Tell Me :
Talk
Just what I thought... >
<
i agree doxa but those who have bought into keiths cult of personality[the keithettes as i affectionately call them ] wont understand a word you say.
they are so entrenched in the whole thing that it's almost like talking to scientologists,an instant defence mechanism kicks in whenever their beliefs are threatened.
if anything goes wrong with the band or the music they instantly deflect the attention away from keith and onto someone or something else,it's facinating to watch.
it was really profound what you said about "ears and eyes trained by decades of devotion"-as someone who followed keith when he was just a member of what was in the general publics eyes"mick jagger and the rolling stones"i have a pretty good idea when he's playing well,writing well and when he's just talking shit and posing.it's sad how time and age took away his playing,singing and writing ability.my favorite guitar player left hiding behind a stupid image and pandering to a bunch of hero worshipers.
to see people qouting him like his word is gospel,taking his view of the world as their own and listening to music that wouldn't have made a good bootleg in the 70's and comparing it to the rolling stones is really odd.
keiths record is like a mick record or any stones album from 89 to 05,it has about 3 good songs on it- so no,it's not as good as the rolling stones playing some of the best blues songs ever written..trust us on this,it's not even close.
It's been quite awhile since I listened to it as well from start to finish - at least a month, but to the above mentioned I'd add Robbed Blind and Suspicious at the top of the heap.
If there is any filler on the album, I'd have to say the reggae cover of Love Overdue. Not because it's a bad cover, just that the original Gregory Isaacs version is the ultimate superior version imo.
Difficult to make something better than an original when it's not really reinterpreted beyond simply being a cover which is the case with Keith's version, and also part of the drawbacks of Blue and Lonesome as a whole imo.
Overall, it's the wide variety of original tunes on Crosseyed Heart that is at the core of it's strength (blues, rock, country, soul, r&b, etc.), which makes for a more enjoyable experience than listening to an album of covers that simply haven't been taken to the next level ala the Stones' versions of Love in Vain or Stop Breaking Down (but even in these cases, I prefer the originals). Crosseyed Heart is a great album mostly filled with originals, while Blue and Lonesome is a good album filled solely with decent covers - some better than others. Glad to have them both in my collection, but I wouldn't miss the B&L covers as much as I would Crosseyed Heart with it's variety and originality.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-16 22:02 by Hairball.
Hardly one song suits his voice and way of singing.
They could have all worked well, but then again Mick might have 'oversang' some of the more subtle parts.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
I'd like to hear Keith sing "One More Shot", as it seemed Mick was attempting to channel Keith when he sang it.
To the topic, as always it's a matter of individual taste as to what is "better". Crosseyed Heart is an amalgamation of Keithisms, written and recorded over a period of time and produced with love and care by Keith and Steve Jordan. It caught me off guard in a good way and I still listen to it regularly. Blue and Lonesome was also a pleasant surprise but then again the Stones cut their teeth on the blues, learning from the likes of Alexis Korner, Cyril Davies, and, oh yes, Brian Jones. But then again these are the guys who recorded stuff like "Who's Driving Your Plane?". Given the "Desert Island" choice, I'd take Crosseyed without hesitation.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-17 00:44 by bleedingman.
+1
But the question here is which do you prefer...Crosseyed Heart vs. Blue and Lonesome.
I recall a scathing review from you regarding B&L (or several brutally honest posts), and now you're discounting CH, so curious as to what you actually like if anything.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
'Trouble' for sure.
When I heard it for the first few times, right after Keith's
extremely distinct guitar intro, I instinctively waited for Mick,
and my felt letdown he wasn't there. Until I got used to it.
In fact, while watching 'Billions' a few weeks ago,
'Trouble' came on and 2 notes in a say 'Rolling Stones!'
like the show off/ crazy RS know every intro/ annoying person
but wait a few and say 'No, 'Trouble' Keith Richards/Crosseyed Heart.
So 'TROUBLE' baby, 'TROUBLE'
Lol you were not alone - Bernard was a true heart sinker.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Pardon me , trust me, you're both wrong lol.
Well stated, Hairball. I respect everyone's opinions as to what they enjoy or don't enjoy. I've never understood the tendency of some to say "Clapton sucks", "The Stones have lost it", "Dirty Work is garbage", etc. I try to qualify my posts with "In my opinion...", whether it be discussing Hip Hop (which I loathe, to say the least), Beyonce' (ditto), Keith's current status, etc. etc. The whole "I'm right; You're wrong, so there" attitude is such a huge turnoff and one of the reasons I think long and hard before sharing an opinion in any forum. If someone enjoys something that I hate, more power to them.
