Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
24FPS
Just didn't move me. Wyman's record was better.

Really?

I can't hear that, either, but if you're a fan, you're a fan

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
24FPS
Just didn't move me. Wyman's record was better.

Really?

I can't hear that, either, but if you're a fan, you're a fan

A bit of deja vu...
Seems we've been down this road before in this thread, but to refresh:

Uncut-Jun 22, 2015
Wyman and his band soon settle into a series of mid-tempo songs whose predictable arrangements are matched by bland lyrics and a voice that sounds like it would much rather be someplace else.


Record Collector-Jun 22, 2015
Sadly, Wyman can neither sing nor write a decent song.


Q Magazine - Jul 1, 2015
Back To Basics' pub-rock charm wears thin pretty quickly.


But to each his own, and as Dandelion states "if you're a fan, you're a fan"!

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
Just listened to the bootleg recording of the rehearsals of the second Perth show. Just before All Down The Line they do a jam built around Keith's Substantial Damage riff. Then Mick kicks in with some harmonica. I think this song would have been perfect for the Stones.

Quote
Maindefender
Let the Stones do covers and Keith can put out solid solo material.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
Just listened to the bootleg recording of the rehearsals of the second Perth show. Just before All Down The Line they do a jam built around Keith's Substantial Damage riff. Then Mick kicks in with some harmonica. I think this song would have been perfect for the Stones.

Might have been If You Can't Rock Me, as the SD-riff is almost identical

Quote
Maindefender
Let the Stones do covers and Keith can put out solid solo material.

Quote
JJHMick
I wonder whether Keith got Goodnight Irene from Ry Cooder. I know Cooder released that as late as 1976. This only means he has recorded it then but not that he might have played it to Keith in 68/69.
Funny though, Ry had covered It's All Over Now in 1974. I'm sure he was more acquainted with the Stones version then with the one of Bobby Womack.
Or George Jones? Or Gram Parsons? Any suggestions welcome.

Quote
whitem8
Witness your not alone. I also find Crosseyed Heart boring. I wanted to love it and was so excited to listen to it. Yet it left me somewhat bored and wishing for more of a punch. It is for the most part a somewhat mellow meandering album. Some interesting stuff, but nothing that really made me sit up and cheer for Keith's return. I think part of it is that it took him so long to write it, and it feels somewhat cobbled together of bits and pieces to make an album.

Quote
Maindefender
Let the Stones do covers and Keith can put out solid solo material.

Quote
Hairball
HMS - original songs equate to creativity , and you can compare Crosseyed Heart however you want to the rest of Keith's recorded output of the past, but that doesn't negate the originality and creativity factor.

Quote
matxil

Quote
Maindefender
Let the Stones do covers and Keith can put out solid solo material.

Or let all of them do solo material, which is where they have been at their most creative the past 30 years. Even though I don't like Mick Jagger's stuff, if the guy wants to do that, he should. Keith made a big mistake critisising him so much for it, he should have focussed on his own solo work. I, for one, would have preferred 10 solo albums by Keith instead of only 3 and anything he's done with the Stones since Tattoo You (or maybe since Undercover).

Quote
Hairball
HMS - original songs equate to creativity , and you can compare Crosseyed Heart however you want to the rest of Keith's recorded output of the past, but that doesn't negate the originality and creativity factor.
And then you go on to say Blue and Lonesome is "the real thing" which is a bit mysterious. They're decent covers of old tried and true blues tunes - where is the originality and creativity in recording covers? How can covers be considered 'the real thing'? They knocked them off in a couple of days in one or two takes as if it was a warm up or rehearsal. Again, decent covers, but if you really want "the real thing", maybe listen to the originals that truly embody originality and creativity. Not saying you're wrong in finding the blues covers 'oh so much much more enjoyable' than Keith's originals (you are not alone), but I happen to think otherwise.

Quote
HMS

Quote
Hairball
HMS - original songs equate to creativity , and you can compare Crosseyed Heart however you want to the rest of Keith's recorded output of the past, but that doesn't negate the originality and creativity factor.
And then you go on to say Blue and Lonesome is "the real thing" which is a bit mysterious. They're decent covers of old tried and true blues tunes - where is the originality and creativity in recording covers? How can covers be considered 'the real thing'? They knocked them off in a couple of days in one or two takes as if it was a warm up or rehearsal. Again, decent covers, but if you really want "the real thing", maybe listen to the originals that truly embody originality and creativity. Not saying you're wrong in finding the blues covers 'oh so much much more enjoyable' than Keith's originals (you are not alone), but I happen to think otherwise.

It´s not really the songs on B&L that matter, it´s the way they are executed. There is more passion and love for the music on B&L than on their albums of originals since 1983. It´s like the Stones finally came back to life again.
Of course it´s not groundbreaking and not very creative, but the album sounds like they had fun recording an album for the first time in ages. This time they got really into it, surely much more than on VL, B2B or ABB. Those albums in hindsight sound like "We´ve got a job to do, so let´s do it". B&L sounds like "We have most marvelous job in the world and we are so lucky to still be able to do it".

A while ago someone posted a playlist of the original Blues-tunes, I listened to it and I have to confess I like the Stones-covers better than the originals.
Regarding CH, it´s a good album showing that Keith is still able to deliver an entertaining album but it also shows that he sticks to his creative language and boundaries. I´m a Stones fan in the first place so what else could I do than loving B&L more than CH...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
HMS

Quote
Hairball
HMS - original songs equate to creativity , and you can compare Crosseyed Heart however you want to the rest of Keith's recorded output of the past, but that doesn't negate the originality and creativity factor. And then you go on to say Blue and Lonesome is "the real thing" which is a bit mysterious. They're decent covers of old tried and true blues tunes - where is the originality and creativity in recording covers? How can covers be considered 'the real thing'? They knocked them off in a couple of days in one or two takes as if it was a warm up or rehearsal. Again, decent covers, but if you really want "the real thing", maybe listen to the originals that truly embody originality and creativity. Not saying you're wrong in finding the blues covers 'oh so much much more enjoyable' than Keith's originals (you are not alone), but I happen to think otherwise.

