Last time I saw the Stones was in Chicago in the late 90s at Soldier Field. Just a few blocks away was Chess Studios - I could almost see it from my seat. They went from Chess Studios to Soldier Field, a short distance but a long journey. They've been great cheerleaders of the blues regardless.
Here's the Mick Jagger harmonica deep cut - kind of uses it as a special effect in this song:
Yesterday I sat down with couple of knowledgeable friends and had something of a "clinic" with this record. Listening very carefully, and comparing each track with the originals. (A bit geekish, I admit, but that can be fun.) The Stones versions fell short in every instant. But worse, the whole thing has a somewhat sloppy feel to it, guitars very muddy and indistinct, keyboards often buried, and the overall sound quality and production values rather poor. (The harmonica playing speaks for itself.) Instead of devoting three days to this project The Stones ought to have given it at least three weeks. As it is now it compares poorly even with their 1964 efforts in the same genre.
Martin, re the production, do you not think they've consciously used a lo-fi sound, to give it a old-school, 45-rpm-single-on-a-dansette feel? You may not like that of course, but that's what it sound like.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Jan 11, 2017 2:13 PM
It's rather mysterious to me why people like it. I attribute the phenomenon to some kind of nostalgic fan devotion cheering for the team. Something like the callers to radio when the Australian XI were being smashed by Sooth Efrica last year; these callers wanted the old champions recalled to the test side. Ponting, Waugh, McGrath and Warne wouldn't lie down like this, according to the callers. Great champions despite the undeniable decrepitude of age, their performance would be so inspiring we would overlook reality. They'd beat South Africa through the power of inherent greatness
@MindThe Gap: You could be right in that. But if so it was, to my ears, the wrong way to go. I see that this muddiness adds very little, compared to the rather interesting productions from all those years ago, with completely different equipment. Also noteworthy that solos are Mick´s all around, except for Eric C. Keef has never been a solo player, neither has Ronnie, but ... has Mick?
When I first hear this record I was disappointed, and after wading thru these 100 or so posts, I wanted to hate it. Then after a few listenings, I realised it was like all the cool old guys showed up at the local jam...and that ain't all bad :) .
@groyster1 The "Where are you from?" thread has 690 posts--don't know if that is the record tho . . . I am from Oklahoma, but living in San Diego. The Suzuki warehouse is in Santee, and Rockin' Ron is in Mira Mesa. I still have not purchased the new Rolling Stones record--but I bought a few in my time--oops, my time is running out! Hey, next week is the NAMM show in Anaheim, come see me at booth 5100!
@Gnarly.....I live in oak ridge,tennessee........first heard the stones as a soph in 1965........kinda feel bad about dissing mick....but the guy is so good hearted and always laughing.......bet hes okay with it.....and hes still going forth and multiplying....another little mick on the way
About a year ago someone from Mick's organization bought a bunch of Suzuki harmonicas--I was going to work on them before we shipped them but the salesman in charge (not Daron) wanted to get them out quickly. I guess he is playing Lee Oskar harps?
The upside for those, Jinx et al, who thinks this is great blues is that there are thousands and thousands of bands doing what The Stones does on this disc, at this level -- start by checking check out the pubs in your neighbourhood.
Why people have to remind us that The Stones don´t give a f:kh about what we think about them escapes me. Is there anyone on this list who thinks otherwise, that Sir Mick anxiously scours the posts about his sub-standard harmonica playing in order to improve?
Must be time for the Trump card.... Heard the full album last friday night This aint no blues album . I'd call it rhythm and blues/rock. As for the harp playing I was thinking of Cyril Davies and what he taught Mick... Nothing.I wanna know what the rest of the band think of his harp playing?It sounded to me like Mick Jagger and friends with MJ controlling everything.Would i buy it, NO
Various friends have told me that they like this album. Some are actual Stones fans, some not. Mostly they see it as a 'good thing', a popular band playing and popularising good, old blues songs.
When I tell them about the discussions on MBH, the response (aside from raising eyes to heaven and snorts of mirth) is something along the lines of: aficiondos forget how to enjoy the thing they are supposed to like.
Some of the views here have been that you can enjoy a thing, even at the same time understanding that it's not the best example. That seems to be a healthy attitude.
Parable: It was an myth in our family that one of my brothers-in-law loved Cornish pasties. Wherever he went, when there was a pasty on sale, he'd buy one but instead of wolfing it down he'd pick it apart and compare it unfavourable to some gold-standard pasty he had once. Was he really a Cornish pasty fan?
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Jan 18, 2017 12:22 AM
"Hey, I remember you were raving about that pizza place in Naples you went to on your vacation, and I know you're a pizza aficionado. So I brought you a case of Bella Napoli Brand Gen-U-Wine Eye-talian Frozen Pizza-Style Food Product! They were on sale at Big Lots. ENJOY!"
Last Edited by Frank101 on Jan 18, 2017 8:56 PM
The Stones are a very heavy blues band, but, the doors destroyed all blues to come Mr Mojo Risin ----------
Last Edited by JInx on Jan 18, 2017 11:54 PM
"Thanks, dear friend, for the kind and thoughtful gift of the pizzas. I know you tried them and liked them yourself, and I can tell you that they didn't even have the best ingredients. How about we go to this wonderful Italian restaurant I know where they use great ingredients, and see what you think of that? Even though the food is superb (and I know cause I'm an aficionado and do a bit cooking myself, and I do have a very expensive oven just like the one they have in Naples) the place is always four-fifths empty. In fact they are doing so badly financially that they are thinking of turning it into a fast-food restaurant where the food is prepared by just one man using a mixer and a pair of USB keys."
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Jan 19, 2017 12:44 AM
And the Stones rarely have sounded as laid back and natural. Richards and Wood play with established authority while Jagger’s vocals – and especially his harp – are pure, unadulterated power. The sound is grand: lowdown, overdriven guitar, a heavy gutbucket backbeat, and that wailing harmonica.
1847 - oh, well, in that case I'll buy it. In fact, I'll buy several. Always happy to support a band that's scuffling along trying to keep the tradition alive.
I've listened to the album a few times and, while it doesn't really grab me, I'm struggling to understand from the criticism why it's supposed be actually dreadful. This is supposed to be a musician's website and forum. Any clues beyond the harp playing?
It's worth keeping this thread going until we get some insights.
I remember watching one of the few bits of LW footage (you know, the one with HoundDog Taylor) and thinking it was good, must be good, because it's LW. But then reading here some more detailed criticism that made me think more carefully about it.
A lot of the criticism I've read (including your link Little Roger) is aimed at Jagger's alleged ego/controlling style. How many times have I read on MBH, pro or semi-pro players saying how band leaders need have those very same hard nosed, even brutal, qualities? You can't have it both ways.
If these tracks had been recorded by an unknown band, perhaps being posted by a member of that band who contributes to this forum and who wanted to share the music they make, would this thread be this amazingly long?
Is this conversation about the quality of the music or is it really about the celebrity of the musicians who recorded it? ----------
The tracks I have heard I have enjoyed vocals, guitar, and the rhythm section: everything but the harp playing. I don't consider the music traditional blues, but it is good enough music to enjoy... without the harp.
Yes, I am a snob in that I want to hear harp played at a higher level than is displayed on these tracks. I can hear better harp locally from a number of players. ----------
This post is for anyone who has paid attention to the tune, "Just Your Fool"--I have heard that the Stones duplicated the rhythmic anomaly from the original. Is this true?
Last Edited by Gnarly on Jan 23, 2017 10:07 AM
