Quote
TheGreek


Blue And Lonesome isn´t "relevant" as it adds nothing new. It has no musical relevance. It´s surprisingly good, in fact a very very good album but they just do what many others have done before. Of course they do it better than most others, but an album of originals as impressive as B&L would have been more "relevant".

After 11 years of not releasing a new album, even the most horrible Stones-album ever would have gone Number One, I guess. So being No.1 does not make it relevant. Nevertheless it´s nice to see that they still can reach a No.1 position.

That Blue And Lonesome isn´t "relevant" (musically) doesn´t matter - it´s still one of the most enjoyable albums they ever released. Like someone else said above, there is nothing to complain about B&L.

So, with that logic, NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE of classical music – when the classics are being interpreted – is relevant? Tell him DP , preach the Book of Blues to the unenlightned

Quote
TheGreek
Much ado over a garbage comment of COVERS , Please it's not about darn covers , it's about The Rolling Stones INTERPERTATION of the masterworks from the Blues .Today ,nobody can touch the Glimmer Twins greatness of interperting the BLUES .This album is in a TIME WARP because the Stones traveled back in time and were possesed by all of the legendary Bluesman in order to produce a masterpiece of an album .They sold there soul to the blues right from the begining when Keith and Mick ran into each other on the train tracks when they were kids !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote
Hairball
Indeed, and I don't understand why someone who says they didn't like it should be interrogated by someone else...

Quote
Donnebr
Does anyone know if the vinyl purchase on amazon should have come with the down load as well. Thanks

Quote
Swayed1967


They are the band that made Let It Bleed, Exile, Tattoo You, which puts them in a different place than where they were in 1964. But I can see that some of what I say might be prejudice, and like I said, I definitely will buy the album and listen to it. But from what I've heard of it till now, it's lightyears away from the covers they did in the 60s and early 70s.

I agree. The new album is OK but the fact is we’re listening to Blues covers because their own music is too weak to release. The band that gave us Let it Bleed, Exile and etc. has more or less much admitted this. I can’t seem to get past that...

And what’s so special about Jagger’s vocals or the guitars on B&L as compared to, say, Cook Cook Blues or Fancy Man Blues? IMO, their own blues outtakes stand up to anything on B&L. So yeah, while the new album is better than A Bigger Bang I’m sure come next year I’ll listen to it about as much as I listen to Fancy Man Blues.

The harp-playing is fantastic though. Given the lack of creative juice flowing through this once greatest of all bands somebody should lock Jagger in a studio with nothing but a harp and an acoustic guitar.

Quote
Hairball

While it is a decent album of covers and better than A Bigger Bang (and most/if not all from the past 35 years), that really isn't saying much. Because of the weakness of their own attempts at new music, it seems they've almost thrown in the towel. Along with the blues outtakes you mention being equal (if not better)to the tunes on B&L, I still think Down in the Hole (an original) stands head and shoulders above all of these new covers. While maybe unfair to compare this to their true glory days - Exile, Let it Bleed, etc.,- or even their very early days, it's impossible not to.

Quote
Rockman
The new album is OK but the fact is we’re listening to Blues covers because their own music is too weak to release.


How the hell do you know that?? ... have you heard the tracks that they've been working on ?????

Quote
Witness



They are the band that made Let It Bleed, Exile, Tattoo You, which puts them in a different place than where they were in 1964. But I can see that some of what I say might be prejudice, and like I said, I definitely will buy the album and listen to it. But from what I've heard of it till now, it's lightyears away from the covers they did in the 60s and early 70s.

I agree. The new album is OK but the fact is we’re listening to Blues covers because their own music is too weak to release. The band that gave us Let it Bleed, Exile and etc. has more or less much admitted this. I can’t seem to get past that...

And what’s so special about Jagger’s vocals or the guitars on B&L as compared to, say, Cook Cook Blues or Fancy Man Blues? IMO, their own blues outtakes stand up to anything on B&L. So yeah, while the new album is better than A Bigger Bang I’m sure come next year I’ll listen to it about as much as I listen to Fancy Man Blues.

The harp-playing is fantastic though. Given the lack of creative juice flowing through this once greatest of all bands somebody should lock Jagger in a studio with nothing but a harp and an acoustic guitar.

Something akin to writer's block. As such, it does not necessarily imply weakness, but heightened quality check in the creative process from wish to achieve something approaching to greatness.

Compared to "Fancy Man's Blues" and "Cook Cook Blues", not wanting to denigrate those, one may feel a greater inspiration and spontanity about many of the songs on BLUE AND LONESOME. Besides, the quality of non-compromise, the Rolling Stones going for a complete album of blues only. That ambition in an era, where blues seems long since to have become a music form of the past. In that situation, an album of blues covers is a vital statement.

One may wonder if the Rolling Stones may inspire other musicians and upcoming bands to play and possibly renew the blues. Hopefully also as ethnic genre music, especially by black musicians reconquering blues as a preferred musical expression.

Quote
Deltics

Does anyone know if the vinyl purchase on amazon should have come with the down load as well. Thanks

It should do but it doesn't come with a download code, you have to log into your Amazon account and download it from there.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


So, with that logic, NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE of classical music – when the classics are being interpreted – is relevant?

Quote
matxil



So, with that logic, NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE of classical music – when the classics are being interpreted – is relevant?

Never thought of it like this, but coming to think of it: yes, reinterpretating the classics is not (musically) relevant. It's good music, but it does not add anything new. Unless it really gives it a new twist, but that hardly ever happens as far as I know.

Quote
straycatuk
My only criticism of B&L is the production. Did MJ and bloody Don Was really spend a year getting this overloaded sound.Just your Fool is almost unlistenable . Where are the gaps, the air , the room ?????

Got Live if you Want It EP had better production..............

They should have called Glyn Johns.

sc uk

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The band comes out of this on both feet, revitalised, and ready for new adventures. Hopefully with a self-penned album.

Quote
straycatuk
My only criticism of B&L is the production. Did MJ and bloody Don Was really spend a year getting this overloaded sound.Just your Fool is almost unlistenable . Where are the gaps, the air , the room ?????

Got Live if you Want It EP had better production..............

They should have called Glyn Johns.

sc uk

Quote
marcovandereijk

The band comes out of this on both feet, revitalised, and ready for new adventures. Hopefully with a self-penned album.


I also thought that was the intention. But, as time goes by, how will they keep the momentum?

But it is encouraging that the album sells well. That might be an incentive to get back
to the studio once more, set up the equipment like they did last time, and play with
ideas, they'll have coming from any direction.