Do you realize how sad it is that the almost worlds greatest rock and roll band ( everybody knows the Who were better in their prime-smile) puts out mediocre stuf in our hallowed genre-and its ok??
Not sure who is more pathetic- The Stones, Paul McCartney or Steven Seagal
BTW I love the old stones with Brian and my first band in 1967 was pretty much a stones cover band
It would be as if Brigett Bardot decided to do a Playboy centerfold ( oh they dont have those anymore) I am sure she is still lovely but knew when to hang it up
I'm just saying this song sounds OK. Not great as I said, and certainly not a patch on the original, but OK.
Anybody can cover anything whether we like it or not. Madonna's cover of "American Pie" and Christina Augelliera's cover of "Hotel California" piss me off but some people seemed to like them.
As for the radio, even if it's not kids' primary source of music there's still places they're likely to hear it such as the car radio driving around with their parents or at the shopping centre. And kids aren't the only ones who may decide to pick up a harp.
How many non-blues fans listen to or even know about Little Walter? Hopefully if they hear this they'll trace it back to the original source. I think hearing a cover of a blues song by a non-blues artist is a common entry point into the blues, and I would expect this album would get some major promotion and marketing.
It is so easy to sit back in a non music supported life and take pot shots -armchair quaterback... If they want to make a blues album more power to them. It isn't costing anyone here anything out of their own pockets and worst case scenario a few non blues listeners may discover something. I was blown away by the british invasion and it directed me to the blues as I listened to the British albums and saw names mentioned on the album notes that I never heard like Freddie King, Howling Wolf,etc. Walter ---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year in the Tunnel of Dreams Studio. " life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
...and, EHarp, wikipedia is excellent. Never perfect like everything else. If you choose to counter this please skip the "anybody can change it" take. That's FAR short of the real story and value of wiki as a resource (not source, but it provides them).
"For a bunch of world famous best rock & roll band in the world, what's wrong with them having some personal fun in the studio?
I'm sure they are financially secure and perhaps do not overly concern themselves if what they produce will once again change the world."
For the greatest Rock and Roll band of all-time (sorry Beatles and Zeppelin) to come out with an album of music that influenced them and music they love, I say good for them.
I never considered the Stones as a blues band but rather a blues-influenced band.
I agree with Adam that Mick's playing is at best, mediocre. This is one of my favorite Stones songs that I guess would fall into the blues category. Mick's playing is pretty basic but I enjoy this version of the song.
The Spider And The Fly was the first Stones song I learned. For quite a while I didn't know it was by them.
Meanwhile, back in the shop, I think I came upon their logo when I sliced some wood (& flipped & spun the image). That is a termite hole adjacent to it.
Edit: Crop
Last Edited by JustFuya on Oct 12, 2016 7:25 AM
the rolling stones can easily afford a horse that could run in the kentucky derby, but wouldn't they hire a professional jockey to ride the horse?. it would not surprise me if mick plays polo with prince charles, but does that qualify him to race in the triple crown? i must admit, i do have "mixed emotions" when i heard that that intro i thought i can do a better job than that. then i played along and my playing was way worse. so on one hand i find it inspiring. but at the end of the day i can do a respectable job.... it just takes work.
so why on earth would he not put his heart and soul into it? he has the time and resources. he does this for a living. he is one of the greatest song writers of our generation. that's for sure.
The Stones have produced solid, even brilliant work in their later years; I count Steel Wheels, Bridges to Babylon, Voodoo Lounge and especially A Bigger Bang; part of the wonder of these guys is how they kept so much of their late work potent, wise, wizened with experience. Jagger/Richards/Woods/Watts have the rare genius of putting together three or four chord rockers that have hooks that grab you, lyrics that reflect without being mushy or morbid, tells a truth without the urge to preach, rocks with a confidence. That said, they are painfully uninteresting as blues playes, however much the music influenced , and no matter how much love they might bring to it. They have always sounded like hobbyists more than anything else. If they had some residual virtuousity in their ranks--if Jagger could play great harp and he coulds actually s ing blues style and if Woods and Richards were compelling blues soloists, we might have somethng to talk about. Clapton's From the Cradle had him dig into his guitar work to produce the best playing he'd done in twenty years, the result being an honestly engaging blues tribute album. The stones have none of that. I wish they did, but they don't . But if they had been virtuosos, I think we would not have have the qualities we currently admire about thsi great band. ---------- Ted Burke tburke4@san.rr.com
it seems to me with this being a studio album,that they could have hired a more proficient harp player instead of mick playing....there are numerous members of this forum who could play much better
