Tell Me :
Talk
It's hard for me to make the equivalency tho I agree about how you describe B&L...and think I understand. It's hard for me to judge it like that because B&L is a quick cover LP; like or love it or be sort of not that much impressed w it; it's still hard for me to compare with actual Stones song, other than a 'concept' product per se....
...
Personally ABB and VL would be priortized over B&L in my house, as far as studio Stones LP project. just too many good songs on each of those, even if you only pick a spare handful imo.
tho i can see where it would be close for a lot of fans because there's a nice few on B&L that really are pleasing and stand out. aside from the first two singles which I like, there's at least one more, maybe two, that I really can get behind.
if i had to choose it would be Keith's orignals that I'd keep.
yeah, there's that too.
i guess it's not an equivalency I can navigate...just by defintion...
I navigate it simply like this:
Keith originals (something new and unique) vs. Stones covers (something old and familiar).
Granted it's the Stones doing the covers, but it's difficult to top sincere originals written and recorded from the heart...or crosseyed heart.
Ditto.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-13 06:21 by Hairball.
yep just so..
2 1 2 0
sums it up perfectly...I like both albums very much.
Are Heartstopper, Amnesia, Trouble, Blues In The Morning, Love Overdue, Something For Nothing, Nothing On Me and Substantial Damage slower than the stuff on Blue And Lonesome?
Both albums are pretty heavy on mid-tempo tracks, imo. Crosseyed Heart might have one or two more ballads, but then again it also has more songs.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
keefgotsoul
()
Date: March 13, 2017 04:37
Which album do you like better? I prefer Crosseyed Heart. Blue and Lonesome tries to get back to their roots but I still find it to be a bit sterile. CH is looser, gritty and more natural sounding to me.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 13, 2017 04:50
I'd say CH is the effort of Keith Richards to sho a comprehensive overview of his
(Life) in music. Country, blues, reggae.
B&L on the other hand is a late period Stones album even if it's covers. They go in a studio, have some trouble working on new material, and say 'fvck it, let's
play some blues!'
So we have Blue&Lonesome. A band effort from the stones. 3 days as opposed to
3 years ...
(Life) in music. Country, blues, reggae.
B&L on the other hand is a late period Stones album even if it's covers. They go in a studio, have some trouble working on new material, and say 'fvck it, let's
play some blues!'
So we have Blue&Lonesome. A band effort from the stones. 3 days as opposed to
3 years ...
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 13, 2017 05:02
Crosseyed Heart wins easily.
That being said, Blue and Lonesome is a decent/average album of blues covers - Mick's harp playing is great throughout.
It's the best 'Stones' album since 1981 imo.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
That being said, Blue and Lonesome is a decent/average album of blues covers - Mick's harp playing is great throughout.
It's the best 'Stones' album since 1981 imo.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: March 13, 2017 05:04
I'd trade all of B&L for just "Trouble." the rest is bonus. and i like several on B&L, just sayin'...
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 13, 2017 05:06
Blue & Lonesome ..... CH...good album but it ain't The Stones
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: March 13, 2017 05:11
Quote
Hairball
Crosseyed Heart wins easily.
That being said, Blue and Lonesome is a decent/average album of blues covers - Mick's harp playing is great throughout.
It's the best 'Stones' album since 1981 imo.
It's hard for me to make the equivalency tho I agree about how you describe B&L...and think I understand. It's hard for me to judge it like that because B&L is a quick cover LP; like or love it or be sort of not that much impressed w it; it's still hard for me to compare with actual Stones song, other than a 'concept' product per se....
...
Personally ABB and VL would be priortized over B&L in my house, as far as studio Stones LP project. just too many good songs on each of those, even if you only pick a spare handful imo.
tho i can see where it would be close for a lot of fans because there's a nice few on B&L that really are pleasing and stand out. aside from the first two singles which I like, there's at least one more, maybe two, that I really can get behind.
if i had to choose it would be Keith's orignals that I'd keep.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: March 13, 2017 05:13
Quote
Rockman
Blue & Lonesome ..... CH...good album but it ain't The Stones
yeah, there's that too.
i guess it's not an equivalency I can navigate...just by defintion...
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
laf848
()
Date: March 13, 2017 05:26
Not even close, The Fantastic Blue And Lonesome !!!
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 13, 2017 06:19
Quote
hopkinsQuote
Rockman
Blue & Lonesome ..... CH...good album but it ain't The Stones
yeah, there's that too.
i guess it's not an equivalency I can navigate...just by defintion...
