Tell Me :
Talk
Unfortunately that's probably unavoidable!
I agree. Good work Idorh!
Beautiful, soulful review.
It's almost 2017 and the Stones are still rolling!!!
Ha ha ha... just making sure you don't qualify something with modifiers that are defeating.
Uh... how could you not've been aware of what brickwalled or brickwalling is? That's crazy!
The bliss will last as long as one loves the LP, just like BEGGARS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS, EXILE ON MAIN STREET, SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU (and whatever really good albums like AFTERMATH, GOATS HEAD SOUP, BLACK AND BLUE and their last really good LP, UNDERCOVER).
It's that good.
It is for the ages. It will stand the test of time. It's not a novelty.
It's that good.
That question is by the same person who said this back in 2005: If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record. It shows you are an actual functioning rock band. I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits. People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer. If everyone else in the band had said, We can't be bothered, no one listens to our new records, fair enough.
There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band. We put new stuff out because we still can. We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out. Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, @#$%&. [www.timeisonourside.com]
Of course, the Stones went on to tour another greatest hits release on the very next tour.
Aside from the 'why bother' bullshit from Mick, the answer to his question about why would anyone want to hear the Stones do I'm A King Bee is "because people like how The Rolling Stones play" whatever. In essence, he said 'why should we bother'.
But somehow they did.
They've still been nothing but a nostalgia Beach Boys-eque act since the last leg of the BANG tour.
I think if one thinks the Stones' versions of a or any of these song(s) is better than the original(s) well then maybe it is. The original (or whatever cover version they emulate) is not necessarily the best version. Afterall, if you listen to Robert Johnson's Love In Vain or Stop Breaking Down and then say they're better than the Stones' versions of them, well, there's probably something wrong with you.
But there are some covers they did in the 1960s that aren't good. It happens.
HA HA! That's fantastic.
It's probable that they did have mics for each instrument ie the usual but also miced the room.
Some of the leads? Clapton plays the lead on I Can't Quit You Baby and slide fills on Everybody Knows About My Good Thing, where Ronnie is playing the solo.
BTW, your moniker: Any relation to our old poster (S)VT22?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-01 17:38 by DandelionPowderman.
Indeed, but listen to where the two guitars are in the soundscape on Just Your Foot. They're not separated an inch. Sounds like they're on the same track. It sounds weird
Mono recordings can sound remarkablt spacious if the room is well micd.
Even in mono its possible capture the acoustics of the room.
It's a bit of alost art sadly.
Most modern recordings have wonderful separation betweenthe instruments and voices but sound like they were recorded with a vacuum betwen them.
Glad you like it that much Gaslight. I'd agree that it will be the best album from the Stones in decades, but will a blues cover album stand alongside masterpieces such as Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street? From the three tunes I've heard probably not, but I'm sure it will for many others. It's been a long drought studio-wise for Stones fans, and this seems to have fulfilled the thirst for something listenable.
Fair enough. Keep in mind the two Robert Johnson examples you've given were recorded c.1937 primitively - solo with an acoustic guitar. The Stones reworked them to an almost unrecognizable point with a full band and contemporary recording techniques. Both versions are completely different, and stand on their own for different reasons (acoustic vs. electric w/full band).
On the other hand, the Stones have done a reverse strategy with these new covers. Rather than reworking them in any way, they've opted to mimic and/or copy them even to the point of using some of the same recording techniques as the 'originals'. Perhaps some will enjoy the Stones doing nearly note for note renditions of what came before, but from the three I've heard so far I would argue the 'originals' are better. There's something holy about the older bluesman's versions - something more authentic and sincere about them. With the Stones' new versions it's almost blues by numbers. For example, I've seen nearly exact replica's of Van Gogh's Starry Night painting, but none of them are as real and authentic as the original. The pain and anguish of the original artist comes through with the original, whereas with the copies it all seems a bit diluted. In the end, it comes down to personal opinion about what makes something truly great, and I can appreciate why some might prefer the Stones' versions. Looking forward to hearing the album tomorrow from start to finish, but anticipate it won't be quite as thrilling as when I first heard the classic Stones albums mentioned above. Keeping an open mind, but from what I've heard so far, the results will be predictable. Nice enough for a few listens (and maybe more), but being that they're simply blues covers without much embellishment over the 'originals', nothing truly earth shattering.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
no complaints - love them - but as I said - not on every song
Use the thumbs up-emoticon
Think El Mocambo and how that side still stands up among the best stuff they've ever done
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: December 1, 2016 16:54
Quote
RossQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Ross
Interesting. I don't recall seeing even one thing negative from anyone on this board who has heard the album. I am sure there will eventually be some dissenters, but so far it's unanimous love for this fine album!!
