For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
It also has a unmistakable sound, groove and feel.
The melody is not less developed than some of the Talk Is Cheap and Main Offender-tracks, so that argument is moot, imo.
That said, I quickly grew tired of it, after enjoying it quite a bit when the album came out..
You're right that "underdeveloped melodies" are something like Keith's trademark, but sometimes it works very well ("Wicked As It Seems", "Thief in the Night") and sometimes it falls flat, as it does on Infamy. The song might have worked better with different vocals.
Agreed, but both of your examples are rather heavy on melody - for Keith, that is. You can actually hum and sing those tunes
Really? I never manage more than little mumbled lines like "playtime, but it's far too late" and then sort of jumping to the backing vocals going "hard on it, hard on it", back to Keith "what you gonna give?" and then not remembering how to go on from there on. And with Thief more or less the same happens.
Maybe you should do some cover-versions with the forum-band? They must be fun (but difficult) to cover.
Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowderman
It also has a unmistakable sound, groove and feel.
The melody is not less developed than some of the Talk Is Cheap and Main Offender-tracks, so that argument is moot, imo.
That said, I quickly grew tired of it, after enjoying it quite a bit when the album came out..
You're right that "underdeveloped melodies" are something like Keith's trademark, but sometimes it works very well ("Wicked As It Seems", "Thief in the Night") and sometimes it falls flat, as it does on Infamy. The song might have worked better with different vocals.
Quote
Witness
You are a very observant reader as well, Doxa.
You have covered so many subjects in your posts. But I can't remember to have seen you dealing with the first period up to, for instance, AFTERMATH. Maybe, you have during periods when I have been absent as reader. If you have not, it is obviously understandable from your age. It would have been inspiring for listening to read your takes on such stuff, though.
Recently, I myself have been confronting BLUE AND LONESOME with their first three UK studio albums and the German Decca AROUND AND AROUND. My own starting point as listener once in time. [Added later on: Motivation for this out of context post:] When you say that you have little more to add about the Stones, I wonder what points of view that you might have arrived at, if you had made that kind of confrontations.
Quote
DoxaQuote
Witness
You are a very observant reader as well, Doxa.
You have covered so many subjects in your posts. But I can't remember to have seen you dealing with the first period up to, for instance, AFTERMATH. Maybe, you have during periods when I have been absent as reader. If you have not, it is obviously understandable from your age. It would have been inspiring for listening to read your takes on such stuff, though.
Recently, I myself have been confronting BLUE AND LONESOME with their first three UK studio albums and the German Decca AROUND AND AROUND. My own starting point as listener once in time. [Added later on: Motivation for this out of context post:] When you say that you have little more to add about the Stones, I wonder what points of view that you might have arrived at, if you had made that kind of confrontations.
Haha.. I guess I have covered so (too) many subjects in regards to the Stones that I can't even remember myself (it surprises me everytime when some topic is talked here, and out of curiosity I check what I have said about it by using the 'search' button... it is almost embarrassing haha). About 10 to 15 years ago I was very much concerned about 'Brian era', and I also wrote a lot to Brian Jones fansites, because those places pretty much better suited to deal that era better than our IORR. It wasn't so easy sometimes, since among Brian Jones fans especially The Glimmer Twins were treated almost like an enemy... Now those sites don't exist any longer, and hadn't for years. But I learned a great deal from those people, many of them having a direct relation to that era and to its unique perspectives.
But as far as Blue & Lonesome vs. their early R&B records go, I wrote a long piece about Blue & Lonesome, including briefly that theme as well, here: []
EDIT: A-ha, seemingly that address is blocked from this site><. But I guess googling "EOMS On Blue & Lonesome: Doxa interviewing Doxa" might get one there...
- Doxa
Quote
stone4ever
Doxa thank you, interesting reading and a lot of good points there.
One thing comes to mind, you tend to get stuck on perpetually blaming Keith for Mick's shortcomings. Why can't Mick take the flack for his underwhelming solo records without bringing Talk Is Cheap or anything Keithness into play.
