Only $9.99 at Best Buy.

Jesus, some of this shit is honestly making me laugh.....

So it doesn't rock the cock?

Oh, just based on it release , its instantly in my Top 5 of the year....

Its just funny. And the Keith song is really dissapointing.

"Sweet Neo Con" is one of the crappiuest songs I've heard in years.
Too bad too, because I agree with the statement. I just think it's poorly done.

so there's no "sweet black angel II" about condi?

Let's try that again...

By Mark Caro
Tribune entertainment reporter
Published September 4, 2005

The word was out from Boston: Something was going on with the Rolling Stones. Something new. Something good.
The relic rockers opened their tour at Fenway Park a couple of weeks ago, and the reviews were glowing. Boston Globe rock critic Steve Morse called the show "phenomenal. It's shaping up to be easily the best stadium tour by the Stones since 1988's [actually 1989's] 'Steel Wheels.'"
The band's new album, "A Bigger Bang" (which comes out Tuesday), also has been getting raves. Los Angeles Times rock critic Robert Hilburn called it "their strongest since 'Tattoo You' almost a quarter century ago." Morse wrote that "industry insiders have termed [it] their best since 1978's 'Some Girls'" and also that "comparisons have been made between the new album and the Stones' classic 'Exile on Main Street' from 1972 . . . " (See Tribune rock critic Greg Kot's take on Page 9.)
As the Stones roll into town for a Sept. 10 Soldier Field show, we're hearing the message loud and clear: Mick and Keith are getting along, the band has gone back to basics and these mostly sixtysomething rockers are miraculously rejuvenated, playing with an energy and conviction that's been lacking for the past decade or two.
This may all be true.
It also all sounds awfully familiar:
"It is far better than even Stones lobbyists might expect. It's better than their so-called comeback albums, 'Steel Wheels' and 'Voodoo Lounge,' which hinted there was still octane in the tank."
-- Steve Morse on "Bridges to Babylon," Boston Globe, Sept. 19, 1997.
The Stones' last one-two punch of a new studio album and tour came in 1997 with "Bridges to Babylon" and an opening-night show at Soldier Field. Before that were "Voodoo Lounge" in 1994 and "Steel Wheels" in 1989.
The massively successful "Steel Wheels" tour came at a pivotal point for the band. Publicly sparring singer Mick Jagger and guitarist Keith Richards had released solo albums, and the Stones hadn't toured since 1981's "Tattoo You" despite producing albums in 1983 ("Undercover") and 1986 ("Dirty Work"). In interviews to promote "Steel Wheels," Jagger and Richards stressed that they had put their acrimony behind them and come up with an album that they could enthusiastically support. (Richards had wanted to tour for "Dirty Work"; Jagger didn't.)
"I think it's a great improvement over `Dirty Work,'" Jagger told Hilburn in 1989.
Most critics agreed.
David Fricke of Rolling Stone magazine enthused, "The Rolling Stones have made one of their best albums in over a decade." Anthony DeCurtis' subsequent Rolling Stone review gave "Steel Wheels" (star)(star)(star)(star) 1/2 (out of 5), contending that "Undercover" and "Dirty Work" "ranged from bad to ordinary."
"`Steel Wheels' . . . combines vintage Stones rock with an experimentalism missing from most of their last decade's five albums . . . .The band hasn't been this loose since 1972's `Exile on Main Street.'
-- Morse, Boston Globe, Aug. 27, 1989.
"Voodoo Lounge" had Chicagoan Darryl Jones taking over on bass from departed founding member Bill Wyman, and the album and tour cast a wider stylistic net than usual. Still, the band was sounding a familiar tune.
"The Stones have landed on their feet again," Richards told Morse. "With the last album, `Steel Wheels,' we hadn't worked together in a long time and the material wasn't the best stuff. But I feel the Stones have hit their track again."
Once again, critics in large part were on message.
Hilburn wrote: "`Voodoo Lounge' is the Stones' most appealing album in years."
Rolling Stone's Barbara O Dair gave it (star)(star)(star)(star), kicking off her review: "Gone are the smooth moves, trendy nods and lackluster songcraft of `Dirty Work' and `Steel Wheels.'"
"The new album is vintage Stones. Its rich variety of music -- there are a whopping 15 songs -- recalls their watershed `Exile on Main Street' album of 1972." -- Morse on "Voodoo Lounge," Boston Globe, July 10, 1994.
