Quote
Hairball
Not to butt in, but from what I've read the consensus is quantity vs. quality (you can skip, pick and choose, and/or edit if you happen to not like something),
It just happens though that most have given the quantity a high quality grade.
So it's really the best of both worlds for most - high quantity + high quality.
A win-win situation by most standards.

Quote
GetYerAngie



Nice review, Doxa. I think your discription of the pastiche-originality-dialectic would do for every Dylan-cd since Time Out of Mind too, though.

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

Quote
mnewman505
Illusion is wonderful, Nora has a gorgeous voice.

+1

Quote
Doxa
What Keith Richards here now doing, decades later, is something different. Different times, different context. He is not taking an old authetic genre as an inpiration to do something of its own - to 'develop' it further, to make it current or things that. No, he goes back and tries to be as similar ('authentic') as those genre representatives he loves so much, are.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
Doxa


Here comes the dilemma of authenticity: Keith is genuine and does music he loves, but that is doomed to be replica or pastishe-like. The title song - a good introduction to theme and feel of the album - is a charming Robert Johnson-pastishe. But the question arises: for what we actually need this piece, if we already have all those Robert Johnson records? Ironically, decades ago this same man took one of Johnson's own pieces, added there a chord, and come up with an original sound rock classic. And that also added people at the time to know about this wonderful musician (like Keith with his pals helped them to know people like Muddy Waters and Jimmy Reed). But now we all - who might be interested in Keith's album - do know Robert Johnson, and now we recognize "Crosseyed Heart" being a reference to him.

Probably it is that Keith is so deep in his own musical world and has so many decades loved and studied so much these authentic genres that he has lost some of his own originality? (And among that, a helluva lot of his skills as an interesting song-writer).

Probably that is the biggest problem I have with the album. I love each and every of the 'authentic' genres that are presented in the album, but since I am familiar with the originals, Keith's efforts are doomed to be a bit generic.

- Doxa

Nice review, but trying a bit too hard I think. By your own arguements here, no need for The Stones to do Little Queenie or Carol. We already know Chuck's versions. Love in Vain? No, don't do it. Johnson has already done it. Time is on my Side... Nope, done. Wilds Horses? Nope, others have done country. Let's face it... Every genre HAS already been done to death. So, best everyone stop making music, so we can all go back and listen to the originals then.

I think you are putting too many things together here, and most of them have nothing to do with what I talked about in regards Keith's doings here. BUt thank you for your reply - an excuse for me to reflect this thing a bit further...

First thing is to notice that the 'problem' is not about making covers of other people's songs. That's how the Stones started and put their own stamp on their versions (sometimes probably co-incidently, since not able to really sound like an authentic Chicago blues band they tried to be - thankfully). Besides, the early Stones were not really any archive seekers yet - they were 'aping' the sounds that were still rather current - the electric blues they covered was about ten years old genre when they started. It was the hottest thing they, as many other cool people like them in Britain, could find at the moment. But rather quickly something original was born out of this 'wanna-be-blues-men' genre, which changed the face of rock music forever.

It was later, starting with BEGGARS BANQUET, when the band really started paying attention to old dusted music. But at the same time the band had matured so much that their experiments, even covers, with older genres, were married with their own original sound and song-writing. The band was so inspired that is no wonder the four albums they made from 1968 to 1972 are ranked among greatest rock albums of all-time. A good example is the song you mentioned (and I also referred without mentioning its title), "Love In Vain" - they took a rather little-known Robert Johnson piece, enrichened its musical structure by one chord, and created a haunting version of their own, a piece of rock history, like, say, the Cream did with some other Johnson song.

The point is that at those peak years The Stones 'used' different American genres, some old (a'la delta blues), some younger (a'la country rock), for their - and our - benefit, by making original sounding music out of it.

