Quote
DandelionPowderman
This is significant no matter how «intentional» it was to turn young people on to the blues by doing this album.

A #1 blues record, with some stuff on it that was pretty unfamiliar, even for many blues fans.

Of course, they couldn't predict the album to top the charts, but they knew it would cause quite a stir in the market, because of their long absence from it with new stuff.

This album is more educational than all the american songbooks and cheap cash in-attemps from other big artists (Aerosmith and Rod Stewart spring to mind).

I know my share of the blues, and there were several songs on B&L that I probably only had heard once, or just a couple of times. I missed the beauty of those songs for different reasons. They are not by the biggest blues artists who the kids superficially know the names of.

Without taking this too far, this was an important release. Probably even more important than the Stones knew it would be.

Couldn't agree more, especially with the one in bold, very well put (and I also had similar experiences of certain songs - the album 'educated' me as well). Besides it is a damn good album!

But I go now to listen WANDERING SPIRIT. I've tried to get there for a week I guess...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-21 11:04 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
This is significant no matter how «intentional» it was to turn young people on to the blues by doing this album.

A #1 blues record, with some stuff on it that was pretty unfamiliar, even for many blues fans.

Of course, they couldn't predict the album to top the charts, but they knew it would cause quite a stir in the market, because of their long absence from it with new stuff.

This album is more educational than all the american songbooks and cheap cash in-attemps from other big artists (Aerosmith and Rod Stewart spring to mind).

I know my share of the blues, and there were several songs on B&L that I probably only had heard once, or just a couple of times. I missed the beauty of those songs for different reasons. They are not by the biggest blues artists who the kids superficially know the names of.

Without taking this too far, this was an important release. Probably even more important than the Stones knew it would be.

My own introduction to the Blues in my early teens , along with the Stones, was through listening to stuff from the Original Fleetwood Mac & Chicken Shack.

Folks might recall the Fleetwood Mac "Blues Jam at Chess" album [later packaged as Blues Jam in Chicago] ...which was in many ways a lot like B&L in its concept .
A homage to their idols . Imitation, yes , but expertly executed with love & respect .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-21 11:18 by Spud.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
This is significant no matter how «intentional» it was to turn young people on to the blues by doing this album.

A #1 blues record, with some stuff on it that was pretty unfamiliar, even for many blues fans.

Of course, they couldn't predict the album to top the charts, but they knew it would cause quite a stir in the market, because of their long absence from it with new stuff.

This album is more educational than all the american songbooks and cheap cash in-attemps from other big artists (Aerosmith and Rod Stewart spring to mind).

I know my share of the blues, and there were several songs on B&L that I probably only had heard once, or just a couple of times. I missed the beauty of those songs for different reasons. They are not by the biggest blues artists who the kids superficially know the names of.

Without taking this too far, this was an important release. Probably even more important than the Stones knew it would be.

Couldn't agree more, especially with the one in bold, very well put (and I also had similar experiences of certain songs - the album 'educated' me as well). Besides it is a damn good album!

But I go now to listen WANDERING SPIRIT. I've tried to get there for a week I guess...

- Doxa

Go, go! That's what this thread was all about in the first place - sorry for digressing

Quote
DandelionPowderman



Go, go! That's what this thread was all about in the first place - sorry for digressing

Haha, surely not your fault! Besides, I always liked the free-going spirit of IORR to go so easily "OT". Why stop a conversation if it flows naturally and people have interesting things to say (at least when we don't have a very specific 'info' topic, such as a given concert date, ticket purchase etc. that are pragmatically important)... In the end, and in the big picture, all of this related to each other...

It still probably can go to nerves for someone I can guess (for me too sometimes.. not so keen on talking about DIRTY WORK in every thread haha)...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-21 11:35 by Doxa.

Okay, here we ago again... Back in the 'real' business. Took some time but I finally hade enough time and interest to re-listen the album that is the most critically acclaimed of any Jagger solo efforts. So ladies and gents, please welcome...

WANDERING SPIRIT

"Wired All Night". Jagger starts with an energetic, but a bit generic rocker, as he had done in the previous albums, and the mpression is not that different either from starting STEEL WHEELS with "Sad Sad Sad". Anyway, the deal of the album is introduced here: the synths and all that latest studio gimmicks of PRIMITIVE COOL are gone, and 'back to the good old production ideals', to the very pleasure of his potential listeners. As far as good rocking goes, the result actually - and surprisingly now and then - sounds better and more tight than anything the Stones had done in STEEL WHEELS.