Mick solo was Mick's choice, you can bang on about Keith devotees saying what they say and thinking what they think about Keith until the cows come home, but the fact remains that Keith's albums were maybe a pleasant surprise for many and Mick maybe let HIMSELF down a little with his solo albums.
Its all down to expectations at the end of the day,up until WW3 most expected less from Keith and more from Mick. End of, finish. You over analyse Keith, i don't honor Keith with the credit you do to him for being particularly analytical or premeditated about anything he does. He is a force of nature yes but not nearly as cunning as you make out.
The other thing is that you are the very thing you hate about Keith's devotees, you are equally biased and obsessed about Mick in the same way, its all a bit hypercritical and upside down lol.
Regardless of my rant i love your input on here, WE ARE NOT WORTHY
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Make No Mistake, open G riffs in minor, Bootsy Collins going nuts, Steve Jordan's drumming, Keith's borderless, new, darker voice and the dueting with Sarah Dash. Add totally untraditional keyboard playing by Neville, violins and the Memphis Horns and we got a lovely eclectic mess.
I'm not sure it would be correct to call the sound of Talk Is Cheap archaic at all? It's Keith, make no mistake about it, but it never sounded like the Stones to me. There was a coolness to it, and a vibe in the sound that the Stones just never had.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The yuppie decade, new forms of promoting, the entertainment business and other bands like Pink Floyd paved the way for what Doxa calls the Vegas Stones, not Mick or his solo tour. He was just darn good at adopting this trend and exploiting it.
Quote
Doxa
But as far as Blue & Lonesome vs. their early R&B records go, I wrote a long piece about Blue & Lonesome, including briefly that theme as well, here...googling "EOMS On Blue & Lonesome: Doxa interviewing Doxa" might get one there...
Quote
Doxa
Hey, wait a minute, do you mean that ‘blues purists’ cannot like this album?
"Well, they can, if they are big-hearted enough or like Jagger’s voice an sich. But the problem lies deeper. We have to remember that this album is not directed to ‘blues purists’ as more than their early recordings were. Like then, this is done for a bigger audience. The same old principle of ‘popularizing the blues’ holds here. It could be that even for the Stones fans who are familiar with the original versions – and having a bit of ‘blues purism’ in their hearts – the Stones doesn’t actually ‘add’ much difference or offer some artistically important surprises here. I can very well understand anyone who has grown up listening to Howlin’ Wolf singing ”Commit A Crime”, and knows the song thereby, whatever Jagger does, it would sound lame. The same argument could be directed to against all of them, especially since they try so one-to-one follow the originals. My heuristic advice simply is: try to forget all you know about the originals, and just try to concentrate this as a product of its own. Or better: just think of it solely in the context of The Rolling Stones, not in a correspondence with the blues tradition. To put it in simple terms: they might not sound very authentic or even be a great blues band, or adding anything to blues legacy, but they sound damn fine Rolling Stones making a statement in a contemporary pop world".
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I meant that Jagger did an arena version of what acts like Pink Floyd were doing in stadiums on his solo tours. Do we know that he called the shots on this, BTW?
Promoters gradually took over, because there were increasingly much more money involved in touring. People like Michael Cool were different than Bill Graham etc. As were the times. People had more money to spend.
They played stadiums with PAs on the 75 tour already. But now the Promoters craved longer shows and more hoopla to charge the punters more.
What I'm saying is that Mick adopted these trends well, but I'm not sure about him being the brain behind it.
Quote
Hairball
I was able to find it - nice review/'interview', and a shame it wasn't posted here on IORR in the original B&L thread - it's not too late to do so!
One paragraph in particular speaks volumes though (for me), and I'm sure many here can relate to and appreciate this:
Quote
DoxaQuote
stone4ever
Doxa thank you, interesting reading and a lot of good points there.
One thing comes to mind, you tend to get stuck on perpetually blaming Keith for Mick's shortcomings. Why can't Mick take the flack for his underwhelming solo records without bringing Talk Is Cheap or anything Keithness into play.
