On the point about making money, the theme that appears over and over in the histories I've read is that the blues was always about making money. Artists actively chose to perform and record blues numbers instead of other genres, because that's what sold. Right from St Louis Blues. Have a read of Machers and Rockers (Rich Cohen) for a description of how 'I can't be satisfied' came to be recorded.
I'm not much of a Stones fan myself and I wasn't planning to buy it. But being told I shouldn't like it because it's somehow wrong that they should dare to record a blues album - that makes me want to listen to it.
...just listened to the actual 'Blue and Lonesome' track itself. And the harp is pretty horrible :) if I recorded that and posted here then someone would suggest that I worked on my timing.
But I come back to the point that this is what many people expect blues harp to sound like. It always seems that blues harp is about getting the right balance between ragged and precise, and this is more on the ragged side. A lot more. Is it possible that's actually better than the precision? I mean in terms of what people really like.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Jan 01, 2017 1:01 AM
I look at it from The Stones perspective. You must admit that they are totally insulated from observations like these here, as well as surrounded by a % of world population that may think they can do no wrong, perhaps loving this record based on how they feel about the Stones rather than the records' musical blues merits.
Also, I think its great that these guys in their 70's are proclaiming to doing something out of pure love rather than commerce - God knows they don't need the money any longer.
Let the Lads have their fun, I say. Good on them. ---------- The Iceman
Here's a quote from Jagger . . . "“I threw the idea around the last couple of years with Don Was,” Jagger said. “Every time we rehearse we always do some blues songs, and I thought we should record them, then put out an album. When you’re rehearsing you tend to be relatively relaxed. You don’t have any pressure, so sometimes these things sound really good, because there are no engineers saying ‘Let’s try another take.’ You just do it.
“I don’t think it was on the menu of anyone,” he said. “It was completely out of the blue, and so we just picked up and it sounded good. The first one sounded good, and then the second one sounded good, and pretty soon I thought, ‘I see what’s going on here.’ The thing is, you get kind of lucky sometimes, and when you’re in that lucky space, you just want to stay there.”" So this was an opportunity that Jagger seized--born of a combination of routine and circumstance. Not planned, except that it was exactly how they proceeded every time they went into the studio. This is a guy who was name checked in a popular song title in recent history--he is doing what he thinks works, evidently not obsessing on playing the harmonica (the way I am) . . .
1847: Just about every drink manufacturer has used blues type music or situations to be the soundtrack for their commercials. Don't be so blinkered and shortsighted. It's not just record sales that generate money and publicity.
i hapened to be watching "Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones" (DVD of a couple shows they did in Texas circa "Exile On Main St") as part of New Year celebrations. MJ brought the energy all right all right.
And (OT) oh my but that little Mick Taylor boy could play.
Last Edited by Frank101 on Jan 01, 2017 4:16 PM
-We can agree on the relative merits or lack thereof concerning "Blue and Lonesome" all we want, but their reputation among critics, fans and pop music historians isn't dependent on how good a blues band they were. Their legacy is a long one and it is as a rock and roll band, not as blues musicians. Their skill as musicians inspired by black American music was, I believe , to acknowledge their limitations as practitioners of a tradition they admired and instead, with time, to mix up what they've taken from straight-up blues artists, Chuck Berry style rock and roll, rhythm and blues and classic soul and create their own sound, in effect establishing a new tradition that has gone on to influence a few decades of bands after them. This one of the ways art continues to remain vital and relevant. Miles couldn't play like Dizzy and created his own method, his own context, Mailer couldn't write like Hemingway and was compelled to create his own style and identity, the folk revival could no longer accommodate Dylan's creative desires and he effectively invented a new form to express his ideas, Picasso mastered and became quickly bored with Cubism and discarded it so he may evolve. This applies to the Stones; their worth and relevance isn't going to be measured by how well or badly they've played blues music back in the day or on "Blue and Lonesome". That is a broader conversation . What is merited is a career spanning appraisal, not summary dismissals.--------- Ted Burke tburke4@san.rr.com
That concert was like 40 years ago and as they had with Brian the stones could still play some effective blues. sadly they didnt really make Taylor a full member in profits in the band so he left ( although he picked up heroin as a habit). This is the only song he got a writing credit
Its a shame that Keith Richards who came up with so many classic riffs over the years is such a retard, with the exception of the drummer the band look really pathetic, its not like they are short of buck. They don't know when to say when a studio album is probably the best thing for it and its done well due to their name but quote "Anyone who can play harmonica as good as Mick Jagger is dead". He must seriously joking LMAO
Perfectly reasonable to say you like/don't like the Stones, or you think they do/don't have a valid ticket to play blues. But given this is a musicians site, is it possible we could get some criticism of the actual music?
