What does it sound like?:
What does it sound like? Absobloodylutely stupendous, believe the hype. Really. There really is a reason why just about every critic in just about every sphere is saying this. Ok, so some of it is because it is so very very long since hopes lay undashed, but if ever a prodigal came good, this is it, kill the fattest calf in the land. Forget best since Some Girls, best since Stripped, this is the best since the 1964 EP The Pretty Things, which, apart from not being by them, gives the best idea of the sound they’re coming from. And, yes, stuff the pundits saying this needed Mick Taylor in, or even Brian, it’s Dick, with a D, Taylor that I would like to hear, back with the band he nearly joined. And Stu would have been good.
Hopefully you are getting the feel this is no polished late 60s Blue Horizon fare, Mike Vernon would not have touched this garage band with a bargepole. This is the blues of Muddy Waters and Howlin’ Wolf, even if the songs aren’t, rough and ready, raw and vibrant, grown men polishing their, um, brooms.
Basic even, meat and potatoes, but by that I mean a porterhouse with triple cooked fat chips, fat as Keef’s fingers, none of your chateaubriand and thin fries. The defining motifs are Jaggers harp, always their best kept secret, the first song, a minute in, shooting into orbit with an exquisite flurry of notes. Reader, I was hooked. At other moments we get the reminder that Ronnie actually was thought a good player once, on slide: think some of his stuff on the otherwise iffy Faces live, Overtures and Beginners, the interplay with Keef coming on like Duane and Dickey at the wrong speed. In a good way. And the 2 songs with Clapton actually do need him, and are enlivened by his remembering why he was slow hand, even if that wasn’t why. Charlie? Utterly bonkers drums, played on saucepans and teapots. I can imagine him grinning gloriously, thinking what’s this shit to himself, and getting carried away. Yes, it plods a bit as you get into the 3rd quarter, but only by compare with the earlier songs, Jagger singing like a 70 year old white man, in Little Red Rooster mode, actually much as he did then. (And I have that on the authority of the brothers.) Keyboards are largely down in the mix, Chuck Leavell barely registering, a Matt Clifford adding barroom piano which is what reminded me of Stu. I think he’d have been proud of his band.
What does it all *mean*?
Suddenly they are credible? Until the backlash anyway.
Goes well with…
2016, an uplift to end this grimly reaped year.
Release Date:
Might suit people who like…
Happy endings. Stupid pictures that are nothing about the piece for fear the Rolling Sones will sue the Afterword for a positive promotional piece…..
minibreakfast says
I’ve read this twice and am none the wiser as to what you’re on about 🙂
Moose the Mooche says
Matt Clifford? I thought he was in nick for…
Oh sorry, wrong guy.
Fifer says
Spot on retro. What a blast this is; I haven’t been as grabbed by an album in ages. That it should be the Stones is all the more astonishing. They’re in their 70’s FFS. This takes me back to their first album and the electricity that came off that record. For me, Christmas has come early. Wow, just wow!
Oh, and Amazon have sold out of this, the No1 selling album in the UK today!
Tiggerlion says
You beat me to it, retro. I like it a lot but am not quite as enthusiastic as you. The Stones were never a blues band, they were R&B in the sixties. You don’t hear many ‘worried’ notes and they enjoy Charlie’s driving beat. A white middle-class grammar school boy is going to struggle to convince he really has the blues.
This album is often compared to the first two that are stuffed with covers. It is nothing like. My favourite live Stones is side three of Love You Live (although I could do without the band introductions). That consists of four covers, Mannish Boy, Crackin’ Up, Little Red Rooster and Around And Around, recorded in 1977 in front of an audience of 300 at Toronto’s El Mocambo Tavern. It’s raw and full of energy. You can almost smell the sweat and the band are having a blast. Of course, that band includes Ron Wood, Bill Wyman, Stu and Billy Preston. Blue And Lonesome has a similar live, raw feel.
I really enjoy older blues musicians later albums, such as Hard Again, A Ass Pocket Of Whiskey and The Healer. Muddy Waters was 63, R.L. Burnside 69 and John Lee Hooker 77 respectively when they made those records. They are lovingly supported by enthusiastic youngsters, whereas The Stones have to generate their own and they do so without any difficulty whatsoever. The guitars weave, the drums clatter and the harp flies. Mick hasn’t sung so well for decades.
It’s the sound of some old geezers enjoying themselves and their fun is infectious. Blue And Lonesome is a joy.
Baron Harkonnen says
I have all those old gents` LPs tigger and for once you are right, they are a blast. ; ))
Junior Wells says
I prefer the earlier albums of the blues masters but agree wholeheartedly re side 3 of love you live.
What are your first impressions @Johnny-Concheroo ?
Johnny Concheroo says
Haven’t played it yet. It was confiscated by her indoors to be used as non-surprise Xmas present. I’m not expecting miracles from them at this stage, but as I said somewhere else on the blog recently, I really enjoyed Stripped so if it’s half as good as that, I’ll be happy.
At least they are working with decent songs for a change, unlike their own albums since 1978, so it stands a fair chance of being a good album.
I may even cheat Santa and listen to it on that new-fangled Spotify all the cool kids are talking about.
