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.

What's the difference between King Bee and Hoodoo Blues?

Quote
matxil

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.

Like all latter day Stones albums this one seems to be a great divider - some like it, and some don't. I'd say the concept was nice, but the results were rather dull and drab for a variety of reasons.
I can listen to the superior original/previously released versions all day by the artists who originally recorded them, but the Stones and Don Was sort of sterilized and sucked the life out of these tunes.
I can also listen to most all of their early blues covers (as well as some of the other genres they covered) and find joy, energy, sincerity, and a rawness that seems to be missing from this album.
Ultimately it was a Plan B that evolved after they hit the wall (according to Was), and in that sense I guess something is better than nothing, but it's not an album I ever go back to.

This writer speaks mostly positive about the album, but ultimately gives it a mediocre C+ (apprx. a 3 out of 5) which seems fairly accurate, though a bit generous imo. I'd give it a C- or 2 at best.

Album Review: The Rolling Stones – Blue & Lonesome
The rock legends turn in a comfortable, if snoozy batch of classic blues covers

"The emotions don’t necessarily connect, even if each and every performance is the immaculate product of decades of love and study.
In the end, the record feels like a copy of a copy, though produced on what may just be the world’s best copier".

B&L

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-04 19:45 by Hairball.

No, didn't listen more than three times at all. Boring and uninspired. From the infamous "against the wall" sessions.

True that the ”older black man” voice was more prominent in -68/-69 but I still prefer the Jagger pre 1989, vocal coaches or whatever it is.

I never did mind the odd blues number on every record. But a whole record full of blues covers? Seems like regression to me. Or lack of ideas.
Even Jagger said in the early seventies he was bored with the blues. Or at least blues purism.

ROCKMAN

Sure, Rockman. If it made them tick it's a good thing. Under all circumstances.

Very fine album...don't know what's not to like...

When you watch the Four Flicks documentary and the Stones are in the studio just jamming some blues songs.. I think it's the best thing ever, I don't even know what song it is, maybe Jagger makes up the lyrics on the spot.. You better leave that man alone.. or you're gonna lose your happy home

I think if they had recorded this in the 90's it would have been fantastic, but as of 2016 the band just didn't sound as good anymore with Keith and Charlie a bit too past their prime.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-05 01:08 by EasterMan.

This one never resonated with me. I love the Stones doing the blues. Fancy Man, Little Red Rooster. I just don't like a whole Stones album of blues. What I enjoy about most Stonrs album is the diversity. I have only listened to this CD a few times all the way through.

>Even Jagger said in the early seventies he was bored with the blues.

the 70s were a long time ago.

jb

I loved it when it came out and I still love it today, though admittedly I don't listen to it often anymore. I'm sure glad it exists though.

Jagger's vocals on "All of Your Love" in particular made me stare in amazement at my speakers. It reminded me of the first time I heard "Jamming with Edward". Pure primal Jagger. And as has been mentioned, Keith and Ronnie with their weaving and Charlie being his rock solid self....I honestly don't know what's more Stones than this album. Criticize it's production if you like but to me it is the blueprint of the band neatly packaged into an album.

All of Your Love .... Stunning version by Stones ...



ROCKMAN

Funny, I like every song on this album. A 5 star album for me, I guess I am in the minority. Can't understand why some don't like it.

Quote
laf848
Funny, I like every song on this album. A 5 star album for me, I guess I am in the minority. Can't understand why some don't like it.

Minority?
Don't worry, I am sure, reading responses, you are part of a majority. It's not easy to be a Rolling Stones fan from the heart
As long as I can listen to that album once a week (there are so many albums, also from others, to choose from) with pleasure, I'm happy.

It was voted Blues album of the year by Guitarist magazine...

..and they certainly know and like their Blues, be it mainstream or more obscure.

I think it ended up being a fun spontaneous exercise for the Stones once it took hold. It's still a good album, yet I was disappointed initially and remain so regarding how it sounds. It is as though all the modern studio technology at the disposal to Don Was somehow used to make a recording that comes off as compressed and over produced and lacking a more natural sound reproduction. Played at volume on a good audio system causes my ears to get kind of worn out after a few tracks compared with other Stones records. To me The Stones were, and remain pretty amazing translators of the blues genre. It's in their musical DNA as a band. I believe an album like Blue and Lonesome would have benefited greatly with contributions from Bill. Never mind Stew or Nicky...Keith, Bill, and Charlie made this amazing swinging sound together.