"Bridges to Babylon" added some modern producers, most notably the Dust Brothers, to the otherwise-familiar mix, and the album and tour got the typical Stones reception.
Mark Kemp's (star)(star)(star)(star) Rolling Stone album review began by complaining that on "Voodoo Lounge" and "Steel Wheels," the Stones had proved only "that they still had verve and stamina and that they could re-create the sounds of their glorious past." "Bridges to Babylon" was that album that actually could "deliver the goods."
`Stones we loved'
"It's the Stones we loved back in the day, the Stones who made albums that were neither too self-consciously up-to-date nor too giddily nostalgic," Kemp concluded. "Now we can really be satisfied."
Now that "A Bigger Bang" is coming out, "Bridges to Babylon" represents another large doughy lump in the punching bag that is the band's past two decades of studio recordings. Once again a whole lot of people are giddy about the new, dismissive of the old.
The easy conclusion is that we're all just suckers for buying into hype while the Stones amass retirement accounts that eclipse many countries' gross national products. But that's not necessarily fair.
After all, the Stones remain an awfully good rock band, and they're the best at what they do, which is playing music that sounds like the Rolling Stones. They've created their own genre, so if they still have the energy and chops to show us how it's done after all these years, why be churlish?
Plus, if the Stones don't want to be dismissed as a nostalgia act by critics or snobby rock fans (like myself), they're expected to produce new material. That's fine with them. Richards told Hilburn that the 2002-03 tour, which promoted the band's umpteenth greatest-hits set, felt like "resting on your laurels. It was like celebrating your wonderful career, your great success and all that -- a hurdle to get over. After that, we needed to prove ourselves again."
What's tricky is how we process that new music in the context of the band's history and our own times. How does the music hit you? How does it stick with you? Does one have much to do with the other?
The Stones aren't alone in facing such issues. Paul McCartney, Neil Young, Eric Clapton and Richard Thompson all have been making music since the 1960s, and all have new albums either out or about to be released. After more than 40 years, the question isn't whether the Stones or McCartney can still make music that sounds good; it's whether they can make music that's necessary.
"There is the question of, `Do I need to go back to the well for this? Are they ever going to give me anything that's going to match, for the Stones, "Satisfaction" and for McCartney "Let It Be" or "Hey Jude"?'" said Melinda Newman, West Coast bureau chief for the music-industry trade magazine Billboard. "They're up against a legacy they've created that's so phenomenal that it's very difficult for anyone to live up to that."
Consider the lead singles from the Stones' studio albums of the past 20 years: "Rough Justice" from the new one, "Anybody Seen My Baby?" from "Bridges to Babylon," "Love is Strong" from "Voodoo Lounge," "Mixed Emotions" from "Steel Wheels," "Harlem Shuffle" from "Dirty Work." If you plunk down $300 to see the Stones at Soldier Field, will you feel cheated if they don't play any of them?
Doubtful.
Something left?
When it comes to the lasting power of the Stones' recent music -- as opposed to the lasting power of the band itself -- time hasn't been on their side. Still, there's undeniable pleasure to be found in a new Richards barbed-wire riff or a snarling Jagger phrase or Charlie Watts' crack of the snare. That classic Stones sound conjures up memories of when the music really mattered -- "Exile" and "Some Girls" are touchstones not just for their quality but because they also defined their times -- as well as the promise that it could matter that much again.
It can't.
In a phone conversation, Morse admitted he has given the Stones "the benefit of the doubt" with the past few albums, which he never listens to now. "Maybe I am a little embarrassed about waxing too positive about the last records," he said. "They were not as good as the tours."
But he has no problem in saying that "A Bigger Bang," finally, is the real deal.
"This new record really is their best since `Some Girls' and may be their best since `Exile,'" Morse enthused. "I'm a little wishy-washy on the last few, but I can't imagine ever changing my mind on the new one."

