Quote
Witness

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.

Mainly because they really wanted to play the blues this time, instead of shaping it into faster and more dance-friendly music.

It cut out all the agonising and second guessing about what type of music they should be playing, wanted to be playing or were expected to be playing.

They just played the Blues, their common ground "as best as they know" , enjoyed it ...and the results are here to be heard.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-05 21:09 by Spud.

Quote
Witness

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]

Interesting marks, I was thinking that myself after dozens actually of listening, this is something like blues 'n' roll. They make it open in I Gotta Go but I feel it in the "pop" treatment of IYF, in the pace of HTSYG of course but also in the attitude of CAC (compare with the cover of mick at the white house, that gives a sense of why the stones are what they are and in another league)

going back to the thread I see liddas and dandeliopowderman post, I kinda of relate to both. It's not blues in a strict sense is the stones and they have something I like nobody has. So that is about the comparison with the originals. I agree with liddas - who can compare with the wolf singing on commit a crime? - and that could be said maybe for a lot of the covers (take all of your love for instance, magic sam singing and guitar are so effective and peculiar) but I think that comparison misses the point of the sound of the stones that IS the difference as a whole and each player considered. That makes imo the sense of the album. A really good good sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-05 22:01 by maumau.

Quote
maumau

Quote
Witness

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]

Interesting marks, I was thinking that myself after dozens actually of listening, this is something like blues 'n' roll. They make it open in I Gotta Go but I feel it in the "pop" treatment of IYF, in the pace of HTSYG of course but also in the attitude of CAC (compare with the cover of mick at the white house, that gives a sense of why the stones are what they are and in another league)

going back to the thread I see liddas and dandeliopowderman post, I kinda of relate to both. It's not blues in a strict sense is the stones and they have something I like nobody has. So that is about the comparison with the originals. I agree with liddas - who can compare with the wolf singing on commit a crime? - and that could be said maybe for a lot of the covers (take all of your love for instance, magic sam singing and guitar are so effective and peculiar) but I think that comparison misses the point of the sound of the stones that IS the difference as a whole and each player considered. That makes imo the sense of the album. A really good good sense.

This was indeed another interesting response.

But do you, maumau, by that indicate a departure from the blues or instead points of a reinterpretation, which could be conceived as instances of a development of the blues? Such as Mick himself hinted at in the interview..

(Comparison with Howlin' Wolf's singing style, by the way, may hardly be a criterion for being within the blues form or not, for then almost anything would fail from fulfilling the criterion.)

When Mick performed "Commit a Crime" at The White House event honoring the blues (Red White & Blues) with Jeff Beck and others, the song sounded much more like traditional blues to to me.. tempo slowed a bit etc.

[www.youtube.com]

Add a few Rolling Stones- and like magic,the song,(as well as the album) goes from traditional blues sounding to Rolling Stones Blues sounding... both great- one just better (rolling stones) to me..

Quote
MisterDDDD
When Mick performed "Commit a Crime" at The White House event honoring the blues (Red White & Blues) with Jeff Beck and others, the song sounded much more like traditional blues to to me.. tempo slowed a bit etc.

[www.youtube.com]

Add a few Rolling Stones- and like magic,the song,(as well as the album) goes from traditional blues sounding to Rolling Stones Blues sounding... both great- one just better (rolling stones) to me..

Are you (rightfully) implying that Jeff Beck was a good choice for playing on the entire CD? Imo, if you Brickwall and produce it like the Stones did, you need a guitar player like Jeff to handle it. Put Keith on old 6-tees 7-tees rhythm guitar, Jagger like he did now, drum an bass included, and I would give it 5 stars.

[nypost.com]

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Are you (rightfully) implying that Jeff Beck was a good choice for playing on the entire CD? Imo, if you Brickwall and produce it like the Stones did, you need a guitar player like Jeff to handle it. Put Keith on old 6-tees 7-tees rhythm guitar, Jagger like he did now, drum an bass included, and I would give it 5 stars.

Nope.
Beck was great for the WH blues event, but I prefer.. The Rolling Stones.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Are you (rightfully) implying that Jeff Beck was a good choice for playing on the entire CD? Imo, if you Brickwall and produce it like the Stones did, you need a guitar player like Jeff to handle it. Put Keith on old 6-tees 7-tees rhythm guitar, Jagger like he did now, drum an bass included, and I would give it 5 stars.

Nope.
Beck was great for the WH blues event, but I prefer.. The Rolling Stones.

+1

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Are you (rightfully) implying that Jeff Beck was a good choice for playing on the entire CD? Imo, if you Brickwall and produce it like the Stones did, you need a guitar player like Jeff to handle it. Put Keith on old 6-tees 7-tees rhythm guitar, Jagger like he did now, drum an bass included, and I would give it 5 stars.

Nope.
Beck was great for the WH blues event, but I prefer.. The Rolling Stones.

