For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Rolling Stone gave Voodoo Lounge 4/5 in 1994. Just sayin.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/voodoo-lounge-19940811
Quote
HMS
The three songs I´ve heard so far are recorded/mixed/whatever so loud that they are sometimes heavily distorted. That´s most unenjoyable.
I´m afraid all of the songs will turn out to sound that way. Musically the songs are very good and Mick´s singing is amazing. After all that overacted singing-posing on the last couple of albums I didn´t knew that he actually still can sing in a "normal way".
But: Their best album since Some Girls? Never. This is all covers, no originals. It seems to be well done but just like Crosseyed Heart it isn´t Manna from heaven. Maybe it will be boring to listen to it, 12 more or less similar songs in a row. Always the harmonica, always the singing & breathing-at-the-same-time vocal gimmick, always the distorted guitars, I really don´t know.... I like the three songs we´ve heard so far, but basically it´s all just the same... not much variety.
Best album since Some Girls, btw, of course is DW.
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
HMS
The three songs I´ve heard so far are recorded/mixed/whatever so loud that they are sometimes heavily distorted. That´s most unenjoyable.
I´m afraid all of the songs will turn out to sound that way. Musically the songs are very good and Mick´s singing is amazing. After all that overacted singing-posing on the last couple of albums I didn´t knew that he actually still can sing in a "normal way".
But: Their best album since Some Girls? Never. This is all covers, no originals. It seems to be well done but just like Crosseyed Heart it isn´t Manna from heaven. Maybe it will be boring to listen to it, 12 more or less similar songs in a row. Always the harmonica, always the singing & breathing-at-the-same-time vocal gimmick, always the distorted guitars, I really don´t know.... I like the three songs we´ve heard so far, but basically it´s all just the same... not much variety.
Best album since Some Girls, btw, of course is DW.
Spot on. Not about DW but the rest.
Quote
GasLightStreet
Why would you purposely drag SOME GIRLS down with a stupid and ignorant statement like that?
Quote
Hairball
The production from what I've heard so far on the two or three pre-released tunes seemed fine, but then again I've only listened on my laptop, and having only listened to them once or twice (anxiously waiting for vinyl and/or cd), my opinion is somewhat limited on this. What I did notice though was the overall playing and vibe seemed a bit mechanical...almost too correct...no bum notes...not a mistake to be heard. Unlike the originals which have an authentic/organic/live/raw feeling w/mistakes and all, these new versions seem a bit processed. I understand they were all cut in three days (or whatever it was) and supposedly 'live', but maybe Don Was (and Mick?) were busy for awhile cleaning them up afterwards with their digital trickery leaving them a bit sterile. Hopefully it all doesn't come across as Blues without a feeling...but reading some of the comments of the vinyl single is a bit worrying.
Quote
Bashlets
I can't believe no audio samples are available yet besides the 3 we have already heard. No samples on iTunes, cd japan, Amazon etc. I'm dying for a few snippets
Quote
maumauQuote
Hairball
The production from what I've heard so far on the two or three pre-released tunes seemed fine, but then again I've only listened on my laptop, and having only listened to them once or twice (anxiously waiting for vinyl and/or cd), my opinion is somewhat limited on this. What I did notice though was the overall playing and vibe seemed a bit mechanical...almost too correct...no bum notes...not a mistake to be heard. Unlike the originals which have an authentic/organic/live/raw feeling w/mistakes and all, these new versions seem a bit processed. I understand they were all cut in three days (or whatever it was) and supposedly 'live', but maybe Don Was (and Mick?) were busy for awhile cleaning them up afterwards with their digital trickery leaving them a bit sterile. Hopefully it all doesn't come across as Blues without a feeling...but reading some of the comments of the vinyl single is a bit worrying.
you're right, answer about the "feel" of the album can be given only after a hifi material has been released. I played the 3 songs thru my amp and speakers and they sounded warm but I know how much different is the lossless sound, so. I dont agree on the "too correct" remark. though I know mick stated that after the "three days" the process was "painstaking" it doesn seem to me that the result is clean e and sterile as you mean. I am not crazy about JYF and REOD but I do love HTSYG very much, both faithful to the original and stoned
Quote
MonkeyMan2000
I actually like the production. But I think Keith is a bit too low on REOD.