Well said Hairball i'll drink to that
I guess its just human nature to get passionate about something you love and when someone hates or dislikes something you love, it can cause frustration and confusion. I come to understand that all us Stones freaks love different aspects of this band for different reasons, different albums and tours and years etc.
Its good to converse and disagree, but it never needs to get personal.
As you say its a gift that this band are still active, still making an album and hopefully another tour, i have to pinch myself to believe it, man we picked the right band here.
I've maintained that this period of work starting in 2012 has been a joyful surprise and obviously it ain't ending anytime soon!!.....how lucky we are IMHO.
*Or maybe I've just 'evolved' on the sativa like Richards, LOL!
so funny, i look at those song titles and in my head i can hear the song and micks voice on the title lyrics.
Me too haha (and unfortunately they doesn't sound too promising for me...)
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-17 08:29 by Doxa.
but that's the correct approach...have exceptionally low expectations and then, THEN only be mildly disappointed with the actual results!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
RoughJusticeOnYa
()
Date: March 16, 2017 16:01
Quote
Rockman
Oh in that case
I'll give you two bucks ....
Oh and they are sunrises actually
Just what I thought... >
<Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: March 16, 2017 20:55
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
i agree doxa but those who have bought into keiths cult of personality[the keithettes as i affectionately call them ] wont understand a word you say.
they are so entrenched in the whole thing that it's almost like talking to scientologists,an instant defence mechanism kicks in whenever their beliefs are threatened.
if anything goes wrong with the band or the music they instantly deflect the attention away from keith and onto someone or something else,it's facinating to watch.
it was really profound what you said about "ears and eyes trained by decades of devotion"-as someone who followed keith when he was just a member of what was in the general publics eyes"mick jagger and the rolling stones"i have a pretty good idea when he's playing well,writing well and when he's just talking shit and posing.it's sad how time and age took away his playing,singing and writing ability.my favorite guitar player left hiding behind a stupid image and pandering to a bunch of hero worshipers.
to see people qouting him like his word is gospel,taking his view of the world as their own and listening to music that wouldn't have made a good bootleg in the 70's and comparing it to the rolling stones is really odd.
keiths record is like a mick record or any stones album from 89 to 05,it has about 3 good songs on it- so no,it's not as good as the rolling stones playing some of the best blues songs ever written..trust us on this,it's not even close.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: March 16, 2017 21:10
Listened to CH today, first time in a month or longer. Songs I will always consider 4/5 or better:
* Crosseyed Heart
* Heartstopper
* Nothing On Me
* Blues In The Morning
* Something For Nothing
* Illusion
* Just A Gift
* Lover's Plea
Illusion caught me off guard in it's jazzy feel, it's not a ballad per se.
* Crosseyed Heart
* Heartstopper
* Nothing On Me
* Blues In The Morning
* Something For Nothing
* Illusion
* Just A Gift
* Lover's Plea
Illusion caught me off guard in it's jazzy feel, it's not a ballad per se.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: March 16, 2017 21:12
So how many songs on CH would stick on a RS album with Mick singing vocals?
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 16, 2017 21:47
Quote
Maindefender
Listened to CH today, first time in a month or longer. Songs I will always consider 4/5 or better:
* Crosseyed Heart
* Heartstopper
* Nothing On Me
* Blues In The Morning
* Something For Nothing
* Illusion
* Just A Gift
* Lover's Plea
Illusion caught me off guard in it's jazzy feel, it's not a ballad per se.
It's been quite awhile since I listened to it as well from start to finish - at least a month, but to the above mentioned I'd add Robbed Blind and Suspicious at the top of the heap.
If there is any filler on the album, I'd have to say the reggae cover of Love Overdue. Not because it's a bad cover, just that the original Gregory Isaacs version is the ultimate superior version imo.
Difficult to make something better than an original when it's not really reinterpreted beyond simply being a cover which is the case with Keith's version, and also part of the drawbacks of Blue and Lonesome as a whole imo.
Overall, it's the wide variety of original tunes on Crosseyed Heart that is at the core of it's strength (blues, rock, country, soul, r&b, etc.), which makes for a more enjoyable experience than listening to an album of covers that simply haven't been taken to the next level ala the Stones' versions of Love in Vain or Stop Breaking Down (but even in these cases, I prefer the originals). Crosseyed Heart is a great album mostly filled with originals, while Blue and Lonesome is a good album filled solely with decent covers - some better than others. Glad to have them both in my collection, but I wouldn't miss the B&L covers as much as I would Crosseyed Heart with it's variety and originality.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-16 22:02 by Hairball.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: March 16, 2017 21:47
Quote
Maindefender
So how many songs on CH would stick on a RS album with Mick singing vocals?
