For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HairballQuote
Stoneage
I don't mind one or two (or more) covers on a album. But an album with only covers, like B&L, do not count as original composition in my world.
I agree as it doesn't make any sense - a cover is not an original by any stretch of the imagination.
Even if it's totally reworked and re-imagined - which the songs on Blue and Lonesome really are not - a cover is still a cover.
They might be nice covers that some find pleasant to listen to, but originals they are not.
So an album with covers, like their debut album, won't count as one of their official studio albums? That's a new one!
Quote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HairballQuote
Stoneage
I don't mind one or two (or more) covers on a album. But an album with only covers, like B&L, do not count as original composition in my world.
I agree as it doesn't make any sense - a cover is not an original by any stretch of the imagination.
Even if it's totally reworked and re-imagined - which the songs on Blue and Lonesome really are not - a cover is still a cover.
They might be nice covers that some find pleasant to listen to, but originals they are not.
So an album with covers, like their debut album, won't count as one of their official studio albums? That's a new one!
Nobody said that, don't be silly.
The point stoneage made was an entire album of covers is not to be considered an original album - original being the key word here - I've highlighted that part to make it clear.
Nobody confuses Dylan's Sinatra covers albums with his other albums.
Quote
Stoneage
There's a difference there, Dandy. The Rolling Stones started out as blues epigones. From then on they developed and started doing their own compositions.
But what a heck, one can count as one desires. It's not rocket science...
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HairballQuote
Stoneage
I don't mind one or two (or more) covers on a album. But an album with only covers, like B&L, do not count as original composition in my world.
I agree as it doesn't make any sense - a cover is not an original by any stretch of the imagination.
Even if it's totally reworked and re-imagined - which the songs on Blue and Lonesome really are not - a cover is still a cover.
They might be nice covers that some find pleasant to listen to, but originals they are not.
So an album with covers, like their debut album, won't count as one of their official studio albums? That's a new one!
Nobody said that, don't be silly.
The point stoneage made was an entire album of covers is not to be considered an original album - original being the key word here - I've highlighted that part to make it clear.
Nobody confuses Dylan's Sinatra covers albums with his other albums.
Official was the word, I believe.
Quote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HairballQuote
Stoneage
I don't mind one or two (or more) covers on a album. But an album with only covers, like B&L, do not count as original composition in my world.
I agree as it doesn't make any sense - a cover is not an original by any stretch of the imagination.
Even if it's totally reworked and re-imagined - which the songs on Blue and Lonesome really are not - a cover is still a cover.
They might be nice covers that some find pleasant to listen to, but originals they are not.
So an album with covers, like their debut album, won't count as one of their official studio albums? That's a new one!
Nobody said that, don't be silly.
The point stoneage made was an entire album of covers is not to be considered an original album - original being the key word here - I've highlighted that part to make it clear.
Nobody confuses Dylan's Sinatra covers albums with his other albums.
Official was the word, I believe.
I don't see the word 'official' other than in your reply, but maybe it was also in a previous post?
Yes it's obviously an official album, but I suppose I got hung up on the concept of covers vs. originals aspect of it.
Quote
Hairball
Gotcha - but again I was replying solely to stoneage's post:
"an album with only covers, like B&L, do not count as original composition in my world".
Quote
WitnessQuote
potus43Quote
buttons67
What a silly waste of typing this
There may probably be expressed arguments, other posters have, both in support of and in critique of the content of button67's opening post. However, you yourself supplied none as such, only a reaction as the quoted.
Then you ought to see it as a challenge just once to come up with a post that is at least as interesting as buttons67's post, about a more or less Rolling Stones related subject. I can hardly remember that you ever have done so. Maybe you some time have.
Quote
potus43Quote
WitnessQuote
potus43Quote
buttons67
What a silly waste of typing this
There may probably be expressed arguments, other posters have, both in support of and in critique of the content of button67's opening post. However, you yourself supplied none as such, only a reaction as the quoted.
Then you ought to see it as a challenge just once to come up with a post that is at least as interesting as buttons67's post, about a more or less Rolling Stones related subject. I can hardly remember that you ever have done so. Maybe you some time have.
All of my posts are thoughtful and insightful!
Quote
buttons67
the standard of rolling stones songs has declined through the years, but they also had a lot of filler in the early days.
they also had a lot of cover versions in the early days too.
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
buttons67
the standard of rolling stones songs has declined through the years, but they also had a lot of filler in the early days.
they also had a lot of cover versions in the early days too.
"the standard of rolling stones songs has declined through the years"
That's the trade-off of being out of their element -- that is, just following current trends rather than setting and/or defining them, the way they used to.
"they also had a lot of filler in the early days"
But played with more spirit and energy, not to mention by the original (mostly) 6-man lineup.
"they also had a lot of cover versions in the early days too"
Which they more often than not made their own; their unique approach to interpreting the blues and soul that inspired them, make many of their covers every bit as creative as their original numbers (i.e., Little Red Rooster).
... it's not a small thing.Quote
The only thing truly unique about it is the fact it's the Stones playing them, and not much more than that.
Quote
Hairball
While I appreciate Blue and Lonseome for what it is (an album of blues covers), and think it's their best overall cohesive sounding album since Tattoo You (in large part due to the production), they really didn't stretch out the tunes much beyond what they already were from previous versions by other artists. The fact they recorded it in two or three days shows they didn't really put too much thought into it, and it comes across as a rehearsal/jam session of them playing some of their favorite blues tunes. Nothing wrong with that as the results are satisfactory, but they certainly didn't break any new ground really. The only thing truly unique about it is the fact it's the Stones playing them, and not much more than that.
Quote
HairballQuote
stoneheartedQuote
buttons67
the standard of rolling stones songs has declined through the years, but they also had a lot of filler in the early days.
they also had a lot of cover versions in the early days too.
"the standard of rolling stones songs has declined through the years"
That's the trade-off of being out of their element -- that is, just following current trends rather than setting and/or defining them, the way they used to.
"they also had a lot of filler in the early days"
But played with more spirit and energy, not to mention by the original (mostly) 6-man lineup.
"they also had a lot of cover versions in the early days too"
Which they more often than not made their own; their unique approach to interpreting the blues and soul that inspired them, make many of their covers every bit as creative as their original numbers (i.e., Little Red Rooster).
Regarding fillers, I prefer the early years filler vs. the latter era filler without hesitation. As you say stonehearted, there was much more spirit and energy, not to mention the original lineup.
And back then, the fillers were few and far between for the most part - the good/great tunes outnumbered the filler tenfold.
Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Try going over to the jukebox at a bar on a Saturday night and play "Who's Been Sleeping Here" or "Please Go Home".
People would look at you as if you had 5 heads.
"Blinded by Rainbows" or "Already Over Me" or whatever else you consider to be "filler" would go over much better ; not to mention the more upbeat numbers.
1981.Quote
billwebster
Given most of the posters' preference for older material, I wonder when you actually got into the music of this band.
Quote
Stoneage
Okey, I challenge you to make a better "Best of 1989-2018" studio album than mine above. Only studio album or singles included.
Preferably original compositions. 12 tracks. Can you make a better compilation album than I?
Quote
Stoneage
Okey, I challenge you to make a better "Best of 1989-2018" studio album than mine above. Only studio album or singles included.
Preferably original compositions. 12 tracks. Can you make a better compilation album than I?