Authenticity is the word.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
...Some like Gary Moore or the Red Devils, and think they sound more authentic than BAL. I can't hear that, but more power to them.

... I've long found that some have a hard time, for some reason, to give the Stones credit. They've got to be doing something right.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman
...Some like Gary Moore or the Red Devils, and think they sound more authentic than BAL. I can't hear that, but more power to them.

... I've long found that some have a hard time, for some reason, to give the Stones credit. They've got to be doing something right.

Correct. And the Keyword is Jagger.

Yeah it is strange to be talking about a Stones blue album that would have been better without Keith, Ronnie, and Charlie playinng on it?
I think Blue and Lonesome is superb and a wonderful revitalizing look at their roots.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman
...Some like Gary Moore or the Red Devils, and think they sound more authentic than BAL. I can't hear that, but more power to them.

... I've long found that some have a hard time, for some reason, to give the Stones credit. They've got to be doing something right.

Correct. And the Keyword is Jagger.

Eggzactly, and I repeat ... "I've long found that some have a hard time, for some reason, to give the Stones credit."

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Some like Gary Moore or the Red Devils, and think they sound more authentic than BAL. I can't hear that, but more power to them.

I wouldn't define any of the above as 'authentic' - if you truly want authentic then simply listen to the originals.

Not defending Gary Moore as I always thought his 'detour' into the blues lacked some sincerity, but he definitely had some chops on the guitar. For me he fit more into the Rock/Metal genre (with Thin Lizzy, etc.), and his blues albums were simply a showcase for his guitar skills of that particular style. Not to say I didn't enjoy some of that, but far from being 'authentic'.

On the other hand, The Red Devils had some true grit and sincerity within their sound. They also wrote some nice originals, and if the shelved album with Mick doesn't quite do it for you, then maybe check out their debut King King album filled with some great blues covers (and originals). As a USA Today review stated at the time "the year's most electrifying live album, a stunning debut". They didn't come across as posers taking a detour from what they should have been doing - they were doing the blues like they always did, and they did it very well. They weren't out to make hits, they were simply playing the blues. There's something genuine and sincere about it all, and that sincerity comes across when listening to them - at least it does for me.

As for Blue and Lonseome, while it is a nice album of covers, it really was a Plan B for the band and that's the way it comes across to me. Once they 'hit the wall' unable to move forward with Micks original demos, they fell into their comfort zone and played it safe. Very wealthy English rock stars taking a detour (like Gary Moore did) back to the basics, playing American blues, and lacking a bit of sincerity and true feeling in the process imo. It's like a warmup or a rehearsal for something that never happened. Once you can get past the context of the reasons behind their recording it (Plan B, hitting the wall, etc.) it is a decent album of covers. Keith could probably play this all blindfolded, and Micks harp is indeed something to behold, but that's not saying there's anything truly 'authentic' about any of it. I'd say Keith wears it on his heart and makes it as close to authentic as can be, but some of the other band members might not have taken it as seriously. It could have been better had they written and recorded a couple of blues originals for the album, but as it stands it's simply an album of decent covers. If you want true 'authenticity' then listen to the true originals by the original Blues Masters - no other bands can match those imo.

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

..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-26 21:26 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
Hairball
I wouldn't define any of the above as 'authentic' - if you truly want authentic then simply listen to the originals.

So listen to the original of any song then, why would there ever be a cover by any band?. Why did the Stones cover Little Red Rooster all those years ago?

Quote
Hairball
On the other hand, The Red Devils ... didn't come across as posers taking a detour from what they should have been doing - they were doing the blues like they always did, and they did it very well. They weren't out to make hits, they were simply playing the blues. There's something genuine and sincere about it all, and that sincerity comes across when listening to them - at least it does for me.

Wow, forget history much? That's describing the Stones in the beginning. What is it they "should" have been doing? They were making an album and weren't happy with the progress, went back to what they did all those years ago, but they shouldn't have done that?

Quote
Hairball
As for Blue and Lonseome, while it is a nice album of covers, it really was a Plan B...

So? What's it matter if it was even plan C or D? I don't get why that was an issue, the end result is what matters.

Quote
Hairball
they fell into their comfort zone and played it safe.

LOL, the comfort zone/playing it safe would have been to write a couple of They Got Me Rocking or Streets of Love tunes, but whatever...

Quote
Hairball
Very wealthy English rock stars taking a detour ... playing American blues, and lacking a bit of sincerity and true feeling in the process imo.

