Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jlowe

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Not released for a reason, imo. I don't think Mick liked the sound of this.

Hard rock blues..

If Mick thought the album would sell....and make him even more dosh...then surely it would be released?

Well, seemingly he had some integrity back then - as he protested heavily against the direction Rubin wanted him to pursue.

That said, he did release Checking Up On My Baby on his greatest hits-album, so I guess he liked some of it...

I think he didn't release it because he didn't want to be seen as a spent force creatively. He wanted to prove he's still had something to say rather than spitting out old blues covers.
And that's exactly what happened when the Stones themselves released Blue and Lonesome imo. They had nothing new to say (they "hit the wall"), so they regurgitated and copied some old blues tunes that were recorded in a day or two without hardly any imagination - they could have done it all blindfolded - it all sounds uninspired to me. Not saying it was a completely useless album as it showed they can still properly play together (and it's probably their "best" album in decades), but there was nothing creative or original about it. As for the Red Devils being considered "hard rock blues", perhaps you could look at it like that (that's a vague category), but I'd say they're closer to being pure electric Chicago blues - a band who played it with sincerity and integrity - they lived it and breathed it 100% of the time. They didn't just jump on the blues bandwagon - they were born with the blues.

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jlowe

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Not released for a reason, imo. I don't think Mick liked the sound of this.

Hard rock blues..

If Mick thought the album would sell....and make him even more dosh...then surely it would be released?

Well, seemingly he had some integrity back then - as he protested heavily against the direction Rubin wanted him to pursue.

That said, he did release Checking Up On My Baby on his greatest hits-album, so I guess he liked some of it...

I think he didn't release it because he didn't want to be seen as a spent force creatively. He wanted to prove he's still had something to say rather than spitting out old blues covers.
And that's exactly what happened when the Stones themselves released Blue and Lonesome imo. They had nothing new to say (they "hit the wall"), so they regurgitated and copied some old blues tunes that were recorded in a day or two without hardly any imagination - they could have done it all blindfolded - it all sounds uninspired to me. Not saying it was a completely useless album as it showed they can still properly play together (and it's probably their "best" album in decades), but there was nothing creative or original about it. As for the Red Devils being considered "hard rock blues", perhaps you could look at it like that (that's a vague category), but I'd say they're closer to being pure electric Chicago blues - a band who played it with sincerity and integrity - they lived it and breathed it 100% of the time. They didn't just jump on the blues bandwagon - they were born with the blues.

I just re-listened to the entire album, and I don't hear anything like "hard rock blues" (whatever that means). It's definitely done in the classic electric Chicago blues style.

Maybe some better musicians on the Red Devils album. But I never found it that interesting.
It wasn't released for a (some) reason.

I prefer Blue & L. by far. And now that that was released its needed even less.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jlowe

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Not released for a reason, imo. I don't think Mick liked the sound of this.

Hard rock blues..

If Mick thought the album would sell....and make him even more dosh...then surely it would be released?

Well, seemingly he had some integrity back then - as he protested heavily against the direction Rubin wanted him to pursue.

That said, he did release Checking Up On My Baby on his greatest hits-album, so I guess he liked some of it...

I think he didn't release it because he didn't want to be seen as a spent force creatively. He wanted to prove he's still had something to say rather than spitting out old blues covers.
And that's exactly what happened when the Stones themselves released Blue and Lonesome imo. They had nothing new to say (they "hit the wall"), so they regurgitated and copied some old blues tunes that were recorded in a day or two without hardly any imagination - they could have done it all blindfolded - it all sounds uninspired to me. Not saying it was a completely useless album as it showed they can still properly play together (and it's probably their "best" album in decades), but there was nothing creative or original about it. As for the Red Devils being considered "hard rock blues", perhaps you could look at it like that (that's a vague category), but I'd say they're closer to being pure electric Chicago blues - a band who played it with sincerity and integrity - they lived it and breathed it 100% of the time. They didn't just jump on the blues bandwagon - they were born with the blues.

I just re-listened to the entire album, and I don't hear anything like "hard rock blues" (whatever that means). It's definitely done in the classic electric Chicago blues style.

Start by listening to the guitar sound and the drum sound. Then put on Hoo Doo Blues by the Stones...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
jlowe

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Not released for a reason, imo. I don't think Mick liked the sound of this.

Hard rock blues..

If Mick thought the album would sell....and make him even more dosh...then surely it would be released?