In the end it's still a great album despite Don Was. I love hearing the Stones play the blues. Songs played live from this album really translated well on stage in my opinion, and frankly I wished they would have included more blues numbers from Blue and Lonesome, especially in the most recent Chicago concerts.

How can a (more or less) live recording in the studio be over-produced?

It's under-produced. The drums are hardly EQ'ed and the guitars sound as old school as they get to my ears. I've heard way worse modern mastering, too.

A shame they didn't invite Mick Taylor to guest on a tune. A nice idea to get Clapton whose no doubt one of my favorite guitarists of all time, but his contributions were a bit weak here imo.
Also, a Keith lead vocal tune might have broken up the overall monotony. Maybe just he and an acoustic as he did on the title track of Crosseyed Heart - a fine original tune of his.
There's plenty of covers he could have chosen...maybe something from Lightnin' Hopkins, but what's done is done. Maybe there will eventually be a B&L pt.II as Keith suggested at one point.
Considering how quick it took them to spit out Blue and Lonesome, they could have recorded and released an entire library of blues covers since then, but instead they've released just one original tune.

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

Quote
Hairball
A shame they didn't invite Mick Taylor to guest on a tune. A nice idea to get Clapton whose no doubt one of my favorite guitarists of all time, but his contributions were a bit weak here imo.
Also, a Keith lead vocal tune might have broken up the overall monotony. Maybe just he and an acoustic as he did on the title track of Crosseyed Heart - a fine original tune of his.
There's plenty of covers he could have chosen...maybe something from Lightnin' Hopkins, but what's done is done. Maybe there will eventually be a B&L pt.II as Keith suggested at one point.
Considering how quick it took them to spit out Blue and Lonesome, they could have recorded and released an entire library of blues covers since then, but instead they've released just one original tune.

I agree entirely about the quality of Clapton's contribution: quite underwhelming.

It's my understanding that he only appears as he so happened to be in the studio at the time.

I liked his slide playing.

Never did much. A few super tracks tho.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
How can a (more or less) live recording in the studio be over-produced?

It's under-produced. The drums are hardly EQ'ed and the guitars sound as old school as they get to my ears. I've heard way worse modern mastering, too.

Perhaps overproduced is the wrong term. If not overproduced, Blue and Lonesome was mastered in a certain way that created a specific sound. Again, to my ears despite the high quality of musicianship, Blue and Lonesome does not have a natural sound to it except for Micks vocals and superb harp playing. That said I still like the album.

Quote
filstan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
How can a (more or less) live recording in the studio be over-produced?

It's under-produced. The drums are hardly EQ'ed and the guitars sound as old school as they get to my ears. I've heard way worse modern mastering, too.

Perhaps overproduced is the wrong term. If not overproduced, Blue and Lonesome was mastered in a certain way that created a specific sound. Again, to my ears despite the high quality of musicianship, Blue and Lonesome does not have a natural sound to it except for Micks vocals and superb harp playing. That said I still like the album.

You have the cd or the vinyl?

I think Clapton did a fitting job. Nothing spectacular for sure but I guess that was not the purpose. Not to invent a wheel again, but just to play with the guys music they all love with no intention to stand out individually (I wonder what it had been like with Jeff Beck - 'hold your horses, man'...). So much mutual history there. Of course, on paper it was such a dream team from the London blues scene that once popularized the blues: the most famous band and the most famous individual musician. What a lucky co-incidence Eric just happened to be in the next room or something...

Well, a Stones fan in me wouldn't have protested if Eric's space had been occupied by Mick Taylor (although I am sure there had been a huge cry here at IORR how they under-use him...). But still I would think the over-all impression of the album had not been much different. The question of nuances.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-10-07 17:12 by Doxa.

ROCKMAN

Blue and Lonesome is such an excellent album and I listen to it quite often. It is one of those efforts that make me so grateful for this unique band.
Thank you,Rockman for bringing some interesting information to this thread.

Pleasure Gunnar ...



ROCKMAN

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
filstan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
How can a (more or less) live recording in the studio be over-produced?

It's under-produced. The drums are hardly EQ'ed and the guitars sound as old school as they get to my ears. I've heard way worse modern mastering, too.

Perhaps overproduced is the wrong term. If not overproduced, Blue and Lonesome was mastered in a certain way that created a specific sound. Again, to my ears despite the high quality of musicianship, Blue and Lonesome does not have a natural sound to it except for Micks vocals and superb harp playing. That said I still like the album.

You have the cd or the vinyl?

I have just the CD for this album. Was tempted to buy the vinyl...