Again, forget history much? They lived it, scrounged on trash food, stole meals, lived pay-day to pay-day, while immersing themselves in blues the whole time, defied odds, coming to america, meeting their idols and doing what they loved, and in their own words, never expected to make a living off of it permanently.

Quote
Hairball
If you want true 'authenticity' then listen to the true originals by the original Blues Masters - no other bands can match those imo.

Again, why would anyone cover a song w/ that mentality? Because they love it. And what defines 'authentic'? Because they are white? How many times have we read about those great blues artists say something like 'those white boys can play!'? ... Not enough to meet your standards, i guess.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Hairball
I wouldn't define any of the above as 'authentic' - if you truly want authentic then simply listen to the originals .

So listen to the original of any song then, why would there ever be a cover by any band?. Why did the Stones cover Little Red Rooster all those years ago?

Quote
Hairball
On the other hand, The Red Devils ... didn't come across as posers taking a detour from what they should have been doing - they were doing the blues like they always did, and they did it very well. They weren't out to make hits, they were simply playing the blues. There's something genuine and sincere about it all, and that sincerity comes across when listening to them - at least it does for me.

Wow, forget history much? That's describing the Stones in the beginning. What is it they "should" have been doing? They were making an album and weren't happy with the progress, went back to what they did all those years ago, but they shouldn't have done that?

Quote
Hairball
As for Blue and Lonseome, while it is a nice album of covers, it really was a Plan B...

So? What's it matter if it was even plan C or D? I don't get why that was an issue, the end result is what matters.

Quote
Hairball
they fell into their comfort zone and played it safe.

LOL, the comfort zone/playing it safe would have been to write a couple of They Got Me Rocking or Streets of Love tunes, but whatever...

Quote
Hairball
Very wealthy English rock stars taking a detour ... playing American blues, and lacking a bit of sincerity and true feeling in the process imo.

Again, forget history much? They lived it, scrounged on trash food, stole meals, lived pay-day to pay-day, while immersing themselves in blues the whole time, defied odds, coming to america, meeting their idols and doing what they loved, and in their own words, never expected to make a living off of it permanently.

Quote
Hairball
If you want true 'authenticity' then listen to the true originals by the original Blues Masters - no other bands can match those imo.

Again, why would anyone cover a song w/ that mentality? Because they love it. And what defines 'authentic'? Because they are white? How many times have we read about those great blues artists say something like 'those white boys can play!'? ... Not enough to meet your standards, i guess.

Authentic: Of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine: (Oxford dictionary).

As for all of your issues with my post:

I never said that that no band should ever do covers - I was saying that for the most part I like originals better - simple as that

As for your question as to "why did the Stones cover Little Red Rooster all those years ago"?
Undoubtedly because they liked the blues, but maybe you should ask Mick?

"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"? - Mick

Come to think of it, I might have been channeling and/or paraphrasing Mick when I said:
"If you want true 'authenticity' then listen to the true originals by the original Blues Masters - no other bands can match those imo".


And I never said the Stones shouldn't have made this album, in fact I'm glad they did.
I just happen to like originals and other covers by other bands better and was responding to DandelionPowdermans original comment with an explanation.

Glad that you're happy with their 'plan B', most everyone around here is including myself. It's probably much better than whatever plan A was seeing that they couldn't make it work, and definitely better than most everything they've recorded in 30+ years imo. As for your Plan C or D scenario, they might have been better than the Plan A of original demos as well, but I don't think they ever thought beyond Plan B (Blue and Lonesome), so guess we'll never know.

If you think You Got Me Rocking or Streets of Love is in their comfort zone, than so be it. I happen to think their comfort zone is tunes and the blues genre they played over 50 years ago.

Yes in the beginning they were everything you said - "scrounged on trash food, stole meals, lived pay-day to pay-day" blah, blah, blah, but there's no disputing they are very wealthy English rock stars today. But again, was just comparing with the Red Devils who played only blues, weren't wealthy, and didn't have 50 years of experience under their belt making other types of music. As I said, there's a bit more sincerity (for me) when I hear them playing the blues vs. the state of the art Stones as they are today.

As for 'not enough to meet my standards', I've already said it's an enjoyable album of covers. Just because I haven't gone all giddy and ga ga over it doesn't mean I cant appreciate it for what it is.
It might sound sacrelige to some diehard Stones fanatics (maybe like yourself?), but there are better blues cover bands than what the Stones have just released with The Red Devils being one of them - just my opinion.
One of my favorite blues albums is Nothin' but the Blues by Johnny Winter. Eight originals and one cover of Muddy Water's Walkin' thru the Park, and Muddy also guests on the album.

