Quote
Stoneage
So, I'm the only one not particularly overwhelmed by this album?

Quote
The Sicilian
I gave it my first spin last night and doing the reruns now. For the Stones I think it is a great effort. The music sounds phenomenal! But unfortunately, the singing is bad. Mick's voice comes off too upbeat, high pitched and nasal for the raspy blues that listeners have come to expect this stage. He sounds too English on this. I know he has struggled with pitch the last couple decades and it is blatantly obvious on this record that there is a clear delineation between the music and the singing.

Though the effort is valiant, and his harp work is spot on, his singing is fighting to coexist with some really tight guitar work. I know this is hard to say, but his singing lacks grit. Just listening to way he sings the word "baby" is grimacing, and the album is full of the use of the word "baby" which is a common blues chant. But that's my opinion. It is certainly a great listen and huge accomplishment for the Stones, though one has to wonder why they can't cover their own covers of early blues stuff live. Wouldn't that be cool.

Quote
The Sicilian
But unfortunately, the singing is bad. Mick's voice comes off too upbeat, high pitched and nasal for the raspy blues that listeners have come to expect this stage. He sounds too English on this. I know he has struggled with pitch the last couple decades and it is blatantly obvious on this record that there is a clear delineation between the music and the singing.

Quote
LeonidP
No question that the Stones versions blow away the originals in several of the songs ... Little Rain, Everybody Knows About My Good Thing, I Can't Quit You Baby are the main 3 I am thinking about. Not really even close.

Some sound a lot like the originals, such as Commit A Crime, Just Your Fool & Ride Em On Down, but still w/ Mick singing, that adds a huge plus too.

It's a great album! 4/5, easy!

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

---------------------------
stoneage

So, I'm the only one not particularly overwhelmed by this album ?

---------------------------


shortfatfanny

Guess that flying dutchmaker isn't impressed as well...so you're not the only one...

----------------------------


I didn't ask Kleermaker yet but I'm quite sure that just like me, he isn't impressed at all.

Quote
Hairball

I gave it my first spin last night and doing the reruns now. For the Stones I think it is a great effort. The music sounds phenomenal! But unfortunately, the singing is bad. Mick's voice comes off too upbeat, high pitched and nasal for the raspy blues that listeners have come to expect this stage. He sounds too English on this. I know he has struggled with pitch the last couple decades and it is blatantly obvious on this record that there is a clear delineation between the music and the singing.

Though the effort is valiant, and his harp work is spot on, his singing is fighting to coexist with some really tight guitar work. I know this is hard to say, but his singing lacks grit. Just listening to way he sings the word "baby" is grimacing, and the album is full of the use of the word "baby" which is a common blues chant. But that's my opinion. It is certainly a great listen and huge accomplishment for the Stones, though one has to wonder why they can't cover their own covers of early blues stuff live. Wouldn't that be cool.

Somewhat agree about Mick's vocals and 'lack of grit' throughout the album. But one of the problems I have with it is an overall lack of sincerity which is most evident on I Can't Quit You Baby where he sounds a bit too forced, contrived, and over-enthusiastic. With that said, given the circumstances of 'one or two takes' and 'no ovedubs', I'd say he stepped up to the plate as best as he could. The ace in the hole and the ultimate highlight for me on this album is Mick's harmonica playing. Would have loved to hear some jamming extended instrumentals with the harp blazing the trails. Which has me wondering why there was no B-side on the Ride 'em On Down single...maybe there's nothing left to be released from these sessions?

Quote
rusty
The Stones records
5 songs 11 Dec.
6 songs 14 Dec.
But only 1 song on the last day.???????
Can't believe it.

Quote
Lorenz
No please, no more cover albums. 1 was cool, more would be lame and cement their reputation as not having any creative force left.

Quote
howlingmad

No please, no more cover albums. 1 was cool, more would be lame and cement their reputation as not having any creative force left.

Yes, I suspect Mick will be more motivated now to deliver an album of new material and will want to avoid becoming stuck in a rut of making cover albums.

I always had the impression that a blues album was his way of testing the waters. Some fans want to credit Blue And Lonesome to Keith but let's be honest here. Had it been up to Keith they would've recorded a couple of tracks and then we would've spent the next few years hearing about how he hopes to get the boys back in the studio soon and complete an album's worth. LOL

Mick was clearly focused (and surprisingly committed, judging by his performance) on getting this material recorded and apparently spent a lot of time discussing the best way to market it with the label. I think he knew if the album flopped it would've been easy to dismiss the failure, as no one would've expected a blues album to be a huge seller anyway. However, if the Stones had failed to sell a new studio album after an 11 year delay that would've made the band (and Mick) appear to be completely finished as a popular recording act.

