foreign tongues

howdy pop pickers

and so another (not that there has been many to interest me, look you see) new tape (actual) released this year, with it being the improbability of another Rolling Stones album. yes, they do indeed keep going. well, why not, i suppose. 

this new album, Foreign Tongues, comes 'relatively' quickly (three years) based on their levels of output so far this century after (to state the obvious) their last, Hackney Diamonds. for those of you inexplicably looking to moi for some sort of in short review, well, much like the previous, it's a decent enough album as in it is not a waste of time to listen to but, exactly like the last one, rather unlikely too many will actively seek to listen to it much after the initial release. no, i don't think Hackney Diamonds has been anywhere near my stereo in the last two (2) years.

perhaps, as quite decent as the music on the album is, the most distinct aspect of Foreign Tongues is the artwork for the cover. it is, despite some fairly good attempts to do this before, easily the worst album cover the Stones have unleashed on the world and would have a strong case for being declared the worst album cover of all time. yes, oddly, even worse than an album cover that has an image of, say, Sammy Hagar, or even Ed Sheridan (or whatever) on it, for at least such pictures warn you what to expect and immediately tell you not to listen to it. 

best songs on the album? maybe this undermines what i have said of it being quite good, but it is (very much) the case that the two off of the single they put out, In The Stars and Rough & Twisted, are the strongest. two really decent tunes, and to (characteristically) contradict myself yeah, actually these two would likely get played further into the future. but then i possibly thought the same of Angry off of the last album, which was rather class but i have not felt any need to play it again. 

it is not the case that the other songs are "weaker" or in any way "lesser" (or "fewer"). they just really do stand out. rather easier to pick out what's probably the weakest song on the set, which is the Amy Winehouse cover You Know I'm No Good. not really sure why they were so taken with this, although to be fair it does allow for Sir Roger Moore to be namechecked on a Stones record. 

some people out there will have bought the tape (as in actual cassette) version to just either keep as a museum piece (all sealed up) or to sell for twice what they paid for it. not me. for those who have it and haven't opened it up, here you go, a look at the tape (both sides) and the inlay card (both sides). 

nice to see that they made a "proper" tape edition. really don't understand the tape revival thing, as fond as i am of them, for the quality of sound was never all that much. still, some bands have released tapes of a poor physical (as in easily snapped tape) manufacture, with little or no "proper" packaging. great that the Stones have gone "if we are going to release it on cassette then it's going to be properly done". 

going back (as it were) to the actual album and there's no one "thematic" thread running through the record, as in no distinct genre except it's a Rolling Stones album. you get a "bit of everything here", be it some proper rhythm n blues (not the horrendous soulless sampled rubbish that stole the name rnb in the 90s) of full tilt groove rock. somewhat catching me by surprise was the dance, if not quite disco, feel of some of the tunes. also a nice throwback to the falsetto vocals of Emotional Rescue can be found on Jealous Lover. 

how about a bit more "what's inside" action? i also bought what i thought was just the regular CD of the album. turns out it was a "store exclusive" red disc. yes, at first i was quite surprised that it was all yellow, then realised that the playing surface side was the bit that was the red disc. so, for anyone who has also bought this "exclusive" version yet wants to keep it sealed, here you go. 

those of you who(m) are all excited about what Ronnie Wood brings to the Stones are in for a right proper treat when you hear the penultimate track, Back In Your Life. not only does it have the rarity of a Ronnie Wood solo on a Stones song, it also has a most enthusiastic Sir Mick Jagger introducing said solo off of Ronnie. 

mostly, and this is not a dig or damned with praise thing, i think what i like most about this album is the very high production standards. yes, the songs are decent, and Jagger's vocals are as they should be. in this era of "streaming" and compressed sound, or "engineering" songs so they sound good on video games or other such licencing agreements, it's a welcome relief to hear someone that the effort to make a record sound so fantastic (superb) just as an album experience. once upon a time this high quality of sound production was a minimum standard, now it is a rare treat.

having played the album in its entirely some seven or eight (maybe nine) times i haven't gotten particularly bored of it as such. again, though, there is a sense of this being another momentary album off of them, one that it is great they have gone done yet not one that is going to resonate any distance into the future (rather than the past). sometimes that's enough, though. 

some sort of "contractual obligation" thing exists where one cannot mention a new Stones release without wondering "for how much longer" they will go on, or without stating how excellent it is that they are still on the go. all such comments and questions have been handled with efficient simplicity before by Sir Mick. he simply points out that this kind of statement or question only ever comes up purely because "no one has ever done what the Rolling Stones have". perhaps some other bands. with U2 being the most likely, may have just as long a career, but for now, well, yeah, Stones it is. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!