CROSSEYED HEART has layers of depth to it, genres, styles, etc. As great as BLUE AND LONESOME is, CH over BAL.

Both are great albums in their context though, all things considered: an old salt playing what he wants of originals and a couple of covers; old saltys playing what they love; at the end of their careers, old, obviously enjoying it, having fun, doing what they want.

Blue And Lonesome --- 8/10
Crosseyed Heart --- 6/10

A Stones-album is always better than a KR-album.
Solo-albums = no magic.

I like both but Crosseyed Heart has more soul
and does have that Keith magic...Or should
I say more Keith love to it.

Blue And Lonesome 6/10 (too many songs sound nearly the same)
Crosseyed Heart 5/10 (mostly boring)

Quote
Rockman
but it's difficult to top sincere originals written and recorded from the heart....


So you'd take Dirty Work over Blue & Lonesome .....

No - this thread is specifically about Crosseyed Heart and Keith's superior originals vs. Blue and Lonesome and it's standard covers.
But if there was a thread as to why Blue and Lonesome is the best 'Stones' album since 1981 (including Dirty Work), I would get into more detail!

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

I'm sorry to say I don't care much for either of them. But who knows - maybe I will change my mind somewhere in the future? If I had to pick one I'd pick CH. It's less boring I guess...

CH passes my test of standing the test of time so I have to go with CH. B&L will always be good but will fall just a cut below B&L

CH: 8/10
B&L: 7/10

It's a matter of circumstance. A mid-morning drive with Crosseyed Heart can produce moments of sheer, sweet ecstasy that can never be recreated. And the same with Blue & Lonesome on a Thursday evening in the kitchen with just the perfect amount of beverage consumed.

(Now that I've alluded "car" and "kitchen", Feel On Baby is sounding in my ear. Time to listen to Undercover. There will surely be uniquely joyful moments listening to that album too.)

(Whoops, now that I used the term "sounding in my ear"...)

Quote
Stoneage
I'm sorry to say I don't care much for either of them. But who knows - maybe I will change my mind somewhere in the future? If I had to pick one I'd pick CH. It's less boring I guess...

Me neither. Maybe a song or two will sound better with age (like Keith in 25x5).

B&L isn´t their best album "since 81" but "their best album since 86".
No one in the world will ever make me consider the reanimated pile of dead bodies called TY a genuine new album. DW was their best album since Black And Blue and Blue And Lonesome is their best album since DW. Even if TY would have been all brandnew, DW would still be better.

B&L 9/10
CH. 2/10

""It's a matter of circumstance. A mid-morning drive with Crosseyed Heart can produce moments of sheer, sweet ecstasy that can never be recreated. And the same with Blue & Lonesome on a Thursday evening in the kitchen with just the perfect amount of beverage consumed.

(Now that I've alluded "car" and "kitchen", Feel On Baby is sounding in my ear. Time to listen to Undercover. There will surely be uniquely joyful moments listening to that album too.)

(Whoops, now that I used the term "sounding in my ear"...)""






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-13 19:30 by MadMax.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Rockman
but it's difficult to top sincere originals written and recorded from the heart....


So you'd take Dirty Work over Blue & Lonesome .....

No - this thread is specifically about Crosseyed Heart and Keith's superior originals vs. Blue and Lonesome and it's standard covers.
But if there was a thread as to why Blue and Lonesome is the best 'Stones' album since 1981 (including Dirty Work), I would get into more detail!

I'd say since 1974, personally.

Two million people can't be wrong...

Quote
Kurt
Two million people can't be wrong...

McDonalds claims to sell 550 million Big Macs each year in the U.S. alone,so...........



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

Quote
Kurt
Two million people can't be wrong...

Sure they can.

Two distinctly average records on the grand scheme of things, but both good in different ways. Good because Keith's was better than expected and it has a couple of really good songs and B & L because it was a really good effort from a band at the end of their careers. If I had to pick I'd go for B&L.

Blue and Lonesome of course,so much better than boring Crosseyed Heart.
It,s many who likes the Stones in my homeplace,but none of them play Keith,s newest album

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Stoneage
I'm sorry to say I don't care much for either of them. But who knows - maybe I will change my mind somewhere in the future? If I had to pick one I'd pick CH. It's less boring I guess...

Me neither. Maybe a song or two will sound better with age (like Keith in 25x5).

