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



ROCKMAN

Awwwww yeah I forgot this bit ....






ROCKMAN

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-24 11:58 by maumau.

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

No, not the dreaded pork-pie hats!

Might be an idea to ask about headgear before you set off...

Mind you this guy in a pork-pie always did a pretty good version of Baby Please Don't Go:

Hugely enjoyable and listenable!

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

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!

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

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

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.

After 3 months the album is still selling over 30,000 copies worldwide each week without promo or tour, its a mouth to mouth thing, the album is good and the people is happy with it.

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.

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
DandelionPowderman

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

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

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!

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
maumau

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.

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

Certainly no disputing people buying it and liking/loving it
but with all respect this thing was massively promoted;
a huge world wide campaign; tons of tease press for months before release...several expensively produced 'state of the art' videos,
one w big popular tv/movie/fashion star...and endlessly cross promoted all media...all ages all demographics targetted...
tiered single releases; promoted live on both Desert Trip shows, which were massively attended,
and made world wide press for months; every great band promoting the lineups of every other great band as a simple matter of course;
always a line about upcoming Stones upcoming release;
cross promoted at Exhibitionism fairly 'bigly';
both DT shows featuring live debuts, that first DT night version of JYF was the highlight of both performances,
maybe the best most exciting debut of the year considering EVERYBODY else..
.the first two singles & the few gigs, and subsequent gigs of the mini-tour,
the holiday release scheduling for gift sales during the most intense world wide consumer activity of any year,
the art work and blue everything massively cleverly simply promoted;
the painted the world that shade of blue with a rectangle and blue tongue...
considerable & constant social media placement all news, music, social sites;
series after series of press releases creating the context spin push push push
very professionally by teams of marketeers, artists, street teams, radio promotion; world wide press releases teased tiered for months before release in all media and etc...
a top notch pro snatch and grab press pr & promotion campaign by label staff and God knows how much from the band's own personal management and press various individuals and companies...
cleverly cross promoted subtly and overtly with their two concert films, the few live shows and etc...and all their other projects...
radio promo and radio promo and more radio promo; a huge ad campaign and clever 'news' campaign...

we remember those press releases and early Ron quotes were all over the world again and again for almost a year before released...and etcetera..
.very cool pro press and promo, and intensely so I'd suggest..and ALL media...
every single music and entertainment magazine print electronic press...
i'm sure they must have blown blue smoke out of furriking jet or something somewhere along the way haha
.teams and teams of teams of people working this full time plus very intensely and with great success.

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
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

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

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!")

good points hopkins, reconsidering my opinion on "little promo".
yet I dare say that the real one and only big promo move was the release date
as georglicks ha pointed out many times, they renounced a #1 on USA top chart in order to increase numbers of sold copies

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.

with you on Harlem Shuffle; that's a supreme track imo, top notch stuff through and through, just exquisite groove and arrangement and performance and production...

not so much w you on dancin' in the street.,..no way it comes near Martha & The Vandellas huge huge resounding earth shaking world changing rush of a HIT...
davey and mickey ricdic clown vid; loved the rush at first; the top stars doin' a novelty number and flubbering about was a laugh and a cheap thrill but...
...that ain't the awesome enormous incredible bit beat and call to arms for
every and anyone who was shakin' or would be shakin' or had been shakin' their asses and etc...wow no comparison...
call mick and davids version of fun homage novelty cause that's purty cool but that's all it is in rock history and deservedly so...
it would seriously have had to have been ten times better to even start to guage a distant comparison imo...

This is a great album

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

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

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!")

sure love their "aint too proud to beg' gots lots of charge; really got into that one smack off the bat and forever; a good one for sure imo



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-24 17:05 by hopkins.

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.

What? That cover by Bowie and Jagger is one of the most cringe worthy moments in music....BTW Martha and The Vandellas recorded the original Motown version...which to this day beats all covers with ease...to think otherwise is akin to thinking Britney Spears' cover of Satisfaction is superiour to the Stones version.

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-24 17:45 by rattler2004.

I don´t like the vocals on The Vandella´s version.
Bowie/Jagger did it so much more powerful and energetic.
The video is also funny to watch, funny clothes. They didn´t take it too seriously, Bowie most of all. I remember back then everybody I knew loved it, the video AND the song. If you grew up with Martha´s original you probably will like it better but those who grew up with Bowie/Jagger´s take might like the later version better. Sometimes it´s just a matter of age, I guess.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

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

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.

What's that anyway? As simple as a personal opinion and different tastes- that's all.
Kind of surprised that some won't/can't accept that others think there's something actually 'better' (the originals) than the Stones playing blues covers.
Then again, not too surprised about it on this forum filled with rabid defenders of the band. I understand that some prefer the 'Stones sound' over the originals, and that's fine and dandy.

On a somewhat different note, I was beyond thrilled to see and hear some of these new cover tunes played live - they were superior to the studio versions imo, and they were a nice addition to the 'stagnant' setlists. And wishful thinking, but it would have been great had they played the entire album from start to finish. A few special theater or club shows, or even just one show (even a private one) to be filmed and documented. Seems like a missed opportunity imo.



*As for the Stones Motown covers being better than the originals? Not in my world, not any of them, never have, and never will (imo).

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-24 19:38 by Hairball.

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.

To be honest I think the Howlin' Wolf version of Comments A Crime is a trillion times better than the Stones version.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-24 19:44 by Monsoon Ragoon.

HMS:
to some extent a matter of age because the cultural impact was enormous; it was a clarion call heard near and far;it was a huge huge hit. an enormous cultural shift as much as any, i mean any, rock record could possibly hope to have.