I navigate it simply like this:
Keith originals (something new and unique) vs. Stones covers (something old and familiar).
Granted it's the Stones doing the covers, but it's difficult to top sincere originals written and recorded from the heart...or crosseyed heart.
Quote
hopkins
I'd trade all of B&L for just "Trouble." the rest is bonus. and i like several on B&L, just sayin'...
Ditto.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-13 06:21 by Hairball.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 13, 2017 09:18
but it's difficult to top sincere originals written and recorded from the heart....
So you'd take Dirty Work over Blue & Lonesome .....
ROCKMAN
So you'd take Dirty Work over Blue & Lonesome .....
ROCKMAN
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: March 13, 2017 09:46
Neither!
12X5 is still the best of their "cover" albums.
Cross Your Heart Bra? Was Keith made famous so that he could be anything but a Rolling Stone?
They are greater than the sum of their parts, or something like that.
They'll keep playing the same shows and you'll love it and Boob and Bloatsome won't change that.
Eleven, twelve years and all that happens is a cover album? At least on their first album there was an original song.
Just be happy that Mick and Charlie are still willing to work as Rolling Stones, otherwise what you'd have here on this forum would be the same as a Led Zeppelin or Beatles forum -- talking about bands no longer active, exchanging the same old personal stories over and over of when we heard this or collected that.
So, be grateful for your "warhorses"; saddle up, and ride into the sunset with 'em. It's what we've got.
Boob and Bloatsome? Cross Your Heart Bra?
No -- 12X5!
12X5 is still the best of their "cover" albums.
Cross Your Heart Bra? Was Keith made famous so that he could be anything but a Rolling Stone?
They are greater than the sum of their parts, or something like that.
They'll keep playing the same shows and you'll love it and Boob and Bloatsome won't change that.
Eleven, twelve years and all that happens is a cover album? At least on their first album there was an original song.
Just be happy that Mick and Charlie are still willing to work as Rolling Stones, otherwise what you'd have here on this forum would be the same as a Led Zeppelin or Beatles forum -- talking about bands no longer active, exchanging the same old personal stories over and over of when we heard this or collected that.
So, be grateful for your "warhorses"; saddle up, and ride into the sunset with 'em. It's what we've got.
Boob and Bloatsome? Cross Your Heart Bra?
No -- 12X5!
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 13, 2017 09:59
I'll have to give a nod to Keith's strong album, but it's close to a draw, imo.
To hear the Stones swinging like this so late in their career was fantastic, though.
To hear the Stones swinging like this so late in their career was fantastic, though.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
straycatuk
()
Date: March 13, 2017 10:15
If they had let Keith and Steve Jordan produce B&L it would have been unbeatable IMO. Crosseyed heart is the best sounding Stones related product since......Talk is Cheap. The songs aren't bad either !
Sc uk
Sc uk
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Monsoon Ragoon
()
Date: March 13, 2017 10:26
Both boring.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
rebelrebel
()
Date: March 13, 2017 10:42
Blue & Lonesome by a country mile. It's the Stones firing on all cylinders. Crosseyed Heart is just a pleasant Keith Richard's album with a few standout tracks for me.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: March 13, 2017 10:46
Like both albums and love them immensely. Blue and lonesome is playing in my car almost every day. CH not so much anymore, but was, when it was released.
Still, they are great albums and rank very high in my Stones collection.
Jeroen
Still, they are great albums and rank very high in my Stones collection.
Jeroen
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: March 13, 2017 11:22
CH. There are songs on CH which still sound fresh and new and interesting. Especially the soul songs.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: March 13, 2017 11:23
Quote
Rockman
Blue & Lonesome ..... CH...good album but it ain't The Stones
yep just so..
2 1 2 0
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: March 13, 2017 11:23
As much as I love hearing the Stones going back to their roots the originality of Keith's album wins for me.
Blue and Lonesome is great but it lacks variety and a lot of the songs fall into the same tempo and formula. It's a stop gap album and an idea that was always on the cards.
I agree with straycatuk that Crosseyed Heart is the best sounding Stones related album since Talk Is Cheap.
Blue and Lonesome is great but it lacks variety and a lot of the songs fall into the same tempo and formula. It's a stop gap album and an idea that was always on the cards.