Finally, you seemed to pick and choose quotes from my post just to argue with, but in your rush you might have overlooked some of the positive parts:

"Keith could probably play this all blindfolded, and Micks harp is indeed something to behold."

"I'd say Keith wears it on his heart and makes it as close to authentic as can be."

Bottom line - I generously give it a 2.5 out of 5...might have been a 3 or 4 out of 5 if there had been at least one or two originals.
Here's hoping the next album (if there is one) will be a step beyond blues covers - they might still have it in them to write something great of their own.

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

<Bottom line - I generously give it a 2.5 out of 5...might have been a 3 or 4 out of 5 if there had been at least one or two originals>

That's the part that doesn't add up for me. Does it matter that it's an album of covers as long as the music is good?

Tell Me was the only real original tune on their debut album (Little By Little and Witness were rip offs). Will you rate that album 2,5/5 as well?

I would give their first album a 3 or 4 - I really think all the originals of those covers are better. They definitely added their stamp to those covers, but I'm just giving an honest opinion.
To put that in perspective, when it comes to Beggars, LIB, Sticky Fingers, and Exile - all 5 stars without hesitation.

In regards to their first album vs. B&L, it's partially a matter of context of then vs. now. In the beginning, they were a young so-called 'blues' band led by Brian Jones, and the blues wasn't as prevalent to the masses as it's since become.
There was an edge and rebelliousness to it back then, and that isn't really conveyed with what they were doing now imo. They're riding on a formula they established 50 years ago, and haven't really reinterpreted anything on B&L compared to what they did with those early covers. Sure B&L has some decent covers, and some are better than others, but there are a few I wont even listen to anymore. It would be like if Bob Dylan recorded and released an album of strictly Folk covers today - sure it might be enjoyable, but if he didn't reinterpret and take the tunes much beyond those originals, then whats the point? Why bother when I can listen to what I consider superior versions?

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

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I got a little lost in a tree of quotes above, but I can't believe someone suggested that the guitarists on "Wandering Spirit" are playing the Blues more authentic than Ron and Keith on B&L. A ludicrous statement.

I was waiting for someone to notice

It's just a discussion, there is no such thing as better when it comes to this kind of music. I feel that Jimmy Rip had both Keith and Wood in his pocket, but that's a personal opinion. If you're a Keith fan, no one can do it better than Keith. If you're a Ron Wood or Mick Taylor fan , etc etc. You can argue about technical and discipline though, and I believe that there are a lot of blues and rock fans that don't think that this is the most important skill a guitarist must have. I do think it's essential. Feeling once again: a matter of taste.

Sure, but what about the blues? Is the music format up for discussion as well?

I love it. How do we define blues, a 12 bar progression, Chicago Blues, Delta Blues, Mississipi, or is blues just another word for feeling? The sky is the limit.

Frank Simes, Brendan O'Brian and Jimmy Rip are doing more Andy McCoy-riffs than John Lee Hooker or Muddy Waters on Wandering Spirit.

Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't sound like authentic blues to me.

Some like Gary Moore or the Red Devils, and think they sound more authentic than BAL. I can't hear that, but more power to them.

What do you actually want to tell me?

All the players you mention are inspired by trad blues, but give it a different angle. Let's get out of the Stones box: Listen to Limehouse Blues by Django, it is heavily influenced by Dixieland, also rooted in blues, then listen how George Benson gave it his interpretation, and next go to John McLaughlin doing it in the 9-tees. What does it tell you? I doubt our dialogue is suited for iorr.org.

Hats off to all you said Dutchman. Personally it was specifically the J. Rip - Keith/Ron comparison that startled me But you are right - it does come down to personal taste. As far as authenticity of the Blues is IMO a hopeless knot.
I am still floored by Keith playng the Blues to this day. Just recently I'm listening to "Back of my Hand" from ABB, and that answering line that Keith plays underneath Jagger's main guitar is one of the most clever little runs I have ever heard. It comes up from down there; it sounds like someone clearing their throat before talking.
And Ron doesn't get enough credit IMO re. the Blues. Again - just recently I was checking out Jeff Beck Group with Ron on Bass - and I;m thinking the Stones get so much credit as an early Blues band, paying their dues; but there were a good many other young UK boys right behind who lived and paid hard too.