Well, seemingly he had some integrity back then - as he protested heavily against the direction Rubin wanted him to pursue.

That said, he did release Checking Up On My Baby on his greatest hits-album, so I guess he liked some of it...

I think he didn't release it because he didn't want to be seen as a spent force creatively. He wanted to prove he's still had something to say rather than spitting out old blues covers.
And that's exactly what happened when the Stones themselves released Blue and Lonesome imo. They had nothing new to say (they "hit the wall"), so they regurgitated and copied some old blues tunes that were recorded in a day or two without hardly any imagination - they could have done it all blindfolded - it all sounds uninspired to me. Not saying it was a completely useless album as it showed they can still properly play together (and it's probably their "best" album in decades), but there was nothing creative or original about it. As for the Red Devils being considered "hard rock blues", perhaps you could look at it like that (that's a vague category), but I'd say they're closer to being pure electric Chicago blues - a band who played it with sincerity and integrity - they lived it and breathed it 100% of the time. They didn't just jump on the blues bandwagon - they were born with the blues.

I just re-listened to the entire album, and I don't hear anything like "hard rock blues" (whatever that means). It's definitely done in the classic electric Chicago blues style.

Start by listening to the guitar sound and the drum sound. Then put on Hoo Doo Blues by the Stones...

Wouldn't it be safe to say by your definition (not really sure what your definition is) that some of the blues covers on B&L as well as some their other blues covers could also be considered "hard rock blues"? Surely they aren't all "pure" blues? Again, it's such a vague category...and I suppose it depends on how one defines it. When I think of "hard rock blues", I tend to think of some of the blues tunes from bands like Cream, Zeppelin, Hendrix, Gary Moore and the like...etc.etc...that dabbled in the blues but might have more of a "hard rock" foundation and who eventually became more closely associated with "classic rock".

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-20 19:46 by Hairball.

More power to you if you don't mind the difference.

The Stones have their own sound, they don't need to be 100 percent "pure" bluesmen to sound great.

The Devils are closer to Gary Moore's blues sound, imo. Interpreting the genre with gated reverb-drums and 80s-sounding guitars.

It's not a matter of whether I mind the difference or not, was just trying to understand your reasoning and/or how you define "hard rock blues".

I've been trying to find an absolute definition of the term "hard rock blues" via google search, but it leads to all sorts of explanations and the evolution of rock and roll in general.

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

Quote
DandelionPowderman
More power to you if you don't mind the difference.

The Stones have their own sound, they don't need to be 100 percent "pure" bluesmen to sound great.

The Devils are closer to Gary Moore's blues sound, imo. Interpreting the genre with gated reverb-drums and 80s-sounding guitars.

I get the distinction you're making, but the production on the Red Devils album with Mick ("The Blues Sessions") is very raw...it doesn't have an '80s sheen to it IMO.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
DandelionPowderman
More power to you if you don't mind the difference.

The Stones have their own sound, they don't need to be 100 percent "pure" bluesmen to sound great.

The Devils are closer to Gary Moore's blues sound, imo. Interpreting the genre with gated reverb-drums and 80s-sounding guitars.

I get the distinction you're making, but the production on the Red Devils album with Mick ("The Blues Sessions") is very raw...it doesn't have an '80s sheen to it IMO.

Agree keefriff99, and another main difference is there's no overblown virtuoso guitar-hero solos ala Gary Moore or what you might here in other "hard rock blues" acts.
If anything, the Red Devils sound is much closer to the Stones themselves than Gary Moore imo.

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

I've even seen Gary Moore's '80s albums referred to as "heavy metal blues".

Trying to break all music down into various subgenres, and even going so far as to simply make up new subgenres out of whole cloth, can get very tiresome, particularly when people start haggling about how to classify bands and albums.

I think the reason why B&L is so popular is beccause the people love the hear The Stones play the blues. They are famous for playing the blues and rock and roll and that’s what most people want to hear instead of modern pop music like Godess In The Doorway. So commercially this album would be a hit.

Quote
bart-man
I think the reason why B&L is so popular is beccause the people love the hear The Stones play the blues. They are famous for playing the blues and rock and roll and that’s what most people want to hear instead of modern pop music like Godess In The Doorway. So commercially this album would be a hit.