Hardly one song suits his voice and way of singing.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 16, 2017 21:51
Quote
Maindefender
So how many songs on CH would stick on a RS album with Mick singing vocals?
They could have all worked well, but then again Mick might have 'oversang' some of the more subtle parts.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: March 16, 2017 21:55
I re-listened to CH yesterday and I gotta be honest and say it's not a good album. It has some nice moment here and there but no. The bar is set low if this is a great album.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
bleedingman
()
Date: March 16, 2017 21:58
Quote
HMSQuote
Maindefender
So how many songs on CH would stick on a RS album with Mick singing vocals?
Hardly one song suits his voice and way of singing.
I'd like to hear Keith sing "One More Shot", as it seemed Mick was attempting to channel Keith when he sang it.
To the topic, as always it's a matter of individual taste as to what is "better". Crosseyed Heart is an amalgamation of Keithisms, written and recorded over a period of time and produced with love and care by Keith and Steve Jordan. It caught me off guard in a good way and I still listen to it regularly. Blue and Lonesome was also a pleasant surprise but then again the Stones cut their teeth on the blues, learning from the likes of Alexis Korner, Cyril Davies, and, oh yes, Brian Jones. But then again these are the guys who recorded stuff like "Who's Driving Your Plane?". Given the "Desert Island" choice, I'd take Crosseyed without hesitation.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-17 00:44 by bleedingman.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
tomcat2006
()
Date: March 16, 2017 22:00
Quote
rebelrebel
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.
+1
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 16, 2017 22:08
Quote
Redhotcarpet
I re-listened to CH yesterday and I gotta be honest and say it's not a good album. It has some nice moment here and there but no. The bar is set low if this is a great album.
But the question here is which do you prefer...Crosseyed Heart vs. Blue and Lonesome.
I recall a scathing review from you regarding B&L (or several brutally honest posts), and now you're discounting CH, so curious as to what you actually like if anything.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
35love
()
Date: March 16, 2017 22:32
Quote
HMSQuote
Maindefender
So how many songs on CH would stick on a RS album with Mick singing vocals?
Hardly one song suits his voice and way of singing.
'Trouble' for sure.
When I heard it for the first few times, right after Keith's
extremely distinct guitar intro, I instinctively waited for Mick,
and my felt letdown he wasn't there. Until I got used to it.
In fact, while watching 'Billions' a few weeks ago,
'Trouble' came on and 2 notes in a say 'Rolling Stones!'
like the show off/ crazy RS know every intro/ annoying person
but wait a few and say 'No, 'Trouble' Keith Richards/Crosseyed Heart.
So 'TROUBLE' baby, 'TROUBLE'
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
35love
()
Date: March 16, 2017 22:36
Okay and lastly ^^
same thing happened at
The Apollo Theater performance / charity
Keith starts banging out 'Gimme Shelter'
I'm thrilled thru periscope
suddenly Bernard Fowler takes the lead lyric
my heart SANK. Where was Mick??
MICK JAGGER IS NOT REPLACEABLE. EVER.
Just so we're clear.
same thing happened at
The Apollo Theater performance / charity
Keith starts banging out 'Gimme Shelter'
I'm thrilled thru periscope
suddenly Bernard Fowler takes the lead lyric
my heart SANK. Where was Mick??
MICK JAGGER IS NOT REPLACEABLE. EVER.
Just so we're clear.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 16, 2017 22:58
Quote
35love
Okay and lastly ^^
same thing happened at
The Apollo Theater performance / charity
Keith starts banging out 'Gimme Shelter'
I'm thrilled thru periscope
suddenly Bernard Fowler takes the lead lyric
my heart SANK. Where was Mick??
MICK JAGGER IS NOT REPLACEABLE. EVER.
Just so we're clear.
Lol you were not alone - Bernard was a true heart sinker.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 16, 2017 23:13
keiths record is like a mick record or any stones album from
89 to 05,it has about 3 good songs on it- so no,it's not as good as
the rolling stones playing some of the best blues songs ever written..trust us on this,it's not even close.
That's it...... Lem Motlow nails it .....
ROCKMAN
89 to 05,it has about 3 good songs on it- so no,it's not as good as
the rolling stones playing some of the best blues songs ever written..trust us on this,it's not even close.
That's it...... Lem Motlow nails it .....