I would also add the Five Live Yardbirds along with Sonny Boy Williamson and the Yardbirds well as the John Mayalls Bluesbreakers with Eric Clapton as some of my all time favorite blues albums.

As for the latter, I didn't discover that until I was 14 or 15 in 1977/78, but once I did it became embedded in my brain. Clapton's guitar is mesmerizing, and I could only imagine how groundbreaking it was when initially released in 1966.
Seven covers and five original tunes...it has stood the test of time and is one for the ages. Probably in my top 20 all time greatest albums.

But being this is a Ronnie thread, earlier today I heard (I Know) I'm Losing You on the radio and that crunchy riff is one-of-a kind greatness.
That was followed by Every Picture Tells a Story which showcases another great and unique aspect of Ronnie's playing - exquisite.

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

Quote
Hairball

Authentic: Of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine: (Oxford dictionary).

Your point? Now define undisputed origin, or genuine. What makes that determination for a band playing blues? Again, how would the Stones not qualify?

Because they are no longer poor? FYI, Buddy Guy no longer makes his own guitars.

Quote
LeonidP
FYI, Buddy Guy no longer makes his own guitars.

Yes, but Buddy Guy still writes and records originals.
His last album Born to Play Guitar from 2015 is pretty good, you should check it out!

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
LeonidP
FYI, Buddy Guy no longer makes his own guitars.

Yes, but Buddy Guy still writes and records originals...

Huh? Stones have never done originals? ... And Buddy Guy also does covers, btw.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Hairball

Quote
LeonidP
FYI, Buddy Guy no longer makes his own guitars.

Yes, but Buddy Guy still writes and records originals...

Huh? Stones have never done originals? ... And Buddy Guy also does covers, btw.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing it seems.
Yes the Stones have done great blues in the past- originals and covers - just so happens I don't think they brought anything spectacular this time.
They're decent cover tunes and that's all IMO (some are decent, some not)- They're seemingly coasting, and haven't elevated the tunes in any real noticeable way imo.
On the other hand, older cover tunes such as Love in Vain for example were reinterpreted in such a way that they truly made it their own, and even though I still prefer the original, they definitely put their unique stamp on it.
As someone else had mentioned, this new album comes across as 'Blues by numbers'...they whipped it out without giving much though to any of it. They admittedly were trying to copy the sound of the originals and nothing more.
I'm really not sure why you can't accept that someone has a differing opinion than you about the new Blues covers album...maybe you're just being oversensitive and defensive about the Stones?

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-27 09:22 by Hairball.

He he, Hairball, I hear you

But I will never understand your criterion for reviewing this album, or why you expect so much more from the Stones at this stage. I don't hear that they are copying the originals, either. I hear Ronnie playing his take on the blues on Hoo Doo Blues, with his heart on his sleeve. I hear Keith's idiosyncratic crazy phrasing, which I love so much. That mix sound different, paired with Charlie's almost reluctant beat and Mick's over-eager singing.

But that's me



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-27 14:43 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
... But I will never understand your criterion for reviewing this album...

Nor will I ...

Quote
Hairball
You are arguing for the sake of arguing it seems.

Ha, I was thinking the same about you.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He he, Hairball, I hear you

But I will never understand your criterion for reviewing this album, or why you expect so much more from the Stones at this stage. I don't hear that they are copying the originals, either. I hear Ronnie playing his take on the blues on Hoo Doo Blues, with his heart on his sleeve. I hear Keith's idiosyncratic crazy phrasing, which I love so much. That mix sound different, paired with Charlie's almost reluctant beat and Mick's over-eager singing.

But that's me

Cheers Dandelion,

I've tried to explain my criterion several times - I simply prefer the originals, what more can be said?
I've given you an example of my criteria (BB, LIB, SF, Exile = 5 stars), and could go through every album with an explanation, but what would be the point?
Everyone has their own criteria for liking something. The last Stones album I would give a 5 to would be Tattoo You - all might not agree, but I have my reasons. Everything after that (Undercover- ABB ) ranges from 1 - 2 at the bottom of the pit, so to give B&L a 2.5 is quite generous I would think. On the other hand, I give Crosseyed Heart between a 4.5 and 5 - some might think thats being over-generous and crazy, but the album spoke to me on many levels - both the originals and covers.
And I don't expect much from the Stones at this stage - in fact I've said many times we are blessed to have a new album from them even if it's a covers album. It's the best thing they've released in eons(even though I stand by my 2.5 out of 5).

