For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Big AlQuote
ProfessorWolfQuote
Big AlQuote
SpudQuote
Big AlQuote
RobertJohnson
Blue and Lonesome II, III, IV ... (but without Andrew Watt!).
It’s just that I think the Stones are better than that. Blue & Lonesome was a fun novelty for a few spins; but it’s not 1964, anymore. The only reason this covers-album happened, was because they supposedly ‘hit the wall’
They're much, much more than that ...but not better than that.
B&L was a reminder of what a great Blues band they were and still are.
[It won Blues album of the year with Guitarist magazine...and they're Blues mad]
I do hear you, spud. Blue & Lonesome is fine, if merely a stop-gap. After Hackney Diamonds, if feel it’ll be a shame if they were to give us another record like Blue & Lonesome. Honestly? If I fancy bluesy Stones, I’ll stick on the U.K. debut LP
i might agree with you if they hadn't released hackney diamonds and are likely releasing another album of original material too in the not to distant future
with two original album released a few years apart i think there's room for a cover album or two for fun without taking it to seriously
that being said they could play something other then the blues on it (though they definitely should do some) cover some of there favorite reggae, soul, r&b and country songs
or maybe cover some of the songs of there contemporaries
keith's cover of waiting for the man was fantastic and i see no reason the stones couldn't cover some songs from the velvet underground or the kinks, who or god forbid the beatles
Oh, PLEASE no reggae! Get Up, Stand Up was a low point of the A Bigger Bang Tour. Soul stuff, like Mr Pitiful, wasn’t particularly fun, either.
Quote
rcfoxy
I expect them to continue to take all my cash for may years to come... :-(
Quote
Spud
I think Keith, solo or with the Winos, maybe covers Reggae better than the Stones together do, because he's the one with a genuine love for it.
Quote
DGee
I wonder if ProfessorWolf, Sighunt, and others may have hit upon the ultimate bump in the road. Is there any word on the Abkco problem? It dawned on me that there was probably no Beatles SiriusXM channel until all of the Apple litigation was finally resolved (which took decades).
For any new documentary or retrospective Stones historical piece that makes it to publication, it seems like an enormous but temporary "detente" between the RS Org and Abkco was necessary. For something far more perpetual, like a comprehensive career box set, or a dedicated satellite channel, does there need to be more than just "peaceful co-existence?" Do the rights to the entire Jagger/Richards songbook need to returned to its authors, however that might be acheived?
I wonder out loud whether the Jagger/Richards songbook will ever see the handling it deserves so long as doing so would enrichen Abkco any more than Abkco has already enjoyed. I don't know how that might sit with me if I were the authors of that one-of-a-kind songbook.
Like most fans, I never listen to my favorite band's music and think, "oh, this is an Abkco track" and this other one is a "post-Abkco track." I just love their music, pure and simple. And I share bv's attitude of gratitude for the GRnRBITW. But I really want to see a 24/7 satellite radio station that will survive me and those authors. The songbook and career-spanning body of work deserves that.
Quote
Spud
Box sets with otherwise unavailable material and extras are just what I don't want...
...I simply can't afford them.
Quote
Father Ted
Bring us the live audio and video from their golden years. Bring us complete unreleased songs. But I can happily live without ever hearing another demo or alt take.
Quote
Father Ted
Bring us the live audio and video from their golden years. Bring us complete unreleased songs. But I can happily live without ever hearing another demo or alt take.
Quote
Father Ted
Bring us the live audio and video from their golden years.
Quote
powerage78Quote
Father Ted
Bring us the live audio and video from their golden years.
Yes, with Micy Taylor.
Fed up with live performances from the 90s and 2000s...
Quote
ProfessorWolfQuote
Big AlQuote
SpudQuote
Big AlQuote
RobertJohnson
Blue and Lonesome II, III, IV ... (but without Andrew Watt!).
It’s just that I think the Stones are better than that. Blue & Lonesome was a fun novelty for a few spins; but it’s not 1964, anymore. The only reason this covers-album happened, was because they supposedly ‘hit the wall’
They're much, much more than that ...but not better than that.
B&L was a reminder of what a great Blues band they were and still are.
[It won Blues album of the year with Guitarist magazine...and they're Blues mad]
I do hear you, spud. Blue & Lonesome is fine, if merely a stop-gap. After Hackney Diamonds, if feel it’ll be a shame if they were to give us another record like Blue & Lonesome. Honestly? If I fancy bluesy Stones, I’ll stick on the U.K. debut LP
i might agree with you if they hadn't released hackney diamonds and are likely releasing another album of original material too in the not to distant future
with two original album released a few years apart i think there's room for a cover album or two for fun without taking it to seriously
that being said they could play something other then the blues on it (though they definitely should do some) cover some of there favorite reggae, soul, r&b and country songs
or maybe cover some of the songs of there contemporaries
keith's cover of waiting for the man was fantastic and i see no reason the stones couldn't cover some songs from the velvet underground or the kinks, who or god forbid the beatles
Quote
RobertJohnson
Blue & Lonesome II, III, IV do not have to be pure cover albums. Time and again the Stones have written great originals in the blues genre. I have in mind a mixed album with covers (Patton, Johnson, John Lee Hooker, Son House, Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed) and original compositions.
Quote
Spud
I'd love to hear those too Mr Johnson...
...I'll submit our request to the Department of Wishful Thinking accordingly