For instance, Charlie Watts is often praised for swinging the beat particularly nicely, delaying the backbeat to good effect. I think that on these songs, the drumming sounds quite 'on the beat' compared to some of the classic recordings I've heard - which often have a very lazy, laid back feel. Am I right or wrong? Is that good/bad? Is it just that he plays laid back for a rock drummer?
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Jan 02, 2017 2:08 AM
"Stonesy" is an adjective applied to other band's sounds and tracks. The Stones do what they do, and sound like they sound. They have covered loads of blues tracks in their career. The idea that it has suddenly become disrespectful because it doesn't meet some arbitary proficiency level is some kind of bizarre musical fascism. Just to be pixieish, let's turn it round the other way.LW et al's back catalogue has sat on shelves longer the the Stones. How do they compare it terms of sales?(ie the court of public opinion). Hardly pulling up trees, are they? You don't have to like the album, but the idea that it is undermining the foundations of the blues is nonsense. How many "rock classics" are now being covered by a finger-picked acoustic and "breathy" female vocal? Is that disrespectful to rock?
As a drummer I can say , Charlies drumming is always a point of contention among drummers- I like his style and emulated it as a kid down to the trad grip and use of the china cymbal basically he locked in with Keiths rhythm guitar rather than on the beat with a bassist. It creates more of a loping kind of beat. He also tends to play with a lighter touch than most rock drummers
He is also very aware of the different tones in his cymbals ( especially the way he uses the hi hat and china cymbals) and uses them for color rather than flashy fills
That being said-Charlie has arthritis and unfortunately that has really stiffened up his playing- he has lost some of that " roll" and Keith and Ronnie are pretty sloppy so its hard to lock into Keiths part live like he used to do I think Charlie is great here
On the Exile track "Happy", it's actually producer Jimmy Miller on drums. You can look it up! But Charlie Watts, in my opinion IS a tremendous drummer and I agree with Goldbrick. I think his playing on the new CD is great even if he is somewhat diminished. His snare sound, for whatever reason, be it the production or the way he leaves space for it in relation to his high hat playing—or a combo of both—is a signature sound. I think the new album is solid, if a little crusty in parts. Mick's hit-or-miss harp playing is not the only feature, after all. A solid B-. I do respect ted burke's assessment, however, he seems to get it. I enjoy his music criticism on this forum even if I don't always agree with him. Others seem to be almost angered by Jagger's harmonica playing and annoyed that the Little Walter tunes don't sound like Steve Guyger. That's not the point. Me, I'd rather hear sloppy Ronnie and Keith than some of the stuff people think is awesome blues. That Joe Satriani clip that someone posted earlier in this thread or on perhaps on another is just wretched, in my opinion. The souped up hysterical thin-toned guitar playing and leaden groove. That does more to undermine the blues than any mediocre harp playing by Mick on a Howling Wolf tune. And, hey...Mick is responsible for some of the most iconic harmonica lines in rock. Sweet Virginia, the end of Gimme Shelter, Midnight Rambler....so he gets a pass from me. Merry New Year!
Well, Ted Burke and ye assembled harp players, the unexpected happened yesterday and, lo and behold, KSDS (the local jazz station, you can listen here) played a track (this one) and the DJ came on to praise the recording. Bear in mind, he had just played some blazing George "Harmonica" Smith track (with a second harp player, was this Piazza?). You guys better relax, the album is getting over. Maybe some more gigs for all concerned will happen as a result.
That's what I'm hoping for, a new UK blues revival, all the kids want to rediscover it, and we all get lots for bookings for events, then for all the hundreds of summer festivals that have popped up. Fame, fortune, yachts etc. Or maybe more than six people at our gigs, that would be nice.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Jan 02, 2017 11:38 AM
Thank god! I'm back. I don't know what was going on there but i couldn't see any of the recent posts for this thread! I was starting to get a little paranoid! I like a lot of the stones stuff but god it's hard to look at them.It just seems wrong to have an old age pensioner singing 'Satisfaction' you know! But what the hell live and let live eh? On a tangent what has kept Keith Richards alive for all these years? The guy has the constitution of an ox! I read an interview with someone that said Keith has abused himself to a degree that would have killed loads of other people yet he's still going. Very few people could live like him and survive it.
