Quote
His Majesty
I expect it to not sound all that different from these. Are these crude and authentic!?

[www.youtube.com]

[www.youtube.com]


There will likely be a production sheen that just comes with digital recording/modern recording etc etc.

So outside of that, I just hope the playing/vibe etc is killer and not boring and forced sounding.

_____________________________________________


The clips I've heard (the ones we all have heard) do not sound like these clips you posted.


Now... or butt .. one might ask ...Do the brief clips of the new stuff not only sound crude but authentic ..


From what I heard Crude: Yupp! .. and Authentic: yes


They do not sound like those clips you posted above. They sound raw, hard edged, and with an air of excitement actually.

This is just marketing BS (look up what Keith said about how he got Mick to record Harlem Shuffle..) the 10 second clip of "Just Your Fool" [www.youtube.com] doesn't sound any cruder/authentic/whatever than when they copied it for the "Cook Cook Blues" B-side from 1989 that they dug out from the 1982 sessions [www.youtube.com] - compare to the LW version [www.youtube.com]

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
gotdablouse
the 10 second clip of "Just Your Fool" [www.youtube.com] doesn't sound any cruder/authentic/whatever than when they copied it for the "Cook Cook Blues" B-side

Sample sounds alrite to me...
Anyway it must be hard to give your music an authentic blues feeling considering you work in a state-of-the-art studio with digital gear everywhere.

"Blues feeling" and "digital gear" are not compatible. It's a bit like trying to duplicate the feel of a 19th century daguerreotype with a Canon EOS-1D X digital camera.
No matter what you try it'll feel cold and digital.

Quote
Witness

Quote
donvis
I remember suggesting in 2012 that they do an album of R&B covers similar to the first 5 albums as a no pressure thing for the band to do in terms of songwriting, production, critical expectations etc and there was a lot of hostility on the board. How times have changed!

There was clear cut disagreement then, but no hostility, I think. I looked it up:
[iorr.org]

And what the Stones actually are doing, is more acccording to the reflection of another poster in that thread, who had voiced some scepticism at first to your proposal, but on reflection remembered his own attitude from earlier.

Quote
Doxa
Hmm.. I've been quite critical here about the idea of an album of covers but this is what I seemingly wrote just two years ago:

"The Stones is an incredible blues band. Maybe they should - even though I've been critical of the idea - a pure blues album just based on covers. I think that kind of thing would be much interesting than A BIGGER BANG type of album based on dried out ideas. Just gather (all) into studio together for few weeks and start jamming and listen your old blues records. Ask friends to guest and jam with them - Buddy Guy, Clapton, Macca, Taylor, Wyman... and call it ALL THEM BLUES or IT'S ALL BLUES or THE ROLLING STONES PLAYS THE BLUES WITH FRIENDS or something. And ask Jack Frost to produce it!"



- Doxa

It means that there was an important difference. It consisted in the fact that you proposed an unspecified album of covers, but had their own R&B oriented first albums in mind (R&B and other genres done in a R&B approach), whereas Doxa had thought about a pure blues album.

To me the latter suggestion is an immensely more attractive prospect, because I doubt that other genres at this point in time would have been made in a R&B approach. With a blues content all over, I am so much more looking forward.

Time will tell if there will be a pure blues album, or a blues/rhythm and blues/soul/country blues album...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Time will tell if there will be a pure blues album, or a blues/rhythm and blues/soul/country blues album...

It could even have been a more or less "jazzy" blues, if they had covered songs from T-Bone Walker.

It is always a question about what 'blues' is. I am myself unable to define it. I don't even know, if is possible strictly to define 'blues' as a concept.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Time will tell if there will be a pure blues album, or a blues/rhythm and blues/soul/country blues album...

It could even have been a more or less "jazzy" blues, if they had covered songs from T-Bone Walker.

It is always a question about what 'blues' is. I am myself unable to define it. I don't even know, if is possible strictly to define 'blues' as a concept.

A simplified version is sad songs in minor, often within a concept/motif/rhythm structure.

Country blues and soul are not in minor, and differ a lot because of that. Jazz differs because it's crossing the scales.

However, a lot of interesting stuff happens when you cross country blues and pure blues. Like on Love In Vain, Prodigal Son and Good Times, Bad Times.

On Melody, the blue notes and the more jazzy ones melts into eachother nicely.

On I Got The Blues, a pure soul tune, Billy Preston takes us back to the blues for a short while.

Not easy to explain, but at least you get some pictures of it

Well, thank you, Dandelion, for that version of an answer!

I am a little puzzled that you operate with "pure blues" as a category in contrast to "country blues". I would instead have thought that "pure blues" could have comprised both "country blues" and, possibly, different versions of, may I borrow the term, "city blues" there. But not, for instance, "zydeco".

Edit: Clumsiness of language



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-06 15:56 by Witness.

Attempting to define the blues, in my opinion, is about as futile an exercise as I've ever attempted. And I've been playing them now for the last 20 years. (Prepare for an exercise in futility to follow...)

Certainly there are traits and commonalities which exist across much of the genre but, at least in my mind, there's not a single trait which has to exist for something to be considered blues. Possibly a feeling. Maybe a sound. Or it might just be the intent of the performer/composer.

In all honesty, I don't know and probably never will. But at the same time, I know blues when I hear them. And I hear them EVERYWHERE and all the time. What's interesting to me, is other people can hear the same things and NOT hear the blues. Does that mean they're not or they are? Thankfully there aren't any official criteria of grading commissions (although I can think of one certain local "Blues Society" that I could tell to kiss my a$$ after they attempted to a few years back - oh wait, I did tell them that - and six months later they caved!).