"Sweet Thing": aah, a funky dance tune, that's solo Jagger at his best we get to know in SHE'S THE BOSS and PRIMITIVE COOL. What is typical with this kind of 'make your ass move' music that it doesn't allow any kind of sloppiness or "wobble" (now matter how enjoyable the latter is in some other contexts); the groove must be tight and hell and each musician in the same synch. That's why Jagger succeeds here better than ever with the Stones. Sorry Charlie.

"Out of Focus": a melodic dance tune, with full of funny and interesting musical decisions structurewise, most of them working mighty fine and naturally. A joyful piece. Always been one of my favourites, and still is.

"Don't Tear Me Up": a Stones type melodic piece. building up the tension, not far from the landscapes of "Worried About You" (hmm.. I almost was waiting a Taylor/Perkins type of solo to arrive in a certain place). Jagger's freshness, in delivery, once again, is notable. There are, though, some Jaggerish cliches in the musical structure, including the key phrase (but it could be that they weren't such explicit still at the time this was released but due his later doings).

"You Put Me on the Trash": jeez... back to the 70's bubble gum boogie glam rock.. Totally forgettable stuff, but such a joy to listen as far as it lasts. Jagger really can make a fun party going on.

"Use Me": basically there is nothing wrong with this funky cover track, but for some reason it doesn't work for me. Lenny's voice sounds good, and perhaps more in place, but Jagger tries a bit too much (and finally ends up repeating that mid-80's banal over-yelling). A bit of filler.

"Evening Gown". Oh my god, this is a real gem. Had been released under the brand of the Stones, this would have been a modern classic and a warhorse. Not that the Stones could have made it any better, it is perfect as it is here. Jagger's voice shines in its total glory. Don't give a shit what the people in Nashville might think, but to my ears that cold and distant but rich English voice full of wit and irony is just a killer.

"Mother of Man": Another Stonesian semi-speed riff-guided blues-based rocker, relying on a strong groove. Nothing wrong here, but probably this is one of those rare instances in the album that the shadow of glory past of the Stones comes through, and one starts to miss Jagger's other band... Always nice to hear Jagger playing blues harp.

"Think": here Jagger doesn't even try to copy the Stones, but lets the band rock as hard as it can by its means and fortes. Those faster than shit 80's type of hard rock guitar licks sound funnily freshing, but let's say, this unique presentation is enough for me...

"Wandering Spirit": a cool track; starts nakedly, a bit like the blues number in STEEL WHEELS, but builds up to achieve Exilean kind of messy gospelian spheres. I didn't like so much of it initially 'back then', but now I think it as one of album's highlights. I didn't recall how good it is.

"Hang On Me Tonight": "My cards are on the table" haha... nicely written pop ballad, but probably a bit too obvious - still sounding better and fresher than any of his attempts in the genre ever since. I am not a producer, but would it have been a bit more effective if the tempo had been a bit slower? A bit over-produced.

"I've Been Lonely For So Long": second cover here, but like with "Ain't Too proud To Beg" already ages earlier, asks a bit 'what's the point to release if there is much to add'? Yeah, Jagger's voice makes the difference, but could any of the Red Devils blues tracks worked better here? So a filler. A good song though.

"Angel In My Heart": oh gosh... The baroque pop of "Lady Jane" is back, Jagger trying to forget all he had learned from the devil music, and the old dirty bastard trying to behave his best as an innocent school boy stemming up from the civic European cultural background ("No sex, we are English")... We didn't see this coming at the time, did we?). Funny as hell, but still a bit artificial, though. And yeah, Jagger goes a bit too much over the top...

"Handsome Molly". Another total surprise (and a third cover) The "Wild Colonial Boy" is back? Like with "Angel In My eart" the aim for Monty Pythonian difference is more important the actual quality. Even though I like very much the idea of both of these tunes, if put my hand on the bible, could I really listen to these two more than a couple of times?