Yeah I have to agree. I’d go with CH simply because the material is original (although Keith is clearly ripping off both himself and Merle Haggard in a few places). But there are only 3, maybe 4, songs on CH that really move me. Two reasons for that I think. First, at this point even when he writes a classic catchy Keith song like ‘Trouble’ it sounds a little hokey. He’s just been to that same well once too often. And second, Mick is desperately missed, much more so than in his earlier solo works. It’s not Mick’s singing so much as the irreverent wit he can bring to songs. CH is way too solemn (yeah boring) for me. I wanna few ‘She Was Hot/Hot Stuff’ type songs.

But B&L is overrated in the extreme. Said it before but their own original Blues outtakes (Cook Cook Blues etc.) are better than anything. on B&L. It would’ve made for a nice Christmas album IF it had been preceded by an album of original stuff in the summer.

BORING?

You guys are jaded

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
Both boring.

Haha...I am still laughing. Good one Monsoon!

What is this romantic bullshit about ”originality”? That technically some half-baked sketches based on old cliches and way-too circulated patterns is credited to some artist releasing a new product tells something about ”originality” or ”creativity”? My ass. I guess there is some sort of romantic myth based on the golden days of rock music that the performers are ”artists” that supposedly should release some novel ideas (in the form of ”songs”) every once in a while, no matter how long time the supposed artist has lost any inspiration to have anything to 'say' or 'add' what one has already done. To be "alive"? The 'new' songs are like some mcdonalds burgers the customers and producers are eager to have in market, no matter both sides have lost the point why to do it. It is just a habit, a custom. The romantic drive for 'authenticity', 'novelty', oh yeah, let's even talk about even the 'geniouses'.

There are songs in CROSS-EYED HEART that have originality as much as there is originality in the next BigMac. And as much artistic novelty. What there actually is a product based solely on the brand consisted of the personality and idiosyncratic musicianship of Keith Richards. If you like that brand – that is: you are so familiar with it – you most likely enjoy the product. In that scenario one starts to describe it by terms like its all about ”feeling” and ”sincerity” - in the vocabulary of Keith Richards brand believers that excuses the over-all laziness, the drive for easy musical decisions, the lack of discipline, mediocre, sloppy musicianship... The brand is strongly rooted that it excuses almost anything. It is the best brand in the history of rock and roll. It is actually so good that anyone buying it has in the case of it lost about any musical criterion established in everywhere else. It goes so deep that if the ”Keef” farts loud enough that will be an act of ”feeling”. So it is no a big surprise that to see the ”greatness” of CROSS-EYED HEART is a cult of of 'chosen ones' – for the ears and eyes trained by decades devotion. For the rest it is almost impossible to understand what there is more than an old legend doing the minimum, the obvious and playing for the brand. A tiresome experience to listen more than two-three times. But LIFE is much better and enjoyable product of the brand. No wonder it sold much more than the album.

The greatness, if there is any, of BLUE&LONESOME is that it doesn't have any ”artistic” or ”creative” pretensions. Just the band concentrating playing some old covers as good as they can. The miracle of it is that they end up sounding surprisingly inspired and probably fresher than they have for decades on record (or elsewhere). What is even more, and actually unbelieveable taking the ancient non-trendy form of Chicago blues, they succeeded sounding surprisingly good for non-devotees. Probably that kind of music is rooted in every rock fan's DNA, but actually making that sound good and catchy is almost unhearable in recent history. No excuses is needed, not even saying 'hey, it's the Stones, man', but just let the music in terms of its own do the talking. For many people - which explains its good numbers - it is good despite being made by the way too obvious and old brand called the Stones.

So forget all the bullshit about ”originality”, ”authenticity” and whatever romantic notions. Skip the creditions and just listen the music. That only matters.

- Doxa, a retired old grumpy man



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-14 12:42 by Doxa.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
Both boring.

Haha...I am still laughing. Good one Monsoon!

That wasn't a joke.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
Blue And Lonesome 6/10 (too many songs sound nearly the same)
Crosseyed Heart 5/10 (mostly boring)

What ?

Every song on B&L has it's own unique feel and groove...testament to just how wide & deep their mastery of the blues really is.

Any band could make a Blues album ...and most would end up with "too many songs sounding nearly the same" ....but that's certainly not the case here.

