.jpeg)
The Return of The Stones
11/17/23
BY: IAN SHERRY
On October 20, 2023, The Rolling Stones released their latest album, Hackney Diamonds. The legendary band continues to make history…
And now for a real-life interaction from my history class lecture hall:
Random Kid #1: “Dude, the Rolling Stones just put out a new album”
Random Kid #2: “Who?!”
Random Kid #1: “I know, right! It’s not like a greatest hits or anything, just a new album. They didn’t even say it’s their last one, they literally just announced a random album.”
Random Kid #2: “No, I mean like actually who is that?”
Kids these days.
The Rolling Stones, in fact, are (one of) the greatest rock band(s) of all time, and despite their median age being something like 78, they just released their 31st studio album. This raised an abundance of questions amongst listeners, the most important one being: will it be any good? Well let’s talk about it.
Hailing from London, The Rolling Stones were key blazers in the British Invasion and consequently, the formation of rock as we know it. Dabbling in everything from American Blues to British Pop, they set the standard for what a talented band could and should attempt to accomplish across genres and decades. Now, with legendary frontman Mick Jagger sitting at 80 years old, we have to wonder what version of the Stones we’ll see. Personally, I was hoping for some blues.
The Expectations
The Rolling Stones are a well oiled machine that has produced decades of success. They’ve long since mastered the finer points of instrumental production, songwriting, and album construction. They have their own sound - several in fact - to rely upon when developing new material. And they bring their vast discography, deep experience, and a hall of fame reputation. But it’s time to address the elder elephant in the room: a lead singer who’s 80 years old and a collective group who cannot possibly be completely in touch with today’s musical landscape. This is a clear barrier, but not an insurmountable one. Johnny Cash recorded his legendary cover “Hurt” at the age of 71 in poor health. Although his singing on “Hurt” isn’t bold and exuberant, his sense of emotion is so powerful that it registers as one of his greatest vocal performances ever. All that is to say, physical vocal capabilities are not the end all be all - not by a long shot. Johnny Cash collaborated with Rick Rubin on that album. The legendary producer helped him structure songs around his ability, bolstering the instrumentals at the perfect times and saving the best of Cash’s voice for the right moments. They worked with what they had, and they made beautiful music. Should this set the standard? Perhaps that bar is too high, considering Cash and Rubin are two of the greatest musical minds of all time. However, The Rolling Stones ought to be measured in such elite company.
As a reviewer, I feel faced with the ultimate dilemma: delivering an objective critique of an album/artist in a context full of subjective contradictions. For instance, The Stones are one of the greatest bands ever, yet as octogenarians, do I hold them to their career-long standard? (I don’t normally check album review ratings from other sources, but I checked Pitchfork out of curiosity and that’s what they decided to do). Or do I hold them to the standard I would use for an elderly member of the local volunteer church choir? This is tempting, but the reality is Mick Jagger isn’t just singing on Sundays, he’s in The Rolling Stones. Or, do I hold them to the standard of late-career Johnny Cash? They’re different artists, and they aren’t working with Rick Rubin, but they could have. And maybe that should have. So, just as I might rate a debut on the scale of all debuts, I’m going to rate Hackney Diamonds on the scale of Johnny Cash’s final album.
The Genre
As I mentioned, I was hoping for blues. While The Beatles first met resistance for impersonating the American artform that is rhythm & blues, The Rolling Stones were more easily welcomed. Why? Well, I think they were just better at it. So, several decades later, I wanted a return to that blues-driven sweet spot that Rolling Stones made their own. Shouldn’t their consistently pure, unique instrumentals and personality-filled vocals still be replicable in 2023? Nobody since the heyday version of the Rolling Stones has been able to capture that unique blues sound like they did, and unfortunately as I listened to Hackney Diamonds, that standard has yet to be met. The best blues moments are fleeting and scattered at best. Track 6, “Dreamy Skies”, track 10, “Tell Me Straight”, and track 12, “Rolling Stone Blues” give us a taste, and they’re some of my favorites on the album. But, that’s only 3/12 tracks.
Instead, the Stones seem to have made a conscious choice for safe pop-rock. Aside from their brief blues departure later in the album and 2000s impression-rock track “Whole Wide World” (a bad song), they leaned into the 80s. Though this isn’t my favorite era of rock by any means, they were able to deliver a recognizable sound, albeit safe and far from unique. Flighty group vocal choruses, repetitive but consistent song structure, and the occasional guitar solo. After a few songs I knew exactly what to expect. “Angry” is the first song of the album, and it does a good job of setting the pop-rock tone. It may be the best example of their general aim for the album, though it’s hard to tell at times. Meanwhile “Bite My Head Off” (track 4), which supposedly features Sir Paul McCartney, is a perfect example of their formula falling flat.
The Bridge
Structure is not a bad thing. Though it often receives a negative connotation, it is a helpful tool for delivering a solid end product. I’ve had moments of frustration reviewing albums this year, as artists move further away from traditional pop structure - Verse, verse, bridge, verse - only to lose their way with underwhelming results. The Stones have it down.