Mick solo was Mick's choice, you can bang on about Keith devotees saying what they say and thinking what they think about Keith until the cows come home, but the fact remains that Keith's albums were maybe a pleasant surprise for many and Mick maybe let HIMSELF down a little with his solo albums.
Its all down to expectations at the end of the day,up until WW3 most expected less from Keith and more from Mick. End of, finish. You over analyse Keith, i don't honor Keith with the credit you do to him for being particularly analytical or premeditated about anything he does. He is a force of nature yes but not nearly as cunning as you make out.
The other thing is that you are the very thing you hate about Keith's devotees, you are equally biased and obsessed about Mick in the same way, its all a bit hypercritical and upside down lol.
Regardless of my rant i love your input on here, WE ARE NOT WORTHY
Thank you.
I just comment something I just can't find myself agreeing with how you read me.
Firstly, I don't see Richards to be blamed for Jagger's shortcomings. Mick can only blame himself for that people were not so impressed by his solo works. By contrast, Keith himself gained a lot from MIck's shortcomings. By the time he released his solo album, Jagger had unitentionally cleared a path for him to shine, to make his 'statement'. A part of the charm of archaic-sounding TALK IS CHEAP was to be contrasted with Jagger's 'trendy-sounding' albums. For the Stones fans, the only point of reference of Jagger's SHE'S THE BOSS and PRIMITIVE COOL were the Stones albums. These days people seem to forget that difference (how different kind of deals these two solo 'careers' were). To put it simply, Mick's stuff was related to the Stones, while Keith's was related to Mick's. Jagger clearly had a more anmbitious goal in his mind - to continue the Stones success by his own, while Keith basically just realeased a solo album because Jagger had done two already and the future of the Stones was uncertain. Generally, Keith's career is much more parasitic to Mick's existence and doings than Mick's is to Keith's. This, however, can't be confused with to the fact Mick not being able to be such a superstar by his own outside the context of The Rolling Stones, but Keith and any other Rolling Stone had very much more to lose than Mick in the case of the Stones falling apart. I take that to be reason, with Michael Cohl's huge numbers (=equals the same), why all the rest of them okayed nicely and did what they were told to, when Jagger decided to continue his career under the umbrella notion of the Stones again.
And about me being "hypocritical" and being "biased and obsessed" about Mick, hmm... of course, there are blind spots in me, but let's say, I don't see any of this very personal, but more like observing certain funny things about the band I felt love with as a teeenager boy. I am not any longer that boy... Like Wittness mentioned in his post, I've been rather critical towards Jagger along the years as well. It is lately that I have started re-thinking more about Richards, and all the things related to him and to his reputation (especially since releasing LIFE). He has been treated generally with silky gloves by many Stones fans and music press, while Jagger has always been a kind of easy and obvious target in criticism (sometimes with a just, sometimes not).
- Doxa
Well obviously you are all wrong and I am the only one that is right.Quote
Hairball
...In other words, you think it's a great song while I think it's a weak song - and evidently several others who have chimed in also think it's weak.
Quote
DoxaQuote
Hairball
I was able to find it - nice review/'interview', and a shame it wasn't posted here on IORR in the original B&L thread - it's not too late to do so!
One paragraph in particular speaks volumes though (for me), and I'm sure many here can relate to and appreciate this:
Haha... I need to say that when I was writing that piece in December I had also something what you have said in mind... Some of us Stones fans, probably trained by our heroes, are "blues purists", and that's why it is hard to appreciate BLUE & LONESOME, because we - I belong to them as well - know the genre so well. I know many blues purists (some of them being Stones fans, some not) and generally they are not that impressed about the album. And I do understand why. It is the Stones fan, not the blues purist in me, that digs BLUE & LONESOME haha....
I think the irony of the 'greatest R&R band of the world' is people like Charlie Watts honestly saying that "that's what we do best" (playing the blues) although them not ranking very high as a blues band (something I am sure all of them would admit), sounding as some sort of willing amateurs at their best, but damn lame compared to the real blues men...