To be fair, other musicians play well into older age too. Wiki says Muddy Waters played his last gig in 1981, and he performed Mannish Boy and Mojo Working amongst others - material about being a young man.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I'm very much an old age pensioner who still blows harp and loves the blues......have for over 50 years....the stones cut their teeth on the blues....their name came from muddys song....they were much appreciated by all those along with early Fleetwood mac.....stepped into chess records and held their own
I just watched a clapton interview. it started off with the interviewer commenting, as he spots expensive sports cars in the driveway, how there is good money to be made ripping off dead blues players.
No being an old age pensioner doesn't disqualify you of course it doesn't. What i'm saying is it looks ridiculous the way Jagger behaves on stage at his age. It's not so much the rest of the band it's him. Plus looking at his face would frighten you.
MTG: Muddy didn't carry on the way Mick Jagger does. Something else is i'm not a Muddy Waters fan, never have been. I liked the Wolf much better. Thought he was a much better vocalist and a more powerful performer. I liked Skip James, Rev Gary Davis, Blind Willie Johnson, Robert Johnson, Charlie Patton.
When I was a callow youth, before the internet and other sources, my view of the 'authentic' blues players (i.e. not the UK ones) was that they were venerable older men, behaving very coolly on stage. It's just we saw and heard what was presented to us. The idea that they had been young and vibrant performers wasn't obvious.
But now, reading for instance Howlin' Wolf's biography, his performances where wild and crazy, clambering about on all fours, throwin guitars in the air, climbing the curtains at the side of the stage, all kinds of tricks, very physical. Would make Mick Jagger's dancing moves seem quite tame in comparision I think.
Same I read about Jimi Hendrix. All that showmanship like playing behind his head, apparently that was done already in his circle in the US, it's just we'd not seen it before. Not sure about setting fire to guitars, but who knows!
I reckon that the 'men standing fairly still on stage' vibe contributes to peoples' view of blues being a bit dull and old fashioned (I'm sure you don't think it's dull, but lots of people do).
At what age do you think you should give up climbing the curtains? :)
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Jan 03, 2017 9:01 AM
@ Goldbrick I know you are kidding but I just have to say-- I had a gig on Friday, went to storage for my gear and left the music stand (for the laptop, backgrounds) and the stool (so I don't have to stand for an hour) at the storage unit. Gig was most of an hour away, called when I discovered my error and they secured them for me. Used them both on NYE. The memory is the second thing to go.
MTG: Be sensible you don't need me to answer that question. As for Jagger if i had a face like that i wouldn't inflict it on the paying public! As for wolf and his antics i don't care for any of that crap. I want to hear good songs and good musicians not watch some clown making a spectacle of himself on stage as he over indulges in self gratification. Same with Hendrix the stupid crap he did to generate publicity was BS. And it's only when he got serious and realised he was spending too much time pandering to the general public's idea of what he was gonna do on stage that he got down to being a musician again.
B&H well, I do hope I'll be as mobile at that at his age :) I think I've already passed the curtain climbing age.
Actually I'm not massively interested in watching the cavorting either, but it's worth pointing out that (from what I've read anyway) it seemed to be a big part of Wolf's stage show. Not something I'd have picked up from the bits of footage I've seen of him in his later years. Or his records, which I always think have a serious and slightly menacing quality.
I'm not a Stones fan particularly, but it's prompted me to look at some stuff. What seems odd now is, rather than Mick's dancing, is the others standing stock still with expressionless faces! I'm not expecting Kiss or anything (actually I don't know anything about Kiss but I expect they do a load of antics) but it is RnR for goodness sake - you'd expect a bit of movement eh?