ROCKMAN
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
black n blue
()
Date: March 16, 2017 23:45
I'll take the harp over the anything Keith has offer
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: March 16, 2017 23:58
Quote
Rockman
keiths record is like a mick record or any stones album from
89 to 05,it has about 3 good songs on it- so no,it's not as good as
the rolling stones playing some of the best blues songs ever written..trust us on this,it's not even close.
That's it...... Lem Motlow nails it .....
Pardon me , trust me, you're both wrong lol.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 17, 2017 00:00
......I don't trust anybody any more .....
ROCKMAN
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-17 00:00 by Rockman.
ROCKMAN
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-17 00:00 by Rockman.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 17, 2017 00:23
This is a great thread (for the most part) that showcases all that the Stones have to offer in these latter years - be it Keith solo, originality, blues covers, creativity, Mick's harp, variety, uniformity, etc, and it also shows the varying opinions from Stones fans as to what they prefer. Not sure where some of the vitrol and condescending tone from some of the posters is coming from - especially when aimed at others personal opinions and preferences, but not everyone is as even-keeled or level headed as others I suppose - hence the holier than thou/nasty attitude? Rather than being a division, it should be a unification as there's still so much to enjoy from the Stones on one level or another. I'm just grateful the Stones are still active, and we're not stuck debating which is better - Abbey Road or Sgt. Peppers. With that said > Crosseyed Heart.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: March 17, 2017 00:34
the sad fact is mick and keith can't write great songs anymore and most of it will barely qualify as good,alot of the songs could be written by a second tier rock band from the 80's.keiths "look what the cat dragged in"actually shares a title with a poison song and if you read the lyrics they're not much better-with all due respect to bret and c.c., it ain't great.
they write in cliches which is something the stones never did,gloom and doom,you got me rockin,streets of love,one more shot,that's allll i got..i can't believe anyone really likes this.the fallback of"it's micks fault" is comical "he didn't sing it right" he added that na na na part.despite the fact that the song sucks and if otis redding were alive he couldn't have saved it, no one has ever said mick added that part,it was made up on this board.and even if he did it was keiths song couldn't he have said "leave that off"?-the keithette defense mechanism kicking in full gear.
keiths voice is gone,taken away by a million cigarettes and lines of blow and the arthritis has limited his playing ability to almost nothing.his sort of country moan and strong rhythm are a thing of the past.crosseyed heart seems more like the keith charactor selling some kind of manufactured authenticity.
the rolling stones are pretty much like a family reunion at this point,you get together on the holidays and have a party,talk about the old times and then get these people out of your house as quickly as possible.that's what blue and lonesome was, a great look back but nobody is gonna turn 25 again and the old days aren't coming back -even if keith puts on his rockstar outfit and tries to sell you "the real deal"
they write in cliches which is something the stones never did,gloom and doom,you got me rockin,streets of love,one more shot,that's allll i got..i can't believe anyone really likes this.the fallback of"it's micks fault" is comical "he didn't sing it right" he added that na na na part.despite the fact that the song sucks and if otis redding were alive he couldn't have saved it, no one has ever said mick added that part,it was made up on this board.and even if he did it was keiths song couldn't he have said "leave that off"?-the keithette defense mechanism kicking in full gear.
keiths voice is gone,taken away by a million cigarettes and lines of blow and the arthritis has limited his playing ability to almost nothing.his sort of country moan and strong rhythm are a thing of the past.crosseyed heart seems more like the keith charactor selling some kind of manufactured authenticity.
the rolling stones are pretty much like a family reunion at this point,you get together on the holidays and have a party,talk about the old times and then get these people out of your house as quickly as possible.that's what blue and lonesome was, a great look back but nobody is gonna turn 25 again and the old days aren't coming back -even if keith puts on his rockstar outfit and tries to sell you "the real deal"
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
bleedingman
()
Date: March 17, 2017 00:57
Quote
Hairball
This is a great thread (for the most part) that showcases all that the Stones have to offer in these latter years - be it Keith solo, originality, blues covers, creativity, Mick's harp, variety, uniformity, etc, and it also shows the varying opinions from Stones fans as to what they prefer. Not sure where some of the vitrol and condescending tone from some of the posters is coming from - especially when aimed at others personal opinions and preferences, but not everyone is as even-keeled or level headed as others I suppose - hence the holier than thou/nasty attitude? Rather than being a division, it should be a unification as there's still so much to enjoy from the Stones on one level or another. I'm just grateful the Stones are still active, and we're not stuck debating which is better - Abbey Road or Sgt. Peppers. With that said > Crosseyed Heart.
