Speaking of the blues covers on this album and why some can't fathom the idea that maybe some people think that the original versions are better...here's some food for thought:

Has there ever been any covers of Stones originals by other bands/artists that are better than the Stones versions? For me, the answer is an easy NO, and pretty sure most here would agree.
Same goes for the Beatles, no covers are better than the originals - although this one comes close:

George Burns - Fixing a Hole




There are a few covers out there that I find better than the originals - Hendrix's version of Dylan's All Along the Watchtower for example - but I'm sure there's some Dylan fanatics that would beg to differ.
And for me, cover versions that are better than the originals are really few and far between. I happen to prefer originality and creativity, and unless the covers have been reworked, revised, updated, re-imagined, or reinterpreted beyond a certain level (ala Watchtower), then I'll always prefer the original.

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

It doesn't matter if they're better if you prefer the sound of a particular band anyway.

"Better" can mean so many things: Technical superior, vocals, solos, producing etc.

Many prefer Johnny Winter's take on JJF because of the guitar playing. I don't..

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It doesn't matter if they're better if you prefer the sound of a particular band anyway.

"Better" can mean so many things: Technical superior, vocals, solos, producing etc.

Many prefer Johnny Winter's take on JJF because of the guitar playing. I don't..

I agree in that what might be 'better' for you might not be 'better' for others, and 'better' can mean so many different things - hence personal opinion and preference are the key to what one might like over the other.
I happen to prefer the originals of these blues covers for a variety of reasons (see original thread for many explanations), while others prefer these Stones cover versions. Nobody's wrong, it's all subjective.
And I obviously love the Stones 'sound' generally speaking, I just don't think they put a lot of effort into stamping that 'sound' into these covers. It's the Stones playing the blues on cruise control without much thought and/or creativity going in to the process - they could do it all blindfolded, and it comes across that way IMO. With that said, they're adequate covers and have to give them credit for spitting them out in two days.

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

Nice blues album but not a topper.

It's the first record where Keith's guitar (right channel) is always quieter than Ronnie's one. If you listen closely the feeling is right but alas the fingers don't follow... But it's a good album, I listen to it everyday :-)

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.

Well, I was a youngster in the 80s and I didn't care for 80s music at all. By the way, the Stones, at least for most people I knew were considered "old farts" and obsolete in the 80s. I was lucky enough to discover all the wonderful stuff from the 50s, 60s and 70s, which turned me on to the Stones, to soul, blues, Aretha Franklin, etc... instead of listening to the typical 80s drivel like WetWetWet, Matt Bianco, and all of the rest of newwave/romantics/synthesizer barf. Admittedly Dancing in the Streets by Jagger and Bowie was fun, most people thought so at the time, but I don't know anybody who took it seriously for a second. It was just a joke, sorta ok to see on Music Box or MTV. Only when I heard the version by Martha and the Vandellas I realised that it was actually a real, serious, strong soulful song.

Quote
marmass
It's the first record where Keith's guitar (right channel) is always quieter than Ronnie's one. If you listen closely the feeling is right but alas the fingers don't follow... But it's a good album, I listen to it everyday :-)

Except for All Of Your Love, Just Your Fool and a few others.

And you should have a closer listen to the Some Girls album



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-27 12:55 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
matxil
Well, I was a youngster in the 80s and I didn't care for 80s music at all. By the way, the Stones, at least for most people I knew were considered "old farts" and obsolete in the 80s. I was lucky enough to discover all the wonderful stuff from the 50s, 60s and 70s, which turned me on to the Stones, to soul, blues, Aretha Franklin, etc... instead of listening to the typical 80s drivel like WetWetWet, Matt Bianco, and all of the rest of newwave/romantics/synthesizer barf. Admittedly Dancing in the Streets by Jagger and Bowie was fun, most people thought so at the time, but I don't know anybody who took it seriously for a second. It was just a joke, sorta ok to see on Music Box or MTV. Only when I heard the version by Martha and the Vandellas I realised that it was actually a real, serious, strong soulful song.

I also didn´t care much for 80s music back then... but you´d have to lock yourself in a closet to escape from it. It was all over the radio, many of your pals listened to it. Growing up then I didn´t find it that horrible at first just because I was used to it. Even in 1985 I thought that Mick´s Just Another Night was a great great track. And to be honest, not all of the music produced in the 80s was horrible... some was very nice indeed... Anyway in 1982/83 I started to realize that 70s rock music was much much better than anything the 80s delivered. 1965-75 ruled supreme, everything prior to 1965 was considered "oldie", music from another time/another place. Nobody I knew listened to Stax/Motown. I still think that Bowie/Jagger´s take on DITS sounds a lot fresher/punchier than the original.

Quote
retired_dog

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!

No reason to. The idiocy obviously doesn't need any particular and or specific help to continue.

Unlike their previous 5 (to some it will be 6) releases BLUE & LONESOME doesn't have a bad track on it. That says a lot.

Of course that alone doesn't rank it with BB/LIB/SFEOMS/SG/TY etc but in a way it does rank with BB/LIB/SFEOMS/SG/TY in regard of the context: they finally got something really good. It's a GOOD album. Just like those are GOOD albums.

I am loving B & L more everyday. I do wish they were producing original material but I'll take this instead. I think it helps that - to me - it's all new songs. I'd only heard Commit a Crime the first time when Mick and Jeff Beck did it at the White House and Everybody Knows About My Good Thing from Mick with the Red Devils, all the other songs are completely new to me.