[...and prior to release , it had been a slight fear for me that we might get a dozen reworkings of Black Limousine with different words ]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-14 12:58 by Spud.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
Both boring.

Haha...I am still laughing. Good one Monsoon!

That wasn't a joke.

I know; I'm not taking it as a joke. I'm not even agreeing all that much, but I am Hats-Off to the way you did it.

Quote
Spud

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
Blue And Lonesome 6/10 (too many songs sound nearly the same)
Crosseyed Heart 5/10 (mostly boring)

What ?

Every song on B&L has it's own unique feel and groove...testament to just how wide & deep their mastery of the blues really is.

Any band could make a Blues album ...and most would end up with "too many songs sounding nearly the same" ....but that's certainly not the case here.

[...and prior to release , it had been a slight fear for me that we might get a dozen reworkings of Black Limousine with different words ]

Well I don't think it's a bad album (hence 6/10, not 3/10), but it didn't take me to heaven unfortunately. There are at least 5 songs that are VERY similar. Even A Bigger Bang was a much better album (8/10), nothing on there sounds really similar to another tune.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-14 13:13 by Monsoon Ragoon.

Apples and oranges, but both great albums.

For different reasons I am not too happy with how they sound, but we are discussing details.

C

My only gripe with B&L is Mick's harp is too loud...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-14 14:07 by MidnightPeanut.

Quote
Doxa
What is this romantic bullshit about ”originality”? That technically some half-baked sketches based on old cliches and way-too circulated patterns is credited to some artist releasing a new product tells something about ”originality” or ”creativity”? My ass. I guess there is some sort of romantic myth based on the golden days of rock music that the performers are ”artists” that supposedly should release some novel ideas (in the form of ”songs”) every once in a while, no matter how long time the supposed artist has lost any inspiration to have anything to 'say' or 'add' what one has already done. To be "alive"? The 'new' songs are like some mcdonalds burgers the customers and producers are eager to have in market, no matter both sides have lost the point why to do it. It is just a habit, a custom. The romantic drive for 'authenticity', 'novelty', oh yeah, let's even talk about even the 'geniouses'.

There are songs in CROSS-EYED HEART that have originality as much as there is originality in the next BigMac. And as much artistic novelty. What there actually is a product based solely on the brand consisted of the personality and idiosyncratic musicianship of Keith Richards. If you like that brand – that is: you are so familiar with it – you most likely enjoy the product. In that scenario one starts to describe it by terms like its all about ”feeling” and ”sincerity” - in the vocabulary of Keith Richards brand believers that excuses the over-all laziness, the drive for easy musical decisions, the lack of discipline, mediocre, sloppy musicianship... The brand is strongly rooted that it excuses almost anything. It is the best brand in the history of rock and roll. It is actually so good that anyone buying it has in the case of it lost about any musical criterion established in everywhere else. It goes so deep that if the ”Keef” farts loud enough that will be an act of ”feeling”. So it is no a big surprise that to see the ”greatness” of CROSS-EYED HEART is a cult of of 'chosen ones' – for the ears and eyes trained by decades devotion. For the rest it is almost impossible to understand what there is more than an old legend doing the minimum, the obvious and playing for the brand. A tiresome experience to listen more than two-three times. But LIFE is much better and enjoyable product of the brand. No wonder it sold much more than the album.

The greatness, if there is any, of BLUE&LONESOME is that it doesn't have any ”artistic” or ”creative” pretensions. Just the band concentrating playing some old covers as good as they can. The miracle of it is that they end up sounding surprisingly inspired and probably fresher than they have for decades on record (or elsewhere). What is even more, and actually unbelieveable taking the ancient non-trendy form of Chicago blues, they succeeded sounding surprisingly good for non-devotees. Probably that kind of music is rooted in every rock fan's DNA, but actually making that sound good and catchy is almost unhearable in recent history. No excuses is needed, not even saying 'hey, it's the Stones, man', but just let the music in terms of its own do the talking. For many people - which explains its good numbers - it is good despite being made by the way too obvious and old brand called the Stones.

So forget all the bullshit about ”originality”, ”authenticity” and whatever romantic notions. Skip the creditions and just listen the music. That only matters.

- Doxa, a retired old grumpy man

Tough review of Cross eyed heart. I don't feel that way at all about that record. I still listen to it and enjoy it; the music moves me.
Rockandroll,
Mops

Doxa is right