I still can't get enough of it, it just gets better with each listen. Just, wow!
Mind you, there will be. Complaints about few Keith-solos and Mick's mannered singing will soon shower over us
Or the dreaded "brickwalled" complaints!
Unfortunately that's probably unavoidable!
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
GS1978
()
Date: December 1, 2016 16:54
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Idorh
I'm 69 years old, and stones fan off 1963. I was 15 years old. Now with this album blue and lonely I'm 15 again hahaha. Great album, and swinging drums from Watts, and driving guitars plus fantastic harmonica and voice of Mick Jagger. Sorry for my bad english, my Dutch is already bad. The blues is back.
Great review, great english
I agree. Good work Idorh!
Beautiful, soulful review.
It's almost 2017 and the Stones are still rolling!!!
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
AmpegVT22
()
Date: December 1, 2016 16:56
No, you have to have stereo to place things to the left or right. Mono, everything is dead centre. Sounds to me like they've just taken their usual modus op of allowing -some- bleed -- e.g. guitars into the drum mics -- and let it bleed just a little more. Of course, that can be done later, artificially & very artfully ... but why bother?
Who are the guest guitarists, do we know? Some of the lead sounds like Clapton; it's a bit too fluent for Brother Ron.
Who are the guest guitarists, do we know? Some of the lead sounds like Clapton; it's a bit too fluent for Brother Ron.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: December 1, 2016 16:58
Quote
mpj200Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
mpj200
This all leads to a Stones album that is very unique.
So it's not unique (1.being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.) but it's very unique.
That's heavy, man. I don't know how to understand that.
It's actually quite simple. It's unique. It is unlike anything else. Perhaps this clears it all up for you?
Ha ha ha... just making sure you don't qualify something with modifiers that are defeating.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: December 1, 2016 16:59
Quote
roller99Quote
dcbaQuote
kowalski
The album is actually brickwalled to death. But who cares? It's so good.
Yeah I had the impression you could hear distortion on just about every instrument, not just the vocals.
But I agree B&L is very good.
I wasn't aware of the term "brickwalled", but I listened last night and thought the whole album seemed flat. Now I know why.
Uh... how could you not've been aware of what brickwalled or brickwalling is? That's crazy!
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: December 1, 2016 17:23
Quote
Hairball
While I anticipate the initial impression will be a blast of euphoria (when was the last time there was a great Stones album...'81?), not sure how long the bliss will last. Is it one for the ages? Will it stand the test of time? Or is it more of a novelty of blues covers by a great band that we love?
The bliss will last as long as one loves the LP, just like BEGGARS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS, EXILE ON MAIN STREET, SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU (and whatever really good albums like AFTERMATH, GOATS HEAD SOUP, BLACK AND BLUE and their last really good LP, UNDERCOVER).
It's that good.
It is for the ages. It will stand the test of time. It's not a novelty.
It's that good.
Quote
Hairball
Can't help but think of Mick's quote from back in the day: "I mean what's the point in listening to us doing "I'm A King Bee" when you can listen to Slim Harpo doing it"? Will this album be any different in the long run? Are any of these covers better than the originals?
That question is by the same person who said this back in 2005: If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record. It shows you are an actual functioning rock band. I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits. People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer. If everyone else in the band had said, We can't be bothered, no one listens to our new records, fair enough.
There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band. We put new stuff out because we still can. We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out. Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, @#$%&. [www.timeisonourside.com]
Of course, the Stones went on to tour another greatest hits release on the very next tour.
Aside from the 'why bother' bullshit from Mick, the answer to his question about why would anyone want to hear the Stones do I'm A King Bee is "because people like how The Rolling Stones play" whatever. In essence, he said 'why should we bother'.
But somehow they did.
They've still been nothing but a nostalgia Beach Boys-eque act since the last leg of the BANG tour.
I think if one thinks the Stones' versions of a or any of these song(s) is better than the original(s) well then maybe it is. The original (or whatever cover version they emulate) is not necessarily the best version. Afterall, if you listen to Robert Johnson's Love In Vain or Stop Breaking Down and then say they're better than the Stones' versions of them, well, there's probably something wrong with you.
