I just received their CD.....mick plays harp on all the cuts,sometimes sounding better on some than others,but even then only passable at best.....there are many members of this forum who could have made it a better product....paul oscher is member I think
If I was a Rolling Stones fan I'd feel shortchanged if they farmed their work out to other musicians. If I was a fan and the album was named "Buddy Greene featuring the Rolling Stones" I'd sample it first.
Edit brain fart: Buddy Greene for Buddy Guy. Geez!
Last Edited by JustFuya on Dec 28, 2016 3:04 PM
By my count this is the fourth thread about the new Stones album we've had within a couple of months. Is there really anything left to say about it that hasn't already been said in the other three threads?
Of course people can post whatever they like but it's getting a bit repetitive.
Last Edited by Glass Harp Full on Dec 28, 2016 3:58 AM
My God! .... I hadn't bothered to listen to it yet, but since it had come up so many times here and on FB ... I just went and listened to"Just Your Fool" on youtube.
I don't think it would take someone like Paul Oscher to improve on that mess. Frankly i think a majority of the people on this forum could do better.
I think even I could do better and Ive only been playing for 18 months. Lol.
I honestly gave this another couple of listens to see if this would grow on my , and it hasn't. Life Long Stones fan here, someone who things they've been vital and more or less relevant into their late period. The are the greatest rock and roll band in history. But they are an awful blues band. I can't make excuses for how wretchedly slipshod and half-assed this album sounds. ---------- Ted Burke tburke4@san.rr.com
I bought it, I like it for what it is. The Stones doing what they love. Old guys having fun with their roots. But then, I find most of the lauded music you guys put forth, unlistenable. ----------
I appreciate their love of the blues....a tribute.....micks a great musician.....but not a great harp player.....sorry I started this thread.....outta here
I'm pretty sure the Stones don't really care what this forum thinks. Comments seem to be mostly listers here beating their chests and making (semi-pompous) statements.
Well, I guess that's why this forum was created, but I agree that this discussion seems to have run its course.
I don't think any other band on earth could have made this album thinking that it would sell. I mean if it weren't the stones you'd just think that it was a very average bar band. So they went back to their origins They basically have stated that they have run out of ideas. But i like it probably 'cos they have been the backdrop to most of my life.. I am a bit pissed though that they are promoting the idea that it'only' took three days to record it.Sort of confirms the naysayers opinions that the Blues is 'easy'. The current line up doesn't really have a single Blues player in it. But what the hell wouldn't we all like to be in their place. I like Micks harp on a couple of tracks but the rest of it is pretty dire.I think his vocals in the main are on the spot(even with his faux american accent, though to be fair guys from any part of the world always adopt one when they are singin' da blues.A mate of mine comes from Yorkshire and is almost unintelligible in everyday speech but put him in front of a microphone and he sounds like he was born in Mississippi. .
I think its more about disappointment, conceit and a lack of respect for blues fans. For those of us who grew up with the Stones - it emphasizes that most band's legacy's are its fresh work and just going through the motions because you can just sux. For those who dont evolve it is better to burn out than to rust
except for Charlie =none of them have gotten any better in 30 years. They just have rock royalty privelege . and thats what is sad
Bragging about making a mediocre record in a short time is like bragging about your premature ejaculation
Its not about if you think you can play better -its about how good they could play if they were hungry and cared instead of xpensive winos
Urban legend was people shoplifted the cover and left the record. I always dug this song. Cool Charlie drum part and lyrics that sound like somebody was channeling Ray Davies
I know is not about if you could play better. And I never would bag on anyone's playing normally, but this is The Rolling Effing Stones for christ sake.
And not only that, but its a "tribute" to great blues songs. And blues in general. And they just sh#!+ all over it, imo. By not even trying to make it sound good. Its actually pretty disrespectful.
I know this is nothing new to those of you who have been talking about it since it's release, and yourjust tired of talkimg about it, but this was the first I actually to a look at it. And just wow.
I agree with indigo. No one else would have been able to sell this album. Its garbage.
I dont think there is anything wrong with questioning the motives and execution of a record. Way more interesting to me than " what amp should I buy ,who tongue blox or lip locks or what Prada case should I put my $25 harps in To each their own -dont like it you are free not to read the thread
yo goldbrick.....I started this monster.........but still have CD in car.....they are nevertheless.....very talented musicians.....eric played on 2 tracks.....end of line near for him and stones
Jagger tells a story of when he went up to Cyril Davies (Harp player with the Graham Bond Organisation, one of the first r&b bands in London in the early '60's
How do you play the mouth organ mate?
