Quote
matxil

Quote
marianna
I didn't even check out "Blue and Lonesome." I'll have to do that. I thought it was a predictable idea with a predictable song list, but it could be better or worse (at least in terms of Don Was, according to this thread).

It's alright, but don't expect magic. Their first album is much more interesting: playing the blues and taking it somewhere else. B&L is just profesionally copying music that doesn't need no copying. The best thing to be said about it is that reminds one again of the existence of Little Walter (and hence, I bought a double album of all his songs, absolutely perfect). Mick Jagger is great on the harmonica, that's true.

Quote
keefriff99
[..The rest of the band plays well, but as someone else said...they sound like any competent bar band playing the blues. It's REALLY hard for me to get past the atrocious mastering...I'm not an audiophile by any stretch, but good god is it BRUTAL.

As far as those Abbey Road B2B and ABB remasters...are they only available on vinyl? I'd love to hear them.

Quote
Spud

Quote
keefriff99
[..The rest of the band plays well, but as someone else said...they sound like any competent bar band playing the blues. It's REALLY hard for me to get past the atrocious mastering...I'm not an audiophile by any stretch, but good god is it BRUTAL.

As far as those Abbey Road B2B and ABB remasters...are they only available on vinyl? I'd love to hear them.

Do you really think that ?

They play the Blues with an authenticity that escapes most latter day proponents .

Re the mastering...totally agree with you.

[And I worked for many years in the HiFi trade...so I should I suppose be an "audiophile" . ]

Quote
matxil

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
marianna
It's predictable in the sense it's blues.

What if they'd taken any other form of music and made it a blues album?

This is obviously the week for ridiculous posts.

It's predictable because it's blues... from a band that are perhaps the biggest fans of blues on the planet in the history of music.

True, but they used to do *something* with the blues. Their first album wasn't just profesionally copying the originals. Neither was Stop Breaking Down or Love In Vain. You Gotta Move and Prodigal Son are closer to the originals, but they don't fill an entire album and are odd enough to make them special. But what's the point of all those 12 bar blues songs like Ride Em On Down on B&L? I agree with marianna: predicable, and pretty much the stuff you can hear live in any blues bar on a Friday night anywhere in the world. It's like listening to Eric Clapton, something which I avoid as much as I can. It's killing the blues.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
marianna
It's a cover version album that lacks strong Stones instumental style (compared to their early-days blues covers), though it's one of Mick's better recent singing performances.

How odd. A lot of what they did in back then was a bit... agitated. No nuance. And quite dorky. BLUE AND LONESOME has all the makings of a band playing the songs appropriately.

Which is exactly the problem. If I want to hear Little Walter the way he should sound, I listen to Little Walter. Give me agitated, dorky, anything apart from just a copy of the original.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
marianna
I will probably get the CD. It might be something that needs to be heard more than once to enjoy it. It also might be better listened to over speakers instead of headphones.

By all means, get the album and listen to it, loud, soft, however, but don't access the Stones' latest release in the regard as to how people strictly get their news by reading headlines and knowing absolutely nothing about what they opioninate on. It's not like you're buying a new car, it's just music.

I have listened to the album 5 or 6 times since it came out. It's fine. There are 2 original songs on it, and 2 other ones which are fun. The rest is just a Friday night in Maloe Melo or Bourbon Street in Amsterdam, and to be honest I prefer those when Terry Mann is on stage with his odd sense of humour.

Quote
EdubertoPalitroke
B&L it's not a carbon copy of any of the original numbers, at least to my ears.

The only low point of it is knowing that Chuck Leavell auto-included himself when he was not meant to be there.

If anyone should get fired, Leavell's in first place.

Quote
marianna
It's predictable in the sense it's blues. It's a cover version album that lacks strong Stones instumental style (compared to their early-days blues covers), though it's one of Mick's better recent singing performances. I will probably get the CD. It might be something that needs to be heard more than once to enjoy it. It also might be better listened to over speakers instead of headphones.

Quote
EdubertoPalitroke
B&L it's not a carbon copy of any of the original numbers, at least to my ears.

The only low point of it is knowing that Chuck Leavell auto-included himself when he was not meant to be there.

If anyone should get fired, Leavell's in first place.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Leavell being included removes the live aspect of the LP. Nothing on B&L needs piano.

He's nothing but a complainer, especially when Matt 'Yes Man' Clifford is around.

Quote
EdubertoPalitroke

Quote
GasLightStreet
Leavell being included removes the live aspect of the LP. Nothing on B&L needs piano.

He's nothing but a complainer, especially when Matt 'Yes Man' Clifford is around.

I feel ok on the fact that I have to pay very close attention to hear any keyboards on B&L, except for the one track with that piano solo.
But when I read Leavell's blog on how he made the Stones overdub his plinky-plonky I wanted to smash my screen.

I really don`t like the guy.

Clifford should be fired too, but at least he doesn't have that ultra- high profile.

I think Chuck Leavell's face should be displayed on the Bristol Chart.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
matxil

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
marianna
It's predictable in the sense it's blues.

What if they'd taken any other form of music and made it a blues album?

This is obviously the week for ridiculous posts.

It's predictable because it's blues... from a band that are perhaps the biggest fans of blues on the planet in the history of music.

True, but they used to do *something* with the blues. Their first album wasn't just profesionally copying the originals. Neither was Stop Breaking Down or Love In Vain. You Gotta Move and Prodigal Son are closer to the originals, but they don't fill an entire album and are odd enough to make them special. But what's the point of all those 12 bar blues songs like Ride Em On Down on B&L? I agree with marianna: predicable, and pretty much the stuff you can hear live in any blues bar on a Friday night anywhere in the world. It's like listening to Eric Clapton, something which I avoid as much as I can. It's killing the blues.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
marianna
It's a cover version album that lacks strong Stones instumental style (compared to their early-days blues covers), though it's one of Mick's better recent singing performances.

How odd. A lot of what they did in back then was a bit... agitated. No nuance. And quite dorky. BLUE AND LONESOME has all the makings of a band playing the songs appropriately.

Which is exactly the problem. If I want to hear Little Walter the way he should sound, I listen to Little Walter. Give me agitated, dorky, anything apart from just a copy of the original.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
marianna
I will probably get the CD. It might be something that needs to be heard more than once to enjoy it. It also might be better listened to over speakers instead of headphones.

By all means, get the album and listen to it, loud, soft, however, but don't access the Stones' latest release in the regard as to how people strictly get their news by reading headlines and knowing absolutely nothing about what they opioninate on. It's not like you're buying a new car, it's just music.

I have listened to the album 5 or 6 times since it came out. It's fine. There are 2 original songs on it, and 2 other ones which are fun. The rest is just a Friday night in Maloe Melo or Bourbon Street in Amsterdam, and to be honest I prefer those when Terry Mann is on stage with his odd sense of humour.

There are no Jagger-Richards songs on B&L, if that's what you mean by originals.

I get that bit about Clapton. I suppose a big reason why B&L doesn't bother me with it being a blues album is, for one, it's The Rolling Stones, regardless of Bill Wyman, and 2, unlike Clapton, they don't play blues blues blues blues that is for the most part a snooze. It's one album, it's pretty damn good, brickwalling aside, and, for me, way unpredictable regarding the song choices.

I guess I can get the aspect of why it's not a big deal when the songs sound like carbon copies of the originals. It's still The Stones.

Quote
EdubertoPalitroke
The Stones got to make a blues album and Stones fans... complain.

What's up with you?