Quote
Rocky Dijon
I don't think any of the songs on BLUE & LONESOME made them grimace either. I still suspect Charlie was referring to Mick playing his demos for new material on his phone which Charlie said they end up basically just copying. I know that goes against the grain of they're busy making one of their very best albums and preparing to kick off a mammoth world tour; but my interpretation of Charlie's remarks make sense to the way Mick has preferred to work since 2002.

To Dandy's point, I agree they didn't strictly copy the originals on BLUE & LONESOME although I would say they strive for fidelity more often than not in the last 22 years when playing covers than they did in past decades when they tended to speed up tempos or arrange the material to suit their own style a bit more.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
I don't think any of the songs on BLUE & LONESOME made them grimace either. I still suspect Charlie was referring to Mick playing his demos for new material on his phone which Charlie said they end up basically just copying. I know that goes against the grain of they're busy making one of their very best albums and preparing to kick off a mammoth world tour; but my interpretation of Charlie's remarks make sense to the way Mick has preferred to work since 2002.

To Dandy's point, I agree they didn't strictly copy the originals on BLUE & LONESOME although I would say they strive for fidelity more often than not in the last 22 years when playing covers than they did in past decades when they tended to speed up tempos or arrange the material to suit their own style a bit more.

Quote
HMS

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.

Quote
GasLightStreet

[...]
The failure to grasp the level of BLUE AND LONESOME amongst their discography is yours. In years to come it will be viewed as a very important album.
[...]

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal, with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal, with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

My advice to young players would be to start with the most important stuff first: To carry a tune. Learn the basics, the rhythm and to change it around a little back and forth. Play whole songs.

Then you can noodle and solo and play with ideas. Improvise. And best of all: You have built a foundation for doing so.

B&L would be an excellent starting point for this approach, imo. You gotta learn to crawl before you learn how to walk.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal, with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

My advice to young players would be to start with the most important stuff first: To carry a tune. Learn the basics, the rhythm and to change it around a little back and forth. Play whole songs.

Then you can noodle and solo and play with ideas. Improvise. And best of all: You have built a foundation for doing so.

B&L would be an excellent starting point for this approach, imo. You gotta learn to crawl before you learn how to walk.

I would tend to agree, and in that sense they could have rightfully titled it 'Blues for Beginners (an introduction to the basics)'.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal, with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

My advice to young players would be to start with the most important stuff first: To carry a tune. Learn the basics, the rhythm and to change it around a little back and forth. Play whole songs.

Then you can noodle and solo and play with ideas. Improvise. And best of all: You have built a foundation for doing so.

B&L would be an excellent starting point for this approach, imo. You gotta learn to crawl before you learn how to walk.

I would tend to agree, and in that sense they could have rightfully titled it 'Blues for Beginners (an introduction to the basics)'.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal, with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

My advice to young players would be to start with the most important stuff first: To carry a tune. Learn the basics, the rhythm and to change it around a little back and forth. Play whole songs.

Then you can noodle and solo and play with ideas. Improvise. And best of all: You have built a foundation for doing so.

B&L would be an excellent starting point for this approach, imo. You gotta learn to crawl before you learn how to walk.

I would tend to agree, and in that sense they could have rightfully titled it 'Blues for Beginners (an introduction to the basics)'.

It would ruin their images "Not For Beginners" would be better. Oh wait, that one is taken

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal, with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

My advice to young players would be to start with the most important stuff first: To carry a tune. Learn the basics, the rhythm and to change it around a little back and forth. Play whole songs.

Then you can noodle and solo and play with ideas. Improvise. And best of all: You have built a foundation for doing so.

B&L would be an excellent starting point for this approach, imo. You gotta learn to crawl before you learn how to walk.

I would tend to agree, and in that sense they could have rightfully titled it 'Blues for Beginners (an introduction to the basics)'.

It would ruin their images "Not For Beginners" would be better. Oh wait, that one is taken

Ah, Ron Wood.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal, with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

My advice to young players would be to start with the most important stuff first: To carry a tune. Learn the basics, the rhythm and to change it around a little back and forth. Play whole songs.

Then you can noodle and solo and play with ideas. Improvise. And best of all: You have built a foundation for doing so.

B&L would be an excellent starting point for this approach, imo. You gotta learn to crawl before you learn how to walk.

I would tend to agree, and in that sense they could have rightfully titled it 'Blues for Beginners (an introduction to the basics)'.

It would ruin their images "Not For Beginners" would be better. Oh wait, that one is taken

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal and rambling with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

Quote
matxil

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal and rambling with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

I would completely say the opposite: forget about the noodling, forget about the bloody stratocaster note bending, forget about pulling the orgasmic faces. Play the basic rhythm, find the groove, learn that "less is more". In that sense, you could do worse than starting with the Stones. If anything, B&L might serve as a very good way to learning to play the blues. But I doubt many people will use it as such.

(Edit) Hmm, sorry, I just saw I was not first to make this comment. I agree with what Dandelion and Hairball say here.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
matxil

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal and rambling with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

I would completely say the opposite: forget about the noodling, forget about the bloody stratocaster note bending, forget about pulling the orgasmic faces. Play the basic rhythm, find the groove, learn that "less is more". In that sense, you could do worse than starting with the Stones. If anything, B&L might serve as a very good way to learning to play the blues. But I doubt many people will use it as such.