On Little Walter's Blue and Lonesome and many others old blues recordings you can't hear much but distortion. So that's what they went for with the production, I think.
Quote
Cristiano Radtke
The Rolling Stones’s ‘Blue & Lonesome’: A Romp Among Friends
Fifty-two years after their first album, the Rolling Stones return to their blues roots
By JIM FUSILLI
Nov. 27, 2016 8:25 p.m. ET
[www.wsj.com]
Quote
mpj200
It's recorded and produced raw by design. And there are very few overdubs. The reason you don't hear mistakes is because the band did have some proper pre-production before the songs were recorded.
Quote
IanBillenQuote
mpj200
It's recorded and produced raw by design. And there are very few overdubs. The reason you don't hear mistakes is because the band did have some proper pre-production before the songs were recorded.
_____________________________________
I'm not making some kind of attempt to educate you here.. I am only agreeing and adding my lib is all
The recording technique / production's aim was to give an over-driven, unprofessional, spontaneous sound. It is rough edged, harsh, and crude. Very
unpolished.. as unpolished as can be for the most part.
The band used a Decca tree and vintage gear (possibly even an old TG board which is present at British Grove) in order to recreate a blues style recording of old... the way the true classics were recorded .. but this time it is The Rolling Stones some 50-60 years later (<that was the concept).
The way it is recorded / produced is quite purposeful. It has a thin layer of distortion to certain instruments / tracks to give that 'amped to the max / over driven' feel.
The result is something significantly raw... significantly unpolished .. junky.. 'Stones junky' ...but like the blues recordings of old. That was the very point.
Mick claimed the mixing was painstaking. My thought is that is because he (he and the mixing engineer Kirsh Sharma / and Producer, Don Was) was going over the different tracks trying to give them their own 'spin' BUT in keeping with that unpolished, raw, thrown together sound. That would be a very tedious... tight rope to walk on (if you have ever done any mixing in the studio .. this stab at both worlds while still trying to make everything sound like it's from the same cloth would be difficult and would need some trial and error .. even with seasoned professionals.. because every recording / mixing situation is unique in it's own way ..) Meeting the objective of giving each song a different spin while making them all sound like they are from the same, unpolished cloth is much harder than simply making something all one way.
Personally, I can't wait to hear the slower tracks (Little Rain .. Blue and Lonesome... All Your Love etc.). I have a feeling those will be really .. really good.
Quote
Hairball
Interesting, thanks for the link duke.
While former member Mick Taylor - who made a number of appearances on the group's 50th anniversary tour -
is a respected blues guitarist and many fans hoped he'd appear on the covers record, the group insist he would have ''dithered'' too much and hampered the recording process.
Ronnie said: ''He would have analysed it too much I think.
''He would have dithered around too much. What he does best is play. Talk about it? No.''
Sounds like a bunch of crap.
Mick Taylor would have raised the bar.
Bummer.
Quote
mpj200Quote
Hairball
Interesting, thanks for the link duke.
While former member Mick Taylor - who made a number of appearances on the group's 50th anniversary tour -
is a respected blues guitarist and many fans hoped he'd appear on the covers record, the group insist he would have ''dithered'' too much and hampered the recording process.
Ronnie said: ''He would have analysed it too much I think.
''He would have dithered around too much. What he does best is play. Talk about it? No.''
Sounds like a bunch of crap.
Mick Taylor would have raised the bar.
Bummer.
He left the band decades ago. Where you been, mate?