Marving Gaye co-wrote it & played drums! It was '64, we know what else that was happening on the charts in '64 and this thing ripped up the charts and stayed there; experiential social, political and etc effect on the culture itself is to some extent a matter of age.

You did kind of have to be there to appreciate the grand historical gestalt of it all. The civil rights legislation was finally about to be passed sealed and put into law' that was a HUGE cultural shift right there...and I guess it's a matter of age to have felt that lived through it been a teeny part of it;

Civil Rights anthem regardless of how the artist or label felt about it...it was a time of GREAT GREAT change in the culture and all areas of art...we were in the first incredible BLAST of the Invasion's top offerings; it was AM radio days and the Hit Parade was a great great unifer; every demographic; every person of every persuasion were listening to the same things...in a wide variety of styles...it was totally different from subsequent generational shifts...it was regarded as 'threatening' and enciting counter cultural revolution and it widely and wildly offended others who considered it actually dangerous or promoting violent demonstrations; remember black people and white people could not stay at the same motels or drink from the same water fountains and suchl...or ride the bus up in front with the whiteys...
It WAS a call to arms; even if those arms were just waving like to 'dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free...'

it was ominous to some; a lot of people who resisted this kind of 'race mixing' and in their opinion a not so subtle call for demonstrations, resistance, possibly 'violent revoluuutionnnn' ... that a matter of age to some degree tho it's univeral enough to be read a lot of different ways...
Martha Reeves and also Berry Gordy insisted it was just a 'dance' record but it was a revolionary statement on a lot of different levels...and was perceived as such in some quarters; later everybody from The Kinks to Van Halen to The Grateful Dead even Black Oak Arkasas for God's sake, would have a crack at it. Original version would be Number ONE or top five, certainly Top Ten in way over a dozen nations...

but ultimately i don't think enjoying it or 'getting' it's impact and great spirit is just for old farts who were there at the time, as the key demographic for rock/pop/soul hits back then, but for anybody appreciate and recognized deep soul, deep groove, deep dare i say, authenticity...

i get that david and mick were the big glammer-rammer androgynous poperoonie super stars and it was a different generation of youngest fans when this the mick/david version came out...but soul is soul;

Marth has a great and distinct voice; an amazing voice just beautiful; the horns are spectacular from the git-go...it's heavy on the beat man; hand claps snares whatever it is moving beating rocking...then the asecnding strings before back to the main groove and those trombones or whatever is rattling the bottom in there...

the background vocals amazing that wooooo ooooooh like a siren clarion call; or an ancient ones; it works on so many levels; and its way under three minutes haha; holy ghost. it's not just age, it's taste, it's groove, it's the difference between a really beautiful wise strong delicious joyful soulful woman and a pleasant amusing but vacant super model. the differene between bubble gum and good whiskey...

.she'd smash again with Heatwave; those riots in the summer the demonstrations at the Capitol mall when Peter Paul Mary were singing live Dylan, Dr. King gave that speech;

they had taken that song to number 1 and it was a huge hit; yes cultural context but not unknowable or unnatainable by anyone who immerses one self in this music and that history...her version one of the most important hits on the pop charts EVER;

david and mick more doing a charity record to raise funds for famine in .85 with the Live Aid effort a lot of pop artists were trying to help with this and it was an act of grace actually; a good thing;

i don't at all hate it; but it was a novelty from start to finish; hell it was conceived to ve that...it was camp and a little naugty and awful cute...to a point...

and there is absolutely NO WAY that this did not influence the guys who wrote sfm; it's a direct reference and tip of the hat...even the siren kind of thing goin' on...it's actually a genius of production, arrangement and performance...McDavid version like Vanilla Ice covering Sam Cooke. Green Day doing Wilson Pickett.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-24 20:04 by hopkins.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

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.

To be honest I think the Howlin' Wolf version of Comments A Crime is a trillion times better than the Stones version.

Out of all the covers on this album, Commit a Crime is the one that (to me) seems almost untouchable -- like somebody covering Aretha, or the Stones, for that matter. Still, the Stones, including Mick, do a great job on the song, and the last minute or so builds to something that's about as powerful as music can get. Easily in my top 3 of the album. I'm sure glad they weren't afraid to try.

Spot on, hopkins.
HMS considers Dirty Work to be a classic, Tattoo You not to be a "proper" album, Ya-Ya's not worthy to be called a live album because of "all of the overdubs" (he prefers Shine A Light, FFS) and now that No Expectations is just "filler" on Beggars Banquet.
Anyone who thinks that Mick'n'Dave's version of Dancing In The Street "beats every second of the original" clearly has cloth ears or is being deliberately contrary in order to get attention.
Job done HMS, you can stop now.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

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.

Yeah DITS is great, a mid 80's classic like Take On Me. No sarcasm.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-24 22:02 by Monsoon Ragoon.

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.

Fair enough if that's all you can say but in fact there was more that you actually did say and that was putting the original down with your usual exaggarations like this:

"And the Jagger/Bowie version of Dancing In The Street beats every second of the original by I don´t even remember whom."

And you really wonder why you're standing back to the wall once again? And GasLight has not even joined this part of the discussion... YET!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-25 09:00 by retired_dog.

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
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.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
Deltics

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.

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.

just because he has a different take on things doesn't make him "ignorant".there is this view that music from the 60's is supposed to be worshiped because of some social relevance it had and alot of people ,myself included couldn't give a crap.

the jagger/bowie take on the song was really good and they gave the money to charity so it had an impact beyond music.if someones likes it better than the original,so be it.

dirty work,by the way,kicked ass.one hit with jimmy page killing the solo lead to the cover of harlem shuffle[which is better than the original] to keiths reggae and the rocker had it with you being standouts.
the guitars on a stones album haven't been that dirty and raw since.

ease up on the groupthink guys..