I think the most important thing about ANY music is an individual's relationship with it. Does it move you? Do you like it? The label which you and others choose to put on it to describe it should never restrict or dismiss but merely be a point of reference or starting point of association. No doubt it helps to be able to use descriptive words to explain concepts to others however, attempting to use those words as a box which contains certain things and excludes others is pretty silly, I think.

To me, one of the most enjoyable things about the blues is it's diversity. I mean, think about all the music you've heard described as blues. Now, think about all the music that you've heard described as "modified blues" (country blues, jump blues, blues rock, etc.). Now think of all the music that's a descendant of blues (rock & roll, r&b, soul, etc.). Even those descendants which hardly have any relationship to their great-great-great-great granddaddy, still have a bit in there. It's in the roots. Or as Keith says, "the marrow".

And for all these people who try to limit the blues, my request would be to stop. I think I saw somewhere in this thread someone wondering how the Stones could play the blues because they're rich & white & "have they ever seen a cotton field". Please take your narrow-minded bias somewhere else. If you're unable to realize that everyone, everywhere, everyday has some blues in their life, you're most likely living with your own head buried so far in the sand that you wouldn't be able to identify any emotion in yourself let alone someone else.

OK, rant over. Hopefully I haven't offended anyone. I'll close by saying that, if you hear something and think it's "the blues" or "bluesy", there's a good chance that, not only are you correct but somewhere, someone else will probably agree with you (and if you choose to share those thoughts on the internet, someone will most likely ridicule you as well!).

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
mr_dja
Attempting to define the blues, in my opinion, is about as futile an exercise as I've ever attempted. And I've been playing them now for the last 20 years. (Prepare for an exercise in futility to follow...)

Certainly there are traits and commonalities which exist across much of the genre but, at least in my mind, there's not a single trait which has to exist for something to be considered blues. Possibly a feeling. Maybe a sound. Or it might just be the intent of the performer/composer.

In all honesty, I don't know and probably never will. But at the same time, I know blues when I hear them. And I hear them EVERYWHERE and all the time. What's interesting to me, is other people can hear the same things and NOT hear the blues. Does that mean they're not or they are? Thankfully there aren't any official criteria of grading commissions (although I can think of one certain local "Blues Society" that I could tell to kiss my a$$ after they attempted to a few years back - oh wait, I did tell them that - and six months later they caved!).

I think the most important thing about ANY music is an individual's relationship with it. Does it move you? Do you like it? The label which you and others choose to put on it to describe it should never restrict or dismiss but merely be a point of reference or starting point of association. No doubt it helps to be able to use descriptive words to explain concepts to others however, attempting to use those words as a box which contains certain things and excludes others is pretty silly, I think.

To me, one of the most enjoyable things about the blues is it's diversity. I mean, think about all the music you've heard described as blues. Now, think about all the music that you've heard described as "modified blues" (country blues, jump blues, blues rock, etc.). Now think of all the music that's a descendant of blues (rock & roll, r&b, soul, etc.). Even those descendants which hardly have any relationship to their great-great-great-great granddaddy, still have a bit in there. It's in the roots. Or as Keith says, "the marrow".

And for all these people who try to limit the blues, my request would be to stop. I think I saw somewhere in this thread someone wondering how the Stones could play the blues because they're rich & white & "have they ever seen a cotton field". Please take your narrow-minded bias somewhere else. If you're unable to realize that everyone, everywhere, everyday has some blues in their life, you're most likely living with your own head buried so far in the sand that you wouldn't be able to identify any emotion in yourself let alone someone else.

OK, rant over. Hopefully I haven't offended anyone. I'll close by saying that, if you hear something and think it's "the blues" or "bluesy", there's a good chance that, not only are you correct but somewhere, someone else will probably agree with you (and if you choose to share those thoughts on the internet, someone will most likely ridicule you as well!).

Peace,
Mr DJA

You're right, mr_dja, simplifying what the blues is musically is an impossible task, because it's so tightly connected to feelings.

However, I was trying to give my two cents about what characterises blues, the music form. It's another question whether we need to explain that at all, as the blues surely will come to everyone.

Didnt see this snippet of the blue and lonesome LP posted-

[youtu.be]

Quote
roryfaninva
Didnt see this snippet of the blue and lonesome LP posted-

[youtu.be]

Full song in the October 6 thread: [iorr.org]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

You're right, mr_dja, simplifying what the blues is musically is an impossible task, because it's so tightly connected to feelings.

However, I was trying to give my two cents about what characterises blues, the music form. It's another question whether we need to explain that at all, as the blues surely will come to everyone.

And believe me, I admire you for your efforts! Also, I look forward to the day when you & I are in the same room with some musical instruments & some booze. Don't know when or where that will be, but I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy it!



Peace,
Mr DJA

I'm in the camp of looking forward to this album more than an album of new originals. That may change but for now this is a stroke of genius. It may be their best LP content wise since EOMS. It's gotta be pretty cool.

Quote
GasLightStreet
I'm in the camp of looking forward to this album more than an album of new originals. That may change but for now this is a stroke of genius. It may be their best LP content wise since EOMS. It's gotta be pretty cool.

x100 (or more)

Peace,
Mr DJA

As I have indicated before, my wish dream is that this album will become such a success in the public's reception of it, that all songs will enter setlists for every live concert in 2017!

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
DandelionPowderman

You're right, mr_dja, simplifying what the blues is musically is an impossible task, because it's so tightly connected to feelings.

However, I was trying to give my two cents about what characterises blues, the music form. It's another question whether we need to explain that at all, as the blues surely will come to everyone.

And believe me, I admire you for your efforts! Also, I look forward to the day when you & I are in the same room with some musical instruments & some booze. Don't know when or where that will be, but I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy it!



Peace,
Mr DJA

No doubt that will be great, my friend