For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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 .....
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...
Quote
HairballQuote
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!
Quote
Kurt
Two million people can't be wrong...
Quote
Kurt
Two million people can't be wrong...
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
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).
Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
Both boring.
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
Both boring.
Haha...I am still laughing. Good one Monsoon!
Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
Blue And Lonesome 6/10 (too many songs sound nearly the same)
Crosseyed Heart 5/10 (mostly boring)
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
Monsoon RagoonQuote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
Both boring.
Haha...I am still laughing. Good one Monsoon!
That wasn't a joke.
Quote
SpudQuote
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 ]
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.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