It´s not really the songs on B&L that matter, it´s the way they are executed. There is more passion and love for the music on B&L than on their albums of originals since 1981. It´s like the Stones finally came back to life again.
Of course it´s not groundbreaking and not very creative, but the album sounds like they had fun recording an album for the first time in ages. This time they got really into it, surely much more than on VL, B2B or ABB. Those albums in hindsight sound like "We´ve got a job to do, so let´s do it". B&L sounds like "We have most marvelous job in the world and we are so lucky to still be able to do it".

A while ago someone posted a playlist of the original Blues-tunes, I listened to it and I have to confess I like the Stones-covers better than the originals.
Regarding CH, it´s a good album showing that Keith is still able to deliver an entertaining album but it also shows that he sticks to his creative language and boundaries. I´m a Stones fan in the first place so what else could I do than loving B&L more than CH...

+1

Quote
matxil

Quote
Hairball
HMS - original songs equate to creativity , and you can compare Crosseyed Heart however you want to the rest of Keith's recorded output of the past, but that doesn't negate the originality and creativity factor.

I completely agree. And I think Keith has developed quite a special knack for his own brand of soul-songs, almost like a genre of his own, where his voice (which obviously is limited in some ways) actually works very well. Songs like "Hate It When You Leave" from MO, and CH's "Suspicious", "Illusion", "Lover's Plea" deserve a lot more attention. Could there be anything more creative than actually develop a music style and add to its evolution?

Quote
HMS

Quote
Hairball
HMS - original songs equate to creativity , and you can compare Crosseyed Heart however you want to the rest of Keith's recorded output of the past, but that doesn't negate the originality and creativity factor.
And then you go on to say Blue and Lonesome is "the real thing" which is a bit mysterious. They're decent covers of old tried and true blues tunes - where is the originality and creativity in recording covers? How can covers be considered 'the real thing'? They knocked them off in a couple of days in one or two takes as if it was a warm up or rehearsal. Again, decent covers, but if you really want "the real thing", maybe listen to the originals that truly embody originality and creativity. Not saying you're wrong in finding the blues covers 'oh so much much more enjoyable' than Keith's originals (you are not alone), but I happen to think otherwise.

It´s not really the songs on B&L that matter, it´s the way they are executed. There is more passion and love for the music on B&L than on their albums of originals since 1986.

Quote
HMS
CH is solid, but it is too long. A few songs are boring indeed. Kick off them fillers.

"originality, creativity, and vitality."

Vitality? A bit, especially for a man in his 70s.

Quote
HMS
Originality, creativity? Not very much, imo. It´s the usual stuff, it follows pretty much the path of MO or the songs he´s written and sung on Stones albums over the last 35 years. Nothing new really. Some songs sound indeed like they were recorded during TIC/MO-sessions or like unused leftovers from those sessions.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
Maindefender
Let the Stones do covers and Keith can put out solid solo material.

Or let all of them do solo material, which is where they have been at their most creative the past 30 years. Even though I don't like Mick Jagger's stuff, if the guy wants to do that, he should. Keith made a big mistake critisising him so much for it, he should have focussed on his own solo work. I, for one, would have preferred 10 solo albums by Keith instead of only 3 and anything he's done with the Stones since Tattoo You (or maybe since Undercover).

As Rolling Stones fans it's only natural that we want them to do something together?

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
Maindefender
Let the Stones do covers and Keith can put out solid solo material.

Or let all of them do solo material, which is where they have been at their most creative the past 30 years. Even though I don't like Mick Jagger's stuff, if the guy wants to do that, he should. Keith made a big mistake critisising him so much for it, he should have focussed on his own solo work. I, for one, would have preferred 10 solo albums by Keith instead of only 3 and anything he's done with the Stones since Tattoo You (or maybe since Undercover).

As Rolling Stones fans it's only natural that we want them to do something together?

Hmm. For me, it was natural for years to hope they would do not just "something" but something great together. I don't settle for less with the Stones. But after 30 years, that expectation has become unrealistic. I don't mind them doing okay things together and I wish them all the best, but for me it's a pity knowing that Keith might have come up with some more albums of this own which would have satisfied me much more. And I wish his soul songs would have gotten a bit more limelight.
From an artistic point of view, it's sad if an artist opts to limit himself or not take full advantage of his potential. And that goes for Jagger too, even though I don't like it, he might have developed some credibility as solo artist in the long run.
But fair enough, I don't want to sound too negative. The bright side is that we've got Crosseyed Heart at a moment that I didn't expect it anymore and it is much better than I thought it would be. A year has gone by, and I still like the album very much (except for Blues in the Morning, which I still skip).

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Seemingly, it's the musical differences/differences in taste between Mick and Keith that blocks this.

I hope I'm wwrong, though.

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Seemingly, it's the musical differences/differences in taste between Mick and Keith that blocks this.

I hope I'm wwrong, though.

Well, I think you most certainly are right about that. My point was actually that it's not necessarily a bad thing that Mick and Keith have musical differences, it only becomes a bad/sad thing when they limit themselves to keep on working together. They could still do the occasional concert/blues album/exposition together, but meanwhile concentrating on their solo projects. I feel that would have been better for everyone, including us Stones fans.
But maybe I am wrong too. Keith says he's a slow writer and doesn't produce a lot of songs (anymore), so maybe 3 albums was all that was in him. In that case, I am glad Steve Jordan made it happen.