Review Summary: A solid effort from the Stones, adapting to the 90's sound with ease.
When it comes to
Bridges To Babylon, Stones fans are somehow divided in many little teams and groups. Others loathe it because the Stones are apparently selling out in the 90’s, others love it because it is contemporary, others think it is mediocre as far as songs go. Me? I think it’s a great album. But let’s look at the mixed opinions for a moment.
The first category is the one that claims ‘Stones sold out!’. Wait a minute, now. Sold out to what? 90’s inspired production values and general approach? Or because they tied this and the previous two releases with mega-tours? They did it with
Exile back in 72’ and in ’78 with
Some Girls, too, if I remember correctly. Sure, one can argue that Exile wasn’t conceived as a ‘tie-in’ and would be correct. But so what? The Stones in the 90’s were already 30 years in the music-making business. If you want time-defining albums, look back. This album doesn’t pretend to be time-defining or a masterpiece. It is just a solid release by the Stones in their late 30’s (as a band, that is).
The second category loves it for the opposite reason; it sounds contemporary and more modern. To be honest with you, this is only a minor reason of why I like this album. But here comes the clash of the two main categories of the general reception of the album. The objectors claim that by adapting to 90’s the Stones lost their trademark sound. Listen to
Flip The Switch, people with that opinion. The trademark Stones is lost? Not at all! This track is a classic of latter period Stones. Catchy, groovy, fast and thrilling. What’s not to like? And
Out Of Control is a damn classic too, with the dark bass introduction and the subtle wah tones of the guitar in the background, that build up and result in an explosive chorus with Jagger singing his heart out. Same with rockers
Lowdown and
Gunface. You see, they haven’t lost their sound or trademark ‘rocking’ songwriting. They just adapted to more modern production values, that’s all. This is what they did in the mid-70’s, the 80’s, the 60’s. This is is the ‘trademark’ sound of the Stones; to adapt to the general zeitgeist of said era, but still keeping their sound.
As for the third category; really? The main advantage of the Stones is that they are an incredibly consistent band as far as song-crafting goes. Yes, the 80’s were rather terrible, but what band from the 60’s/early 70’s didn’t become mediocre in the 80’s? Still, there is some truth in that statement and it’s the critique of the album that is closest to the truth. Songs like the Richards-penned
How Can I Stop and
Thief In The Night are melody-less and dull.
Always Suffering is a derivative of
Already Over Me, only less memorable and less heartfelt. But the rest of the tracks are solid, to tell you the truth.
Might As Well Get Juiced is good enough, with a nice saxophone line and warm vocals from Richards.
Saint Of Me is even better with touches of Hammond organ and a incredibly catchy chorus.
Too Tight is more poppy with charming backing vocals in the intro and a very good melody sung by Jagger. And
Anybody Seen My Baby gets fans offended because it is the most nineties-esque song on the record, with the rap section, the whole ‘alternative’ mood, its somewhat insincere nature. Still, the song is
very catchy and I guess that was the purpose of the track, to make it catchy and contemporary and give it as single.
Still, the record is great. Melodic (with a few exceptions), catchy, thrilling and a nice change from the more Richards-oriented
Voodoo Lounge. It would be perfect though, if the best tracks of these three albums(
Wheels, Voodoo, Bridges) were combined in a single record and give us a representative and enjoyable listen at the Stones in the 90’s. Wouldn’t that be great? But maybe I ask for too much. The 90's run of album is solid, if anything. If someone wants to critique the Stones, proceed to the 80's.
In general, I don’t understand the anti-hype with late period Stones. Others say they record the same album over and over again and others claim that they change their sound and rely too much on contemporary trends. But these two statements are major contradictions. The truth is in the middle, in fact. They just do what they do best; taking elements from each decade and combine it to their own sound. And that's all.