Quote
Hairball
The production from what I've heard so far on the two or three pre-released tunes seemed fine, but then again I've only listened on my laptop, and having only listened to them once or twice (anxiously waiting for vinyl and/or cd), my opinion is somewhat limited on this. What I did notice though was the overall playing and vibe seemed a bit mechanical...almost too correct...no bum notes...not a mistake to be heard. Unlike the originals which have an authentic/organic/live/raw feeling w/mistakes and all, these new versions seem a bit processed. I understand they were all cut in three days (or whatever it was) and supposedly 'live', but maybe Don Was (and Mick?) were busy for awhile cleaning them up afterwards with their digital trickery leaving them a bit sterile. Hopefully it all doesn't come across as Blues without a feeling...but reading some of the comments of the vinyl single is a bit worrying.
Quote
mpj200Quote
IanBillenQuote
mpj200
It's recorded and produced raw by design. And there are very few overdubs. The reason you don't hear mistakes is because the band did have some proper pre-production before the songs were recorded.
_____________________________________
I'm not making some kind of attempt to educate you here.. I am only agreeing and adding my lib is all
The recording technique / production's aim was to give an over-driven, unprofessional, spontaneous sound. It is rough edged, harsh, and crude. Very
unpolished.. as unpolished as can be for the most part.
The band used a Decca tree and vintage gear (possibly even an old TG board which is present at British Grove) in order to recreate a blues style recording of old... the way the true classics were recorded .. but this time it is The Rolling Stones some 50-60 years later (<that was the concept).
The way it is recorded / produced is quite purposeful. It has a thin layer of distortion to certain instruments / tracks to give that 'amped to the max / over driven' feel.
The result is something significantly raw... significantly unpolished .. junky.. 'Stones junky' ...but like the blues recordings of old. That was the very point.
Mick claimed the mixing was painstaking. My thought is that is because he (he and the mixing engineer Kirsh Sharma / and Producer, Don Was) was going over the different tracks trying to give them their own 'spin' BUT in keeping with that unpolished, raw, thrown together sound. That would be a very tedious... tight rope to walk on (if you have ever done any mixing in the studio .. this stab at both worlds while still trying to make everything sound like it's from the same cloth would be difficult and would need some trial and error .. even with seasoned professionals.. because every recording / mixing situation is unique in it's own way ..) Meeting the objective of giving each song a different spin while making them all sound like they are from the same, unpolished cloth is much harder than simply making something all one way.
Personally, I can't wait to hear the slower tracks (Little Rain .. Blue and Lonesome... All Your Love etc.). I have a feeling those will be really .. really good.
Exactly. Or again, as the band puts it "raw". And yes, spending time on mixing doesn't equate to polished.
Quote
HairballQuote
Cristiano Radtke
The Rolling Stones’s ‘Blue & Lonesome’: A Romp Among Friends
Fifty-two years after their first album, the Rolling Stones return to their blues roots
By JIM FUSILLI
Nov. 27, 2016 8:25 p.m. ET
[www.wsj.com]
Thanks Cristiano.
"In “All of Your Love,” Darryl Jones patiently walks the bass under the guitars and vocals; and Chuck Leavell tosses in a ticklish piano solo to shake up the mood".
I thought Chuck was absent from all recording sessions?
Or maybe he did an ovedub?
Or the writer is mistaken?
Quote
mpj200Quote
Hairball
Interesting, thanks for the link duke.
While former member Mick Taylor - who made a number of appearances on the group's 50th anniversary tour -
is a respected blues guitarist and many fans hoped he'd appear on the covers record, the group insist he would have ''dithered'' too much and hampered the recording process.
Ronnie said: ''He would have analysed it too much I think.
''He would have dithered around too much. What he does best is play. Talk about it? No.''
Sounds like a bunch of crap.
Mick Taylor would have raised the bar.
Bummer.
He left the band decades ago. Where you been, mate?
Quote
Testify
I hate to say it but the Mick Taylor today sounds like shit!