Some over-all impressions:

WANDERING SPIRIT is over-all a pretty light-hearted album. Jagger sounds relaxed, and as I recalled, not so much trying as he did in his previous albums. But probably due that attitude, some of the ambition, especially of PRIMITIVE COOL, is missing, and in the long run, I think this album is not so interesting as the previous ones. This especially applies to the lyrical content, and Jagger does not sound interested in disclosing of any his 'inner self' he at least to an extent tried in PRIMITIVE COOL. Relying surprisingly much (for Jagger) on 'retro', it is more like a statement of showing his abilities and competence in whatever. That he still 'got it'. It offers stylistical difference a lot, even ecclectism, but instead of presenting something actually novel, the impression is more like: 'wow, Jagger hasn't done that for ages'. (He would continue that 'going back and re-doing 'good ole genres' in VOODOO LOUNGE but I think with much less inspired results.)

As a singer and interpreter Jagger doesn't add anything he had offered in PRIMITIVE COOL, but here he more like applies to different contexts that achieved and trained voice effectively thorough the album. A sad note: he probably would never sound so strong again as he does here.

One thing I especially like about the album is that Mick is much more on the same page with his 'backing band' as he was in his previous albums. The over-all impression is tight and coherent in each track. Probably the choice of the musicians not being 'all star' people and big names, but just compenent studio hacks doing what is needed and suited, has something to do with it. Of course, the rather conservative and 'hold your horses a bit' production policy, like the 80s' had never happened, serves the impression as well. Even the difference to STEEL WHEELS is a huge one.

Compared generally to the Stones albums at the time, especially STEEL WHEELS and VOODOO LOUNGE, of which is not so distant musicwise, it manages, me thinks, clearly better. As known, WANDERING SPIRIT is pretty close to standard Stones, Mick just using different musicians, but I think that exactly is the strenght and point of this album. I've been thinking how on earth is that possible - Jagger being able to make better sounding Stones music by his own than with the Stones. A theory I came up with is: especially in VOODOO LOUNGE (but that started already in STEEL WHEELS, and has continued ever since), the Stones production policy and sound relies too much on their distinctive trademark sound - Keith needs to be sound so signature Keith as possible, Charlie as Charlie as possible, then Ronnie adding so typical Stones-sounding licks, etc. etc. This emphasis on 'trademark/signature sound' goes beyond the songs themselves, it is more important than the over-all impression of music, or, at worst, is the over-all impression of the whole thing. The effect to critical listeners as me is The Stones caricature-like aping themselves, The Stones making damn sure that it every damn listener noticing damn sure that it is the Stones - Mick, Keith, Charlie, Ronnie - there (as I have subtitled especially VOODOO LOUNGE: "Stones For Dummies"). In WANDERING SPIRIT the band, and their specific features and distinctive, signature sounds, is not more important the songs, the music itself. Everything in musicianhip is done to suit the songs best. I think it would take for the Stones until BLUE & LONESOME to come up with such coherence, the song-goes-first-attitude, again.

Yeah, I agree with general 'truth' that WANDERING SPIRIT is over-all Jagger's best solo album (and probably even with Keith's TALK IS CHEAP the best Stones-related album since UNDERCOVER), but I don't think with such a big marginal as it is many times evaluated. I think it is a bit too ecclectic album, especially the last couple of tracks lost the focus a bit, no matter how surprising and interesting an sich they are. But even though there are some problems with the 'flow' - the songs being so different in genre doesn't support each other sometimes too well, and the choice of certain cuts, especially of the covers, is a bit questionable - it is an album, and most probably due its very ecclectism, that doesn't bore me at all, for sure.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-24 20:45 by Doxa.

Didn't get to read through it all, Doxa, but will do

PS: Think is a cover as well.

Quote
Doxa
Compared generally to the Stones albums at the time, especially STEEL WHEELS and VOODOO LOUNGE, of which is not so distant musicwise, it manages, me thinks, clearly better. As known, WANDERING SPIRIT is pretty close to standard Stones, Mick just using different musicians, but I think that exactly is the strenght and point of this album. I've been thinking how on earth is that possible - Jagger being able to make better sounding Stones music by his own than with the Stones. A theory I came up with is: especially in VOODOO LOUNGE (but that started already in STEEL WHEELS, and has continued ever since), the Stones production policy and sound relies too much on their distinctive trademark sound - Keith needs to be sound so signature Keith as possible, Charlie as Charlie as possible, then Ronnie adding so typical Stones-sounding licks, etc. etc. This emphasis on 'trademark/signature sound' goes beyond the songs themselves, it is more important than the over-all impression of music, or, at worst, is the over-all impression of the whole thing. The effect to critical listeners as me is The Stones caricature-like aping themselves, The Stones making damn sure that it every damn listener noticing damn sure that it is the Stones - Mick, Keith, Charlie, Ronnie - there (as I have subtitled especially VOODOO LOUNGE: "Stones For Dummies"). In WANDERING SPIRIT the band, and their specific features and distinctive, signature sounds, is not more important the songs, the music itself. Everything in musicianhip is done to suit the songs best. I think it would take for the Stones until BLUE & LONESOME to come up with such coherence, the song-goes-first-attitude, again.