Quote
exhpart
I am loving B & L more everyday. I do wish they were producing original material but I'll take this instead. I think it helps that - to me - it's all new songs. I'd only heard Commit a Crime the first time when Mick and Jeff Beck did it at the White House and Everybody Knows About My Good Thing from Mick with the Red Devils, all the other songs are completely new to me.

You should check out I Can't Quit You Baby on Led Zeppelin's debut album, if you haven't heard it. Completely different. Both are great.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
exhpart
I am loving B & L more everyday. I do wish they were producing original material but I'll take this instead. I think it helps that - to me - it's all new songs. I'd only heard Commit a Crime the first time when Mick and Jeff Beck did it at the White House and Everybody Knows About My Good Thing from Mick with the Red Devils, all the other songs are completely new to me.

You should check out I Can't Quit You Baby on Led Zeppelin's debut album, if you haven't heard it. Completely different. Both are great.

TY ...I actually didn't put the two together until you said :-)

After some months of listening I have not changed my mind.

I agree with all those who say that these covers have not improved the originals. I mean, can anybody "improve" Howlin Wolfe, Willie Dixon etc.? let's be serious!

I don't agree with those who use this argument to diminish B&L: B&L is a great stones album and a great album by itself, despite being all blues covers.

The band didn't even try to better those old masterpieces, it wasn't even in the plans to make a blues album in the first place! (I know this sounds like the usual promo BS, but my ears say that this time its true).

When Clapton did his Robert Johnson thing, sure he did his homework and dug deep into the man's music to sound as authentic as possible (and did it help to do a "better" Robert Johnson? No way!). In the case of B&L, Ron Wood, to name one, admittedly didn't even know half of the songs ...

So why it is a great album?

Main reason is that the stones for the first time in decades were able to put on an official record that loose relaxed sexy groovy feeling that unfortunately since (when? Undercover?) can be found only in session bootlegs. When the stones deliver THAT feel, no need for further analysis, you have a great record.

And this, notwithstanding the fact, I am quite sure, that the songs as appear on the album are the result of quite some editing - it's always been this way.

At this point of their career, for the reasons that we all know, the only way they could achieve this result of delivering feel in a releasable form, was playing a set of blues covers.

C

Quote
liddas
Main reason is that the stones for the first time in decades were able to put on an official record that loose relaxed sexy groovy feeling that unfortunately since (when? Undercover?) can be found only in session bootlegs. When the stones deliver THAT feel, no need for further analysis, you have a great record.
C

Great and IMHO accurate observation. The last time I noticed this "loose relaxed sexy groovy feeling" was on Little Baby from Stripped and some other Stripped tracks.

I bought Some Girls when it came out... I loved it but it was a reply to the punk scene. The guitars were loud and exciting. Keith live was a force of nature, the real driving element of the band. I saw them in 1982 so I know what I'm talking about. The age factor is more prominent on Keith's fingers, alas. If you isolated his parts you could hear all the bum notes and mistakes, that's why he is mostly buried in the mix. He starts only one song (Ride'em on down) and when they did it live Ronnie did the beginning. That's a fact. It's a pity but I like it anyway :-)

And the answer is I Can't Quit You, Baby, with Eric Clapton. The interplay between Richards, Eric, and Ronnie is incredible. Charlie is as usual steady as can be.

I have heard few comments about this number, and would like to know what other fans are thinking.

I love it.

Everybody knows about my good thing.

They should play it in London with Clapton as a guest appearance.

It's hard to choose just one track. For today, I'll go with Little Rain.

Best track? Not sure as there's a few good ones...

As for I Can't Quit You Baby, not bad musicianship, but probably my least favorite cover on the album - Mick's vocals seem a bit overwhelming and overreaching as if he's trying to hard.
Not being a purist, but could be I'm too accustomed to the original Otis Rush versions ( both the '56 and '66 versions) to give it a fair listen, but hard to put aside this quality once you've heard it for decades - everything else falls short. That said, hope they do another album of blues covers - there was much to embrace on Blue and Lonesome and showcased the band working as a team again.

Otis Rush - I Can't Quit You Baby ('56)




Otis Rush - I Can't Quit You Baby ('66)




Otis Rush - I Can't Quit You Baby (LIVE 1966)




Read all about it: I Can't Quit You Baby

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-20 23:09 by Hairball.

Quote
mtaylor
They should play it in London with Clapton as a guest appearance.

They really should.

All of the live versions of Blue and Lonesome cover tunes they've played so far that I've seen or heard have been superior to the studio versions,
and I would bet that a live version of I Can't Quit You Baby (with or without Clapton) would be excellent.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-20 23:14 by Hairball.

All Of Your Love for sure. Mick's vocals and harp solo on that one are sensational.

Its hard to pick just one - they're all great! Its a shame they're not playing more than two from the album on this tour. If they cut out a few of the longer tracks they could practically play the whole album!

Easy to say with hindsight but I wish they had released blues cover albums instead of their last few original albums which have all been patchy at best. In fact being perfectly honest their last great original album was Tattoo You.

Anyway, back to the question - if I had to choose it would be Hate To See You Go.

Just your fool.

Dont really like the album.

Quote
NeverMakeASaintOfMe
All Of Your Love for sure. Mick's vocals and harp solo on that one are sensational.

This ^

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
It's hard to choose just one track. For today, I'll go with Little Rain.

This is the one.

Quote
odean73

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
It's hard to choose just one track. For today, I'll go with Little Rain.

This is the one.

There are so many I think are great, but if I had to pick a #1, I also go w/ Little Rain.

Little Rain.