But there are some covers they did in the 1960s that aren't good. It happens.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: December 1, 2016 17:30
Quote
lem motlow
...reality sets in eventually and you have to decide how good what they put out really was...or wasn't.when bigger bang was released i loved it for about a week i couldn't stop listening then i noticed well..some of the odd songs weren't odd,they sucked and it unraveled from there.where ..say,let it bleed is timeless bang had a shelf life of about a month.
HA HA! That's fantastic.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: December 1, 2016 17:34
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
SpudQuote
gotdablouse
Surely the instruments/guitars were recorded on their own individual track and the nearly "mono" mix we're getting on some tracks is a production decision they made?
Not necessarily.
Older recording techniques from the 50s & 60s often involved just micing the room, rather than the individual instruments.
The best results are often achieved using a combination of the two approaches.
...and there's lot more to producing and mastering a good recording than deciding which instruments come out of which speaker
Like Don Was indeed said they did on some tracks.
It's probable that they did have mics for each instrument ie the usual but also miced the room.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 1, 2016 17:34
Quote
AmpegVT22
No, you have to have stereo to place things to the left or right. Mono, everything is dead centre. Sounds to me like they've just taken their usual modus op of allowing -some- bleed -- e.g. guitars into the drum mics -- and let it bleed just a little more. Of course, that can be done later, artificially & very artfully ... but why bother?
Who are the guest guitarists, do we know? Some of the lead sounds like Clapton; it's a bit too fluent for Brother Ron.
Some of the leads? Clapton plays the lead on I Can't Quit You Baby and slide fills on Everybody Knows About My Good Thing, where Ronnie is playing the solo.
BTW, your moniker: Any relation to our old poster (S)VT22?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-01 17:38 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 1, 2016 17:37
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
SpudQuote
gotdablouse
Surely the instruments/guitars were recorded on their own individual track and the nearly "mono" mix we're getting on some tracks is a production decision they made?
Not necessarily.
Older recording techniques from the 50s & 60s often involved just micing the room, rather than the individual instruments.
The best results are often achieved using a combination of the two approaches.
...and there's lot more to producing and mastering a good recording than deciding which instruments come out of which speaker
Like Don Was indeed said they did on some tracks.
It's probable that they did have mics for each instrument ie the usual but also miced the room.
Indeed, but listen to where the two guitars are in the soundscape on Just Your Foot. They're not separated an inch. Sounds like they're on the same track. It sounds weird
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: December 1, 2016 17:48
That might be what Mick was hinting at - the mixing being a pain in the ass to get it to sound like it was done on Pro Tools in 1956 or whatever. Getting the right placement with the guitars, there were probably a few ideas of how mono it should sound or how little yet still there separation there should be to be almost mono.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 1, 2016 18:36
Other tracks like Little Rain and All Of Your Love are wide-panned stereo.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
blivet
()
Date: December 1, 2016 18:53
Quote
AmpegVT22
Sounds to me like they've just taken their usual modus op of allowing -some- bleed -- e.g. guitars into the drum mics -- and let it bleed just a little more.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
mickjerome
()
Date: December 1, 2016 19:10
No "@#$%& blues"...
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: December 1, 2016 19:14
Quote
GasLightStreet
That might be what Mick was hinting at - the mixing being a pain in the ass to get it to sound like it was done on Pro Tools in 1956 or whatever. Getting the right placement with the guitars, there were probably a few ideas of how mono it should sound or how little yet still there separation there should be to be almost mono.
Mono recordings can sound remarkablt spacious if the room is well micd.
Even in mono its possible capture the acoustics of the room.
It's a bit of alost art sadly.
Most modern recordings have wonderful separation betweenthe instruments and voices but sound like they were recorded with a vacuum betwen them.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: December 1, 2016 20:49
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Hairball
While I anticipate the initial impression will be a blast of euphoria (when was the last time there was a great Stones album...'81?), not sure how long the bliss will last. Is it one for the ages? Will it stand the test of time? Or is it more of a novelty of blues covers by a great band that we love?
The bliss will last as long as one loves the LP, just like BEGGARS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS, EXILE ON MAIN STREET, SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU (and whatever really good albums like AFTERMATH, GOATS HEAD SOUP, BLACK AND BLUE and their last really good LP, UNDERCOVER).
It's that good.
It is for the ages. It will stand the test of time. It's not a novelty.
It's that good.
Glad you like it that much Gaslight. I'd agree that it will be the best album from the Stones in decades, but will a blues cover album stand alongside masterpieces such as Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street? From the three tunes I've heard probably not, but I'm sure it will for many others. It's been a long drought studio-wise for Stones fans, and this seems to have fulfilled the thirst for something listenable.