- Doxa

i don't think it's so much keith and ronnie "aping themselves in a caricature -like way " as it is them being really limited players. i don't mean that as a putdown -keith himself has said"i've tried being a great guitar player and like chuck berry,i failed"-it's just the signature sound is pretty much all they've got for better or worse.

that's why everyone loves keith's records because they sound like the stones and that's what we want,you pay for keith you want a stones sound,you by jaggers stuff and who the hell knows what you'll get,i think that frustrates people.

i'm glad mick never unleashed a stones-like album because it would've hurt the band.you get some great rock/blues players with that voice over it and suddenly you've mopped the floor with the last five stones albums-not good.even that red devils album would've been a problem.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Didn't get to read through it all, Doxa, but will do

PS: Think is a cover as well.

Oh yeah, that's right! How did I forgot that one. Mr Dynamite stuff indeed... That said, it certainly is the best of the covers in this album.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-24 21:28 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Didn't get to read through it all, Doxa, but will do

PS: Think is a cover as well.

'Think' is a funny one, because in Mick's interview for the album, he states he did it because he never covered a James Brown song ... then he quickly corrects himself to say "well, this one isn't actually written by James".

It's one of 3 that are sub par for me on album ... Think, Lonely For So Long, Angel --- the rest is great!

Quote
kowalski
Trying to get a grasp on all Mick Jagger's protean solo work.

...

Hi kowalski,

in case you haven't followed the thread, there is a new track that Mick is on, w/ Brad Paisley

[iorr.org]

Thanks Leonid. Updated!

PS: Think is a cover as well.


Think was penned by Lowman Pauling, guitarist of The 5 Royales 1958....
Pauling also co-wrote This Is Dedicated To The One I Love with record producer Ralph Bass 1957

The 5 Royales were a massive influence on James Brown .....
..... Lowman Pauling's guitar style was a major influence on Steve Cropper




The "5" Royales circa 1958 --- Lowman Pauling guitar



ROCKMAN

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Mick on She's The Boss (From 1985):

«I wanted to make a commercial record», Mr. Jagger readily admitted, «but one that I really liked. I wasn't trying to be super-commercial, but some of the songs I wrote turned out to be relatively catchy, didn't they? A lot of the songs are really quite traditional underneath, blues-rooted in fact, but played with a musical approach that reflects the range of what I've been listening to».

[www.nytimes.com]

Good grief, what kind of garbage was he listening to to make that horrible sounding album?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
This is significant no matter how «intentional» it was to turn young people on to the blues by doing this album.

A #1 blues record, with some stuff on it that was pretty unfamiliar, even for many blues fans.

Of course, they couldn't predict the album to top the charts, but they knew it would cause quite a stir in the market, because of their long absence from it with new stuff.

This album is more educational than all the american songbooks and cheap cash in-attemps from other big artists (Aerosmith and Rod Stewart spring to mind).

I know my share of the blues, and there were several songs on B&L that I probably only had heard once, or just a couple of times. I missed the beauty of those songs for different reasons. They are not by the biggest blues artists who the kids superficially know the names of.

Without taking this too far, this was an important release. Probably even more important than the Stones knew it would be.

Never before have I read something about BLUE AND LONESOME that sums it up perfectly like that. It adds some meat to it being as important of a release as BB, LIB, SF, EOMS, SG, TY.

Blue & Lonesome isn´t as important as masterpieces like BB, LIB, EOMS.
It´s a very enjoyable cover album by musicians playing the music they love, nothing more, nothing less.

I agree with HMS here. Whether you personally like Blue & Lonesome or not, as an album it will never have that legendary status as BB, LIB, SF and EOMS.
In 15 years or 25 years or 50 years, if people will still talk about the Stones, they will mention the Big Four, and hits like Satisfaction and Start Me Up. They will not mention B&L in that same way. The only way it might get mentioned is as "their last album".