Opening with a 2017 version of "We Want The Stones" from the 1964/5 Live EP

The Rolling Stones have a designer-sloppines that makes them fill stadiums and sell albums. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are the holy grail when it comes to playing the Chicago blues stuff like they do on Blue and Lonesome. Anyway, thanks for bringing up The Red Devils (and Jagger), what a relief. Was Keith ever given a copy of this band's efforts? I bet he likes it a lot.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-21 00:48 by TheflyingDutchman.

After the success of Blue and Lonesome, Mick was probably kicking himself for not releasing the Red Devils sessions while the going was still hot (c. 92/'93). It would have been seen as a "back to the roots" album the same way B&L is now seen, and chances are it would have sold quite alot more than his other solo releases - I know I would have happily bought it! But releasing it now 25 years after the fact (wow 25 years!), it would almost seem a sell out long after the fact - cashing in on the proven success of Blue and Lonesome....unless maybe it was a bonus disc on a super deluxe edition of Wandering Spirit which still might be considered a cash grab by some.

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

When listening to the Red Devils outtakes back in the 9-tees, I can do without Jagger.These guys were a league of their own.

Quote
Hairball
After the success of Blue and Lonesome, Mick was probably kicking himself for not releasing the Red Devils sessions while the going was still hot (c. 92/'93). It would have been seen as a "back to the roots" album the same way B&L is now seen, and chances are it would have sold quite alot more than his other solo releases - I know I would have happily bought it! But releasing it now 25 years after the fact (wow 25 years!), it would almost seem a sell out long after the fact - cashing in on the proven success of Blue and Lonesome....unless maybe it was a bonus disc on a super deluxe edition of Wandering Spirit which still might be considered a cash grab by some.

Consider it a cash grab or sell out, that doesn't bother me. If he releases it, I'm buying.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Hairball
After the success of Blue and Lonesome, Mick was probably kicking himself for not releasing the Red Devils sessions while the going was still hot (c. 92/'93). It would have been seen as a "back to the roots" album the same way B&L is now seen, and chances are it would have sold quite alot more than his other solo releases - I know I would have happily bought it! But releasing it now 25 years after the fact (wow 25 years!), it would almost seem a sell out long after the fact - cashing in on the proven success of Blue and Lonesome....unless maybe it was a bonus disc on a super deluxe edition of Wandering Spirit which still might be considered a cash grab by some.

Consider it a cash grab or sell out, that doesn't bother me. If he releases it, I'm buying.

Well yeah...even though there's multiple boots and it's all over youtube, I'm sure I would also.

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

Maybe it will be released as bonus cd on a Wandering Spirit reissue.

Red Devils is okay blues album but it plods ... every track ends
up sounding the same ... never knocked me way back when I first
heard it ... Sounds like Mick glued on top of a backing band ... nothing
on it comes close to things like Commit A Crime .. Little Rain ... Hoo Doo or I Cant Quit You Babeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ....XFX



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Red Devils is okay blues album but it plods ... every track ends
up sounding the same ... never knocked me way back when I first
heard it ... Sounds like Mick glued on top of a backing band ... nothing
on it comes close to things like Commit A Crime .. Little Rain ... Hoo Doo or I Cant Quit You Babeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ....XFX

The dynamics are almost non-existent, and the sound IS the same throughout.

We should keep in mind that this isn't an album, though. It is what it is: Mick with a different-sounding band, ploughing through some blues songs.

That said, I would buy it if it were to be released of course. My point was that there is a big difference in sound to that of the Stones. A different generation musicians.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Rockman
Red Devils is okay blues album but it plods ... every track ends
up sounding the same ... never knocked me way back when I first
heard it ... Sounds like Mick glued on top of a backing band ... nothing
on it comes close to things like Commit A Crime .. Little Rain ... Hoo Doo or I Cant Quit You Babeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ....XFX

The dynamics are almost non-existent, and the sound IS the same throughout.

We should keep in mind that this isn't an album, though. It is what it is: Mick with a different-sounding band, ploughing through some blues songs.

That said, I would buy it if it were to be released of course. My point was that there is a big difference in sound to that of the Stones. A different generation musicians.

the both of you +1.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Rockman
Red Devils is okay blues album but it plods ... every track ends
up sounding the same ... never knocked me way back when I first
heard it ... Sounds like Mick glued on top of a backing band ... nothing
on it comes close to things like Commit A Crime .. Little Rain ... Hoo Doo or I Cant Quit You Babeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ....XFX

The dynamics are almost non-existent, and the sound IS the same throughout.

We should keep in mind that this isn't an album, though. It is what it is: Mick with a different-sounding band, ploughing through some blues songs.

