Tell Me :
Talk
I have similar thoughts. B&L was a product of pure inspiration, and of time and place, in which all the stars were in a right place, and to repeat its model would be repitive. The lighting would hit not the same place twice. Surely the Stones could play hundreds of great blues covers, but the freshness and uniqueness of the moment would be gone. I would think the big audience would think the same - B&L was and sounded fresh, novel and distinctive, but VOL 2 not any longer so much.
Besides, no matter how many great blues songs there are to cover, I think the song selection for B&L was done artistically incredibly well: I think each song has a point being there, each track is distinguished from the others (by the mood, style, nuances, etc.), and when put together, they give such a great representation of old-time electric Chicago R&B in its rich variations (and damn, the album has a great flow and coherence).
And all that done with a no bullshitting attitude: like humble blues students paying homage to their initial heroes and sources of original inspiration by treating the songs as they are and once were when they get to know them - they aren't any bonamassas trying to 'update' the blues by contemporary lip services, or showing 'originality' in interpretation something they already did back in the day. No, they are just believing on the strength of the songs as they are, with no any filter. That of just taking three days to cut all that sounds a piece of cake for them, which it surely was. But that is only because they are The Rolling Stones: that music is written in their DNA. They have rehearsed, lived and breathed that music all of their lives. With that experience and idiosyncracy, they cannot help that even mimicking songs note to note will sound not just natural, but also unique and original.
The idea, like its execution, might sound easy on paper, but actually to come up with such a convincing, strong and even commercial (meaning: it attracts the people outside the hardcore fanbase) package of all that really is not. Kids, do not try that at home.
In a way I think B&L also represents about all the Stones can do in that sense: their repertuare and ability in terms of variance is more or less covered there. There is not much to be add to what already said there; you will not get much more exciting/varying electric blues out of the Stones (even Mick seemed to hint that by saying that the next songs in his list would have included Dylan numbers or something)... So VOL 2 would be also repitition in artistical sense too (if not taking a Dylan route or something...). So my guess is that for them this short blues excursion, no matter how popular it turned out to be, is now like 'been there, done that'.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-09-30 11:58 by Doxa.
Well, I think B&L represents pretty well the old claim and philosophy by Keith that "I shine when the band shines" (and this holistic view, to be found also in his approach to songs, is one of the traits I most admire in Keith, even though he hasn't, luckily, always followed it haha). And bloody hell, in B&L they do. I can easily imagine that Keith is the happiest player in the studio there, enjoying every second, and going in his mind like 'shit, what a helluva blues band we are if I just am able turn those guys on, especially that guy in front...' The lesson is: don't undestimate the significance of Keith Richards ever, no matter how backseat he might overtly looked like having taken... I feel his presence very much on each cut in B&L.
But the fact that there actually is more room for Ronnie to shine (and I think he does a great, tasty job) I think that fact is one of the reasons why B&L sounds like the strongest band effort since, I don't know... very, very long time.
- Doxa
P.S. Inspired by this thread, I am listening B&L at the moment, and jeez, it sounds great....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-09-30 12:43 by Doxa.
Stones recording dates from liner notes of
Rolling Stones - Blue & Lonesome Deluxe edition.
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Well, I think Don Was should better have listened to the early Stones covers before coming up with such a pretentious overblown comment like "They bring a lifetime of experience to the songs, with greater depth than they could have achieved when they were younger".
For what it's worth, whenever I listened to their early blues covers, my thought always was that they sounded pretty mature and definitely not like enthusiastic, but unexperienced youngsters. In fact, sounding like that at this young age is a miracle in itself.
Well, I'm not that into their version of "Like A Rolling Stone" either, but let's say I have 'accepted' it along the years, and of course it always works very well live (I guess one cannot just fail with that song). But I guess Mick had in his mind not such iconic songs but more traditional three-chord blues-scale songs Dylan's catalogue is full of. Of which we alraedy had an example with "Watching The River Flow" a few years back (well, almost ten now I guess, time flies..)