Quote
matxil
I agree with HMS here. Whether you personally like Blue & Lonesome or not, as an album it will never have that legendary status as BB, LIB, SF and EOMS.
In 15 years or 25 years or 50 years, if people will still talk about the Stones, they will mention the Big Four, and hits like Satisfaction and Start Me Up. They will not mention B&L in that same way. The only way it might get mentioned is as "their last album".

Agreed. And I was going to write the same thing regarding 'last album', and really hope that's not the case, though I have mixed feelings about that.
On one hand it might be a nice ending to come full circle and finish on a high note (sales wise), but on the other hand an average covers album as their last statement and contribution to the world?

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

IAW Dandy. The Stones are the only bigtime band of rockers who IMO is legitimate in putting out an album like that. Because that is what they are at core: a Blues band.
If you think about it: it is all the OTHER albums that are a put-on. This , and the first one, are their true albums LOL.

Quote
HMS
Blue & Lonesome isn´t as important as masterpieces like LIB, EOMS.
It´s a very enjoyable cover album by musicians playing the music they love, nothing more, nothing less.

Agreed, and enjoyable for what it is worth. It bored the hell out of me after 12 bars per song.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-26 00:18 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
matxil
I agree with HMS here. Whether you personally like Blue & Lonesome or not, as an album it will never have that legendary status as BB, LIB, SF and EOMS.
In 15 years or 25 years or 50 years, if people will still talk about the Stones, they will mention the Big Four, and hits like Satisfaction and Start Me Up. They will not mention B&L in that same way. The only way it might get mentioned is as "their last album".

I meant the impact the album could have on young people today, not that B&L should have the same legendary status as Exile.

We already know that they soon will hit the 2 million mark in album sales, and they just won an award for it. It might be that young people wanna discover the blues via this album and go back to its roots. Will they succeed with that with the other albums you mentioned?

Hence it could be a very important album.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-26 10:36 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Doxa
Compared generally to the Stones albums at the time, especially STEEL WHEELS and VOODOO LOUNGE, of which is not so distant musicwise, it manages, me thinks, clearly better. As known, WANDERING SPIRIT is pretty close to standard Stones, Mick just using different musicians, but I think that exactly is the strenght and point of this album. I've been thinking how on earth is that possible - Jagger being able to make better sounding Stones music by his own than with the Stones. A theory I came up with is: especially in VOODOO LOUNGE (but that started already in STEEL WHEELS, and has continued ever since), the Stones production policy and sound relies too much on their distinctive trademark sound - Keith needs to be sound so signature Keith as possible, Charlie as Charlie as possible, then Ronnie adding so typical Stones-sounding licks, etc. etc. This emphasis on 'trademark/signature sound' goes beyond the songs themselves, it is more important than the over-all impression of music, or, at worst, is the over-all impression of the whole thing. The effect to critical listeners as me is The Stones caricature-like aping themselves, The Stones making damn sure that it every damn listener noticing damn sure that it is the Stones - Mick, Keith, Charlie, Ronnie - there (as I have subtitled especially VOODOO LOUNGE: "Stones For Dummies"). In WANDERING SPIRIT the band, and their specific features and distinctive, signature sounds, is not more important the songs, the music itself. Everything in musicianhip is done to suit the songs best. I think it would take for the Stones until BLUE & LONESOME to come up with such coherence, the song-goes-first-attitude, again.

- Doxa

i don't think it's so much keith and ronnie "aping themselves in a caricature -like way " as it is them being really limited players. i don't mean that as a putdown -keith himself has said"i've tried being a great guitar player and like chuck berry,i failed"-it's just the signature sound is pretty much all they've got for better or worse.

that's why everyone loves keith's records because they sound like the stones and that's what we want,you pay for keith you want a stones sound,you by jaggers stuff and who the hell knows what you'll get,i think that frustrates people.

i'm glad mick never unleashed a stones-like album because it would've hurt the band.you get some great rock/blues players with that voice over it and suddenly you've mopped the floor with the last five stones albums-not good.even that red devils album would've been a problem.

