Listening for the fourth or fifth time now on Spotify, my CD is in the post.

I think it's a really enjoyable album. If the "big four" albums are worth five stars then this is a very solid four stars. I know the "done in three days" story is a bit of an exaggeration but it really does sound spontaneous and has plenty of rough grungy edges which I like. Currently listening to the harp on Hoo Doo Blues, fantastic.

I know everyone listens in different ways (and all due respect to those with more analytical ears than mine) but I'm afraid I can't get too hung up on who has overdubbed what and when. It's normally listen to a song as a whole the first few times, only after that do I start to listen to the actual instruments seriously.

Now onto Little Rain - excellent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-05 17:52 by JumpinJimF.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

You made that kleer

As Clearish as possible, I hauled the album over the coals on page 68 already.

Quote
Socrates1
I would just like to report that I'm in my happy place with B&L. This is the music all the Stones fans needed. Rejoice Stones fans!

+ 1 - got my album today

Quote
jackflash27
Hi, I noticed Mick does not follow the lyrics from the originals exactly. Here and there he improvises a Little and changes some of the words. In 'commit a crime' they skip a complete verse. The booklet of the cd (normal version) doesn't contain lyrics. Is this different for the deluxe box? If not: did anyone find the correct lyrics somewhere on the internet? Any official sources? I checked Keno's website (http://www.keno.org/Songlistnlyrics.htm). He comes close, but not perfect either. Thanks!

Anyone?

Quote
mpj200

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
mpj200

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
mpj200

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
z

Quote
DandelionPowderman
+ Clapton's guitars on two tracks. Some say they hear an acoustic guitar on EKAMGT as well. I'm not sure..

How do you know Clapton was overdubbed? I thought he played live.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
+ Clapton's guitars on two tracks. Some say they hear an acoustic guitar on EKAMGT as well. I'm not sure..

EKAMGT? Commit a Crime, DP. I think I hear three electric guitars and one acoustic on Commit a Crime. But that's only me...

You can hear the residue of Ronnie's slide guitar on EKAMGT. That may indicate that Clapton added his slide guitar later. It would be odd with both of them blazing away with slide fills at the same time.

That's exactly what happened. They both played and basically pulled the weave.

It sounds more like they tried to remove Ronnie's track, but it bled into other tracks. It's barely audible. That's a new format of weaving.

They both played live in the same room at the same time. Ronnie's track wasn't removed. I don't know how else to put it.

They removed what they could remove. Then Ronnie added a new track for his solo, and the rest of the song..

So you think Ronnie'a guitar parts are overdubbed on this song? Are you really suggesting this?

I believe Ronnie has his volume very low thereby giving Clapton the highlight/spotlight - after all EC is the 'special' guest.
Very courteous of Ronnie I might add.

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

The idea of a Rolling Stones blues record (covers or originals it's the same) never excited me too much. And not because I don't like the blues or I don't like the Stones playing the blues. In fact I am a huge blues fan, and I know that the stones can play some great blues. But what I was afraid of was the usual exercise in style, something like Clapton's From the Cradle or the Robert Johnson thing.

I was completely wrong: I am loving every second of this Blues and Lonesome!!!

Why?

Because it is NOT a "blues" album, this is a 100% Stones album!!!

The very idea of this being a "blues" album is quite deceptive. To be frank, it is absolutely true that none of these 12 covers - individually considered - is better than the original version, or even comes close.

In this work the "blues" works as a sort of "demilitarized zone" that allowed each single Stone to play together freely, with passion, doing what they like and how they like to do it. So none of the usual Keith rants against Mick wanting to be modern, no Ronnie marginalization, no Mick dispassionate singing over Keith's same old same old, etc. etc.

The result is an incredibly modern, vibrant, passionate Stones record. You can hear that the story of an album that made itself by its own is no BS! You can hear that the single performances are fresh and creative.

C

Of course, since these 4 gentlemen are so soaked in the blues, inevitably this record happens to be "also" a great blues record, but as a whole and by itself!

Quote
mpj200

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
mpj200

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
mpj200

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
z

Quote
DandelionPowderman
+ Clapton's guitars on two tracks. Some say they hear an acoustic guitar on EKAMGT as well. I'm not sure..

How do you know Clapton was overdubbed? I thought he played live.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
+ Clapton's guitars on two tracks. Some say they hear an acoustic guitar on EKAMGT as well. I'm not sure..