I agree with straycatuk that Crosseyed Heart is the best sounding Stones related album since Talk Is Cheap.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Nate
()
Date: March 13, 2017 11:25
Two great albums
Nate
Nate
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
MadMax
()
Date: March 13, 2017 11:30
Tough draw but I'd go with CH, Ain't Got Nothing On Me, Something For Nothing, Heartstopper and Amnesia are 4 songs that are just simply AMAZING, they swing and breathe and I'll never get tired of 'em! IMHO there are only 2 records in the World that got this kinda swagger, Main Offender and Crosseyed Heart.
Talk Is Cheap was Keith laying the foundation but the 2 others are just outta this World! They work as well as a monday morning at 6AM as a saturday night at 9PM.
Blue And Lonesome I'll never get tired of, how could ya? But it ain't really a morning record, it's more of a saturday 9PM record.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-13 11:53 by MadMax.
Talk Is Cheap was Keith laying the foundation but the 2 others are just outta this World! They work as well as a monday morning at 6AM as a saturday night at 9PM.
Blue And Lonesome I'll never get tired of, how could ya? But it ain't really a morning record, it's more of a saturday 9PM record.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-13 11:53 by MadMax.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
straycatuk
()
Date: March 13, 2017 12:40
Both of these albums were big surprises for me -
CH because I didn't expect such quality and depth from KR anymore. Brilliant
B&L because it was the album I thought MJ would never agree to make. A return to their roots.
sc uk
CH because I didn't expect such quality and depth from KR anymore. Brilliant
B&L because it was the album I thought MJ would never agree to make. A return to their roots.
sc uk
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: March 13, 2017 13:07
Quote
straycatuk
Both of these albums were big surprises for me -
CH because I didn't expect such quality and depth from KR anymore. Brilliant
B&L because it was the album I thought MJ would never agree to make. A return to their roots.
sc uk
sums it up perfectly...I like both albums very much.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: March 13, 2017 13:21
Bit of a strange comparison as one is a Stones album of covers, the other a master piece from a man with nothing left to prove. I find I stopped playing Blue And Lonesome after a couple of weeks, found it too one-dimensional. As for Crosseyed Heart I love it so much I have to ration myself to it in case of overkill. So I guess I much prefer CH. Having said that I am not a huge fan of the blues, to my ears it's musically and lyrically limited as an art form. I rather prefer the Stones version of the blues through their writing.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-13 13:42 by stone4ever.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-13 13:42 by stone4ever.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
pepganzo
()
Date: March 13, 2017 14:00
Keith 's one
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: March 13, 2017 14:04
Crosseyed Heart.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: March 13, 2017 14:11
Blue and Lonesome. I find Crosseyed Heart boring. It meanders too much, Keith in mostly mellow mode. Gets to be a slow slow ride. Whereas Blue and Lonesome is a pure celebration of the Blues and their career. They all sound fantastic!
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 13, 2017 14:27
Quote
whitem8
Blue and Lonesome. I find Crosseyed Heart boring. It meanders too much, Keith in mostly mellow mode. Gets to be a slow slow ride. Whereas Blue and Lonesome is a pure celebration of the Blues and their career. They all sound fantastic!
Are Heartstopper, Amnesia, Trouble, Blues In The Morning, Love Overdue, Something For Nothing, Nothing On Me and Substantial Damage slower than the stuff on Blue And Lonesome?
Both albums are pretty heavy on mid-tempo tracks, imo. Crosseyed Heart might have one or two more ballads, but then again it also has more songs.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
LukeTheDrifter
()
Date: March 13, 2017 14:31
I'd have to choose Crosseyed Heart.
However, they're both surprisingly good - IMO better than any Stones album since Tattoo You
However, they're both surprisingly good - IMO better than any Stones album since Tattoo You
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: March 13, 2017 14:49
Quote
shortfatfannyQuote
straycatuk
Both of these albums were big surprises for me -
CH because I didn't expect such quality and depth from KR anymore. Brilliant
B&L because it was the album I thought MJ would never agree to make. A return to their roots.
sc uk
sums it up perfectly...I like both albums very much.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
adamw3405 , alfstone , andrews27 , Big Al , bitusa2012 , Christiaan , dimrstone , dishevelmentblues , Doxa , esqcjh , Fuman2 , gativubi , Handova , henrik87 , Jalfstra , Kevinstones78 , Manofwealthandtaste , marclaff , mike567 , S.T.P , sandandglue , werner67976
Guests:
1680
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10