There is a link on the IORR home page with the following text:

Forum links
of interest

There you will see some of the most popular topics on the IORR forum pages. Treads with the same subject are merged in order to avoid dublicate threads.

Bjornulf

I'd say the last great album was Blue And Lonesome.

Yes some truly amazing Stones performances on B&L....



ROCKMAN

absolutely no one can argue with that....B & L remains brilliant.

Quote
Rockman
I'd say the last great album was Blue And Lonesome.

Yes some truly amazing Stones performances on B&L....

And they knocked it out in a couple of days.

Never bothered to buy B&L. Haven't listened to most of the songs. It was a well marketed album though and the cover looked appetizing. I don't mind the odd blues cover on an album.
But a whole album with blues covers (just to ease the writer's block)? In the 70s, or even the 80s, I would have bought that idea. But not in 2016. I'm very aware I'm the only one on this
forum thinking like this though. Everyone else simply adores it. Good for you then.

Quote
Stoneage
Never bothered to buy B&L. Haven't listened to most of the songs. It was a well marketed album though and the cover looked appetizing. I don't mind the odd blues cover on an album.
But a whole album with blues covers (just to ease the writer's block)? In the 70s, or even the 80s, I would have bought that idea. But not in 2016. I'm very aware I'm the only one on this
forum thinking like this though. Everyone else simply adores it. Good for you then.

For the cost of a couple of beers it won't hurt you buying it!

You might even end seeing the light

C

New Stones album for 2022?.....We can change the thread

Quote
liddas

Quote
Stoneage
Never bothered to buy B&L. Haven't listened to most of the songs. It was a well marketed album though and the cover looked appetizing. I don't mind the odd blues cover on an album.
But a whole album with blues covers (just to ease the writer's block)? In the 70s, or even the 80s, I would have bought that idea. But not in 2016. I'm very aware I'm the only one on this
forum thinking like this though. Everyone else simply adores it. Good for you then.

For the cost of a couple of beers it won't hurt you buying it!

You might even end seeing the light

C

It's a nice record, well-performed, but I probably haven't played it in two years, tbh.

I made a point of not listening to the album in order to be able to come up with a unique point of view on it. That's some 2016 style logical reasoning for you.

You did? I made a quick listening through. Some songs I have heard more than once (the singles and the live ones). That was enough for me but, I know, not for others.

Blue and Lonesome was great?
In comparison to nothing at all maybe, but a full album of average-at-best blues covers does not equate to greatness imo.
A couple of the tunes could be considered great when they were played played live, but the album as a whole is blue and boring as someone here once renamed it.

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

How can you hate this

It seems to me (at the moment) that they will be more or less "judged" based on 1964-1989 with an honorable mention to Blue and Lonesome.

I, of course, own most everything (except for some compilations and 'Live Licks') and enjoy it all for what it is, though my "golden era" is '68-'89.

I still think there is a possibility (though I know many IORR's disagree) that they will surprise drop a new album around the time of a tour, be it the make-up dates or any kind of anniversary tour...in an effort by Mick to do the current "hip" thing, since many groups/artists have generated buzz in this fashion, though yes I realize that they have mastered the art of build up hype/promotion over the years.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Sure, it is good Nils. It would even have fit nicely on Tattoo You. As I said I don't mind the odd blues song here and there and this one is really good.
It's the concept I guess - a whole album of blues covers. And maybe the loss of something else that was not to be? Like a new album with new songs on it?

When they released Living in a Ghost Town, there was actually some hope that a new album was possible and in the works.
But when Mick/Grohl recorded that silly sleazy tune, much of that hope for a new Stones album was lost imo.
The fact that Keith and no other Stone had anything to do with it was a sign they may have all hit another wall.

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

Quote
Hairball
When they released Living in a Ghost Town, there was actually some hope that a new album was possible and in the works.
But when Mick/Grohl recorded that silly sleazy tune, much of that hope for a new Stones album was lost imo.
The fact that Keith and no other Stone had anything to do with it was a sign they may have all hit another wall.

The Stones have hit so many walls they should be demolition men.

Ronnie at least should be excused, he had different problems.

BTW, did (some of?) the other Stones comment on the Mick/Grohl song? I don't think I have seen/heard anything.

Quote
doitywoik
Ronnie at least should be excused, he had different problems.

BTW, did (some of?) the other Stones comment on the Mick/Grohl song? I don't think I have seen/heard anything.

I think Keith muttered something about it to his wife. Pretty much the same things he said about Mick's solo albums.

Quote
floodonthepage
It seems to me (at the moment) that they will be more or less "judged" based on 1964-1989 with an honorable mention to Blue and Lonesome.

I, of course, own most everything (except for some compilations and 'Live Licks') and enjoy it all for what it is, though my "golden era" is '68-'89.

I still think there is a possibility (though I know many IORR's disagree) that they will surprise drop a new album around the time of a tour, be it the make-up dates or any kind of anniversary tour...in an effort by Mick to do the current "hip" thing, since many groups/artists have generated buzz in this fashion, though yes I realize that they have mastered the art of build up hype/promotion over the years.

[en.wikipedia.org]

There's an EP's worth of singles, Love Is Strong, You Got Me Rocking, Rough Justice, Doom and Gloom, Ghost Town.

Quote
Hairball
Blue and Lonesome was great?
In comparison to nothing at all maybe, but a full album of average-at-best blues covers does not equate to greatness imo.
A couple of the tunes could be considered great when they were played played live, but the album as a whole is blue and boring as someone here once renamed it.

To each his own. I thought there was some real Stones magic on there. Ronnie on Hate to See You Go is great. Mick is fine on Everybody Knows About My Good Thing. I love Clapton's contributions on two songs. Charlie swings through out. Keith doesn't add much, but at this point it's not expected.

