It's a good cover song, but really more of a soul song than a blues number, isn't it? It's a bit too polite, a bit too smooth for my taste. I'll take Confessin' the Blues, or Down Home Girl, over this any day.

Drew

There's a wailing harmonica at the end of the track. probably played by Brian.

Quote
drewmaster
It's a good cover song, but really more of a soul song than a blues number, isn't it?

why, is this a problem?

This one has always been one of my favourite Rolling Stones soul covers of all time (with "That's How Strong My Love Is" from the same album"). There seemed to be an interesting little brief period in 1964/65 when The Stones, at the same time as starting to write their own originals, were checking out the latest currents from American r&b charts. If their strict 'blues period' had ended around the time of their fisrt album (and then Chess Studio sessions, as a kind of aftermath, plus the "Little Red Rooster"), the band widened up their horizon to include very much a genre that was called 'soul music'. They made a handful great cover versions, and many of them sounded rather original, they adding their boyish, guitar-based rock and roll attitude to many of them. As is with "Cry To Me".

This old thread has been educational for me. I always thought that the basis for Stones version is Solomon Burke original, but most likely it is a Berry Harris one from 1963. I have never heard her version, so thank you Rockman pointing this out! Especially it is Jagger clearly having her version to 'copy' in his mind. Mick sounds inspired, full of passion, full of vitality and attitude. Like our ex-contributor Logie mentioned above it is basically OUT OF OUR HEADS album (UK version) in which Jagger becomes Jagger. There is so much conviction and self-security in his voice there, and he really lets it go.

But nothing wrong with the band either... great work from everyone. It makes me wonder how quickly all of that was done back then. They most likely didn't have much time to rehearse anything. Just pick up a suitable song they like, figure out its basic chords and lyrics, and then... most likely just hit the studio and record it. Probably teh whole thing within a day or something. Quick and effective. And still the results sound (mostly) wonderful and eternal. And incredibly fresh. Even the arrangements sound clever (even though not many thoughts had put on them). In the end, it is their personal touch and intuition as players they trust most on.

Compared to the original(s), those classic r&b performances, which are usually very tight, distinct and clean jobs, the Stones versions funnily, like with "Cry To me", are produced much more loosely and their sound so archaive, raw and wild, almost 'punkish' - but I think that is an attraction of them! There is that funny chaotic, holistic sound in them, in which is rather hard to distinguish the elements from each other. Be that intentional or not, I think it works damn well. The fruits for the sonic landscapes of EXILE ON MAIN STREET are laid there.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-27 10:16 by Doxa.

I thought Mick Jaggers vocals on the Soul-covers Stones did was so good that I never entered the original soul until much later .... or maybe not at all, if truth be told here ...Mick is the best ...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On
I thought Mick Jaggers vocals on the Soul-covers Stones did was so good that I never entered the original soul until much later .... or maybe not at all, if truth be told here ...Mick is the best ...

I wouldn't go so far to claim that Mick is better than the original masters, but I think Jagger is very effective to use his own voice - which is thinner than his black colleagues - and he unds up sounding original. I think there is no point in comparison, since they are so different (I mean, he is not any Sam Cooke, Otis Redding, or salomon Burke, but, thankfully, Mick Jagger...). Besides, I think that brief 'soul period' they had, worked very well for Mick to develop his interpretation skills as a singer.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Come On
I thought Mick Jaggers vocals on the Soul-covers Stones did was so good that I never entered the original soul until much later .... or maybe not at all, if truth be told here ...Mick is the best ...

I wouldn't go so far to claim that Mick is better than the original masters, but I think Jagger is very effective to use his own voice - which is thinner than his black colleagues - and he unds up sounding original. I think there is no point in comparison, since they are so different (I mean, he is not any Sam Cooke, Otis Redding, or salomon Burke, but, thankfully, Mick Jagger...). Besides, I think that brief 'soul period' they had, worked very well for Mick to develop his interpretation skills as a singer.

- Doxa

Well Sam Cooke, Otis Redding or Salomon Burke is not any Mick Jagger either just to point out the obvious...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Doxa

I wouldn't go so far to claim that Mick is better than the original masters, but I think Jagger is very effective to use his own voice - which is thinner than his black colleagues - and he unds up sounding original.
- Doxa

Completely agree with you. And this becomes even more clear whenever Jagger sings together with one of the original masters - be it Solomon Burke, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy, Don Covay ... on paper he shouldn't even dare to share the same stage, in fact they all speak the same language!

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
Doxa

I wouldn't go so far to claim that Mick is better than the original masters, but I think Jagger is very effective to use his own voice - which is thinner than his black colleagues - and he unds up sounding original.
- Doxa

Completely agree with you. And this becomes even more clear whenever Jagger sings together with one of the original masters - be it Solomon Burke, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy, Don Covay ... on paper he shouldn't even dare to share the same stage, in fact they all speak the same language!

C

Oops! apples and oranges here...I would never had say that Mick Jagger could be compared to a real blues-man like Muddy Waters, or Buddy Guy..but Jagger singing for examples just 'Cry to Me'...who beats it?

2 1 2 0

the coda of this song is sublime.

Quote
Come On

Quote
liddas

Quote
Doxa

I wouldn't go so far to claim that Mick is better than the original masters, but I think Jagger is very effective to use his own voice - which is thinner than his black colleagues - and he unds up sounding original.
- Doxa

Completely agree with you. And this becomes even more clear whenever Jagger sings together with one of the original masters - be it Solomon Burke, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy, Don Covay ... on paper he shouldn't even dare to share the same stage, in fact they all speak the same language!

C

Oops! apples and oranges here...I would never had say that Mick Jagger could be compared to a real blues-man like Muddy Waters, or Buddy Guy..but Jagger singing for examples just 'Cry to Me'...who beats it?

Solomon Burke?

Lovely

I agree, this is a great track. I find this era of the Stones to be under appreciated. Rolling Stones Now! is a great album, for example.

Well, when OUT OF OUR HEADS was new, and it was the US song list, which featured in the very first Stones album I owned myself, at that time I was even more delighted by "Cry To Me" and "That's How Strong My Love Is" than "Satisfaction".

Quote
Witness
Well, when OUT OF OUR HEADS was new, and it was the US song list, which featured in the very first Stones album I owned myself, at that time I was even more delighted by "Cry To Me" and "That's How Strong My Love Is" than "Satisfaction".

You have great taste! Their version of "That's How Strong My Love Is" is amazing. One of Mick's better vocals IMO.

That taste seems well represented earlier in this thread and with more interesting perspectives expressed at the same time.