ROCKMAN

Quote
Redhotcarpet

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?

I would tend to agree with all of that.

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

ROCKMAN

Never bought B&L nor did I buy Crosseyed Heart. And lo and behold, neither do I miss any of them.
I like Crosseyed Cat though. That's my kind of blues:
[www.youtube.com]

Beyond the music, I'm just glad they took a risk (ok maybe not a huge risk) with this, deviated from the formula, and it worked so well, both critically and commercially.

I would hope it would inspire them to throw caution to the wind a bit. They really have nothing to lose.

I promise I won't hate them if I don't like how it turns out.

They should do a follow up of Pre-war country blues covers ....



ROCKMAN

ROCKMAN

ROCKMAN

No. Not enough guitars. Too much bloody harmonica. And I've played harp for 47 years!

Quote
Stoneage
Never bought B&L nor did I buy Crosseyed Heart. And lo and behold, neither do I miss any of them.
I like Crosseyed Cat though. That's my kind of blues:
[www.youtube.com]

You should go out and buy some little walter if you did not already do so.
Or just listen on YT where there is a box set playlist up.
Marvellous stuff.
B&L made me discover that.

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.

I agree. I listened to B&L yesterday again, and yes, well done and all that, but with music you can always tell if it's done with passion or not. And B&L is professional, well played, accurate, faultless, but also passionless, without surprises, and boring. "Little Rain" and "Hoodoo" are the most interesting as song choices but even they are lacking.

I don't listen to B&L for the same reason I don't listen to Eric Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughn: they have nothing to offer apart from obediently following the rules. I don't want the Stones to be obedient.

Whereas, their first album was maybe clumsy, not very precise, not perfectly executed, but it sounds exciting, young, energetic, and most importantly: fun.

Thank you, Rockman, for all that good material in regard to B&L!

I especially like Mick's comment about Keith and Ronnie interlocking so well. The thing is that he very rarely makes such - or any - remarks about 'his' guitarists or how they play. It generally sounds like he doesn't care what happens in the guitar department or about any nuances there....

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-02 11:21 by Doxa.

Hey yeah no problem Doxa ... glad ta help...

Yeah i thought the same about Mick's comment
on Keith-Ronnie interplay .... as ya say he doesnt
open up about that stuff very often ....

stay safe



ROCKMAN

I love blues and when I’m in the mood for listening to the blues, I listen to original music (very partial to Jimmy Reed, John Lee Hooker, Slim Harpo). But I do still enjoy Blue & Lonesome from time to time. It feels like blues. Not all blues covers do. Look at Paul Rodgers Muddy Waters tribute album. Great songs featuring great guitarists (Beck, May, Gilmour, et al), all very proficiently played. But very little blues feeling. When the Stones play the blues, I feel the blues just as I do when I listen to great blues artists. And Mick’s harp playing is nothing short of achingly superb.

One word BORING.......

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

I bet if the very first Stones album
was actually released today you would
probably say the exact same thing ....



ROCKMAN

I agree with matxil.
Boring, cold and distanced from the original feeling.

Yeah, "boring" doesn't make any sense. You may not like it (which also doesn't make sense) but it certainly is not boring.

Quote
Rockman

I always thought that Matt Clifford is English (not American as written in this review).

He is English

B&L is over compressed ...as with most releases today...compromising the natural dynamics and feel , but the music still manages to shine.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He is English

Thanks! About 30 years ago an English acquaintence told me that a friend of him (also English) was befriended with Matt Clifford (who was new in the Stones world at the time). So that's why I felt pretty confident

While we are criticising the album ,It does have that awful modern compressed brick walled sound. And it always bugged me the version of magic sams all your love is so far from the original as to sound unrehearsed and under researched!

<It does have that awful modern compressed brick walled sound>

Does it?

Quote
Rockman
I bet if the very first Stones album
was actually released today you would
probably say the exact same thing ....

I wouldnt. Just listen to A king bee. Or Mona. Wow. Jagger used to sound like an older black man. No he tries to sound like a younger white guy.

I wouldnt either ....
cant get much blacker than Hoo Doo Blues



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
I wouldnt either ....
cant get much blacker than Hoo Doo Blues

AMEN

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Rockman
I bet if the very first Stones album
was actually released today you would
probably say the exact same thing ....

I wouldnt. Just listen to A king bee. Or Mona. Wow. Jagger used to sound like an older black man. No he tries to sound like a younger white guy.

Or the crazy abandon of Walking The Dog. Or Tell Me. Or the enthusiasm in I Just Wanna Make Love To You or Route 66. Or the boyish innocence in Honest I Do. Or You Can Make It, If You Try.
Although, for me, it's the opposite: Mick didn't sound like an older black man. He, and the rest of the Stones, sounded like 19 year old kids who loved the blues and made it something of their own: no Mississipi, no Chicago, but London kids looking for fun and excitement.

The other thing mentioned here about
B&Lonesome is the complaint that theres so much harp ....

But try listening to a full collection of
Little Walter stuff and I bet you'd hear the
same people on here say the exact same comment ...

A lot of that Chicago Chess stuff was originally
released as singles ....

Or try a whole set of Lightnin Slim songs ....
"Play that harmonica son ..." ... Lazy Lester ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
matxil

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Rockman
I bet if the very first Stones album
was actually released today you would
probably say the exact same thing ....

I wouldnt. Just listen to A king bee. Or Mona. Wow. Jagger used to sound like an older black man. No he tries to sound like a younger white guy.

Or the crazy abandon of Walking The Dog. Or Tell Me. Or the enthusiasm in I Just Wanna Make Love To You or Route 66. Or the boyish innocence in Honest I Do. Or You Can Make It, If You Try.
Although, for me, it's the opposite: Mick didn't sound like an older black man. He, and the rest of the Stones, sounded like 19 year old kids who loved the blues and made it something of their own: no Mississipi, no Chicago, but London kids looking for fun and excitement.

Perspective ... perspective.
B&L is an album made in the 21st Century, the first Stones album 56 years ago.
Yesterday I spoke to a man (47 years young) who saw the Rolling Stones in 2017 in Arnhem (NL) ... for the first time. He didn't even know the band was "still around" (the days of Beatles and Stones were in his mind). Because he lived "around the corner", he decided to go and see them. In his own words: ... FANTASTIC!
Should we make a comparison with that exciting young live band that started to blow the minds of young Londoners in 1963? Off course not.
Blue and Lonesome is a statement by the Rolling Stones made in 2015. Why compare with that other statement from 1964 ... I'm A Kingbee, Mona, Honest I do, etc.
I consider myself an "old" man, but I just as much still enjoy 1964 Walking The Dog as 2015 Everybody Knows About My Good Thing. It's still the Rolling Stones, only 56 years onwards.