Well stated, Hairball. I respect everyone's opinions as to what they enjoy or don't enjoy. I've never understood the tendency of some to say "Clapton sucks", "The Stones have lost it", "Dirty Work is garbage", etc. I try to qualify my posts with "In my opinion...", whether it be discussing Hip Hop (which I loathe, to say the least), Beyonce' (ditto), Keith's current status, etc. etc. The whole "I'm right; You're wrong, so there" attitude is such a huge turnoff and one of the reasons I think long and hard before sharing an opinion in any forum. If someone enjoys something that I hate, more power to them.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
35love
()
Date: March 17, 2017 01:02
Trying to word this clearly...
I think if you enjoy the Stones right now (2013 to now/ 2017)
Then you are living in the PRESENT. It shows both youth and wisdom.
Let us admit among all this loud talking/bicker
This is THE classiest and coolest band ever. It IS.
I think if you enjoy the Stones right now (2013 to now/ 2017)
Then you are living in the PRESENT. It shows both youth and wisdom.
Let us admit among all this loud talking/bicker
This is THE classiest and coolest band ever. It IS.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: March 17, 2017 01:21
Quote
Hairball
This is a great thread (for the most part) that showcases all that the Stones have to offer in these latter years - be it Keith solo, originality, blues covers, creativity, Mick's harp, variety, uniformity, etc, and it also shows the varying opinions from Stones fans as to what they prefer. Not sure where some of the vitrol and condescending tone from some of the posters is coming from - especially when aimed at others personal opinions and preferences, but not everyone is as even-keeled or level headed as others I suppose - hence the holier than thou/nasty attitude? Rather than being a division, it should be a unification as there's still so much to enjoy from the Stones on one level or another. I'm just grateful the Stones are still active, and we're not stuck debating which is better - Abbey Road or Sgt. Peppers. With that said > Crosseyed Heart.
Well said Hairball i'll drink to that
I guess its just human nature to get passionate about something you love and when someone hates or dislikes something you love, it can cause frustration and confusion. I come to understand that all us Stones freaks love different aspects of this band for different reasons, different albums and tours and years etc.
Its good to converse and disagree, but it never needs to get personal.
As you say its a gift that this band are still active, still making an album and hopefully another tour, i have to pinch myself to believe it, man we picked the right band here.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: March 17, 2017 01:31
Quote
35love
Trying to word this clearly...
I think if you enjoy the Stones right now (2013 to now/ 2017)
Then you are living in the PRESENT. It shows both youth and wisdom.
Let us admit among all this loud talking/bicker
This is THE classiest and coolest band ever. It IS.
I've maintained that this period of work starting in 2012 has been a joyful surprise and obviously it ain't ending anytime soon!!.....how lucky we are IMHO.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
35love
()
Date: March 17, 2017 01:34
Quote
35love
Trying to word this clearly...
I think if you enjoy the Stones right now (2013 to now/ 2017)
Then you are living in the PRESENT. It shows both youth and wisdom.
Let us admit among all this loud talking/bicker
This is THE classiest and coolest band ever. It IS.
*Or maybe I've just 'evolved' on the sativa like Richards, LOL!
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 17, 2017 08:08
Quote
Rockman
Yeah but maybe they are two Stones originals they were working
on before moving over to the blues tracks .......................
so funny, i look at those song titles and in my head i can hear the song and micks voice on the title lyrics.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 17, 2017 08:28
Quote
treaclefingers
so funny, i look at those song titles and in my head i can hear the song and micks voice on the title lyrics.
Me too haha (and unfortunately they doesn't sound too promising for me...)
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-17 08:29 by Doxa.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 17, 2017 08:38
Quote
DoxaQuote
treaclefingers
so funny, i look at those song titles and in my head i can hear the song and micks voice on the title lyrics.
Me too haha (and unfortunately they doesn't sound too promising for me...)
- Doxa
but that's the correct approach...have exceptionally low expectations and then, THEN only be mildly disappointed with the actual results!
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 17, 2017 08:58
....can ya hum 'em for us treacle ?????? ........
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
guitarbastard
()
Date: March 17, 2017 09:01
B&L is a nice cover-album. still to polished for my taste, but with really good moments. great performance by jagger. but it's still a cover-album. the originals are way better (even the stones know that). so i rather listen to the originals.
CH is a whole different story. not is it by far the best sounding stones-output in the last 30 years, it's also filled with surprisingly great material (some even fatastic). b&l (6/10) ch (9/10)
CH is a whole different story. not is it by far the best sounding stones-output in the last 30 years, it's also filled with surprisingly great material (some even fatastic). b&l (6/10) ch (9/10)
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1522
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10