Quote
GasLightStreet
I think if one thinks the Stones' versions of a or any of these song(s) is better than the original(s) well then maybe it is. The original (or whatever cover version they emulate) is not necessarily the best version. Afterall, if you listen to Robert Johnson's Love In Vain or Stop Breaking Down and then say they're better than the Stones' versions of them, well, there's probably something wrong with you.
Fair enough. Keep in mind the two Robert Johnson examples you've given were recorded c.1937 primitively - solo with an acoustic guitar. The Stones reworked them to an almost unrecognizable point with a full band and contemporary recording techniques. Both versions are completely different, and stand on their own for different reasons (acoustic vs. electric w/full band).
On the other hand, the Stones have done a reverse strategy with these new covers. Rather than reworking them in any way, they've opted to mimic and/or copy them even to the point of using some of the same recording techniques as the 'originals'. Perhaps some will enjoy the Stones doing nearly note for note renditions of what came before, but from the three I've heard so far I would argue the 'originals' are better. There's something holy about the older bluesman's versions - something more authentic and sincere about them. With the Stones' new versions it's almost blues by numbers. For example, I've seen nearly exact replica's of Van Gogh's Starry Night painting, but none of them are as real and authentic as the original. The pain and anguish of the original artist comes through with the original, whereas with the copies it all seems a bit diluted. In the end, it comes down to personal opinion about what makes something truly great, and I can appreciate why some might prefer the Stones' versions. Looking forward to hearing the album tomorrow from start to finish, but anticipate it won't be quite as thrilling as when I first heard the classic Stones albums mentioned above. Keeping an open mind, but from what I've heard so far, the results will be predictable. Nice enough for a few listens (and maybe more), but being that they're simply blues covers without much embellishment over the 'originals', nothing truly earth shattering.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
Koschi
()
Date: December 1, 2016 20:56
Quote
Rip This
...really??....complaints about the harmonica??...on a blues album??...again...really?
no complaints - love them - but as I said - not on every song
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
HankM
()
Date: December 1, 2016 20:58
and their last really good LP, UNDERCOVER
That is one opinion... Another opinion is...
I still listen to VooDoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon quite often and rank them up there with some of their best work. I really like Voodoo Lounge, I think it is great! And B2B too! There are some great songs on those albums
That is one opinion... Another opinion is...
I still listen to VooDoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon quite often and rank them up there with some of their best work. I really like Voodoo Lounge, I think it is great! And B2B too! There are some great songs on those albums
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: December 1, 2016 21:09
no offense gaslight but anyone who doesn't think an actual bluesman singing and playing,especially robert johnson,is better than a band of english rockstars copying him has something wrong with THEM.
no one,the stones or anyone else will ever come close to the original blues music.what mick said was EXACTLY RIGHT-it's stupid to think copying would ever be better than the original,the reason mick says this is because he has a deep understanding of the music itself.if you ever told keith richards or eric clapton they were better blues players than robert johnson they would laugh at you.
no one,the stones or anyone else will ever come close to the original blues music.what mick said was EXACTLY RIGHT-it's stupid to think copying would ever be better than the original,the reason mick says this is because he has a deep understanding of the music itself.if you ever told keith richards or eric clapton they were better blues players than robert johnson they would laugh at you.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 1, 2016 21:12
But did they copy? They rather made very good new arrangements.
No one beats Johnson at his own game. The Stones knew that.
No one beats Johnson at his own game. The Stones knew that.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
TooTough
()
Date: December 1, 2016 21:24
Alls songs on the official YouTube channel -
but with fake music right now (8.30 PM):
[www.youtube.com]
but with fake music right now (8.30 PM):
[www.youtube.com]
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
bv
()
Date: December 1, 2016 21:25
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
Bjorn
()
Date: December 1, 2016 21:38
Just about three hours to go. Then it´s friday on Spotify! Here in Sweden. And I have a feeling that I´m gonna love this album of old blues-covers! Already heard a few seconds of every tune...sounds amazing. This is what The Stones should sound like. Dancefloor? Mick Jagger sings like a...King Bee!
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: December 1, 2016 21:40
i'm trying to be skeptical and withhold my opinion and listen for a few days or weeks but i gotta admit,this has got me pretty fired up.
no matter what happens-we're getting the first stones album in 11 YEARS,this is a good day.
no matter what happens-we're getting the first stones album in 11 YEARS,this is a good day.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
Bjorn
()
Date: December 1, 2016 21:48
Sometimes I feel that I´m missing the "like-button"...Obviously spend too much time on Facebook...