Still, I agree, going to Dylan sounded like a bit strange direction... But Mick is Mick... (I might sound cruel and unsensitive, but I really would like to hear his version of "Just Like A Woman" he did in very special, private and sad circumstances a few years ago).
- Doxa
Dylan? No. There are great Dylan covers out there, but whenever I want to listen to Dylan material, I listen to Dylan most of the time.
What would be more natural for them is to do again what they used to do when they were young: Record some great Soul covers. I'd love to hear studio versions of I'll Go Crazy, Can't Turn You Loose, Mr. Pitiful and the like.
Yes and no, I'd say. There are many examples of what Was is talking about, imo. However, when they really clicked, they sounded indeed mature for their age.
And there is a certain "veteran"-vibe on B&L that they didn't have in the early 60s. And I'm not talking about age here - it's within the music.
Is it "better" than their best 60s covers? Not necessarily, although I doubt they could do Hoodoo Blues or Little Rain as good as this in their early 20s.
So, imo, Was has a point (and I rarely agree with him
)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-01 13:06 by DandelionPowderman.
The question is what do Hoodoo Blues or Little Rain have what Little Red Rooster or Confessin' The Blues not already have?
What bugs me is that how Don Was puts it sounds like downplaying their earlier achievements a bit imo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-01 13:19 by retired_dog.
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
All these are possible factors, of course, but they don't make the actual music itself better or worse imo. If anything, it's just a natural progression. However, I think it's fair to say that while the covers on Blue And Lonesome mostly stayed pretty close to the originals and their arrangements, the early Stones blues covers succeeded in turning many of these songs into their own unique sound.
YES...>
<
^This.
B&L is boring and sterile. Compressed somehow. A pro-recorded bar blues band. Compare that shit to Mona, I cant be satisfied, Rooster (with Brians slide and harmonica), Honest I do (yes even that little number), Witness, or why not Rooster from -76 or -77?
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 30, 2020 11:47
Quote
24FPS
I think it would be impossible to do a follow up Volume 2, because it would be too forced. This was quick, down and dirty without worrying about their reputation. Most importantly it retains their blues credibility stretching all the way back to the first album.
I have similar thoughts. B&L was a product of pure inspiration, and of time and place, in which all the stars were in a right place, and to repeat its model would be repitive. The lighting would hit not the same place twice. Surely the Stones could play hundreds of great blues covers, but the freshness and uniqueness of the moment would be gone. I would think the big audience would think the same - B&L was and sounded fresh, novel and distinctive, but VOL 2 not any longer so much.
Besides, no matter how many great blues songs there are to cover, I think the song selection for B&L was done artistically incredibly well: I think each song has a point being there, each track is distinguished from the others (by the mood, style, nuances, etc.), and when put together, they give such a great representation of old-time electric Chicago R&B in its rich variations (and damn, the album has a great flow and coherence).
And all that done with a no bullshitting attitude: like humble blues students paying homage to their initial heroes and sources of original inspiration by treating the songs as they are and once were when they get to know them - they aren't any bonamassas trying to 'update' the blues by contemporary lip services, or showing 'originality' in interpretation something they already did back in the day. No, they are just believing on the strength of the songs as they are, with no any filter. That of just taking three days to cut all that sounds a piece of cake for them, which it surely was. But that is only because they are The Rolling Stones: that music is written in their DNA. They have rehearsed, lived and breathed that music all of their lives. With that experience and idiosyncracy, they cannot help that even mimicking songs note to note will sound not just natural, but also unique and original.
The idea, like its execution, might sound easy on paper, but actually to come up with such a convincing, strong and even commercial (meaning: it attracts the people outside the hardcore fanbase) package of all that really is not. Kids, do not try that at home.