(Edit) Hmm, sorry, I just saw I was not first to make this comment. I agree with what Dandelion and Hairball say here.

Nothing wrong with pulling orgasmic faces? Nobody does it better than Ron Wood.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
matxil

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal and rambling with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

I would completely say the opposite: forget about the noodling, forget about the bloody stratocaster note bending, forget about pulling the orgasmic faces. Play the basic rhythm, find the groove, learn that "less is more". In that sense, you could do worse than starting with the Stones. If anything, B&L might serve as a very good way to learning to play the blues. But I doubt many people will use it as such.

(Edit) Hmm, sorry, I just saw I was not first to make this comment. I agree with what Dandelion and Hairball say here.

Nothing wrong with pulling orgasmic faces? Nobody does it better than Ron Wood.

Orgasmic? I always thought he was doing 'taking a dump' faces.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
matxil

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal and rambling with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

I would completely say the opposite: forget about the noodling, forget about the bloody stratocaster note bending, forget about pulling the orgasmic faces. Play the basic rhythm, find the groove, learn that "less is more". In that sense, you could do worse than starting with the Stones. If anything, B&L might serve as a very good way to learning to play the blues. But I doubt many people will use it as such.

(Edit) Hmm, sorry, I just saw I was not first to make this comment. I agree with what Dandelion and Hairball say here.

Nothing wrong with pulling orgasmic faces? Nobody does it better than Ron Wood.

Orgasmic? I always thought he was doing 'taking a dump' faces.

Now serious: Matxil and DP are putting my post upside down: I'm not saying what's best for young players- (I agree with DP here, carrying a song), but what they want when it come to blues.. And that's doing solos and noodling, and from that angle "Blue and Lonesome" bla bla .

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
matxil

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal and rambling with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

I would completely say the opposite: forget about the noodling, forget about the bloody stratocaster note bending, forget about pulling the orgasmic faces. Play the basic rhythm, find the groove, learn that "less is more". In that sense, you could do worse than starting with the Stones. If anything, B&L might serve as a very good way to learning to play the blues. But I doubt many people will use it as such.

(Edit) Hmm, sorry, I just saw I was not first to make this comment. I agree with what Dandelion and Hairball say here.

Nothing wrong with pulling orgasmic faces? Nobody does it better than Ron Wood.

Orgasmic? I always thought he was doing 'taking a dump' faces.

Now serious: Matxil and DP are putting my post upside down: I'm not saying what's best for young players- (I agree with DP here, carrying a song), but what they want when it come to blues.. And that's doing solos and noodling, and from that angle "Blue and Lonesome" bla bla .

Have to admit when I was really young and started playing I did it all backwards. It was Clapton, Beck, Page, Taylor, Winter, Blackmore, and Hendrix, etc. (in no particular order) that I idolized and tried to emulate on the guitar. Once I mastered all of the above I went back to the basics learning rhythm, groove, foundation, stability, etc. Had B&L been out back then, it may have helped in that department, but on the other hand I was already digging deeper into the classic originals for guidance.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
matxil

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Young blues guitarists are basically interested in playing blues solo's and noodling.
This cannot be heard on Bl & L in a decent way, it's too noncommittal and rambling with the exception of Clapton of course. If you want to play the blues in a stones environment, start with the Taylor licks in the Stones, or the John Mayall stuff. There is some interesting material available, blues accompaniment included.

I would completely say the opposite: forget about the noodling, forget about the bloody stratocaster note bending, forget about pulling the orgasmic faces. Play the basic rhythm, find the groove, learn that "less is more". In that sense, you could do worse than starting with the Stones. If anything, B&L might serve as a very good way to learning to play the blues. But I doubt many people will use it as such.

(Edit) Hmm, sorry, I just saw I was not first to make this comment. I agree with what Dandelion and Hairball say here.

Nothing wrong with pulling orgasmic faces? Nobody does it better than Ron Wood.

Orgasmic? I always thought he was doing 'taking a dump' faces.

Now serious: Matxil and DP are putting my post upside down: I'm not saying what's best for young players- (I agree with DP here, carrying a song), but what they want when it come to blues.. And that's doing solos and noodling, and from that angle "Blue and Lonesome" bla bla .

Have to admit when I was really young and started playing I did it all backwards. It was Clapton, Beck, Page, Taylor, Winter, Blackmore, and Hendrix, etc. (in no particular order) that I idolized and tried to emulate on the guitar. Once I mastered all of the above I went back to the basics learning rhythm, groove, foundation, stability, etc. Had B&L been out back then, it may have helped in that department, but on the other hand I was already digging deeper into the classic originals for guidance.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
...
I don't hear anything on BL&L ... the blues cracks haven't done much better in more natural circumstances for many decades ago already...

Quote
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

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
...
I don't hear anything on BL&L that the Stones or blues cracks haven't done much better in more natural circumstances for many decades ago already...

So you've said before, but more specifically what? ...