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 1, 2016 21:49
Quote
Bjorn
Sometimes I feel that I´m missing the "like-button"...Obviously spend too much time on Facebook...
Use the thumbs up-emoticon
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: December 1, 2016 21:51
Amazing album!
I love all the songs...especially Blue and Lonesome, Hoodoo Blues and Little Rain.
I love all the songs...especially Blue and Lonesome, Hoodoo Blues and Little Rain.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: December 1, 2016 22:03
From The Guardian:
"Will we ever hear more Stones originals? So Wood claims: "In 2017 we'll shape up these news songs – we've got some in the can and then there's a lot more on the back burner"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-01 22:06 by KRiffhard.
"Will we ever hear more Stones originals? So Wood claims: "In 2017 we'll shape up these news songs – we've got some in the can and then there's a lot more on the back burner"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-01 22:06 by KRiffhard.
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 1, 2016 22:10
Quote
HairballQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Hairball
While I anticipate the initial impression will be a blast of euphoria (when was the last time there was a great Stones album...'81?), not sure how long the bliss will last. Is it one for the ages? Will it stand the test of time? Or is it more of a novelty of blues covers by a great band that we love?
The bliss will last as long as one loves the LP, just like BEGGARS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS, EXILE ON MAIN STREET, SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU (and whatever really good albums like AFTERMATH, GOATS HEAD SOUP, BLACK AND BLUE and their last really good LP, UNDERCOVER).
It's that good.
It is for the ages. It will stand the test of time. It's not a novelty.
It's that good.
Glad you like it that much Gaslight. I'd agree that it will be the best album from the Stones in decades, but will a blues cover album stand alongside masterpieces such as Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street? From the three tunes I've heard probably not, but I'm sure it will for many others. It's been a long drought studio-wise for Stones fans, and this seems to have fulfilled the thirst for something listenable.Quote
GasLightStreet
I think if one thinks the Stones' versions of a or any of these song(s) is better than the original(s) well then maybe it is. The original (or whatever cover version they emulate) is not necessarily the best version. Afterall, if you listen to Robert Johnson's Love In Vain or Stop Breaking Down and then say they're better than the Stones' versions of them, well, there's probably something wrong with you.
Fair enough. Keep in mind the two Robert Johnson examples you've given were recorded c.1937 primitively - solo with an acoustic guitar. The Stones reworked them to an almost unrecognizable point with a full band and contemporary recording techniques. Both versions are completely different, and stand on their own for different reasons (acoustic vs. electric w/full band).
On the other hand, the Stones have done a reverse strategy with these new covers. Rather than reworking them in any way, they've opted to mimic and/or copy them even to the point of using some of the same recording techniques as the 'originals'. Perhaps some will enjoy the Stones doing nearly note for note renditions of what came before, but from the three I've heard so far I would argue the 'originals' are better. There's something holy about the older bluesman's versions - something more authentic and sincere about them. With the Stones' new versions it's almost blues by numbers. For example, I've seen nearly exact replica's of Van Gogh's Starry Night painting, but none of them are as real and authentic as the original. The pain and anguish of the original artist comes through with the original, whereas with the copies it all seems a bit diluted. In the end, it comes down to personal opinion about what makes something truly great, and I can appreciate why some might prefer the Stones' versions. Looking forward to hearing the album tomorrow from start to finish, but anticipate it won't be quite as thrilling as when I first heard the classic Stones albums mentioned above. Keeping an open mind, but from what I've heard so far, the results will be predictable. Nice enough for a few listens (and maybe more), but being that they're simply blues covers without much embellishment over the 'originals', nothing truly earth shattering.
Think El Mocambo and how that side still stands up among the best stuff they've ever done
Re: The Rolling Stones new blues album "Blue & Lonesome" due out Dec 2
Posted by:
RipThisBone
()
Date: December 1, 2016 22:10
Quote
KRiffhard
From The Guardian:
"Will we ever hear more Stones originals? So Wood claims: "In 2017 we'll shape up these news songs – we've got some in the can and then there's a lot more on the back burner"
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ChrisL , cyclist , DEmerson , Doxa , Fitzcaraldo , GJV , gnillor , petewasbristol , pg592003 , philrock90 , quietbeatle , rstoned , spunky , tangerinegaz , usetobesampeg
Guests:
1368
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10