Like Pete Townsend and Jeff Beck aren't great rock/blues players lol.
Like Mick didn't try to make the best albums he could hoping they would eclipse previous Stones albums.
Like Mick would have come back to the Stones had his solo albums outsold the Stones.
Mick came back to the Stones because he new he couldn't make big bucks any other way. Its the same today, don't delude yourself.

Quote
HMS
Blue & Lonesome isn´t as important as masterpieces like BB, LIB, EOMS.
It´s a very enjoyable cover album by musicians playing the music they love, nothing more, nothing less.

Deaf ears, as usual. Way to go, pisser.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
matxil
I agree with HMS here. Whether you personally like Blue & Lonesome or not, as an album it will never have that legendary status as BB, LIB, SF and EOMS.
In 15 years or 25 years or 50 years, if people will still talk about the Stones, they will mention the Big Four, and hits like Satisfaction and Start Me Up. They will not mention B&L in that same way. The only way it might get mentioned is as "their last album".

Agreed. And I was going to write the same thing regarding 'last album', and really hope that's not the case, though I have mixed feelings about that.
On one hand it might be a nice ending to come full circle and finish on a high note (sales wise), but on the other hand an average covers album as their last statement and contribution to the world?

I really don't think it very likely that they'll come up with something on the level of LIB or EOMS. I hope I'm wrong of course. For a legendary album, they should take an enormous risk, come face to face with what they really want to say as an artist, dive deep into the inner workings of their band, jam for days on end. Maybe someone should lock Keith and Mick up in the kitchen again.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil
I agree with HMS here. Whether you personally like Blue & Lonesome or not, as an album it will never have that legendary status as BB, LIB, SF and EOMS.
In 15 years or 25 years or 50 years, if people will still talk about the Stones, they will mention the Big Four, and hits like Satisfaction and Start Me Up. They will not mention B&L in that same way. The only way it might get mentioned is as "their last album".

I meant the impact the album could have on young people today, not that B&L should have the same legendary status as Exile.

We already know that they soon will hit the 2 million mark in album sales, and they just won an award for it. It might be that young people wanna discover the blues via this album and go back to its roots. Will they succeed with that with the other albums you mentioned?

Hence it could be a very important album.

I honestly don't think young people are listening to Stones albums. A few songs maybe on YouTube. And they might go to a concert, because it's like going to Disneyland.
There might be a few young people honestly wanting to learn about the blues and rock n roll and soul music, and they might - maybe - start with B&L before turning to LIB, EOMS etc..., but it's more likely that they will read some article about the Stones (or some YouTube clip "the 10 best songs from the Stones") and inmediately turn to those main albums.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
Blue & Lonesome isn´t as important as masterpieces like BB, LIB, EOMS.
It´s a very enjoyable cover album by musicians playing the music they love, nothing more, nothing less.

Deaf ears, as usual. Way to go, pisser.

As much as you seem to enjoy slagging off HMS, I really don't see why what he says here is so crazy.

Quote
matxil

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
Blue & Lonesome isn´t as important as masterpieces like BB, LIB, EOMS.
It´s a very enjoyable cover album by musicians playing the music they love, nothing more, nothing less.

Deaf ears, as usual. Way to go, pisser.

As much as you seem to enjoy slagging off HMS, I really don't see why what he says here is so crazy.

I think GLS´ comment was an automatic reflex to a stimulus - without any conscious thought... Even Charlie seems to confess that they were just "copying".
GLS´ opinion clearly is a minority opinion.

Anyone with ears can tell that they did more than merely copying. The Stones were never good at copying anything anyway

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Anyone with ears can tell that they did more than merely copying. The Stones were never good at copying anything anyway

No doubt, however this one is very close:
** Little Walter - Just Your Fool **
** Rolling Stones - Just Your Fool **

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Anyone with ears can tell that they did more than merely copying. The Stones were never good at copying anything anyway

No doubt, however this one is very close:
** Little Walter - Just Your Fool **
** Rolling Stones - Just Your Fool **

Yes, and no, I'd say.

Little Walter's take is jumping and bouncing with a different groove, while the Stones's version is more heavy and static with louder guitars. Swing versius rock, if you will. However, they are pretty similar anyway. Nowhere near a copy, though.

Thank you Doxa for your extensive review of the "Wandering Spirit" album. I'm already looking forward to what you want to say about "Goddess in the Doorway" but please include the b-sides. Thanks.

Or is the Red Devils bootleg up next?