By analogy, I think a similar case applies for the Stones doing country music (C&W). Funny thing is that I don't care much about C&W altogether, that's never been my thing, but to my ears The Stones doing country music always sounds great, especially Jagger's over the top vocals... But I am sure that for many 'C&W purists' they sound fake and cheap... And we could add the same thing for, say, reggae and funk (as a big fan of both those genres, I think The Stones are almost awfully bad in interpreting neither of them...)...
Oh shit, this went OT... Sorry..
- Doxa
Quote
Doxa
We have to remember that this album is not directed to ‘blues purists’ as more than their early recordings were. Like then, this is done for a bigger audience.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<They were turning many people on to the blues who may have never heard it; uncovering hidden gems from the depths>
They might still do that with B&L, Hairball
Quote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowderman
They might still do that with B&L, Hairball
Yes, I did say "Sure they may have turned on some people on to some 'deeper' cuts " (with B&L)...and even perhaps the blues in general I'll add.
BUT - because the blues is much more common today amongst the masses compared to back then , the level of impact and amount of people they turned on is nowhere near the same.
Probably 90% (or more) of people today can name a blues tune, whereas back then it was probably less than 5% (or less). Even Aerosmith did a blues covers album, so they already covered the teeny bopper market!
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowderman
They might still do that with B&L, Hairball
Yes, I did say "Sure they may have turned on some people on to some 'deeper' cuts " (with B&L)...and even perhaps the blues in general I'll add.
BUT - because the blues is much more common today amongst the masses compared to back then , the level of impact and amount of people they turned on is nowhere near the same.
Probably 90% (or more) of people today can name a blues tune, whereas back then it was probably less than 5% (or less). Even Aerosmith did a blues covers album, so they already covered the teeny bopper market!
Nothing will be as enlightening as it was back in the day. The music, like information, flows faster today. However, the youngsters might only get a superficial taste of different music styles. That's why it is important that huge bands like the Stones are making a record like B&L, imo.
They're doing their part and deserve credit for that.
Quote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowderman
They might still do that with B&L, Hairball
Yes, I did say "Sure they may have turned on some people on to some 'deeper' cuts " (with B&L)...and even perhaps the blues in general I'll add.
BUT - because the blues is much more common today amongst the masses compared to back then , the level of impact and amount of people they turned on is nowhere near the same.
Probably 90% (or more) of people today can name a blues tune, whereas back then it was probably less than 5% (or less). Even Aerosmith did a blues covers album, so they already covered the teeny bopper market!
Nothing will be as enlightening as it was back in the day. The music, like information, flows faster today. However, the youngsters might only get a superficial taste of different music styles. That's why it is important that huge bands like the Stones are making a record like B&L, imo.
They're doing their part and deserve credit for that.
Gotta give 'em credit then for doing their part - no matter how insignificant it is.
But not sure if they even had that in mind with B&L when they played it safe by quickly recording an album of old blues covers. They did it for the love of it, and because their album of originals was going nowhere. Glad they made it, but hope they can get it together and be creative on their own terms - I'm sure a new album of originals will turn on a bunch of kids to the Stones themselves who know hardly anything about them, except for the fact that that they do covers of old blues tunes. It would be great for some young kids to hear a new worthy Stones tune, and then discover their entire catalogue - the good, the bad, and the ugly. The blues is already well established amongst the majority, it's time for them to keep their own name and sound alive and kicking.
Quote
Hairball
Gotta give 'em credit then for doing their part - no matter how insignificant it is.
But not sure if they even had that in mind with B&L when they played it safe by quickly recording an album of old blues covers. They did it for the love of it, and because their album of originals was going nowhere. Glad they made it, but hope they can get it together and be creative on their own terms - I'm sure a new album of originals will turn on a bunch of kids to the Stones themselves who know hardly anything about them, except for the fact that that they do covers of old blues tunes. It would be great for some young kids to hear a new worthy Stones tune, and then discover their entire catalogue - the good, the bad, and the ugly. The blues is already well established amongst the majority, it's time for them to keep their own name and sound alive and kicking.