That said, I would buy it if it were to be released of course.
My point was that there is a big difference in sound to that of the Stones. A different generation musicians.

You're stating the obvious here, Dandy. But Red Devils being "hard rock blues"? Maybe that's how Rubin wanted them to sound in the session with Mick, but there's still a long way to go until sounding like Gary Moore. Check their live Shake Your Hips on YouTube or Going To The Church and tell me that they're not the real thing.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Rockman
Red Devils is okay blues album but it plods ... every track ends
up sounding the same ... never knocked me way back when I first
heard it ... Sounds like Mick glued on top of a backing band ... nothing
on it comes close to things like Commit A Crime .. Little Rain ... Hoo Doo or I Cant Quit You Babeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ....XFX

The dynamics are almost non-existent, and the sound IS the same throughout.

We should keep in mind that this isn't an album, though. It is what it is: Mick with a different-sounding band, ploughing through some blues songs.

That said, I would buy it if it were to be released of course.
My point was that there is a big difference in sound to that of the Stones. A different generation musicians.

You're stating the obvious here, Dandy. But Red Devils being "hard rock blues"? Maybe that's how Rubin wanted them to sound in the session with Mick, but there's still a long way to go until sounding like Gary Moore. Check their live Shake Your Hips on YouTube or Going To The Church and tell me that they're not the real thing.

It might be a stretch («hard rock blues»), but I'm sure you know what I mean. Sometimes thick pencil strokes are necessary to get a point across.





[www.youtube.com]





[www.youtube.com]





[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Hairball

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Hairball
After the success of Blue and Lonesome, Mick was probably kicking himself for not releasing the Red Devils sessions while the going was still hot (c. 92/'93). It would have been seen as a "back to the roots" album the same way B&L is now seen, and chances are it would have sold quite alot more than his other solo releases - I know I would have happily bought it! But releasing it now 25 years after the fact (wow 25 years!), it would almost seem a sell out long after the fact - cashing in on the proven success of Blue and Lonesome....unless maybe it was a bonus disc on a super deluxe edition of Wandering Spirit which still might be considered a cash grab by some.

Consider it a cash grab or sell out, that doesn't bother me. If he releases it, I'm buying.

Well yeah...even though there's multiple boots and it's all over youtube, I'm sure I would also.

Yes, of course i have it too ... and of course just meaning i would want the official release, I'd have to assume it would give us the best possible sound/source (although not always a guarantee)

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Rockman
Red Devils is okay blues album but it plods ... every track ends
up sounding the same ... never knocked me way back when I first
heard it ... Sounds like Mick glued on top of a backing band ... nothing
on it comes close to things like Commit A Crime .. Little Rain ... Hoo Doo or I Cant Quit You Babeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ....XFX

The dynamics are almost non-existent, and the sound IS the same throughout.

We should keep in mind that this isn't an album, though. It is what it is: Mick with a different-sounding band, ploughing through some blues songs.

That said, I would buy it if it were to be released of course.
My point was that there is a big difference in sound to that of the Stones. A different generation musicians.

You're stating the obvious here, Dandy. But Red Devils being "hard rock blues"? Maybe that's how Rubin wanted them to sound in the session with Mick, but there's still a long way to go until sounding like Gary Moore. Check their live Shake Your Hips on YouTube or Going To The Church and tell me that they're not the real thing.

It might be a stretch («hard rock blues»), but I'm sure you know what I mean. Sometimes thick pencil strokes are necessary to get a point across.





[www.youtube.com]





[www.youtube.com]





[www.youtube.com]

Listening to snippets of each, Gary Moore sounds the cleanest and the most sterile - maybe overproduced - kind of generic "elevator music" style blues, and of course that wailing guitar solo front and center dominates. The Red Devils sounds a bit rougher and loose in comparison, raunchier if you will, with the harp and vocals being the main focal point throughout (to my ears), with the rest of the band holding down the fort. Then there's the Stones' Hoodoo...it sounds a bit muffled and perhaps under-produced - not much energy going on- also a bit of a sloppy/lazy performance, but all of that could be considered part of the charm I suppose. Maybe a better example to compare would have been one of the more upbeat B&L tunes.

*All of this is based on listening to snippets on crappy laptop speakers, but based on that my order of preference would be Red Devils, followed by the Stones, and I could probably live without the Gary Moore stuff (although he is a great guitar player no doubt).