In a way I think B&L also represents about all the Stones can do in that sense: their repertuare and ability in terms of variance is more or less covered there. There is not much to be add to what already said there; you will not get much more exciting/varying electric blues out of the Stones (even Mick seemed to hint that by saying that the next songs in his list would have included Dylan numbers or something)... So VOL 2 would be also repitition in artistical sense too (if not taking a Dylan route or something...). So my guess is that for them this short blues excursion, no matter how popular it turned out to be, is now like 'been there, done that'.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-09-30 11:58 by Doxa.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 30, 2020 12:42
Quote
Rockman
Yeah i dunno Al .... Keith is not a show
off player ... check him out when he's on
anothers album .... never glaring but always
there deep down in the mix .... If he was a
brick layer hed be layin the foundations not the main wall .....
theres a lesson there for all of us ....
Well, I think B&L represents pretty well the old claim and philosophy by Keith that "I shine when the band shines" (and this holistic view, to be found also in his approach to songs, is one of the traits I most admire in Keith, even though he hasn't, luckily, always followed it haha). And bloody hell, in B&L they do. I can easily imagine that Keith is the happiest player in the studio there, enjoying every second, and going in his mind like 'shit, what a helluva blues band we are if I just am able turn those guys on, especially that guy in front...' The lesson is: don't undestimate the significance of Keith Richards ever, no matter how backseat he might overtly looked like having taken... I feel his presence very much on each cut in B&L.
But the fact that there actually is more room for Ronnie to shine (and I think he does a great, tasty job) I think that fact is one of the reasons why B&L sounds like the strongest band effort since, I don't know... very, very long time.
- Doxa
P.S. Inspired by this thread, I am listening B&L at the moment, and jeez, it sounds great....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-09-30 12:43 by Doxa.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: September 30, 2020 13:22
Oh, Keith's definitely present throughout. It just seems - to my ears, anyway - that it's Ronnie taking the lead, here.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 30, 2020 13:40
Taking the lead and playing lead is not necessarily the same
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
FancyBluesMan
()
Date: October 1, 2020 06:00
Yes...absolutely love 'Blue and Lonesome'! Yeah, the blues are pretty basic and somewhat repetitive, but I can literally listen to that stuff all day long.
I had longed for such a release from the Stones for years and was thrilled when it became a reality. Love the way the album was recorded and, in my view, the song selection was just varied enough to keep it interesting.
My only complaint? It should have been longer than 45 minutes. So many other numbers they could have covered...but I'll take it; it was a nice way to fill in what’s amounted to such a notoriously unproductive gap as far as the band’s output is concerned.
And I doubt a ‘Blue and Lonesome II’ would generate the same positive feelings as it would run the risk of being viewed as something akin to a bad movie sequel, a conscious attempt to recreate the magic of the original but with calculation and over-thinking replacing the unbridled intuitiveness and passion of the first edition.
I had longed for such a release from the Stones for years and was thrilled when it became a reality. Love the way the album was recorded and, in my view, the song selection was just varied enough to keep it interesting.
My only complaint? It should have been longer than 45 minutes. So many other numbers they could have covered...but I'll take it; it was a nice way to fill in what’s amounted to such a notoriously unproductive gap as far as the band’s output is concerned.
And I doubt a ‘Blue and Lonesome II’ would generate the same positive feelings as it would run the risk of being viewed as something akin to a bad movie sequel, a conscious attempt to recreate the magic of the original but with calculation and over-thinking replacing the unbridled intuitiveness and passion of the first edition.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 1, 2020 08:26
Stones recording dates from liner notes of
Rolling Stones - Blue & Lonesome Deluxe edition.
ROCKMAN
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 1, 2020 09:54
ROCKMAN
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 1, 2020 10:00
ROCKMAN
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
1962
()
Date: October 1, 2020 10:01
Blue & Lonesome is great, thanks for it.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: October 1, 2020 10:13
Well, inspired by this thread, I will give it another go tonight and during the weekend. For one thing, I never focussed much on which guitar is who, so at least now I have got a mission.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 1, 2020 10:30
ROCKMAN
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
satisfaction2
()
Date: October 1, 2020 10:32
YES!!!