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Jan 03, 2017 12:19 PM
There's an inordinate amount of attention paid to how feeble an aging Rolling Stones band appears in live performance in the last quarter of their career, and I am fairly much on board with the collective disgust with creaky seniors , Jagger especially, still trying to present a dynamic show. As is, as a live band, they are every artists nightmare in terms of longevity, a sad self parody of what they used to be. This 2013 clip of a reunion with Mick Taylor show them to be aimlessly wandering through a euthanized version of 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking". Sad to say, as a senior citizen myself, but they seem doddering, tottering, bony constructions about to collapse into dust.
So I consider myself blessed for not regarding their live shows in the slightest and stuck with their records, which are, even to old age, rather fine specimens of rock and roll; catchy, riffy, splintery, lots of attitude and succinct irony. ---------- Ted Burke tburke4@san.rr.com
Last Edited by ted burke on Jan 03, 2017 12:38 PM
Im not a great fan of the boys, but surely don't want to be part of the collective disgust, or disgust collective. I would say that 'inordinate' is a good word to describe the amt of attention their aging and antics are getting. But, to each his own, even on MBH, right? ---------- Phil Pennington
I saw mick Taylor with Mayall and McVie back in early 82, a bar gig. I was a couple days underage and full of bad manners I followed photographer to the very front of the stage. I could have operated Taylor's pedals from where I was. That gig had profound effect on me. Mayall was working very hard, I think he was only 47 or 48 at the time. Taylor was great that night. My mates were all there to see McVie because Fleetwood Mac were the big band in their lives at the time. I bought Mayall albums the next week and started discovering names of original artists; Sonny Boy blow, who is Sonny Boy? Which led me to buy Sonny Boy Williamson (2) album and get started on awareness of what had gone before. Funnily enough, it was Jagger's vocal contribution to Jimmy Roger's final record which grabbed my ear and led me to discover Jimmy Rogers, Carey Bell, Kim Wilson, Lowell Fulson. So I've definitely a personal connection between Stones and blues. But I have no interest in listening to this latest record and I still reckon the publicity about it is pure spin. Many of my musician mates love it. Like, love it. it's pretty funny how they think mick is a good harp player but I take the point that there are a couple little things he has done over the years which were very effective. Stage antics? Yeah well, people are strange. I know one guy who gets upset about people talking to one another while he is playing. In a bar. I reckon, mate, if what you're doing is good enough to make people stop talking, they'll stop talking. I played in a really dreadful band with stupid songs and lots of stage antics. People came to see it because it was entertaining and they could let their hair down. A live show is about more than sound. Well, it can be. It can be about energy and excitement and the stones could generate a bit of excitement. Mick's stupid dancing has always been part of their gig; what else is he gonna do? Kinda like Tina Turner, it looks a bit weird in old age but there's a kind of association between delivery and sound. It's a horse and carriage. The voice is a physical thing and he generates part of the sound by an attitude which he conjures with his posturing. I think it's probably about timing, how he feels it. God help us if he does an album of Sinatra covers. For me the real shame is that bands get so famous they have to play in huge arenas and the world loses the experience of seeing a great act in a good environment where the personal energy really comes across. Anyway I reckon they suck and the record sucks but half of them people have never been there so some of that criticism just isn't fair.
The point above all else is to realize is that although we collectively the Stones as a live act that fills stadiums and sports arenas internationally, they are fundamentally , in my view, a superb recording band. Slidshod and geriatric as their live shows have become, their albums , a good many of them anyway, are exquisite works of the recording arts. A flat and toneless singer live, Jagger and produce nuance, tone, phrasing and find a suitable and moving way to perform a lyric in the studio, where the art of piecing together the best parts of the several takes can construct a memorable performance. This follows with the rest of the band, as Richards, Wood, bassist east and Watts brain storm and jam and work to create many a sublimely textured and compelling song. Not each song and not every album achieves excellence, to be sure, but they have, in my listening, more hits than misses. In any case, let me say that it is the albums I go when I want to hear that amazing crunch of the Stones, not the concert movies nor the endless YouTube clips. ---------- Ted Burke tburke4@san.rr.com
Live today, the Stones are one of a handful of bands that create a happening (another was The Grateful Dead) above and beyond just watching a band play. There is more at play here in terms of vibe, history, longevity and just plain (old folks) anarchistic fun. To watch a 70plus year old front man, in GREAT physical shape, cavort non-stop for their 1 1/2 - 2 hour shows can be exhilarating in its own right. Keith (the world's most lovable junkie) has charisma won by years of doing one thing over and over again. When he walks over to Ron Wood and puts his elbow on Ronnie's shoulder with a smile, even that has great effect.