NigelT says
I really, really like the album – great to hear the Stones inhabit songs which aren’t their own and to concentrate on interpretation and performance. To use songs which are mostly unfamiliar was a masterstroke as there are no direct comparisons, unless you seek out the originals, so they sound fresh. As noted elsewhere, Jagger’s harp and singing are great, and the spontaneity crackles out of the speakers – great stuff!
Moose the Mooche says
How’s Medvedev’s harp playing these days? I have to say he tore it up at Colne.
Baron Harkonnen says
It`s great to have a real contender for The Album Of The Year, well done Mick and the lads. The G.R. ain`t due yet.
Uncle Wheaty says
A good effort.
The Good Doctor says
a cover image of the album is fine I think- it’s just live shots or band pictures that are grabbed from the web that are at risk from litigious photographers –
retropath2 says
Not when I tried to put it in, several times, varying the theme and copyrights, assuming it to be fine. Then I did the available for reuse freely bit, with nothing suitable. Then tried smiling dogs, random doodles and the site, this site, prohibited it sending every time. Even all the wiki site examples. The oddity I produced was about attempt 15.
Can someone loosen this noose please? A reality check, perhaps. Zillions of photos and then one “threat”, uncertain even if followed thru’, and we stop the lot? Surely we should stop you tube if we are so worried? And trademarked words. And colours. Or just stop altogether and stifle conversation and communication. Which I guess it what they want.
Junior Wells says
Just given it my first listen. A good fun album. Always said that blues is more about feeling, and the Stones have always had the feel. Always loved Mick’s harp playing so good to hear it to the fore.
Great album? Album of the year? Not for me. Just a bunch of guys playing blues covers really well and enjoying them.
Johnny Concheroo says
Here’s Mick, talking about learning the harmonica with a little help from Cyril Davies.
I just listened to the first two tracks of the new album and what struck me was the rather cluttered ensemble sound. It sounds like there’s a huge bank of guitars wailing away in the background with no obvious soloing.
Mick sounds in good voice though and his harp playing is great.
Lodestone of Wrongness says
Well blow me down… if it’s not Album of the Year it’s pretty damn close to it (and that’s not something I had said of The Stones since Exile…..)
Gary says
I agree. I generally have little time for the Stones and even less for the blues, but I’m loving it. Other contender for my album of the year is, natch, Blackstar. The comparison and contrast between the two is interesting. Both unexpected late-in-their-career highlights by artists considered well past their peak. But Bowie’s approach was intellectual. A true work of art that can be interpreted as his reflection on his impending death. The Stones’ approach sounds hedonistic in comparison, old guys doing nothing more than having fun by applying the musical skills they’ve learnt over the years to the music they’ve loved since their youth. Ultimately, while I admire Bowie’s album more, The Stones’ album is more fun to play loud in the car.
Interesting also to consider Van’s Keep Me Singing and Floyd’s Endless River in this context of late highlights. I think both of them were unexpectedly good too. Not quite to Bowie’s or The Stones’ level though.
Tiggerlion says
Prince’s last is a corker, too. Technically, HITNRUN Phase Two was released on Tidal last December but you could only get a physical copy this year. It is poptastic, full of riffs and big choruses, replete with punchy horns and exuberant guitar, all underpinned by a funky beat. And, no weak moments. His horny toad lyrics can be toe-curling, but it was ever thus for Prince. Great fun played loud in the car and, I think, qualifies as a contender for this year’s top ten.
Black Type says
Yep.
Blue Boy says
To which we can add Paul Simon, Eric Clapton and Leonard Cohen. Not a bad year for the oldsters (apart from the the minor detail of some of them dying of course).
Tiggerlion says
Is Eric’s actually any good?
Blue Boy says
Well, it’s nothing really special, but it’s solid and made with love. Damning with faint praise I know but it’s good to hear him not just going through the motions
GCU Grey Area says
DIY ‘Stones’ L-R; Keef, Quite Liderally Sir Mick, Ron, Charlie.
http://i1060.photobucket.com/albums/t449/GCU_Grey_Area/not-the-stones_zpsa4tptzpz.jpg
(all images labelled for reuse, this image © GCU Grey Area 2016 (if we wanna be really picky)
spider-mans arch enemy says
Sir Mick’s hair’s suddenly gone grey.
paulwright says
Top!
Moose the Mooche says
Charlie says “We’re bluddy maaaaahvellous!”
Vincent says
Another thumbs up; best ‘un since “Tattoo You” (actually, since “Some Girls”). Rock sounds odd in oldsters, but blues works.
Vince Black says
I bought this for Mrs Black’s birthday and I must say I’m loving it. We were discussing how well Mick sings for someone of his advanced age. I then said, remember when we saw Muddy Waters on The Last Waltz movie, and thought of him as some venerable old blues guy. But of course we were young then and so Muddy seemed ancient. I bet Mick is now of similar age, which would explain why he sounds so convincing
I just checked on Wiki. Mick Jagger was 72 when the Stones recorded Blue and Lonesome. Muddy Waters died aged 70 and when he appeared in The Last Waltz he was 63!