Blue N Lonesome
Posted by: Allan Milne on 27 December 2016
Finally found time to listen to Xmas pressie of the the Rolling Stones Blue & Lonesome on Vinyl.
wow - it is so bluesy I'm going to have to file it under blues/jazz rather than rock where I have Sticky fingers ...
... you can tell from having a whoel 2 Stones albums that, although I kinda like them, they arenot one of my goto bands so I'm no expert.
Jagger is probably the only "oldie" I've heard recently whose voice doesn't sound his age, seems very like his younger days and he really can carry a blues tune.
In fact with so much of his harmonica too it is almost like a jagger solo album.
I know it was recordered over only 3 days in late 2015 and it has that kind of raw'ish sound that is not out of place here. Slightly disappointed in the sound stage which is very narrow and a bit cluttered but then perhaps that is part of its attraction.
I don't know if it was just me getting more into the groove but I found the last 3 tracks the most enjoyable but the whole album is great IMO.
... but what is this all about being on a double album ... I had to get off my chair 3 times to play the album ... absolutely ridiculuous ... of all groups, they should know how creaky that is on the old bones and joints 
Seriously though, is this just a marketing ploy, no other reason I can think of since 40+ minutes could easily have been fitted onto 2 sides rather than 4?
Great album and a fine start to my post-Xmas pressie listning
... now off to listen to Stevie Ray Vaughan and Jo Bonamassa
... I've been a very lucky boy
... and now I can order all the other music I had on my Xmas list since there was an embargo on my buying any music in Nov/Dec ... its going to be a great few weeks.
Allan
Posted on: 28 December 2016 by IanG
Personally I think Blue n' Lonesome is a great album. I bought the hi-res download when it came out and have barely stopped playing it since !!
Posted on: 28 December 2016 by GraemeH
How does the hires 'improve' over regular red book?
Cheers,
G
Posted on: 28 December 2016 by wenger2015
For me the jury is still out, I was hoping for more refinement and less rawness, but maybe that's the attraction.....must have another listen or two...
Posted on: 28 December 2016 by Christopher_M
I didn't know it was a double, Allan. I guess they are trying to give you the whole heavywieght vinyl, audiophile, no groove-cramming experience. Either that, or they are trying to help the 80% of Brits aged 40-60, who are overweight, drink too much and don't get enough exercise ;-)
Chris
Posted on: 28 December 2016 by Allan Milne
Like many of you, I am reserving judgement as to its ultimate quality for a few more listens - it is good raw blues though, just not sure yet about the refinement of both the playing and the production. to be sure, can't see how hi-res could do anything for this production.
I particularly like side 4 - the last 3 tracks for you modernists who have the CD.
Chris - you are a cruel man, I've already been picked on by my son who is up for Xmas and now you're having a go ... will just have to go and play it again to get some more exercise 
Good luck for them going back to their roots in this way but why has it taken a year from their 3 day recording to release ... cynic, cynic, cynic.
Allan
Posted on: 28 December 2016 by Christopher_M
Chris - you are a cruel man....
Don't worry, I'm in the 80% on at least one count.
C.
Posted on: 28 December 2016 by IanG
GraemeH, unfortunately I can't answer your question as I've not heard the red book. My comment was merely that I like he album rather than one version over another.
Posted on: 28 December 2016 by dave marshall
I'm sure that The Stones could easily have gone for a more polished production, but I've loved this album from the very first play.
It echoes the rough and ready sound of their first three albums ........ takes me right back to '63, and my Dansette days, and in a good way.
I'm still not certain, but my ageing ears are telling me that some of the tracks are indeed in mono, as were the early albums.
The perfect companion to the Stones in mono boxset, which I'm currently playing to death.
It's all good.
Posted on: 28 December 2016 by andrea
Hi anyone. I'm wondering, was that album originally recorded aiming to a vinyl/analogic outcome, or was it digitally recorded and then transferred on vinyl support? I've been listening so far just to streaming, I like the music, for same reasons many said above, but I wouldn't get any more vinyl-with-digital-sound record......
if anyone more informed than I could answer my question I'll be grateful.
As for the music, in my opinion it sounds really like an old classic blues standard, and I like it all in alll.
I too have to go deeper in it however, like paying attention to title of songs, for exemple....this is one shortcoming of streaming....
anyway, good stuff
Posted on: 29 December 2016 by GraemeH
GraemeH, unfortunately I can't answer your question as I've not heard the red book. My comment was merely that I like he album rather than one version over another.
OK. It does seem to me a deliberately scuzzy 'low-res' recording to evoke nostalgia for the more 'home-made, home-spun' era.
As I like the album very much the 'hi-res' tempts me - Just to to find out if 'hi-res' is even more 'low-res' in this instance!
G
Posted on: 29 December 2016 by Bert Schurink
I have the high res version. And I like it a lot. I don't know how it compares to low res, but I like the earthy style...