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 1, 2020 10:45
ROCKMAN
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: October 1, 2020 11:29
Quote
DoxaQuote
24FPS
Mick seemed to hint that by saying that the next songs in his list would have included Dylan numbers or something)... So VOL 2 would be also repitition in artistical sense too (if not taking a Dylan route or something...). So my guess is that for them this short blues excursion, no matter how popular it turned out to be, is now like 'been there, done that'.
- Doxa
God forbid. They were/are the World's Greatest Cover Band, but I'm not sure Dylan is in their range. The Stones version of 'Like A Rolling Stone' is flacid at best. It might be their most unmemorable cover.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: October 1, 2020 12:01
Quote
Rockman
Well, I think Don Was should better have listened to the early Stones covers before coming up with such a pretentious overblown comment like "They bring a lifetime of experience to the songs, with greater depth than they could have achieved when they were younger".
For what it's worth, whenever I listened to their early blues covers, my thought always was that they sounded pretty mature and definitely not like enthusiastic, but unexperienced youngsters. In fact, sounding like that at this young age is a miracle in itself.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 1, 2020 12:19
Quote
24FPSQuote
Doxa
Mick seemed to hint that by saying that the next songs in his list would have included Dylan numbers or something)... So VOL 2 would be also repitition in artistical sense too (if not taking a Dylan route or something...). So my guess is that for them this short blues excursion, no matter how popular it turned out to be, is now like 'been there, done that'.
- Doxa
God forbid. They were/are the World's Greatest Cover Band, but I'm not sure Dylan is in their range. The Stones version of 'Like A Rolling Stone' is flacid at best. It might be their most unmemorable cover.
Well, I'm not that into their version of "Like A Rolling Stone" either, but let's say I have 'accepted' it along the years, and of course it always works very well live (I guess one cannot just fail with that song). But I guess Mick had in his mind not such iconic songs but more traditional three-chord blues-scale songs Dylan's catalogue is full of. Of which we alraedy had an example with "Watching The River Flow" a few years back (well, almost ten now I guess, time flies..)
Still, I agree, going to Dylan sounded like a bit strange direction... But Mick is Mick... (I might sound cruel and unsensitive, but I really would like to hear his version of "Just Like A Woman" he did in very special, private and sad circumstances a few years ago).
- Doxa
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: October 1, 2020 12:54
Quote
DoxaQuote
24FPSQuote
Doxa
Mick seemed to hint that by saying that the next songs in his list would have included Dylan numbers or something)... So VOL 2 would be also repitition in artistical sense too (if not taking a Dylan route or something...). So my guess is that for them this short blues excursion, no matter how popular it turned out to be, is now like 'been there, done that'.
- Doxa
God forbid. They were/are the World's Greatest Cover Band, but I'm not sure Dylan is in their range. The Stones version of 'Like A Rolling Stone' is flacid at best. It might be their most unmemorable cover.
Well, I'm not that into their version of "Like A Rolling Stone" either, but let's say I have 'accepted' it along the years, and of course it always works very well live (I guess one cannot just fail with that song). But I guess Mick had in his mind not such iconic songs but more traditional three-chord blues-scale songs Dylan's catalogue is full of. Of which we alraedy had an example with "Watching The River Flow" a few years back (well, almost ten now I guess, time flies..)
Still, I agree, going to Dylan sounded like a bit strange direction... But Mick is Mick... (I might sound cruel and unsensitive, but I really would like to hear his version of "Just Like A Woman" he did in very special, private and sad circumstances a few years ago).
- Doxa
Dylan? No. There are great Dylan covers out there, but whenever I want to listen to Dylan material, I listen to Dylan most of the time.