Quote
DandelionPowderman
We should keep in mind that this isn't an album, though. It is what it is: Mick with a different-sounding band, ploughing through some blues songs.

Since this isn't an album, wondering if there was ever any consideration to produce it more - whether by Mick or Rubin - add a few overdubs, mix it differetnly, etc. Or was it just a one shot deal, and in the end Mick wasn't quite satisfied at the time, and decided to drop it and move forward with his original stuff....

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Rockman
Red Devils is okay blues album but it plods ... every track ends
up sounding the same ... never knocked me way back when I first
heard it ... Sounds like Mick glued on top of a backing band ... nothing
on it comes close to things like Commit A Crime .. Little Rain ... Hoo Doo or I Cant Quit You Babeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ....XFX

The dynamics are almost non-existent, and the sound IS the same throughout.

We should keep in mind that this isn't an album, though. It is what it is: Mick with a different-sounding band, ploughing through some blues songs.

That said, I would buy it if it were to be released of course.
My point was that there is a big difference in sound to that of the Stones. A different generation musicians.

You're stating the obvious here, Dandy. But Red Devils being "hard rock blues"? Maybe that's how Rubin wanted them to sound in the session with Mick, but there's still a long way to go until sounding like Gary Moore. Check their live Shake Your Hips on YouTube or Going To The Church and tell me that they're not the real thing.

It might be a stretch («hard rock blues»), but I'm sure you know what I mean. Sometimes thick pencil strokes are necessary to get a point across.





[www.youtube.com]





[www.youtube.com]





[www.youtube.com]

Listening to snippets of each, Gary Moore sounds the cleanest and the most sterile - maybe overproduced - kind of generic "elevator music" style blues, and of course that wailing guitar solo front and center dominates. The Red Devils sounds a bit rougher and loose in comparison, raunchier if you will, with the harp and vocals being the main focal point throughout (to my ears), with the rest of the band holding down the fort. Then there's the Stones' Hoodoo...it sounds a bit muffled and perhaps under-produced - not much energy going on- also a bit of a sloppy/lazy performance, but all of that could be considered part of the charm I suppose. Maybe a better example to compare would have been one of the more upbeat B&L tunes.

*All of this is based on listening to snippets on crappy laptop speakers, but based on that my order of preference would be Red Devils, followed by the Stones, and I could probably live without the Gary Moore stuff (although he is a great guitar player no doubt).

Quote
DandelionPowderman
We should keep in mind that this isn't an album, though. It is what it is: Mick with a different-sounding band, ploughing through some blues songs.

Since this isn't an album, wondering if there was ever any consideration to produce it more - whether by Mick or Rubin - add a few overdubs, mix it differetnly, etc. Or was it just a one shot deal, and in the end Mick wasn't quite satisfied at the time, and decided to drop it and move forward with his original stuff....

It looks like Mick likes one or more tracks because he allready used Checking Up On My Baby. Maybe The Red Devils aren't satisfied with these recording. But I don't know who decides when recordings are going to be released or not

Quote
dcba

Quote
swimtothemoon
Yes a good CD. Why was it not officially released? I guess I have always assumed it was Mick’s decision - maybe trying to do something not too close to Stones sound as he was striving to do something a little different in his solo career.

Rubin forced Jagger to spend a few hours of studio time with the Red Devils. That's part of Rubin's method. He talks musicians into getting back to their roots. For Jagger it was logically the blues.

Alas Jagger most certainly didn't like the experience as what he likes best is chasing new musical trends, not reviving things he did when he was 20-25.

Another failed "Rubin experience" was with AC/DC : I speculate here but when he talked the Young Brothers into going back to their roots they probably looked at each others and thought "you @#$%&! Our amps are old, our guitars are old, even the tubes in our Marshall are from the 60's. We DO go back to our roots every time we hit a chord! You won't teach us sh!t!"

I've sometimes wondered why Mick seems indifferent to releasing his work with the Red Devils and this might explain why. Unhappy memories?

Quote
bart-man

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Rockman
Red Devils is okay blues album but it plods ... every track ends
up sounding the same ... never knocked me way back when I first
heard it ... Sounds like Mick glued on top of a backing band ... nothing
on it comes close to things like Commit A Crime .. Little Rain ... Hoo Doo or I Cant Quit You Babeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ....XFX

The dynamics are almost non-existent, and the sound IS the same throughout.

We should keep in mind that this isn't an album, though. It is what it is: Mick with a different-sounding band, ploughing through some blues songs.