You just f******g blow and suck the thing was the answer
The Rolling Stones are simply dreadful. A caricature of what a band should be. The music sucks, they look like corpses that have been dug up. All in all simply dreadful. I don't know, i wonder about people like them that go on year after year into their old age still doing the same thing they were doing 30 years before. When that happens there is no relevance any more to what you're doing and it just becomes a grotesque spectacle. Quite sad to see these old men on stage prancing around trying to reclaim what's long gone.
simply dreadful?????what explains their success?after over 50 years......your comment is so stupid.....again I created monster by starting this thread because of your idiotic comment
simply dreadful?????what explains their success?after over 50 years......your comment is so stupid.....again I created monster by starting this thread because of your idiotic comment"
Keep your hair on Batman! First of all they're dreadful now they weren't dreadful in their heyday. They're dreadful now because they keep rehashing the same old worn out garbage album after album. Now they've run out of ideas to the extent that they want to do a blues album despite the fact they never were a blues group. They are also dreadful because they look absolutely repulsive with their old ugly wrinkled debauched faces.
They were great when they started right up through the 70's and then it went to hell. They are now a parody of themselves. Bill Wyman saw the writing on the wall and got out as he could see how ridiculous it was starting to look.
There's a lot to be said for bowing out when you're ahead.
I believe Wyman stepped away in favor of his own projects which were more swing band oriented.
As far as live performance, they still put on a good show and one still can't take ones eyes off of Mick as he prances about the stage with unbelievable energy.
However, I do agree that their later recordings do lack the magic of the 70's/80's. ---------- The Iceman
Bike and Harp, your view of the Stones is so magnificently wrong-headed that I sense you're expressing this view more to provoke than to make a point. I'm not a fan of their live act, but as a recording band (yes, BAND) they've acquitted themselves quite well in their later years. Jagger, Richards and company are not and have never been compelling bluesmen, but they've been an outstanding rock band for decades. Their late careet studio albums- Steel Wheels (1989),Voodoo Lounge (1994),Bridges to Babylon (1997),A Bigger Bang (2005)--shows them to musically strong, confident, playing with a brio and variety. The new blues album is a turkey, but their more recent rock efforts are nothing to sneeze at. To insist otherwise is to be on the wrong side of history. Ted Burke tburke4@san.rr.com
Last Edited by ted burke on Dec 30, 2016 8:04 PM
ted burke we'll have to differ. Also them putting out a 'blues' album is showing lack of respect to the tradition in my opinion. They come out with this now when they've run out of juice and have no good ideas of their own. The wrong side of history claim is just ludicrous so not quite sure where you're going with that one.
If you like the Stones, chances are you'll like the CD. No one would surely be stupid enough to argue with the Stones success. But if you are mostly just into great blues harp, I'm not so sure. There are too many really great harp players out there these days that are light years ahead of Mick's thin tone and naive playing. His playing does nothing to tempt me to spend my hard earned money.
I've read all the MBH threads on this, and I wish the music criticism here were better. Mostly it's people saying they like it or don't like it, which isn't much help.
Why do you think it's bad, in detail? Why is it disrespectful, what does that mean?
For us growing up in the UK, bands like the Stones, Eric Clapton etc. were the gateway to blues songs. I know many of you don't like it but that's how it was. No one here is capable of devaluing our personal experience with arguments about authenticity. Arguments which, when you read about the history, are weak anyway.
As for the harp playing, for most people that IS what blues harp sounds like - probably the right amount of it in the right place. They aren't interested in the virtuoso playing, with long inventive solos, that's on here all the time. If virtuoso playing did have mass market appeal, then JR would be a household name. It's a shame that he's not IMO, but that's the fact.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Dec 31, 2016 4:01 AM
Two of the best prolific performers in rock, blues country etc. play a little harp.[Bob Dylan,Mick jagger,they don`t come on like their harp playing is IT.They are so much more than harp,I bet a ton of great harp players wish they could write songs like these dudes...
Im not really a huge stones fan, but i do appreciate their role in Rock & Blues history. English Bands like the Stones actually drew attention to OUR (US) blues artist. As far as i know (correct me if im wrong) but not many people were listening to the likes of Howlin Wolf and Sonny Boy 2 until bands like the stones drew attention to them.
I guess you have a point about "that's what harp sounds like to most people", but I guess im just disappointed in the playing. Not just the harp playing (but mostly the harp playing). Its albums like this and Joe Botomasa *cringe* that most people bring up when you bring up blues music these days. Its sad and agrivating. Its agrivating enough when people come up and tell me "all those songs you were just listening to were Stevie Ray Vaughn covers." No they where most certainly not!
I just thought since the stones had such influence ... and personally knew and greatly admired these "Gods of Blues", like Wolf, that they would have put a little more effort into it.