That's' a valid statement. However I prefer evolution instead of regression, even at their old age and day.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Are you (rightfully) implying that Jeff Beck was a good choice for playing on the entire CD? Imo, if you Brickwall and produce it like the Stones did, you need a guitar player like Jeff to handle it. Put Keith on old 6-tees 7-tees rhythm guitar, Jagger like he did now, drum an bass included, and I would give it 5 stars.

Nope.
Beck was great for the WH blues event, but I prefer.. The Rolling Stones.

That's' a valid statement. However I prefer evolution instead of regression, even at their old age and day.

Good performances are never regression.

Quote
KRiffhard
[nypost.com]

"You’d think a blues album would be Richards’ time to shine (and he frequently does), but if anything, it’s Jagger who steals the show. Putting his snake-hipped live show to one side, he sings Little Walter’s “Hate To See You Go” with a guttural force that will come as a jolt to those who are used to hearing him croak through the hits so often."

Fair critique- although "croak through the hits" more than a bit harsh..

And from the same review above:

"It’s the best work they’ve done in many years, but it would be a mistake to paint “Blue & Lonesome” as being anywhere close to their glory days".


I can't argue with that, though some might beg to differ.

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

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Are you (rightfully) implying that Jeff Beck was a good choice for playing on the entire CD? Imo, if you Brickwall and produce it like the Stones did, you need a guitar player like Jeff to handle it. Put Keith on old 6-tees 7-tees rhythm guitar, Jagger like he did now, drum an bass included, and I would give it 5 stars.

Nope.
Beck was great for the WH blues event, but I prefer.. The Rolling Stones.

That's' a valid statement. However I prefer evolution instead of regression, even at their old age and day.

Good performances are never regression.

I think that it's basically the modern studio sound/prduction that makes it what it is, and Jagger was excellent. But this is not a performance, it's a 3 days recording session resulting in a " good selling product".. They won't be able to give it that punch on stage, and unless you can do that, it's indeed a product. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to diminish the quality of the record, just expressing the way I feel how it works for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-06 00:54 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Are you (rightfully) implying that Jeff Beck was a good choice for playing on the entire CD? Imo, if you Brickwall and produce it like the Stones did, you need a guitar player like Jeff to handle it. Put Keith on old 6-tees 7-tees rhythm guitar, Jagger like he did now, drum an bass included, and I would give it 5 stars.

Nope.
Beck was great for the WH blues event, but I prefer.. The Rolling Stones.

That's' a valid statement. However I prefer evolution instead of regression, even at their old age and day.

Good performances are never regression.

I think that it's basically the modern studio sound/prduction that makes it what it is, and Jagger was excellent. But this is not a performance, it's a 3 days recording session resulting in a " good selling product".. They won't be able to give it that punch on stage, and unless you can do that, it's indeed a product. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to diminish the quality of the record, just expressing the way I feel how it works for me.

Commit a Crime would more than likely sound better live on stage vs. the studio version in the same way that Ride 'em on Down and Just Your Fool did at the Desert Trip and Vegas shows.
Might not be evident on youtube and/or boots, but without any studio gimmickry they were far superior imo.

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

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
I think that it's basically the modern studio sound/prduction that makes it what it is, and Jagger was excellent. But this is not a performance, it's a 3 days recording session resulting in a "product".. They won't be able to give it that punch on stage. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to diminish the quality of the record nor the fun for the hardcore stones fans.

Being fortunate to see them perform two of the songs live (Just Your Fool-DT2, Ride 'em On Down -Vegas), I would have to disagree. I would have thought the same thing prior, but they certainly brought plenty of "punch" to each. I also would have thought the vastness of the venues would have also diminished the sound and effect, but again, not the case. Course,I was ecstatically perched on the rail at DT2, but in Vegas the sound was phenomenal.I'm sure it's been discussed elsewhere, but many people were going on about how "crunchy" the guitars were that night,makes me wonder if the adjustments were made because the great raw sound they achieved in the studio..

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
I think that it's basically the modern studio sound/prduction that makes it what it is, and Jagger was excellent. But this is not a performance, it's a 3 days recording session resulting in a "product".. They won't be able to give it that punch on stage. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to diminish the quality of the record nor the fun for the hardcore stones fans.

Being fortunate to see them perform two of the songs live (Just Your Fool-DT2, Ride 'em On Down -Vegas), I would have to disagree. I would have thought the same thing prior, but they certainly brought plenty of "punch" to each. I also would have thought the vastness of the venues would have also diminished the sound and effect, but again, not the case. Course,I was ecstatically perched on the rail at DT2, but in Vegas the sound was phenomenal.I'm sure it's been discussed elsewhere, but many people were going on about how "crunchy" the guitars were that night,makes me wonder if the adjustments were made because the great raw sound they achieved in the studio..

I think that in general every rock band should be able to deliver on stage what they have recorded in the studio. In case of the RS I would forgive them for not being able to play "Their Satanic Majesties Request", with the exception of "she's like a rainbow".