EKAMGT? Commit a Crime, DP. I think I hear three electric guitars and one acoustic on Commit a Crime. But that's only me...

You can hear the residue of Ronnie's slide guitar on EKAMGT. That may indicate that Clapton added his slide guitar later. It would be odd with both of them blazing away with slide fills at the same time.

That's exactly what happened. They both played and basically pulled the weave.

It sounds more like they tried to remove Ronnie's track, but it bled into other tracks. It's barely audible. That's a new format of weaving.

They both played live in the same room at the same time. Ronnie's track wasn't removed. I don't know how else to put it.

They removed what they could remove. Then Ronnie added a new track for his solo, and the rest of the song..

So you think Ronnie'a guitar parts are overdubbed on this song? Are you really suggesting this?

According to you, the partly erased track was done live with Clapton. I'll take your word for that, even though I find it odd that Ronnie was playing right over Clapton's licks without even stopping several times.

His second rhythm track (slightly to the left of Keith's) sounds overdubbed - unless they panned it heavily and he stopped playing licks for the rest of the song.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
mpj200

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
mpj200

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
mpj200

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
z

Quote
DandelionPowderman
+ Clapton's guitars on two tracks. Some say they hear an acoustic guitar on EKAMGT as well. I'm not sure..

How do you know Clapton was overdubbed? I thought he played live.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
+ Clapton's guitars on two tracks. Some say they hear an acoustic guitar on EKAMGT as well. I'm not sure..

EKAMGT? Commit a Crime, DP. I think I hear three electric guitars and one acoustic on Commit a Crime. But that's only me...

You can hear the residue of Ronnie's slide guitar on EKAMGT. That may indicate that Clapton added his slide guitar later. It would be odd with both of them blazing away with slide fills at the same time.

That's exactly what happened. They both played and basically pulled the weave.

It sounds more like they tried to remove Ronnie's track, but it bled into other tracks. It's barely audible. That's a new format of weaving.

They both played live in the same room at the same time. Ronnie's track wasn't removed. I don't know how else to put it.

They removed what they could remove. Then Ronnie added a new track for his solo, and the rest of the song..

So you think Ronnie'a guitar parts are overdubbed on this song? Are you really suggesting this?

I believe Ronnie has his volume very low thereby giving Clapton the highlight/spotlight - after all EC is the 'special' guest.
Very courteous of Ronnie I might add.

Yet he's playing solos right over Clapton's licks without any hesitation?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
mpj200

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
mpj200

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
mpj200

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
z

Quote
DandelionPowderman
+ Clapton's guitars on two tracks. Some say they hear an acoustic guitar on EKAMGT as well. I'm not sure..

How do you know Clapton was overdubbed? I thought he played live.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
+ Clapton's guitars on two tracks. Some say they hear an acoustic guitar on EKAMGT as well. I'm not sure..

EKAMGT? Commit a Crime, DP. I think I hear three electric guitars and one acoustic on Commit a Crime. But that's only me...

You can hear the residue of Ronnie's slide guitar on EKAMGT. That may indicate that Clapton added his slide guitar later. It would be odd with both of them blazing away with slide fills at the same time.

That's exactly what happened. They both played and basically pulled the weave.

It sounds more like they tried to remove Ronnie's track, but it bled into other tracks. It's barely audible. That's a new format of weaving.

They both played live in the same room at the same time. Ronnie's track wasn't removed. I don't know how else to put it.

They removed what they could remove. Then Ronnie added a new track for his solo, and the rest of the song..

So you think Ronnie'a guitar parts are overdubbed on this song? Are you really suggesting this?

I believe Ronnie has his volume very low thereby giving Clapton the highlight/spotlight - after all EC is the 'special' guest.
Very courteous of Ronnie I might add.

Yet he's playing solos right over Clapton's licks without any hesitation?

It's all about the weave... ...intertwined and intermingled...warts and all.

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

Quote
liddas
...To be frank, it is absolutely true that none of these 12 covers - individually considered - is better than the original version, or even comes close. ...

Interesting statement. I actually made an album of the originals a month or two ago, and listened to it many times in anticipation. Most seem very close to the originals, but i suppose people don't all hear the same thing... Furthermore, being admittedly biased to liking Mick's vocals, I prefer the Stones version over several of the originals mainly for that reason.