What would be more natural for them is to do again what they used to do when they were young: Record some great Soul covers. I'd love to hear studio versions of I'll Go Crazy, Can't Turn You Loose, Mr. Pitiful and the like.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 1, 2020 13:05
Quote
retired_dogQuote
Rockman
Well, I think Don Was should better have listened to the early Stones covers before coming up with such a pretentious overblown comment like "They bring a lifetime of experience to the songs, with greater depth than they could have achieved when they were younger".
For what it's worth, whenever I listened to their early blues covers, my thought always was that they sounded pretty mature and definitely not like enthusiastic, but unexperienced youngsters. In fact, sounding like that at this young age is a miracle in itself.
Yes and no, I'd say. There are many examples of what Was is talking about, imo. However, when they really clicked, they sounded indeed mature for their age.
And there is a certain "veteran"-vibe on B&L that they didn't have in the early 60s. And I'm not talking about age here - it's within the music.
Is it "better" than their best 60s covers? Not necessarily, although I doubt they could do Hoodoo Blues or Little Rain as good as this in their early 20s.
So, imo, Was has a point (and I rarely agree with him
)Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-01 13:06 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: October 1, 2020 13:18
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
retired_dogQuote
Rockman
Well, I think Don Was should better have listened to the early Stones covers before coming up with such a pretentious overblown comment like "They bring a lifetime of experience to the songs, with greater depth than they could have achieved when they were younger".
For what it's worth, whenever I listened to their early blues covers, my thought always was that they sounded pretty mature and definitely not like enthusiastic, but unexperienced youngsters. In fact, sounding like that at this young age is a miracle in itself.
Yes and no, I'd say. There are many examples of what Was is talking about, imo. However, when they really clicked, they sounded indeed mature for their age.
And there is a certain "veteran"-vibe on B&L that they didn't have in the early 60s. And I'm not talking about age here - it's within the music.
Is it "better" than their best 60s covers? Not necessarily, although I doubt they could do Hoodoo Blues or Little Rain as good as this in their early 20s.
So, imo, Was has a point (and I rarely agree with him
The question is what do Hoodoo Blues or Little Rain have what Little Red Rooster or Confessin' The Blues not already have?
What bugs me is that how Don Was puts it sounds like downplaying their earlier achievements a bit imo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-01 13:19 by retired_dog.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 1, 2020 13:37
<The question is what do Hoodoo Blues or Little Rain have what Little Red Rooster or Confessin' The Blues not already have?
What bugs me is that how Don Was puts it sounds like downplaying their earlier achievements a bit imo>
Yep, I understood that (and I agree with your sentiment, btw).
What do those tracks have, that the 60s tracks didn't have? Lived life? Contentedness? A different kind of confidence? A different (and more safe) kind of steadiness? An at ease-attitude and a more relaxed approach, without having something to prove? Better equipment?
I don't know. But to me The Stones sound at home on B&L, while they were "searching and exploring" in the 60s.
Both are great approaches. The wonderful stuff from the 60s should never be downplayed.
What bugs me is that how Don Was puts it sounds like downplaying their earlier achievements a bit imo>
Yep, I understood that (and I agree with your sentiment, btw).
What do those tracks have, that the 60s tracks didn't have? Lived life? Contentedness? A different kind of confidence? A different (and more safe) kind of steadiness? An at ease-attitude and a more relaxed approach, without having something to prove? Better equipment?
I don't know. But to me The Stones sound at home on B&L, while they were "searching and exploring" in the 60s.
Both are great approaches. The wonderful stuff from the 60s should never be downplayed.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 1, 2020 13:43
ROCKMAN
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 1, 2020 13:55
ROCKMAN
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: October 1, 2020 14:00
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yep, I understood that (and I agree with your sentiment, btw).
What do those tracks have, that the 60s tracks didn't have? Lived life? Contentedness? A different kind of confidence? A different (and more safe) kind of steadiness? An at ease-attitude and a more relaxed approach, without having something to prove? Better equipment?
I don't know. But to me The Stones sound at home on B&L, while they were "searching and exploring" in the 60s.
Both are great approaches. The wonderful stuff from the 60s should never be downplayed.