My favorite scene in their last big concert movie showed, after a medley of non-stop songs, a close up of Charlie Watts, all of a sudden looking exhausted, blowing "whew" out of his mouth, wiping his brow and then having to quickly pick up his sticks as Keith began the next song, and away he goes again, was a real corker.
Long live r&r, the spirit of it, and I, for one, am glad it is still alive, even in a geriatric sense. ---------- The Iceman
The Dead, though, are musicians and not showmen, and although their brand of improvisation is not my preference, they do have many extended moments where the collective energies gel and something very musical happens. Similarly, I remember seeing the esteemed James Moody perform live just after he turned 75 and was impressed with how much command he had over his saxophone and his technique. For me, it's always about how well the band is playing and sing; I cannot justify paying large sums of money to see the Stones with the Rationale that I'm going to enjoy the show because of their stamina over all else. I will stick with the albums. ---------- Ted Burke tburke4@san.rr.com
Rather see Jerry and Pigpen era Dead than any incarnation of the Stones. The music just flowed. tThen again I wouldnt mind being 17 again with a hippie girl , $8 a lid Mezcan brown and a bottle of Bali Hai
Iceman, it wasn't the NY Post reporting it. It was the CIA. Why the Russians keep deleting our posts is anyone's guess. All I can figure is they are trying to get back at our hosts for blocking access in most of Russia!
Fair point about the Stones' latter day live performances being a bit more spectacle/curio than musically rich, although I think they still have their moments. I think that's true for most performers playing large stadiums and arenas in their 60's and 70s, particularly if they are originally from the hugely popular "classic rock" era. There's sort of a challenging point where "musical concert" and "sporting event/nostalgia trip" combine and the music suffers a bit. But at their peak the Stones were a tremendous live band. The 1972 Dallas, Texas concert—I believe released as "Ladies and Gentlemen: The Rolling Stones" is worth seeing. Rough, gnarly, riffy, visceral madness. It's everything bluesey rock n roll should be. I appreciate the chops of The Dead, but to me the whole concept is lifeless, dull. They seem to suck the energy out of every cover song they do. I'd rather listen to The Stones Bo Diddley-ized 3 minute version of "Not Fade Away" than The Dead's endless searching, noodling.
I couldn't resist posting, if for no other reason, than to push the thread comment count to 100. I wasn't gonna post as I knew the reaction from the forum would be fairly predictable. But as the comment count grew I couldn't resist.
Longtime Stones fan here, saw them live probably 10-12 times in my life. The first time in 1975 in the old Boston Garden. Tremendous concert. Was with my girlfriend at the time and we were supposed to be snuck in by her brother who was working security that night. Plan fell through. We were leaving when we happened upon a scalper in the old North Station. He was afraid he was gonna eat his tix as the show was moments away from starting. We emptied our meagerly filled pockets and for about 25% of face value wound up with floor seats about 12 rows back dead center. It was outstanding! Complete with a guy to our right who improperly timed his high and was passed out accross several seats for the most of the show (rookie mistake, magically, he woke up for the last few tunes). Ah the good ole days! They killed it at the end with what seemed like a never ending string of classics: Jumpin Jack Flash, Brown Sugar, Street Fightin Man etc, etc. Hell, the hairs on my neck are standin up just reminiscing about it.
Anyway, its been highly entertaining reading the Stones bashing on here from all directions. Mick sucks at harp, they're mailing it in, they look ridiculous, oh my God! He's having a kid in his seventies with a 20 or 30 something model, (because no guy on here has ever fantasized about having that kind of juice with the ladies that late in life, no pun intended). Wait, that critique might be mine LOL! And my personal favorite: They're disrespecting the blues. You guys crack me up.
I hadn't even listened to the album, but as luck would have it, I was on a long drive the other day listening to a classic rock station and they played the track Just Your Fool and followed it up with Honkey Tonk Women and an alternative version of Brown Sugar. A nice triple-shot. It wasn't half bad. Not nearly as bad as one would have expected after reading the BS in this thread. Proving once again there's the MBH forum "critique", and then there's the real world. The old Rock tunes, they rocked. Even after all these years.
Last Edited by Honkin On Bobo on Jan 05, 2017 10:25 AM