Quote
liddas
The idea of a Rolling Stones blues record (covers or originals it's the same) never excited me too much. And not because I don't like the blues or I don't like the Stones playing the blues. In fact I am a huge blues fan, and I know that the stones can play some great blues. But what I was afraid of was the usual exercise in style, something like Clapton's From the Cradle or the Robert Johnson thing.

I was completely wrong: I am loving every second of this Blues and Lonesome!!!

Why?

Because it is NOT a "blues" album, this is a 100% Stones album!!!

The very idea of this being a "blues" album is quite deceptive. To be frank, it is absolutely true that none of these 12 covers - individually considered - is better than the original version, or even comes close.

In this work the "blues" works as a sort of "demilitarized zone" that allowed each single Stone to play together freely, with passion, doing what they like and how they like to do it. So none of the usual Keith rants against Mick wanting to be modern, no Ronnie marginalization, no Mick dispassionate singing over Keith's same old same old, etc. etc.

The result is an incredibly modern, vibrant, passionate Stones record. You can hear that the story of an album that made itself by its own is no BS! You can hear that the single performances are fresh and creative.

C

Of course, since these 4 gentlemen are so soaked in the blues, inevitably this record happens to be "also" a great blues record, but as a whole and by itself!

Very interesting angle.

A lot of truth in there I suspect.

I haven't bought an album of anybody since ten years, and yesterday I bought this, I thought The Stones could deserve it.

And The Stones haven't dissapointed me. It's brilliant,this is the music that The Stones should do. It's all enjoyable, really a gift.

All the tracks are great, but Hodoo Blues, for me, it's specially amazing. What a band!

Man, if you don't like this, maybe you are not a Rolling Stones fan.

For me, it's their best album since Tatto you, and probably better than one of his 70's albums, Black and Blue.

God bless The Stones, I wish they make more music like this! Maybe another album like that, with rock'n roll and rythmn & blues songs? If they do an album of new material, they should include some covers of old music.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
liddas
...To be frank, it is absolutely true that none of these 12 covers - individually considered - is better than the original version, or even comes close. ...

Interesting statement. I actually made an album of the originals a month or two ago, and listened to it many times in anticipation. Most seem very close to the originals, but i suppose people don't all hear the same thing... Furthermore, being admittedly biased to liking Mick's vocals, I prefer the Stones version over several of the originals mainly for that reason.

True that most takes are close to the originals. But I think that this is only because the stones are true masters of this music, not because the band made an effort to recreate the original. Admittedly this wasn't their purpose anyway!

C

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
liddas
...To be frank, it is absolutely true that none of these 12 covers - individually considered - is better than the original version, or even comes close. ...

Interesting statement. I actually made an album of the originals a month or two ago, and listened to it many times in anticipation. Most seem very close to the originals, but i suppose people don't all hear the same thing... Furthermore, being admittedly biased to liking Mick's vocals, I prefer the Stones version over several of the originals mainly for that reason.

When you love a band's sound, like I do with the Stones, I guess you'll enjoy that even more than the originals. That's the case for me, no matter how lovely they are.

Willie Dixon, Howlin' Wolf or Eddie Taylor are brilliant, but not my favourite vocalists. Mick is.

Little Walter's band is not my favourite band. The Stones are.

There is just something with the Stones's sound that no one else has. I can't put it any other way..

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
liddas
...To be frank, it is absolutely true that none of these 12 covers - individually considered - is better than the original version, or even comes close. ...

Interesting statement. I actually made an album of the originals a month or two ago, and listened to it many times in anticipation. Most seem very close to the originals, but i suppose people don't all hear the same thing... Furthermore, being admittedly biased to liking Mick's vocals, I prefer the Stones version over several of the originals mainly for that reason.

When you love a band's sound, like I do with the Stones, I guess you'll enjoy that even more than the originals. That's the case for me, no matter how lovely they are.

Willie Dixon, Howlin' Wolf or Eddie Taylor are brilliant, but not my favourite vocalists. Mick is.

Little Walter's band is not my favourite band. The Stones are.

There is just something with the Stones's sound that no one else has. I can't put it any other way..

DP,' statement is spot on. That's exactly my feeling too.

Yes the originals are better, there's no point in denying it... but hey, it's the Stones!! And in tracks like "Commit A Crime" You can feel how connected they were while playing in that record. You can feel they were really into it! That's what I like most about this record.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
liddas
...To be frank, it is absolutely true that none of these 12 covers - individually considered - is better than the original version, or even comes close. ...