What Keith Richards here now is doing, decades later, is something different. Different times, different context. He is not taking an old authetic genre as an inpiration to do something of its own - to 'develop' it further, to make it current or things that. No, he goes back and tries to be as similar ('authentic') as those genre representatives he loves so much, are. It could be that Keith is so expert in those things nowadays - he probably have spent half-century doing his research and almost lived his life within that music - that he succeeds in being 'authentic' almost too well. And with that has lost some of his own authenticity and originality to actually make the difference. To my ears the results are doomed to sound like a pastishe. At best I think it like a message to us 'listen how good music used to sound like'. But still that sounds a bit pointless - why I just don't go directly to the masters themselves - why to use a 2015 replica or reminder of that? The 'original' music of theirs exists there, and all we represenatives of rock and roll generations are awere of them, and can easily reach them (one could add, people like Keith educated that to us a long time ago).

But I hope I don't sound too critical. What I made above was just one observation - and actually directed to all of these 'back to roots' or 'to the old forms or almost forgotten genres' attempts to go back in time. Dylan is another example. But I think Dylan manages to have that original voice (not just metaphorically) in whatever he does. He alwys seem to have some point, something to say or to add. Unfortunately I can't say that of Keith. Funnily, Dylan always sounds a bit 'outsider' in regards to whatever genres, like him just making some sort of interventions on those areas, wheras Keith is so much 'insider', living and breathing there. (Probably Dylan is a bit more like Jagger in that sense)

- Doxa

Quote
corriecas
Ordered from keiths store. have not received it yet. Anyone else has not received it yet ??

jeroen

Quote
corriecas
Ordered from keiths store. have not received it yet. Anyone else has not received it yet ??

jeroen

Quote
M4rkRNR

Quote
corriecas
Ordered from keiths store. have not received it yet. Anyone else has not received it yet ??

jeroen

Got the same problem. Based on your name, are you from Holland? Because i am. Got a email last week that the order was shipped but didnt receive it.

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
Doxa


Here comes the dilemma of authenticity: Keith is genuine and does music he loves, but that is doomed to be replica or pastishe-like. The title song - a good introduction to theme and feel of the album - is a charming Robert Johnson-pastishe. But the question arises: for what we actually need this piece, if we already have all those Robert Johnson records? Ironically, decades ago this same man took one of Johnson's own pieces, added there a chord, and come up with an original sound rock classic. And that also added people at the time to know about this wonderful musician (like Keith with his pals helped them to know people like Muddy Waters and Jimmy Reed). But now we all - who might be interested in Keith's album - do know Robert Johnson, and now we recognize "Crosseyed Heart" being a reference to him.

Probably it is that Keith is so deep in his own musical world and has so many decades loved and studied so much these authentic genres that he has lost some of his own originality? (And among that, a helluva lot of his skills as an interesting song-writer).

Probably that is the biggest problem I have with the album. I love each and every of the 'authentic' genres that are presented in the album, but since I am familiar with the originals, Keith's efforts are doomed to be a bit generic.

- Doxa

Nice review, but trying a bit too hard I think. By your own arguements here, no need for The Stones to do Little Queenie or Carol. We already know Chuck's versions. Love in Vain? No, don't do it. Johnson has already done it. Time is on my Side... Nope, done. Wilds Horses? Nope, others have done country. Let's face it... Every genre HAS already been done to death. So, best everyone stop making music, so we can all go back and listen to the originals then.

I think you are putting too many things together here, and most of them have nothing to do with what I talked about in regards Keith's doings here. BUt thank you for your reply - an excuse for me to reflect this thing a bit further...

First thing is to notice that the 'problem' is not about making covers of other people's songs. That's how the Stones started and put their own stamp on their versions (sometimes probably co-incidently, since not able to really sound like an authentic Chicago blues band they tried to be - thankfully). Besides, the early Stones were not really any archive seekers yet - they were 'aping' the sounds that were still rather current - the electric blues they covered was about ten years old genre when they started. It was the hottest thing they, as many other cool people like them in Britain, could find at the moment. But rather quickly something original was born out of this 'wanna-be-blues-men' genre, which changed the face of rock music forever.

It was later, starting with BEGGARS BANQUET, when the band really started paying attention to old dusted music. But at the same time the band had matured so much that their experiments, even covers, with older genres, were married with their own original sound and song-writing. The band was so inspired that is no wonder the four albums they made from 1968 to 1972 are ranked among greatest rock albums of all-time. A good example is the song you mentioned (and I also referred without mentioning its title), "Love In Vain" - they took a rather little-known Robert Johnson piece, enrichened its musical structure by one chord, and created a haunting version of their own, a piece of rock history, like, say, the Cream did with some other Johnson song.