All these are possible factors, of course, but they don't make the actual music itself better or worse imo. If anything, it's just a natural progression. However, I think it's fair to say that while the covers on Blue And Lonesome mostly stayed pretty close to the originals and their arrangements, the early Stones blues covers succeeded in turning many of these songs into their own unique sound.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 1, 2020 14:13
the early Stones blues covers succeeded in turning many of these songs into their own unique sound
esp when they chucked amphetamines down
the throat of Muddy's I Just Wanna Make Lurv Ta You
ROCKMAN
esp when they chucked amphetamines down
the throat of Muddy's I Just Wanna Make Lurv Ta You
ROCKMAN
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: October 1, 2020 15:01
what comes out loud and clear on B & L is the authenticity of the playing.....these guys are in their power zone here....no pretense no posturing...no hard sell...this is pure love of the blues genre and it shows.....the record still resonates.....powerful late add on to their storied recording career...
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: October 1, 2020 15:05
Quote
Rip This
what comes out loud and clear on B & L is the authenticity of the playing.....these guys are in their power zone here....no pretense no posturing...no hard sell...this is pure love of the blues genre and it shows.....the record still resonates.....powerful late add on to their storied recording career...
YES...>
<Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
quietbeatle
()
Date: October 1, 2020 15:35
Quote
Rip This
what comes out loud and clear on B & L is the authenticity of the playing.....these guys are in their power zone here....no pretense no posturing...no hard sell...this is pure love of the blues genre and it shows.....the record still resonates.....powerful late add on to their storied recording career...
^This.
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: October 1, 2020 16:34
after these great 4 pages it has become a crime not to spin it again today
i proceed
i proceed
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: October 1, 2020 19:35
Regarding the old Stones vs. the young Stones recording blues covers, the legendary writer Robert Christgau describes it this way in his review of the Stones' BBC On Air collection.
(Old Stones vs. Young Stones)
"Where Blue & Lonesome is a sodden thing—many old rockers have recorded sharper, spunkier, wiser music—
this collection (On Air) proves what world-beaters they were even before they got serious about songwriting".
In other words, where Blue and Lonesome is a bit dull, bland, and lethargic, their early blues covers are full of energy, heartfelt, and cutting edge, and they did them better than most everyone else.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
(Old Stones vs. Young Stones)
"Where Blue & Lonesome is a sodden thing—many old rockers have recorded sharper, spunkier, wiser music—
this collection (On Air) proves what world-beaters they were even before they got serious about songwriting".
In other words, where Blue and Lonesome is a bit dull, bland, and lethargic, their early blues covers are full of energy, heartfelt, and cutting edge, and they did them better than most everyone else.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Do you still listen to Blue and Lonesome?
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: October 1, 2020 20:20
Quote
Hairball
Regarding the old Stones vs. the young Stones recording blues covers, the legendary writer Robert Christgau describes it this way in his review of the Stones' BBC On Air collection.
(Old Stones vs. Young Stones)
"Where Blue & Lonesome is a sodden thing—many old rockers have recorded sharper, spunkier, wiser music—
this collection (On Air) proves what world-beaters they were even before they got serious about songwriting".
In other words, where Blue and Lonesome is a bit dull, bland, and lethargic, their early blues covers are full of energy, heartfelt, and cutting edge, and they did them better than most everyone else.
B&L is boring and sterile. Compressed somehow. A pro-recorded bar blues band. Compare that shit to Mona, I cant be satisfied, Rooster (with Brians slide and harmonica), Honest I do (yes even that little number), Witness, or why not Rooster from -76 or -77?
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
Andrew , DGA35 , dimrstone , dirkmcq , dishevelmentblues , erbissell , FloresMuertas , Gigbag , grzegorz67 , ironbelly , mickv , midimannz , NilsHolgersson , OnlyKeef , perkmo , rocknrollal , RollingFreak , Sighunt , stonesurvive , xke38
Guests:
1996
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10