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
I think that it's basically the modern studio sound/prduction that makes it what it is, and Jagger was excellent. But this is not a performance, it's a 3 days recording session resulting in a "product".. They won't be able to give it that punch on stage. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to diminish the quality of the record nor the fun for the hardcore stones fans.

Being fortunate to see them perform two of the songs live (Just Your Fool-DT2, Ride 'em On Down -Vegas), I would have to disagree. I would have thought the same thing prior, but they certainly brought plenty of "punch" to each. I also would have thought the vastness of the venues would have also diminished the sound and effect, but again, not the case. Course,I was ecstatically perched on the rail at DT2, but in Vegas the sound was phenomenal.I'm sure it's been discussed elsewhere, but many people were going on about how "crunchy" the guitars were that night,makes me wonder if the adjustments were made because the great raw sound they achieved in the studio..

I think that in general every rock band should be able to deliver on stage what they have recorded in the studio. In case of the RS I would forgive them for not being able to play "Their Satanic Majesties Request", with the exception of "she's like a rainbow".

And 2000 LYFH.

Some of Mick's vocals on "I can't quit you baby" (the last track on the cd) remind me of Buddy Guy. A bit unusual for Mick but very good.

Quote
Witness

But do you, maumau, by that indicate a departure from the blues or instead points of a reinterpretation, which could be conceived as instances of a development of the blues? Such as Mick himself hinted at in the interview..

(Comparison with Howlin' Wolf's singing style, by the way, may hardly be a criterion for being within the blues form or not, for then almost anything would fail from fulfilling the criterion.)

Mick hints are part of the promo hype to generate interest (and apparently they have been effective). I dont believe this album will add or develop the blues genre tradition (if this is what mick meant which I am not sure). I am only speaking of that unique sound of this band that, at its best in the past, could bend genres and styles without apparent effort and no intellectual attitude (as sometimes covers are transformed). JYF for instance: actually in the way they worked on the pop catchiness already present in the song they reminded me a lot the first records attitude. AOYL is performed in a way that fits perfectly in a discography where you have That's How strong My Love is and Melody. So Blue & Lonesome sounds like some sort of spin off of TIOMS 1981, it turns back towards their roots but they keep the point, absolutely, of not being a band of purists. It is their act of birth as a band: depart from blues purism. In that they keep adding, keep being a trait d'union between that tradition and rock and roll. simply because if they're not the only one, they are the best for sure in that
imo



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-06 01:46 by maumau.

Keith got a '54 Tweed Fender Pro Amp for recording some of B&L from a Saint Paul, MN store called Willie's.

[www.thecurrent.org]

Now only this, I must get some sleep: On this occasion though, maumau, I would guess that, for at least some of the songs, the Stones are nearer to the blues originals than before, be it interpretation or reinterpretation. Rather than transforming blues songs into Stones songs, the band seems to have wanted to play and record blues genre music as such.

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.

Interesting. Seems both of you have a similar opinion. What are your thoughts on I Can't Quit You? Ronnie playing low volume on that one too?

Quote
KRiffhard
[nypost.com]

smug and shitty just what to expect from a rag like the Post...don't have to scratch too deep here...

Quote
mpj200

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.

Interesting. Seems both of you have a similar opinion. What are your thoughts on I Can't Quit You? Ronnie playing low volume on that one too?

I don't think our opinions are similar. Dandelion thinks 'they removed what they could' and then 'added a new track for his solo', while I believe they played together live but Ronnie's volume might have been lower in the mix. Maybe I should have said Ronnie was more in the background - leaving more space for Clapton to shine. As for I Can't Quit You - I'll have to get back to you as I've only listened superficially two or three times . I was kind of blindsided by Mick's voracious vocals on that while trying to focus on Clapton's solo. I did hear the solo and to be honest didn't think much of it, and have to say I prefer Otis Rush's versions (studio or live) in every way. Nice cover version though, and next time I listen will attempt to listen closer to any guitar nuances between Ronnie and Clapton.

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

First time listening. It's ok. Tries to hard to sound old, guitR playing is not outstanding, expected more from Ronnie.

Quote
DoomandGloom
First time listening. It's ok. Tries to hard to sound old, guitR playing is not outstanding, expected more from Ronnie.

Says DoomandGloom! ><

Quote
mpj200

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.

Interesting. Seems both of you have a similar opinion. What are your thoughts on I Can't Quit You? Ronnie playing low volume on that one too?

Of course not. He's playing the second solo, and is loud and clear.

Didn't you understand (or hear) what I said about Ronnie's guitar in the beginning of EKAMGT? There are only traces left of his first track, hence this is not merely an opinion.

His rhythm guitar and solo (probably the same track) later in the song is up in the mix, though.

From «I was talking to my neighbour» there are two Ronnie-guitars in the mix.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-06 11:55 by DandelionPowderman.

I can not get enough, I can not stop turning and listen. I can not make a choice to say what is the best song, for me no serious discussions on this forum, who play this or that. This album was recorded spontaneously in three days. Furthermore, not thinking or explain, just enjoy. Great album.
Gr Bert.