For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Rockman
I know a dozen UK pub bands who could play blues better than this, including most of the tribute bands.
Heard it all before a million times .... Hey Rockeeee you
gotta go see this band they're just like the Stones ... You'll
love 'em ... And when I get there it's usually some lonely dude with
his head down tryin' ta play more notes than Alvin Lee or some fat guys
in acid-washed jeans and pork-pie hats playin' twenty minute versions of Baby Please Don't Go ... hhhmmmm yeah good musicians but they ain't The Stones
Quote
maumau
yes the bit of "dozen of pub blues bands" better is even staler than the "the originals are way better than these covers"
three months of listen confirm my first impressions of this album
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
maumau
yes the bit of "dozen of pub blues bands" better is even staler than the "the originals are way better than these covers"
three months of listen confirm my first impressions of this album
As a rule, I don't usually like covers. I like people doing their own music. The glaring exception is the Stones. The Stones do other people's music better than the originals do. But that's just because I prefer the sound of the Stones to pretty much any one else's sound!
Quote
DandelionPowderman
And that's why we / some of us regard them as our favourite band
It doesn't matter that some of the originals may be «better» (what's that anyway?), since the sounds the Stones are making are what I prefer to listen to.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
maumau
yes the bit of "dozen of pub blues bands" better is even staler than the "the originals are way better than these covers"
three months of listen confirm my first impressions of this album
As a rule, I don't usually like covers. I like people doing their own music. The glaring exception is the Stones. The Stones do other people's music better than the originals do. But that's just because I prefer the sound of the Stones to pretty much any one else's sound!
And that's why we / some of us regard them as our favourite band
It doesn't matter that some of the originals may be «better» (what's that anyway?), since the sounds the Stones are making are what I prefer to listen to.
Quote
maumauQuote
DandelionPowderman
And that's why we / some of us regard them as our favourite band
It doesn't matter that some of the originals may be «better» (what's that anyway?), since the sounds the Stones are making are what I prefer to listen to.
yes that thing of better/worse talking about stones covers has very little sense to me, just because it is their sound that I love
and yes georgelicks, the commercial success of the album with little promo and no tour tells much.
maybe it tells also that if someone in the world is looking for someone who did not like it, he should look up here for in this forum
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
maumau
yes the bit of "dozen of pub blues bands" better is even staler than the "the originals are way better than these covers"
three months of listen confirm my first impressions of this album
As a rule, I don't usually like covers. I like people doing their own music. The glaring exception is the Stones. The Stones do other people's music better than the originals do. But that's just because I prefer the sound of the Stones to pretty much any one else's sound!
And that's why we / some of us regard them as our favourite band
It doesn't matter that some of the originals may be «better» (what's that anyway?), since the sounds the Stones are making are what I prefer to listen to.
Yep, like for example I have respect for The Temptations but pure Motown never really floored me...But give me the Stones versions of Ain't Too Proud to Beg or Just My Imagination any day! They rock!
Quote
HMS
Please allow me to mention Harlem Shuffle which imo is a trillion times better than the pale original I have only listened to once. And the Jagger/Bowie version of Dancing In The Street beats every second of the original by I don´t even remember whom. It´s the sound of the Stones/the voice of Jagger that make cover-versions so unique and mostly more enjoyable than the originals. I prefer any early Stones-Chuck-Berry-cover to the original. I have listened to all of the Blue-And-Lonesome-originals but I like all the Stones-versions much better.
Quote
LeonidPQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
maumau
yes the bit of "dozen of pub blues bands" better is even staler than the "the originals are way better than these covers"
three months of listen confirm my first impressions of this album
As a rule, I don't usually like covers. I like people doing their own music. The glaring exception is the Stones. The Stones do other people's music better than the originals do. But that's just because I prefer the sound of the Stones to pretty much any one else's sound!
And that's why we / some of us regard them as our favourite band
It doesn't matter that some of the originals may be «better» (what's that anyway?), since the sounds the Stones are making are what I prefer to listen to.
Yep, like for example I have respect for The Temptations but pure Motown never really floored me...But give me the Stones versions of Ain't Too Proud to Beg or Just My Imagination any day! They rock!
Eggzactly! Stones versions of Ain't Too Proud & Imagination blow away the originals, by a landslide.
Still, I understand those that feel the need to never admit the Stones can do it better, it's a character flaw, similar to my one friend that can never say a movie is great ("So Red becomes arrogant on his 50th parole attempt and now they let him free? What a horrible movie!")