Posted on: 29 December 2016 by Quad 33
This is one of the best Stones albums I have heard since Goats Head Soup. I love the 60's rough and raw mix and the choose of classic but not obvious blues material. It gets my vote as blues album of the year well done to Mick and the boys. 
Posted on: 29 December 2016 by Dozey
Apparently the vinyl has a much bigger dynamic range than either the cd or high res masterings. I recall it was 10 dB versus about 6 dB. Details were on the Steve Hoffman music forum. I managed to get the vinyl from Amazon Italy for anout 35 Euros.
Posted on: 02 January 2017 by wenger2015
Does anyone know where you get the high res cd? Most sites do not specify if the cd is high res..
Posted on: 02 January 2017 by Mike-B
No CD is high-res, CD is 16/44 unless its HDCD (which Blue 'n Lonesome isn't) The best high-res download available for this album is 24/88.2kHz
The dynamic range (loudness) report is pretty crappy, & although vinyl comes out best its still not good.
Posted on: 02 January 2017 by wenger2015
No CD is high-res, its 16-bit at best or 20-bit if HDCD (which Blue 'n Lonesome isn't) The best high-res download available for this album is 24/88.2kHz
The dynamic range (loudness) report is pretty crappy, & vinyl comes out best, but its still not good.
I bought the cd, which is extremely poor quality, which seems to be possibly deliberate, wrongly assumed their was a superior quality version in circulation. Thanks for the update..
Posted on: 02 January 2017 by Mike-B
I think the 'quality' is deliberate & intended to sound like rough & raw roadhouse blues/rock. My 24/88 is the same & my vinyl buddy says the same about his. However the music & the ambiance it carries is superb, it reminds me very much of the brit blues that I was part of during the early 1960's (not the early Stones I must add)
Posted on: 02 January 2017 by james n
I think the 'quality' is deliberate & intended to sound like rough & raw roadhouse blues/rock.
Intended it may be, but it still sounds shite.
Posted on: 02 January 2017 by wenger2015
I think the 'quality' is deliberate & intended to sound like rough & raw roadhouse blues/rock. My 24/88 is the same & my vinyl buddy says the same about his. However the music & the ambiance it carries is superb, it reminds me very much of the brit blues that I was part of during the early 1960's (not the early Stones I must add)
Thanks for the confirmation that it is deliberately recorded the way it is, must have another listen....
Posted on: 02 January 2017 by wenger2015
I think the 'quality' is deliberate & intended to sound like rough & raw roadhouse blues/rock.
Intended it may be, but it still sounds shite.
The 'shite' description is possibly a little harsh... I would use the word nostelgic ...
Posted on: 02 January 2017 by james n
I think the 'quality' is deliberate & intended to sound like rough & raw roadhouse blues/rock.
Intended it may be, but it still sounds shite.
The 'shite' description is possibly a little harsh... I would use the word nostelgic ...
It's justified. Dr Feelgood does lo-fi well
Posted on: 02 January 2017 by GraemeH
I think the 'quality' is deliberate & intended to sound like rough & raw roadhouse blues/rock.
Intended it may be, but it still sounds shite.
The 'shite' description is possibly a little harsh... I would use the word nostelgic ...
I've bought the hires download to see if you can ideed polish nostalgia.
G
Posted on: 02 January 2017 by sheffieldgraham
I think the 'quality' is deliberate & intended to sound like rough & raw roadhouse blues/rock.
Intended it may be, but it still sounds shite.
The 'shite' description is possibly a little harsh... I would use the word nostelgic ...
It's justified. Dr Feelgood does lo-fi well
I tend to agree with your last statement James.
I sampled the Stones LP with a view to buying. Very much reminded me of the quality (recording style) of the early 60's recordings I grew up with, which did put me off. I didn't realise it was intentional. Maybe I should give it another try. Perhaps it will grow on me.
Posted on: 02 January 2017 by james n
I've diverted from PJ Harvey to have another listen to this (the wonders of computer audio !) - Ok it's not that bad, but it just doesn't feel authentic. My Dr Feelgood reference - You knew they would be recording on the cheap and the resulting sound just gelled so nicely with the 'grubby' image of the band. This album just feels a bit like The Stones for the Instagram generation where 'authenticity' is just a filter on the image away. The sound on this album seems more the result of a pro tools plug in than a rough 'n' ready recording.
Back to PJ Harvey
Posted on: 02 January 2017 by Simon-in-Suffolk
No CD is high-res, CD is 16/44 unless its HDCD (which Blue 'n Lonesome isn't) The best high-res download available for this album is 24/88.2kHz
The dynamic range (loudness) report is pretty crappy, & although vinyl comes out best its still not good.
Strictly speaking HDCD is still 16/44.1 its just not encoded with LPCM
S