When I review albums, I take notes chronologically, adjusting my opinion on a song as it unfolds, usually finishing with ¾ lines of notes per track. In those notes I’m always sure to make a note of a good chorus, verse, or bridge. After marking down ‘BRIDGE’ for six of the first seven songs, I realized I should just mark it at the bottom of the page as its own category. Whether it be vocal, piano, guitar, or some combination of the three, the bridge is often the strongest stretch of a Hackney Diamonds song. This is entirely undervalued in music today, so I’m glad to see The Rolling Stones reviving it.
No matter how good of a hook you have, no matter how good your verses are, no matter how engaging a song is, the audience may not want to hear it repeat itself 3-4 times with no interruption. Therefore, in order to venture over 2 verses or three minutes, a bridge is a necessity. “Mess It Up” for example, is redeemed, to an extent, by its bridge. Frankly, so is the album itself.
The Vocals
Can Mick Jagger sing like he used to? I don’t know, he doesn’t really bother. For much of the album, the verses are straightforward, and the choruses are basic. While that does fit into their sound of choice much of the time, it was an unnecessary sacrifice of personality. There is a reason Jagger is one of the most famous frontmen/women of all time. He has a swagger as a vocalist and live performer, and his abilities are rarely topped. He’s comfortable, creative, and assertive on the microphone. The Rolling Stones are a historically cohesive, well-rehearsed unit of instrumentalists, but so were the Grateful Dead. What vaulted The Rolling Stones into superstardom was the man in the middle. I don’t expect him to wail on a track like he used to, but that swagger that gives them such an elite feel as a band was lacking this year. There is no real excuse for this. Johnny Cash, despite his comparatively limited vocal capabilities, actually elevated his performative repertoire on his final album. Jagger should’ve been able to at least replicate his own. Instead we have a vocally clean, yet flat album.
That vocal cleanliness, in a vacuum, is no sin. However, there’s something fishy about it on Hackney Diamonds. It feels polished, literally, as though every single second of every song was doctored post-recording. And this wouldn’t surprise me. Autotune, aside from its obvious vocally altering capabilities, is also used to smooth out slight imperfections in performances. On My Next Guest Needs No Introduction with David Letterman, Billie Eilish explains the practice of vocal comping. This is the recording of multiple takes, and splicing them together to create one perfect vocal performance. Whether the Stones were using one of these methods or something else, I’m not sure. All I know is there are noticeably unnatural portions of vocals on this album. In comparison, once again, to Johnny Cash, who leaned into his imperfections and weaknesses out of vulnerability, Jagger seems to have tried to hide his, at the cost of his own persona on the microphone. I’d give examples, but you can find them on almost every song. Let’s shift to the positives instead.
The Strengths
One step The Rolling Stones took to modernize their sound, which I actually appreciated, was the inclusion of features. While McCartney’s presence on track 4 is inconsequential, the other two features resulted in the strongest songs on the album. The first is “Live By The Sword”, featuring Elton John. This raucous track came out firing. Elton John is very present on piano, the pace is great, and Jagger's vocals feel more prominent. For the first time on the whole album I felt my foot tap. It’s a fun, well-executed song in their own style, in contrast to a song like “Get Close”, which has a similar aim but sounds more like The J. Geils Band than the Stones. Meanwhile, the best song on the album is more than just a fun time. Track 11, “Sweet Sounds of Heaven”, featuring Lady Gaga, is a total success. A classic Jagger lead-in sets a tone that strikes a perfect balance between fresh and vintage, especially as the Gaga accompanying vocals come in. She quietly harmonizes in the background, providing a lighter, more feminine edge to Mick Jagger’s most bold performance on the album. They combine to build the energy to a high point, then bring it down for Lady Gaga to handle the bridge alongside the piano, before building it up one final time to the finish. While the final build is a bit messy, it brings a genuine energy to the track and album that was desperately needed. Once again Lady Gaga proves herself to be an elite collaborator, and The Rolling Stones deliver an authentic performance that reminds us who they can still be.
If there’s one thing I did have absolute confidence in, it’s this: The Rolling Stones’ ability to make an album. The first and last tracks were great choices, the album flowed fairly well and with a generally uniform sound, and it wasn’t too long. Despite the fact I didn’t enjoy every track, they all felt worthy of inclusion, in the context of the whole. That really goes a long way in my opinion. If your album flows all the way through and stands on its own as one cohesive musical composition, you can better hold the attention of an audience, even one that isn’t fully captivated. So that’s where I leave this review: on a positive.
The Rolling Stones are one of the greatest bands of all time. The way the English language works, ‘are’ is the correct word. Because they still exist, they ‘are’ one of the greatest bands of all time, however everyone knows that they are now a different version of the band they once were: something closer to The Stationary Stones. All things considered though, Hackney Diamonds isn’t a failure. The vocals, while audibly tolerable, don’t really find an identity, at least not until the end, and the instrumentation is fairly safe. But, they took a chance on the features and landed two thirds of the record. And Stones successfully constructed a cohesive album, giving us songs with actual replay value in the year 2023 - 58 years after they first topped the American charts.
So, summing it up as briefly as I can: it’s a mixed bag.
Johnny Cash’s American IV: The Man Comes Around is a 10/10.
By the standard Johnny Cash set in 2002, Hackney Diamonds is a 5.7/10.