes and many of the above posts indicate that this is just not the case. The Stones worked hard to ride above being a parody and create something worthwhile. Give it a listen and see if you agree.
1 Like
Yes, I read through the thread before commenting - & I said that I fear that the album, would be little more that them going through the motions and it becoming a parody of themselves. (Therefore, I’d like that not to be the case). Regardless of popular opinion here, I will make up my own mind. However, as my post says, I will give it a listen and thus far I’ve not found the time. I’d definitely like it to be a cracker album, but I won’t get my hopes up too high.
Whilst many may say they listened with an open mind (& I will too), I can’t imagine many would not have held some sort of prior thoughts, that just comes with the territory for the Stones.
Cheers.
Edit:
I’ll touch base once I’ve had a listen. I’ll try for this weekend, it’s just a busy time of the year for me (5 weeks remaining to school years end), so weekends I’m often working. I need to sit and listen ‘properly’.
2 Likes
For balance, given your apparent fanboyism
1 Like
Eighty year old Mick Jagger singing a first person love song about aching and betrayal.
Absurd.
On ‘Dreamy Skies’, Jagger sings about taking a break from it all.
Don’t take too long a break, Mick. 
The only reason these octogenarians are still playing is because people of a certain age want to believe they’re still relevant, instead of just embarrassing and used up…
1 Like
Who is Grayson Haver Currin and why is he saying all these terrible things about the Rolling Stones? All kidding aside, he is entitled to his opinion, no matter how misguided it may be.
Sure I’m what you might label a Rolling Stones fanboy but I am such for several, what I feel are, very valid reasons.
I bought a copy of Exile on Main Street upon its release in 1972 because I had grown up listening to and enjoying the Stones (I was 17 in 1972). Exile was not very well reviewed when it was first released but nonetheless I loved the album and stood my ground in spite of the lackluster reviews. Fast forward 30 years or so and the critics were now praising Exile as the greatest of all Stones albums and one of the greatest rock albums of all time. Fanboy or sage? You decide.
I’ve only seen the Stones live twice, mostly because I don’t like going to concerts in arenas and stadiums. I saw them at Madison Square Garden in New York back in 1975 and they were pretty bad - going through the motions with no fire. Helped to reinforce my dislike for arena concerts. Then I had the pleasure of seeing them at the Capitol Theater in Passaic, NJ - a much smaller venue (around 3000 seats) - and the Stones were absolutely on fire. One of the best concerts I ever seen and I’ve seen many, many concerts. There’s a well recorded bootleg of this concert called “Garden State '78” which is well worth seeking out.
Finally the Rolling Stones, much to their credit, have NEVER done a Farewell Tour. I guess because the Stones might actually respect their fans.
1 Like
I quite like exile.
1 Like
Atmos Version of the Album
–MD
Fantastic album - the best since Beggars Banquet 
. Actually, the Rolling Stones were and are the best rock’n’roll band in the world - forever! They have proven it throughout their lives.
I’m a “nay” and @Simon_Arnold3 explained why better than I could have.
I saw Nick Cave a few nights ago. The first tour of his I saw was a Bad Seeds tour of Tender Prey in 1988. He’s been on a journey since then. His music is certainly a matter of taste but it’s hard to find much in common between Ghosteen, for example, and that early stuff. He’s gone deep and wide and that’s interesting to me. This Stones album is listenable and has some nostalgia for me but being born in the late 60’s, it’s not enough nostalgia to get me excited about what feels like a rehash.
These stories got me remembering the one and only time I saw the Stones in '89. Big stadium, big production, more fun hearing their old stuff than the Steel Wheels stuff they were touring. But the real fun was Living Color who opened for them and it was them that got me to buy tickets. Vernon Reid could play. They were far more energetic and fun than the Stones. 
If the Stones manage to put out another album, I hope it’s something deeper and more personal. That would get me interested.
2 Likes
Not sure how anyone can hate on the Stones. They’re still playing music and enjoying being a rock 'n roll band 61 years after their forming. That’s a pretty amazing feat.
3 Likes
How old are you, if I can ask?
BTW, I don’t hate them. They’re just embarrassing and irrelevent. As far as the album goes, if anyone else had cut it, it would barely be a ripple.
I think that you are wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion, and maybe you should state that explicitly?
For myself they are still a relevant band, they have written the soundtrack of my life and the new album for me is a solid win.
I think I know why you’re asking me my age (54 for the record) but age is irrelevant to the issue. I listen to a wide variety of music from jazz, rock, hip hop, soul, electronic, R&B, Americana and whatever else appeals to my ears.
I have to assume you’re on the younger side by the statement that the Stones are embarrassing.
The Stones resume:
30 studio albums
23 Live albums
12 compilation albums
The only artists to top the UK Album Charts in six different decades
over a dozen documentaries
4th best-selling group of all-time
48 tours including three of the highest grossing tours of all-time.
since 1989, the band has grossed $1.5 billion
and they’re still going…that’s about as relevant as it gets.
Could I ask which bands would you say were relevant and not embarrassing? I am genuinely interested in your opinion, to me it seems to be a challenging genre.
I can understand your point but think of this way: rock 'n roll, the music that the Rolling Stones helped to define started out as the music of rebellious youth. The music is often ageless but alas the musicians are never ageless (unless they happen to die young, like Jimi Hendrix) and no one ever thought about coming up with some kind of graceful exit strategy.
I think that Madonna, with her never ending quest to stay 25 years old is much more embarrassing and completely irrelevant. Lady Gaga appears to be working on how to stay relevant once her youth is gone, hence her work with the late Tony Bennet.
The clash “1977”
Doesn’t stop me enjoying them though….now I’m older.
1 Like
I thought I was explicitly stating something.
I’m 73. Usually, it’s people reliving their youth that still idolize The Stones, IMO.
The first album I ever bought. You were minus 5 years old.
I saw The Stones at Dillion Stadium in Hartford, CT in the summer of 1969. Whether it was before or after the day of your birth that year I couldn’t say.
I mostly left rock ‘n’ roll behind many years ago when I discovered jazz.
Coltrane, Rollins, Davis, Pepper, etc. are for the ages and all without lyrics.
I never said The Stones were never great. Jagger was a roll ‘n’ roll animal. A prancing, capering Pan god. And Keith Richards’ life style still amazes.
Yes, that’s my point. Singers are generally viewed as the avatars of the material of their songs. Jagger, at eighty, singing aching love songs of betrayal is ridiculous. At eighty, he can probably count on one hand the number of arousals (so to speak) that he’s had this year.
All this is neither here nor there. The album is mediocre at best. If it wasn’t The Stones, it would be even less.
The Rolling Kidney Stones.
There is no right or wrong regarding this. It’s all opinion, of course. I love many or most of the 1960’s R&R bands, but that doesn’t mean I want to hear them perform in their 80’s. I think it’s past time for some of them to hang it up.
2 Likes
I just checked with the boys in the band, and they say its not the first time that they have been dismissed by older ‘educated’ jazz fans!
Sure, the loss of a sale may bother them; but given the international sales so far they don’t need to cancel their Netflix subscriptions yet!
And to be fair, i am slightly biased as i still believe they retain the moniker of “the greatest rock & roll band in the world”!
3 Likes