Dont worry Hairball has always
been workin so hard ta put B&L down .....

Plus ya wonder how many times he's typed brickwall ...
Maybe someone could be cared ta check ....HHHaaaaaaa

Those Clapton tracks are very good ...
Hoo Doo is one of Stones best covers ever ...
Little Rain the most delicate blues theyve ever cut ....



ROCKMAN

I gave it a fair and generous 2.5 out of 5 when it was released!

Quote
Stoneage
As I said I don't mind the odd blues song here and there and this one is really good.
It's the concept I guess - a whole album of blues covers. And maybe the loss of something else that was not to be? Like a new album with new songs on it?

Yes, it was the result of hitting the wall when they were attempting to record original tunes, and then got detoured down the easy path of covers.
Aerosmith had already done it nearly 20 years earlier with terrible results, so seemed strange the Stones would go this route.
While the results might not have been as terrible as Aerosmith, it just seemed like the Stones were going through the motions on cruise control.
A cover here and there on past albums was nice, but a whole album of blues cover tunes that were for the most part inferior to the previous/original versions seemed like a consolation prize.
As Mick once said, "I mean what's the point in listening to us doing ‘I’m a King Bee’ when you can hear Slim Harpo do it?", and he makes a valid point.
In the case of Blue and Lonesome, why listen to I Can't Quit You Baby when you can listen to Otis Rush's far superior version? And that goes for all the covers on B&L for that matter...

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-07-01 06:47 by Hairball.

Quote
Rocktiludrop

Quote
Hairball
When they released Living in a Ghost Town, there was actually some hope that a new album was possible and in the works.
But when Mick/Grohl recorded that silly sleazy tune, much of that hope for a new Stones album was lost imo.
The fact that Keith and no other Stone had anything to do with it was a sign they may have all hit another wall.

The Stones have hit so many walls they should be demolition men.

They should all wear construction helmets the next time they're all together in the studio...

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

Quote
Stoneage
Never bothered to buy B&L. Haven't listened to most of the songs. It was a well marketed album though and the cover looked appetizing. I don't mind the odd blues cover on an album.
But a whole album with blues covers (just to ease the writer's block)? In the 70s, or even the 80s, I would have bought that idea. But not in 2016. I'm very aware I'm the only one on this
forum thinking like this though. Everyone else simply adores it. Good for you then.

Do you like anything pre-AFTERMATH?

Quote
floodonthepage
It seems to me (at the moment) that they will be more or less "judged" based on 1964-1989 with an honorable mention to Blue and Lonesome.

I, of course, own most everything (except for some compilations and 'Live Licks') and enjoy it all for what it is, though my "golden era" is '68-'89.

I still think there is a possibility (though I know many IORR's disagree) that they will surprise drop a new album around the time of a tour, be it the make-up dates or any kind of anniversary tour...in an effort by Mick to do the current "hip" thing, since many groups/artists have generated buzz in this fashion, though yes I realize that they have mastered the art of build up hype/promotion over the years.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Eh... 1981. Or really 1984. UNDERCOVER, considering the times (and it's the last of the creative swing that started in 1977) - and that it's a really good LP, and to wrap it up, 1984's excellent REWIND.

It's been all about the brand ever since.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Stoneage
Never bothered to buy B&L. Haven't listened to most of the songs. It was a well marketed album though and the cover looked appetizing. I don't mind the odd blues cover on an album.
But a whole album with blues covers (just to ease the writer's block)? In the 70s, or even the 80s, I would have bought that idea. But not in 2016. I'm very aware I'm the only one on this
forum thinking like this though. Everyone else simply adores it. Good for you then.

Do you like anything pre-AFTERMATH?

The difference is that before Aftermath they were kind of blues purists (or -epigones). They saw it as a mission to introduce the blues to a wider audience. They did that, and very well.
In 2016 there was no need for that. The job was done. But of course they are free to release albums with blues covers whenever they feel for it.
As well as I am free to decide whether I want to buy that album or not. Or even listen to it.

the case of Blue and Lonesome, why listen to I Can't Quit You Baby when you can listen to Otis Rush's far superior version? And that goes for all the covers on B&L for that matter...


Well ya could most likely make that statement
about anyone or any band that covers any blues number .....



ROCKMAN

With no Jagger-Richards originals, Blue & Lonesome feels more like a concept release, where as the early Decca LP's don't.; despite being heavy on covers. A Jagger-Richards composition-or-two would've really changed the dynamic of the release for the better, in my opinion. I liked the release, but it felt, and feels, like a project-effort.

Honestly speaking, I don't expect another Stones album with new song at all.
Mick, Keith and Ronnie have constantly talked about the coming but it didn't happen. I'm afraid just a couple of songs have been recorded, not enough to fill a complete album. In the case, they're seriously heading for releasing a new record, they would have had time enough to complete during all the Corona lockdowns. There are numerous technical opportunities to support, e.g. Mick and Dave Grohl's song was recorded that way.

The boys might continue announcing the coming of a new album, but I simply think that's just for keeping the interest in the band high. What would happen if they'd say: "That's it, there'll be no new Stones album ever"?

Let's look forward to releases of past tours, hopefully more from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Those were the days when they really were rock'n'roll. Today it's more like a living waxworks ... keeping the past alive, without any prospects for the future.
And, hey, they're 80 and close to. We are fortunate people/fans to getting so many chances to see our heros live on stage after all those years. That's a benefit no Beatles, Doors or Alman Brothers fan will ever get again.

It is hard to finish an album when Keith is in USA and Mick is in Europe, since early spring 2020. They just need travel safety, and time together in studio.

Bjornulf