That said, I would buy it if it were to be released of course.
My point was that there is a big difference in sound to that of the Stones. A different generation musicians.

You're stating the obvious here, Dandy. But Red Devils being "hard rock blues"? Maybe that's how Rubin wanted them to sound in the session with Mick, but there's still a long way to go until sounding like Gary Moore. Check their live Shake Your Hips on YouTube or Going To The Church and tell me that they're not the real thing.

It might be a stretch («hard rock blues»), but I'm sure you know what I mean. Sometimes thick pencil strokes are necessary to get a point across.





[www.youtube.com]





[www.youtube.com]





[www.youtube.com]

Listening to snippets of each, Gary Moore sounds the cleanest and the most sterile - maybe overproduced - kind of generic "elevator music" style blues, and of course that wailing guitar solo front and center dominates. The Red Devils sounds a bit rougher and loose in comparison, raunchier if you will, with the harp and vocals being the main focal point throughout (to my ears), with the rest of the band holding down the fort. Then there's the Stones' Hoodoo...it sounds a bit muffled and perhaps under-produced - not much energy going on- also a bit of a sloppy/lazy performance, but all of that could be considered part of the charm I suppose. Maybe a better example to compare would have been one of the more upbeat B&L tunes.

*All of this is based on listening to snippets on crappy laptop speakers, but based on that my order of preference would be Red Devils, followed by the Stones, and I could probably live without the Gary Moore stuff (although he is a great guitar player no doubt).

Quote
DandelionPowderman
We should keep in mind that this isn't an album, though. It is what it is: Mick with a different-sounding band, ploughing through some blues songs.

Since this isn't an album, wondering if there was ever any consideration to produce it more - whether by Mick or Rubin - add a few overdubs, mix it differetnly, etc. Or was it just a one shot deal, and in the end Mick wasn't quite satisfied at the time, and decided to drop it and move forward with his original stuff....

It looks like Mick likes one or more tracks because he allready used Checking Up On My Baby. Maybe The Red Devils aren't satisfied with these recording. But I don't know who decides when recordings are going to be released or not

Just speculating, but there had to have been a contract and the Red Devils were hired by Mick as backing session musicians for a possible solo release. I would think the Red Devils would have released it if they could - it would have boosted their career into the stratosphere, but without permission from Jagger it was a no go. Again, Mick probably thought it was all in good fun, but not really the direction he wanted his solo album to go for whatever reasons. But since he used Checking Up on My Baby on his "best of" album, and if it's true that every track sounds the same or the sound is the same throughout (as others have said), then by that logic you would have to think he liked all of it on some level - but maybe not enough to have his name stamped on an entire album for an official solo release at that time.

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

Rubin is also known for putting musicians into their known environment (aka where they come from), without necessarily planning to make an album out of it.

My guess is that the session with the Red Devil never was intended for release.

There are hilarious stories about Rick Rubin, for instance that he forced Red Hot Chili Peppers to listen to Dazed And Confused before every session

Rubin is rarely there when records are made, but he pops by time and again, to touch base and check out how it's going. He's a very untraditional producer, and i can totally understand that he wasn't a good match with Mick, with this approach.

Rubin made The Cult go from this:





[www.youtube.com]

to this:





[www.youtube.com]

Here, he took a pretty unque band, with a signature style, told them to approach the Stones/Led Zep/AC/DC/Cream-sound to succeed. He was right, although I like the mysticism better in the Cult's original sound



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-22 11:06 by DandelionPowderman.

Reminds me of the Red Hot Chili Peppers album Blood Sugar Sex Magic produced by Rubin:

Via wiki:

Blood Sugar Sex Magik

The band sought to record the album in an unconventional setting, believing it would enhance their creative output. Rubin suggested the mansion magician Harry Houdini once lived in, to which they agreed. A crew was hired to set up a recording studio and other equipment required for production in the house. The band decided that they would remain inside the mansion for the duration of recording, though according to Kiedis Smith was convinced the location was haunted, and refused to stay.[12] He would, instead, come each day by motorcycle.[12][13] Smith himself disputes this account, and instead claims the real reason he did not stay at The Mansion was because he wanted to be with his wife.[14] Frusciante, however, disagreed with Smith, and said "There are definitely ghosts in the house," and Frusciante felt they were "very friendly. We [the band] have nothing but warm vibes and happiness everywhere we go in this house."[15]

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