Interesting statement. I actually made an album of the originals a month or two ago, and listened to it many times in anticipation. Most seem very close to the originals, but i suppose people don't all hear the same thing... Furthermore, being admittedly biased to liking Mick's vocals, I prefer the Stones version over several of the originals mainly for that reason.

When you love a band's sound, like I do with the Stones, I guess you'll enjoy that even more than the originals. That's the case for me, no matter how lovely they are.

Willie Dixon, Howlin' Wolf or Eddie Taylor are brilliant, but not my favourite vocalists. Mick is.

Little Walter's band is not my favourite band. The Stones are.

There is just something with the Stones's sound that no one else has. I can't put it any other way..

I don't think that the greatness of Mick Jagger as a vocalist on B&L is that, for instance, he has the vocal chops to sing Commit a Crime "better" than Howlin Wolf (I don't think he can, I don't think anybody can!!) I think that his greatness is to interpret songs by artists that are so great and so diverse with deep respect for the original version, and at the same time being able to put his stamp on and remain genuinely Mick Jagger!

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
liddas
...To be frank, it is absolutely true that none of these 12 covers - individually considered - is better than the original version, or even comes close. ...

Interesting statement. I actually made an album of the originals a month or two ago, and listened to it many times in anticipation. Most seem very close to the originals, but i suppose people don't all hear the same thing... Furthermore, being admittedly biased to liking Mick's vocals, I prefer the Stones version over several of the originals mainly for that reason.

True that most takes are close to the originals. But I think that this is only because the stones are true masters of this music, not because the band made an effort to recreate the original. Admittedly this wasn't their purpose anyway!

C

If the Stones did not try to recreate = interpret the originals, but reinterpret them (as Mick hinted at in the Rolling Stone interview), does that possibility necessarily imply that the results cease to be blues?

However, if it can be shown that it must be considered from musical reasons that these versions from the Stones are transformed into something different and apart from blues, what does this transformation consist in?

Last and late edit: A banal spelling error



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-05 21:01 by Witness.

Quote
Witness

Quote
liddas

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
liddas
...To be frank, it is absolutely true that none of these 12 covers - individually considered - is better than the original version, or even comes close. ...

Interesting statement. I actually made an album of the originals a month or two ago, and listened to it many times in anticipation. Most seem very close to the originals, but i suppose people don't all hear the same thing... Furthermore, being admittedly biased to liking Mick's vocals, I prefer the Stones version over several of the originals mainly for that reason.

True that most takes are close to the originals. But I think that this is only because the stones are true masters of this music, not because the band made an effort to recreate the original. Admittedly this wasn't their purpose anyway!

C

If the Stones did not try to recreate = interpret the originals, but reinterpret them (as Mick hinted at in the Rolling Stone interview), does that possiblity necessarily imply that the results cease to be blues?

However, if it can be shown that it must be considered from musical reasons that these versions from the Stones are transformed into something different and apart from blues, what does this transformation consist in?

Stones-blues.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
liddas
...To be frank, it is absolutely true that none of these 12 covers - individually considered - is better than the original version, or even comes close. ...

Interesting statement. I actually made an album of the originals a month or two ago, and listened to it many times in anticipation. Most seem very close to the originals, but i suppose people don't all hear the same thing... Furthermore, being admittedly biased to liking Mick's vocals, I prefer the Stones version over several of the originals mainly for that reason.

When you love a band's sound, like I do with the Stones, I guess you'll enjoy that even more than the originals. That's the case for me, no matter how lovely they are.

Willie Dixon, Howlin' Wolf or Eddie Taylor are brilliant, but not my favourite vocalists. Mick is.

Little Walter's band is not my favourite band. The Stones are.

There is just something with the Stones's sound that no one else has. I can't put it any other way..

As I had stated earlier, there will be some who enjoy the Stones' versions better than the originals, and more power to you/them.
It's all a matter of one's personal taste and perspective anyways, but I would have to agree with liddas's statement:

"it is absolutely true that none of these 12 covers - individually considered - is better than the original version, or even comes close. ..."

(although maybe he could have added an 'IMO' after it so it wouldn't be misconstrued as a universal truth)

Nobody's right, nobody's wrong - everyone has an opinion, and everyone seems to like the blues in one form or another for a variety of reasons.
Long live the Stones and the blues music that inspired them!

