For those that think Bloooooze is boring...... I give you GA-20

Sporky

As a non-blues-fan I can confirm that that sounds exactly the same as all other blues.

RickLucas

Fantastic stuff. Raw and visceral. A breath of fresh air. I'm sick of all the Stevie Ray Yawners, so it's a yes from me. Watched them in Manchester on Sunday and they have been on repeat in the car, along with Hound Dog Taylor, all week.

Cranky

I would probably have the blues if I wasn’t so damn funny.  But alas, I am.  So yeah, the blues is a pretty tired and overly capitalized style.  I’m all about triphop, jokes and depression.

Sporky

I should qualify my post by conceding that what I listen to probably all sounds the same to people who don't like it.

I do not think ill of people deriving pleasure from being able to listen to blues, baffling though the idea is.  

Kilgore

There is no doubt that blues is a fairly rigid format. If it doesn't sound like blues then it's probably not.

Blues began with troubadours accompanying themselves on guitar. Over time, and with the change to electric guitars, blues evolved into a widdling competition in which the song is usually just a vehicle to shoehorn lots of solos into.

fretmeister

Sounds more like surf stuff to me.

It's not bad. Quite like the sparseness and lack of bass - that surprised me a lot.

Gassage

I assume vegan humus, beard oil and craft ale was on their rider?

ElectricXII

S'OK. Better than all that "blues rawk" shite out there. Needs a bass player.

GoFish

lustycourtier said:

GoFish said:

Sounds to me like a pretty straight British 60's blues jam. Around '65?

no not really. Id say as far from british sounding RnB/Blues as it could be. 2 very different records. They started out as a fun side project for a few session guys including Luther Dickinson doing covers of really old blues in a garage rock style, but new record is very 50s RnB with more swing. 
 Whilst they didnt blow me away like JD McPherson did live, with a stand up bassist and 5 piece band, these guys with 2 electric guitars and a drummer are still a joy to watch and listen too. 

1) I appreciate that you stepped up to defend what sounded like a slight - none was intended. The record is charming, well played / recorded and a pleasing anachonism. If I had performed it, I'd be well chuffed, as should they.

2)The levels of gain and the vocal mannerisms steered me wrong by saying '65, which is a tad too late. However, "50's rnb with more swing" places it firmly in the early 60s British camp, as does the tempo - if it were faster, it could have passed for something  more skiffle derived. Point of order, I think we have different ideas of "swing"  - I would call it "cooler" or more laid back, not more swinging.

3)I'd say we have a major clash of refence points if you think that it's as far from british sounding RnB as it could be - It's not as "staight" as I declared but th trajectory for me is still clearly 59-65. There are interesting little bits remeniscent of other records, the lead guitar particularly is showing 50's influences, but that's exactly where the 60s cats were coming from. sprinkle of Zombies, touch of Yardbirds, soupcon of Mayall, dash of Butterfield...you got a stew going on!

4)I would happily spend an evening nursing a pint or two listening to these guys - they seem to really dig what they do.

RandallFlagg

no no no no no...too much spring reverb.