It just seems shotty and thrown together. Not to mention that the songs they covered are GREAT ones. The album is named after a little walter song for christ sake. Shouldn't the harp atleast be passable as decent? Its aweful.
I guess the biggest thing is that is representing blues (and harmonica) to the main stream folks. Like most people said in the"why doesn't the harp get any respect post" most people ask "what else do you play?" But then they hear what the harp can really do .... and jaws drop. Because of things like this album
Hey Killa & MTG - I concur with y'all. I've been scratching my head trying to suss out exactly how this $10.99 (the cost of a six pack) album is disrespectful and to whom. But I can't. Perhaps some of our fellow posters think it's disrespectful because the Stones - who have about 200 years of musical experience between them - didn't mimic the original songs to the nth degree of arcanity? If so, some specificity of the exact criticism would enhance that argument. And like Killa said, they picked GREAT songs to cover, and probably knew most of the original artists. My suggestion - make a playlist of the original song followed by the Stones version. Play it a few times. The randy old gits hold up pretty damn well. It won't be the worst $10.99 any of us spent in 2016.
My understanding about this album was that it wasn't a thought out project, but a spur of the moment decision. If I remember the article correctly, I think Stones were in a studio to record originals. Clapton was in another recording room doing his thing and stopped by to visit the "boys". What happened next was an impromptu jam session for fun, which eventually turned into this record.
So, no big deal. Just some good ol' boys havin' fun! ---------- The Iceman
Well in that light iceman, the album wouldn't be that bad. But it was marketed like a "Huge new blues albumn from the Rolling Stones."
If it were marketed as "Raw recording session" or something to that effect, it would have been an easier to swallow. Idk, everyone has their opinions. It's not keeping me up at night or anything ... lol.... but i just don't like it. It'll be forgotten as soon as there is something better to talk about.
I guess they've made a virtue of the spur of the moment nature of it, and the speed of recording. So it's like bands used to make records in the old days - songs in one take. But I can see how that might come across as being off-hand and not very serious about it. Not sure what to think about that.
The tracks I've heard have a lo-fi kind of sound. I wonder if the engineers have a digital 'old fashioned filter' or if they used old equipment.
Re the harp again, I do get your point, obviously this being MBH we'd want something like this to be a showcase for some top notch harp playing, it's a great opportunity.
That story sounds like spin to me. I reckon they couldn't be bothered putting the effort in to original material for whatever reason and came up with this idea as a way to generate product and satisfy contracts as painlessly (for them) as possible. It clearly wasn't Mick's idea to make the record this way; he would've liked a chance to practice for a few days, you know, put on a few muddy waters records and play along. I had a listen to the teasers and couldn't stand to hear more than 30 seconds of either. No skin off my nose; no one is twisting my arm to buy it or listen to it. Fans of the band seem to like it. I liked the Stones at various times in my life. I still listen to sticky fingers occasionally. I think they do country better than blues. I'd maybe have been able to listen to a country tribute album from the Stones, if I was drunk enough. Maybe an EP anyway. Break out the wine and photo albums, think about the old days and cry a little. Maybe a single tear.
Bands made records that way because studio time was expensive qnd rock band werent taken seriously. Dont believe the Stones need to worry about money
There is no bigger early Stones fan than myself.
Now they are lazy narcissists whose parade has passed and they are trying to hold on.
For further proof watch the keith richards recent documentary and see his young band members kiss his ass as he plays mediocre blues guitar while talking about how much the blues mean to him
At least folks like Neil Young,Tony Joe white, Willie Nelson, Loretta Lynn and Mark Knopfler are not content with just mailing it in
Goldbrick: Perfect summation i think. Agree wholeheartedly. If this is all they can think of doing bringing out a blues album then they need to pack it in permanently. I'm so sick of these so called rock stars when they can't think of anything new or original deciding to fall back on the blues tribute album gravy train. The blues has been trashed, rehashed and generally abused by so many in order to try to make more money it's just sickening. I also didn't like this below.
Here's the article/interview about this album...I had an easier time reading it when I just focused on what was happening and ignored all the "love fest mutual admiration intense playing" stuff, as well as enjoying how they talked about their early blues inspirations.
Now remember, they are an institution, and as such are perhaps one step removed from the reality that we here in this forum see.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/2309603/the-rolling-stones-talk-blue-lonesome-the-album-theyve-wanted-to-make-since-the-sixties/ ---------- The Iceman
it seems the yanks,as myself,dont appreciate a great band that brought about awareness of the greatest American music ever.....but bike&harp does not see it my way......and enjoys trashing one of greatest R&R bands ever.....he probably hates the beatles too