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

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

If the Stones did not try to recreate = interpret the originals, but reinterpret them (as Mick hinted at in the Rolling Stone interview), does that possiblity necessarily imply that the results cease to be blues?

However, if it can be shown that it must be considered from musical reasons that these versions from the Stones are transformed into something different and apart from blues, what does this transformation consist in?

Stones-blues.

In some way, all music the the Stones play, becomes Stones music.
In this context, however, the Stones set out to make a blues album and play blues as genre music. The question remains if that is possible for the Stones. That is, whether Stones blues in this case ceases to be blues.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-05 20:06 by Witness.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
... I can't put it any other way..

And well put!

Quote
DandelionPowderman


There is just something with the Stones's sound that no one else has. I can't put it any other way..

It's just the unique noise they make.
It doesn't matter much to me what they play.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman
... I can't put it any other way..

And well put!

Very well put.

I'm not sure how much the Stones 're-interpreted' anything here.
Mick's vocals are obviously the main difference, and there's the crunchy haphazard sound of Stonesy guitars, but what I hear are basically covers that are adequate.

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

Quote
Witness

In some way, all music the the Stones play, becomes Stones music.
In this context, however, the Stones set out to make a blues album and play blues as genre music. The question remains if that is possible for the Stones. That is, whether Stones blues in this case ceases to be blues.

My head hurts !

Note to Stones: go out on top and tour this album with a stripped down blues tour.
PS- You may surprise yourselves on how well this kind of tour will be received by the public.

Initial thoughts. It is no doubt a really fun album and I have enjoyed a few full plays in my car and on the house big system. To my ears, Don Was has once again missed the mark. Of course, Mick and Keith have their say, but I just think the mix is almost contrived to sound like a a back room blues experience that just isn't there. Is it too compressed? The drum sound in particular doesn't even come close to what we were accustomed to mix wise from years ago on blues numbers when Charlie would be up front. No snap. I think they really miss Bill on these songs as well, but hey this is the way it is in 2016. At least the bass in the mix is right there. Mick's harp playing is great and the vocals are sincere. They chose some great songs to cover too.

The Stones can certainly play the blues, which is something we have known for decades. It would be cool to see them support this album by splitting concerts in half. Open with the B and L songs for the first set, and then come back and do Stones songs.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

If the Stones did not try to recreate = interpret the originals, but reinterpret them (as Mick hinted at in the Rolling Stone interview), does that possiblity necessarily imply that the results cease to be blues?

However, if it can be shown that it must be considered from musical reasons that these versions from the Stones are transformed into something different and apart from blues, what does this transformation consist in?

Stones-blues.

In some way, all music the the Stones play, becomes Stones music.
In this context, however, the Stones set out to make a blues album and play blues as genre music. The question remains if that is possible for the Stones. That is, whether Stones blues in this case ceases to be blues.

Might have been a relevant question for I Just Want To Make Love To You, but not for this album, imo

Quote
Hairball
I'm not sure how much the Stones 're-interpreted' anything here.
Mick's vocals are obviously the main difference, and there's the crunchy haphazard sound of Stonesy guitars, but what I hear are basically covers that are adequate.

Thank you for giving a direct answer.

I asked the question because a few have indicated that the resulting music on this blues album is not blues.

And when i referred to reinterpreting the blues, it sprang from the following
[www.rollingstone.com]

(Quote: ) "And in 2016, Jagger is finally ready to concede that the Rolling Stones have something to add to this music. "The thing about the blues," he says, "is it changes in very small increments. People reinterpret what they know – Elmore James reinterpreted Robert Johnson licks, as did Muddy Waters. So I'm not saying we're making the jumps that they made, but we can't help but reinterpret these songs." (End of quote.)

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

If the Stones did not try to recreate = interpret the originals, but reinterpret them (as Mick hinted at in the Rolling Stone interview), does that possiblity necessarily imply that the results cease to be blues?

However, if it can be shown that it must be considered from musical reasons that these versions from the Stones are transformed into something different and apart from blues, what does this transformation consist in?

Stones-blues.

In some way, all music the the Stones play, becomes Stones music.
In this context, however, the Stones set out to make a blues album and play blues as genre music. The question remains if that is possible for the Stones. That is, whether Stones blues in this case ceases to be blues.

Might have been a relevant question for I Just Want To Make Love To You, but not for this album, imo

Highly interesting for me that you as a musician and Stones connaisseur have got that viewpoint as well about this album.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-05 20:32 by Witness.