For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
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 ....
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.
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.
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
Quote
retired_dog
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.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
retired_dog
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 )
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.
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...
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...
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.