The good news is that the band will now be more likely to put out a new album in 2017, as the label will surely want to capitalize on this success. It might also mean Mick will be more inspired to make the new material as raw and gritty as Blue And Lonesome and (hopefully) less likely to try and explore EDM, co-writing with Ariana Grande, or some other ill-fated nonsense.

Quote
Stoneage
So, I'm the only one not particularly overwhelmed by this album?

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
It looks like there was a party on the day before the release of this record in Amsterdam (I don't speak dutch, so I'm assuming it was a party related to this release), and it looks like fun. Any IORRians in it?
[www.youtube.com]

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

It looks like there was a party on the day before the release of this record in Amsterdam (I don't speak dutch, so I'm assuming it was a party related to this release), and it looks like fun. Any IORRians in it?
[www.youtube.com]

I wasn't at the party but have played with the band (undercover) on an occasion long ago. It was fun, at least to me.

Quote
strat72
I've given the album a real good listen and I must say that for what it is, I really like it. The Stones know how to play the blues. Also, it would have been easy, and perhaps tempting to pick more obvious blues material. I'm glad they went down the road they did. The songs they picked are damn fine.

Jagger is the star on this record. I love both his vocals and his harmonica.

Keith and Ronnie both take the simple uncomplicated approach. This works very well. Both are sounding good.

Charlie, as per usual makes it swing

I like the sound of the album. So hats off to Don Was and The Glimmers. The band sound great when recorded this way. The live no nonsense style..... If they record a new album of original material, I hope they record it the same way as this album.

Overall...... 8/10

Quote
DoomandGloom

So, I'm the only one not particularly overwhelmed by this album?
Certainly not. This band has always been innovative when interpreting the blues... Take "love in Vain" for instance. So yes I expected a blues album more on that course, unrealistic perhaps..B & L should really be titled "Blues for Dummies"...

Quote
dcba


So, I'm the only one not particularly overwhelmed by this album?
Certainly not. This band has always been innovative when interpreting the blues... Take "love in Vain" for instance. So yes I expected a blues album more on that course, unrealistic perhaps..B & L should really be titled "Blues for Dummies"...

I think you're very harsh. Most blues tourists have never heard of most of the tracks that are on this album. Only "...Quit You" and "...My Good Thing" would appear on their radar.
The Stones made no concessions to market trends, they recorded songs they like, thye give us an album that could have been a bootleg collection of outtakes from the SG sessions and I admire them for that!

Quote
Maindefender
Thanks Berry88, I knew it had to be but Ronnie is deservedly so getting kudos but not much mention of Keith's playing.

Quote
Maindefender
Thanks Berry88, I knew it had to be but Ronnie is deservedly so getting kudos but not much mention of Keith's playing.

Quote
rusty

The Stones records
5 songs 11 Dec.
6 songs 14 Dec.
But only 1 song on the last day.???????
Can't believe it.

Quote
The Sicilian
I gave it my first spin last night and doing the reruns now. For the Stones I think it is a great effort. The music sounds phenomenal! But unfortunately, the singing is bad. Mick's voice comes off too upbeat, high pitched and nasal for the raspy blues that listeners have come to expect this stage. He sounds too English on this. I know he has struggled with pitch the last couple decades and it is blatantly obvious on this record that there is a clear delineation between the music and the singing.

Though the effort is valiant, and his harp work is spot on, his singing is fighting to coexist with some really tight guitar work. I know this is hard to say, but his singing lacks grit. Just listening to way he sings the word "baby" is grimacing, and the album is full of the use of the word "baby" which is a common blues chant. But that's my opinion. It is certainly a great listen and huge accomplishment for the Stones, though one has to wonder why they can't cover their own covers of early blues stuff live. Wouldn't that be cool.

Quote
Hairball
Somewhat agree about Mick's vocals and 'lack of grit' throughout the album. But one of the problems I have with it is an overall lack of sincerity which is most evident on I Can't Quit You Baby where he sounds a bit too forced, contrived, and over-enthusiastic. With that said, given the circumstances of 'one or two takes' and 'no ovedubs', I'd say he stepped up to the plate as best as he could. The ace in the hole and the ultimate highlight for me on this album is Mick's harmonica playing. Would have loved to hear some jamming extended instrumentals with the harp blazing the trails. Which has me wondering why there was no B-side on the Ride 'em On Down single...maybe there's nothing left to be released from these sessions?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Whoever said it...I don't think the guitars sound thin & reedy at all.

They growl very nicely to my ears.

For this listener that statement is absurd.

Can the guitars sound more "meaty" and angry than on Ride 'Em On Down and Hoo Doo Blues? Not thin.