The brilliant new Rolling Stones song.

[Tony..]

Unfortunately you have to buy ANOTHER greatest hits package to get it, or do a souless download.

..

[midnightx]

There is nothing brilliant about it. Just another modern-day, over-produced, sleek and sterile Stones single. The best "new" stuff the band has released in years were the re-worked vault recordings for the deluxe treatments of Exile On Main Street and Some Girls.

[rjm]

The question is: does it beg and plead to be on my IPod. If it did, I'd be at amazon now, hitting the "buy" button (if an MP3 is available). It's good. But it's not grabbing me by the throat. The hook is not amazing, nor are the licks, and you should expect amazing. It would work well live, I guess.

rjm

[dreambear]

But the overall sound is quite good. I like! jagger sings amazingly good for a 69 year old guy.

[JohnnyRebel42]

I like it.

[KiwiAlan]

But the overall sound is quite good. I like! jagger sings amazingly good for a 69 year old guy.

Exactly

[promiseland]

Nice I like it too!

[keninlincs]

Very good,i like it

[Mike Eder]

Looking forward to GRR the five CD version has basically every notable single on it, and it will have a bonus vinyl EP. The vinyl version should be very cool as well. I don't care for most of the Stones post 1981 material, but hey a new song or two isn't a bad thing.

[Tony..]

It is fantastic compared to the dross that's currently invading pop charts around the world and anything seen or heard on X Factor.

Here another GREAT one from 1991.
..

[ian]

But the overall sound is quite good. I like! jagger sings amazingly good for a 69 year old guy.

He does sound great!

[Walter Hale 4]

Unfortunately you have to buy ANOTHER greatest hits package to get it, or do a souless download.

..

That wasn't very good, Tony. Find something better (even if it's bootleg material) and post it here.

[rjm]

THIS is brilliant. (I don't make excuses because they're older. There are others still doing fine work. Glen Campbell had a fine album! And he's got a quite a burden.)

..

rjm

[dreambear]

It reminds me a bit of when people says that Promised land, I washed my hands in muddy water or I´m leavin doesn´t stand a chance because those aren´t 50´s songs....

THIS is brilliant. (I don't make excuses because they're older. There are others still doing fine work. Glen Campbell had a fine album! And he's got a quite a burden.)

..

rjm

[Johnny 99]

Has energy and it rocks. Best new Stones track for some time.

[drjohncarpenter]

It is fantastic compared to the dross that's currently invading pop charts around the world and anything seen or heard on X Factor.

You set a very high bar.

[rjm]

It reminds me a bit of when people says that Promised land, I washed my hands in muddy water or I´m leavin doesn´t stand a chance because those aren´t 50´s songs....

THIS is brilliant. (I don't make excuses because they're older. There are others still doing fine work. Glen Campbell had a fine album! And he's got a quite a burden.)

..

rjm

Who says that about those songs? Besides, Elvis was still just in his 30s when he cut those, so it's not even a comparison. (But those are great records, in any event. He was a long way from his '70s then, and those are probably the best of that particular time. The Stones were also pretty vital at that age - I'm not sure I see the connection. Elvis was a troubadour who "g(o)t killed before (he) reached Bombay.")

Still, if they're making music at this time, I don't think it has to be "good for" their age; it should just be good. Or excellent, if they can. Maybe it's better than much of what they've done over the last couple decades, but it's not "brilliant."

rjm

[TJ]

It's not particularly memorable, but it's a good listen and nice to have something new.

[drjohncarpenter]

It's not particularly memorable, but it's a good listen and nice to have something new.

The "new" song underscores the plight of this band, thirty-plus years since their last great album. It sounds good, it's well produced, but the song has no relevance.

Since 1978, Jagger has spent more time building up his bank account -- and trying to make it as a solo act -- than work on his craft. In his lyrics we don't hear what the guy really thinks about. Maybe he is such an empty vessel now that "Doom and Gloom" and "Sparks Will Fly" are all he can muster.

Still, their truly great work (1965-69 singles, Aftermath, Between The Buttons, Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Exile on Main Street, Some Girls) will outlive us all.

[TJ]

Still, their truly great work (1965-69 singles, Aftermath, Between The Buttons, Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Exile on Main Street, Some Girls) will outlive us all.

Yup and that's what counts ultimately. They can still cut it enough as a live band to put on a show that means something to those who attend, but they aren't ever going to create something in the studio that will rival their best work. Most bands who stick around a long time suffer the same fate of course.

[tomogland]

Doom and Gloom ain't bad. But one of the main problems with Stones after the mid-70s is that Mick Jagger doesn''t sing/perform as well as he used to. The spontaneity/feeling in his singing, that made him great, is mostly gone. However check out all tracks with lead vocals by Keith Richards (since 1967). That's a singer with soul! Especially on ballads. His songs are the highlights of the Stones albums since the 80s. Here are the tracks you should check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Richards#Lead_vocals_on_Rolling_Stones_tracks

By the way, Dr Carpenter forgot Sticky Fingers in his list of the best Stones albums. If you go for the albums/singles produced by Jimmy Miller (68-73) you can't go wrong! All great stuff (mostly with Mick Taylor in the band as well).

Regards
Tom Ogland
from Norway

[bquick]

It isn't bad, but it doesn't have a great hook. The worst part of the last 30 years of Stones material is it is loud and well played, but it lacks swing. Tumbling Dice swings, this (and most of their other stuff recently) just rumbles. And Jagger stopped singing a long time ago...more "talk-singing" or "tough guy yelling" than the voice that sang Shine a Light or Wild Horses. Not bad for a band of near-70 year olds, but not brilliant. Best stuff since 81 would be Undercover of the Night, One Hit (to the Body), Slipping Away, a few tunes on Voodoo, Saint of Me, and Thief in the Night.

[Justin]

It isn't bad, but it doesn't have a great hook. The worst part of the last 30 years of Stones material is it is loud and well played, but it lacks swing. Tumbling Dice swings, this (and most of their other stuff recently) just rumbles. And Jagger stopped singing a long time ago...more "talk-singing" or "tough guy yelling" than the voice that sang Shine a Light or Wild Horses. Not bad for a band of near-70 year olds, but not brilliant. Best stuff since 81 would be Undercover of the Night, One Hit (to the Body), Slipping Away, a few tunes on Voodoo, Saint of Me, and Thief in the Night.

Wish I saw this more often!

[bquick]

It isn't bad, but it doesn't have a great hook. The worst part of the last 30 years of Stones material is it is loud and well played, but it lacks swing. Tumbling Dice swings, this (and most of their other stuff recently) just rumbles. And Jagger stopped singing a long time ago...more "talk-singing" or "tough guy yelling" than the voice that sang Shine a Light or Wild Horses. Not bad for a band of near-70 year olds, but not brilliant. Best stuff since 81 would be Undercover of the Night, One Hit (to the Body), Slipping Away, a few tunes on Voodoo, Saint of Me, and Thief in the Night.

Wish I saw this more often!

Refresh the page, then read it again

[rickeap]

I like it a lot.
I haven't really liked a Stone album since the early 80s, but that's cool.