The point is that at those peak years The Stones 'used' different American genres, some old (a'la delta blues), some younger (a'la country rock), for their - and our - benefit, by making original sounding music out of it.

What Keith Richards here now is doing, decades later, is something different. Different times, different context. He is not taking an old authetic genre as an inpiration to do something of its own - to 'develop' it further, to make it current or things that. No, he goes back and tries to be as similar ('authentic') as those genre representatives he loves so much, are. It could be that Keith is so expert in those things nowadays - he probably have spent half-century doing his research and almost lived his life within that music - that he succeeds in being 'authentic' almost too well. And with that has lost some of his own authenticity and originality to actually make the difference. To my ears the results are doomed to sound like a pastishe. At best I think it like a message to us 'listen how good music used to sound like'. But still that sounds a bit pointless - why I just don't go directly to the masters themselves - why to use a 2015 replica or reminder of that? The 'original' music of theirs exists there, and all we represenatives of rock and roll generations are awere of them, and can easily reach them (one could add, people like Keith educated that to us a long time ago).

But I hope I don't sound too critical. What I made above was just one observation - and actually directed to all of these 'back to roots' or 'to the old forms or almost forgotten genres' attempts to go back in time. Dylan is another example. But I think Dylan manages to have that original voice (not just metaphorically) in whatever he does. He alwys seem to have some point, something to say or to add. Unfortunately I can't say that of Keith. Funnily, Dylan always sounds a bit 'outsider' in regards to whatever genres, like him just making some sort of interventions on those areas, wheras Keith is so much 'insider', living and breathing there. (Probably Dylan is a bit more like Jagger in that sense)

- Doxa

Doxa, respectfully I really feel you are so full of yourself within the context of your dialogue that it's become an illusion.

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
corriecas
Ordered from keiths store. have not received it yet. Anyone else has not received it yet ??

jeroen

I should have mine today jeroen. My guitar picks order is backordered though.

Quote
corriecas

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
corriecas
Ordered from keiths store. have not received it yet. Anyone else has not received it yet ??

jeroen

I should have mine today jeroen. My guitar picks order is backordered though.

Well, i will be happy when i get it tomorrow.
jeroen

Quote
Doxa
Here comes the dilemma of authenticity: Keith is genuine and does music he loves, but that is doomed to be replica or pastishe-like. The title song - a good introduction to theme and feel of the album - is a charming Robert Johnson-pastishe. But the question arises: for what we actually need this piece, if we already have all those Robert Johnson records? Ironically, decades ago this same man took one of Johnson's own pieces, added there a chord, and come up with an original sound rock classic. And that also added people at the time to know about this wonderful musician (like Keith with his pals helped them to know people like Muddy Waters and Jimmy Reed). But now we all - who might be interested in Keith's album - do know Robert Johnson, and now we recognize "Crosseyed Heart" being a reference to him.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Doxa
Here comes the dilemma of authenticity: Keith is genuine and does music he loves, but that is doomed to be replica or pastishe-like. The title song - a good introduction to theme and feel of the album - is a charming Robert Johnson-pastishe. But the question arises: for what we actually need this piece, if we already have all those Robert Johnson records? Ironically, decades ago this same man took one of Johnson's own pieces, added there a chord, and come up with an original sound rock classic. And that also added people at the time to know about this wonderful musician (like Keith with his pals helped them to know people like Muddy Waters and Jimmy Reed). But now we all - who might be interested in Keith's album - do know Robert Johnson, and now we recognize "Crosseyed Heart" being a reference to him.

That's right. Time, space and causality. Still, we are talking about popular music. Even if you have heroes or idols you must add something to the soup to make it interesting. Otherwise it's a museum piece. If even that. Crosseyed Cat has recieved bland reviews here in Sweden. Which, I recon, is a quite fair statement.

Quote
keefriffhards
The shooting stars line could be about the wannabe pop stars that hang around the bars where Keith drinks at Parrot Cay Island. He's saying they bore him.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
you'r not rene