Sure the Stones have given some of the songs a different edge, but the differences are minute when compared to some of their earlier blues covers (see Love in Vain, Stop Breaking Down, etc.) and how they reinterpreted them making them almost completely different than the originals in the process. There's obviously going to be some differences in the minutiae, but overall they're simply following the master blue print of what came before. Yes Ronnie indeed excels, Keith has his idiosyncratic/catchy moments, Charlie does a fine job, and yes Mick and his over-eager singing are different from the originals, but thats picking at things with a fine tooth. On a side note - as for Micks 'over-eagerness'...there's times where it's unbearable to listen in contrast to the originals IMO, and might be my biggest criticism (All of Your Love, I Can't Quit You Baby). Other times he sings with full gusto yet restrained which is absolutely great stuff (Just Your Fool, Ride em on Down, et al).

With that said, I'm glad there are those like yourself who can find so much joy in it - some even thinking it's an improvement on the originals (? ). As for me, it's similar to a remake of a classic movie. Or a facsimile of a sacred document. Or a photocopy of a masterpiece painting. Or an art student attempting to replicate the Mona Lisa. There might be something nice about all of that, but why settle for that when you can hear the true originals? Just my opinion.
Looking forward to Blue and Lonseome II, and hopefully there might be some originals on it. Even an instrumental would be nice. Or an acoustic Keith solo spot ala Crosseyed Heart (the song).

From Mick:

"We didn't want to do blues forever. We just wanted to turn people on to other people who were very good, and not carry on doing it ourselves".

The silver lining of them revisiting the blues at this late stage is that they are indeed turning people on to other people who are very good like they did in the beginning, and we as fans have something to cherish (some more than others) which hasn't happened in decades.

"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"? - Mick

That's a good question.

Long Live the Stones!

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-27 18:55 by Hairball.

BB, LIB, SF and EOMS were more like contemporary music at the time, though. I don't see the comparison with what they did now.

And I love all the originals, too.

That said, I would never rate good, well-played blues 2,5/5.

Have a happy new year, Hairball

If we're rating all released Stones albums as Stones albums (blues covers or not)then it might make more sense.
If everything they've released is too high on the scale, then how does one differentiate the good from the bad from the mediocre?
But if you're judging B&L as a stand alone covers album without any comparisons to other Stones albums, then what you say might make more sense to me.


Happy New Years Dandelion!

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

I was hoping to find news about the Ron Wood reissues on this thread. Not more esoteric musings on B&L. Like, does anyone know if there will be outtakes or alternate takes? Remastering?

HBK

Quote
HouseBoyKnows
I was hoping to find news about the Ron Wood reissues on this thread. Not more esoteric musings on B&L. Like, does anyone know if there will be outtakes or alternate takes? Remastering?

HBK

There are no news, other than the 2CD-release (without bonus material) of his two first albums. I'm sure that was mentioned here in this thread. Deltics posted links etc.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
HouseBoyKnows
I was hoping to find news about the Ron Wood reissues on this thread. Not more esoteric musings on B&L. Like, does anyone know if there will be outtakes or alternate takes? Remastering?

HBK

There are no news, other than the 2CD-release (without bonus material) of his two first albums. I'm sure that was mentioned here in this thread. Deltics posted links etc.

Thanks. Most of those details came out back in October. I guess no one knows anything new even though the release is next week. I'm looking forward. Loved those LPs when they came out just as Ronnie was morphing from a Face to a Stone.

Quote
HouseBoyKnows

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
HouseBoyKnows
I was hoping to find news about the Ron Wood reissues on this thread. Not more esoteric musings on B&L. Like, does anyone know if there will be outtakes or alternate takes? Remastering?

HBK

There are no news, other than the 2CD-release (without bonus material) of his two first albums. I'm sure that was mentioned here in this thread. Deltics posted links etc.

Thanks. Most of those details came out back in October. I guess no one knows anything new even though the release is next week. I'm looking forward. Loved those LPs when they came out just as Ronnie was morphing from a Face to a Stone.

Lovely albums!

A couple points. Some of you need to google threadjacking. There is an entire thread dedicated to Blue and Lonesome. And next year will be a good year for Ron Wood fans

Would be cool to have a massive Ronnie career retrospective of his music - there's so many different chapters.
I've been revisiting some of his early obscurities, including this gem with the Birds from 1965:

The Birds - Next In Line



I can dig it!

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

Stay tuned.

listening to B & L today...wow.... Ronnie sounds exceptional on this record....he's sounding as good as ever. Kudos to Ronnie Wood.