I've always wondered – is the Steve Morse critic the same Steve Morse that played guitar with the Dixie Dregs and Kansas?

just wondered the same thing; though I think Steve lives in Atlanta. (I know Phil, the drummer from Kansas, does---I played Pictionary with him several years ago)

Yeah, the album is pretty good but my beef is mainly with the sound. TOO FUCKING GLOSSY. even if most of the songs arent bloated with over instrumentation, the production is so slick that it renders even rootsy or bluesy tunes to be really empty sounding....

I guess I see your point, but it's the same criticism you could level at any of the work over the last 20 years. Too polished and lacking in any feeling of spontaneity. The production notwithstanding, I think most of the songs are quite strong and I am enjoying the album quite a lot.

oh, dont get me wrong---it kicks ass.....

Yeah, I think so too. For me the fact that I've listened to the album and not felt the need to skip a song for being really shitty or overly tedious suggests that this is, in fact, one of their better albums in some time. I was listening to Dirty Work not long ago and fuck, that is not a good album, right done to the shitty neon clothes cover. I never heard all of Bridges to Babylon, but from what I heard of it, I wasn't thrilled. This album does the trick.

I actually really like a good bit of Bridges.....

"Thief in The Night" is AWESOME. "Saint of Me" rocks. "Juiced".....is interesting.

BTW, I actually like a good bit of Dirty Work but I am a really sick bastard.

You are a crazy SOB, that's for sure. There are only a couple of tracks on Dirty Work that don't make me sludge or cry for mercy.

I'll have to hear the rest of Bridges some time or that Greastest of the Post-70s Stones Mix I've heard about.

I think it's great so far I've listened to the first have and didn't skip past anything which is a good sign. I think the production on it sounds pretty good, Don Was should commended. Sure it's slick (like bloodstains) and polished (like a .38 Special). I think it definitely contains some songs that could incite mass murder and rape.

Liking Dirt Work is seriously grounds for being committed against one's will. Have fun in Milledgeville, DICK.

I agree with your statement about the glossiness. I don't know why someone doesn't grab this fucker and pro tools that fucker down to something grittier.

So, where does The Bigger Bang finish in the Shmoo-poll.

Will the entire ATL crew, plus Cotton (maybe), be voting it number one?

That would mean about an hundred points for the disc. (The ATL crew is ginormous... Or very schizophrenic.)

OK, day 2 take: where is Keith on this record?

I understrand that Mick&Keef allegedly wrote every song on the disc; Ronnie sounds GREAT on slide and the liner notes claim that Richards is playing guitar.

But most of this rythm work stinks of Jagger's Strato-Playing. And he is credited for sure. And Jagger is actually a pretty good player (see:Some Girls) but WTF? I hear very little that even remotely sounds like Richards on this joint.

P.S. Not for nothing but Daryl Jones sounds really good on this record.....I guess you have to do 15 years with the Stones before they actually recognize you in the mix.

So, is it the Metallica Principle or the Stones Principle?

Jason Newstead is begging to know....

Maybe Phil or someother bassist (or Busty though I think hes on my side on this one) will debate me but Newstead is/was a pretty AWFUL bass player.

I tihnk that the Glimmer Twins turned down Daryl because he is black and they hate spades.....

I am a longtime lurker who has never posted, but I feel I must introduce myself since I live in Milledgeville.
Also, the new Stones does kick ass.

So are y'all crazy at the Instituion or just chillin' down there?

Give us at least a glimpse over in the Introductions section.

Many folks are crazy, but most are just horrible drivers.

I'll do an intro later. In short, I teach English at Georgia Military College.

*wheezes a hee*




























Good on ya.

I only meant it as the established band burying the new, resented-for-replacing-a-retiring-hero bassist's lines in the mix.

I wonder if Daryl got any other hazing, though?

so when critics review the Stones these days, are they largely giving us a "this is pretty damn good since these guys are so old...", or are they actually giving us a fair, acurate review based on the songs and delivery?