Quote
HMS
Please allow me to mention Harlem Shuffle which imo is a trillion times better than the pale original I have only listened to once. And the Jagger/Bowie version of Dancing In The Street beats every second of the original by I don´t even remember whom.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
maumau
yes the bit of "dozen of pub blues bands" better is even staler than the "the originals are way better than these covers"
three months of listen confirm my first impressions of this album
As a rule, I don't usually like covers. I like people doing their own music. The glaring exception is the Stones. The Stones do other people's music better than the originals do. But that's just because I prefer the sound of the Stones to pretty much any one else's sound!
And that's why we / some of us regard them as our favourite band
It doesn't matter that some of the originals may be «better» (what's that anyway?), since the sounds the Stones are making are what I prefer to listen to.
Quote
HMS
Please allow me to mention Harlem Shuffle which imo is a trillion times better than the pale original I have only listened to once. And the Jagger/Bowie version of Dancing In The Street beats every second of the original by I don´t even remember whom. It´s the sound of the Stones/the voice of Jagger that make cover-versions so unique and mostly more enjoyable than the originals. I prefer any early Stones-Chuck-Berry-cover to the original. I have listened to all of the Blue-And-Lonesome-originals but I like all the Stones-versions much better.
Quote
Monsoon RagoonQuote
HMS
Please allow me to mention Harlem Shuffle which imo is a trillion times better than the pale original I have only listened to once. And the Jagger/Bowie version of Dancing In The Street beats every second of the original by I don´t even remember whom. It´s the sound of the Stones/the voice of Jagger that make cover-versions so unique and mostly more enjoyable than the originals. I prefer any early Stones-Chuck-Berry-cover to the original. I have listened to all of the Blue-And-Lonesome-originals but I like all the Stones-versions much better.
To be honest I think the Howlin' Wolf version of Comments A Crime is a trillion times better than the Stones version.
Quote
HMS
All I can say is that is was a very exciting moment when in 1985 my top fav male singers teamed up and released a imo great version of DITS. All of my pals liked it, in fact I never heard anyone say it´s junk or something like that. Without all the social impact of the original it still was a great track and back then part of the soundtrack of the summer of ´85. It even was a huge hit in several countries all over the world.
Quote
HMS
All I can say is that is was a very exciting moment when in 1985 my top fav male singers teamed up and released a imo great version of DITS. All of my pals liked it, in fact I never heard anyone say it´s junk or something like that. Without all the social impact of the original it still was a great track and back then part of the soundtrack of the summer of ´85. It even was a huge hit in several countries all over the world.
Quote
HMS
It wasn´t my intention to "put the original down", but back in 1985 we loved the Bowie/Jagger-version a lot and didn´t care about the original. Actually it was years later that I stumbled across the original on an "Oldies"- sampler-CD. After listening to it I wasn´t very impressed and thought Bowie/Jagger´s version had a lot more power. If you wasn´t around when the original came out, it´s just an oldie like so many others... being a youngster in the mid 80s and hearing your favorite singers doing that song you just didnt care for the original by an artist you´ve never heard of before from way back when... like I said, its also a matter of age. When you were young in the 80s you just didn´t care for 60s soul music, at least the majority didn´t.
Quote
DelticsQuote
HMS
It wasn´t my intention to "put the original down", but back in 1985 we loved the Bowie/Jagger-version a lot and didn´t care about the original. Actually it was years later that I stumbled across the original on an "Oldies"- sampler-CD. After listening to it I wasn´t very impressed and thought Bowie/Jagger´s version had a lot more power. If you wasn´t around when the original came out, it´s just an oldie like so many others... being a youngster in the mid 80s and hearing your favorite singers doing that song you just didnt care for the original by an artist you´ve never heard of before from way back when... like I said, its also a matter of age. When you were young in the 80s you just didn´t care for 60s soul music, at least the majority didn´t.
We were all young once. For me, it was the early seventies when I really got into the Stones and I used to read everything I could about them and what made them want to start a band in the first place. There was no internet in those days but the information was there if you could be bothered to look for it. It was because of the Stones that I bought records by Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Robert Johnson and many other artists who I'd "never heard of before from way back when" because I DID about care who the Stones' influences were and because I wanted to find out more about them.
Being young ten years later is no excuse for ignorance.