So if it looks like the Stones are going to record one more new album, where do you think they should go and work? I think the surrounding atmosphere makes a difference - not in the most obvious way. "Goats' Head Soup" in Jamaica was no reggae album; nor was "Steel Wheels" island music. But you put a band into an Urban setting and it is going to reflect in the music; or lyrics. Also it can make a difference in the guests you pick; and how they will act. Say you need some Pedal Steel, and you are in Nashville, your guy might be close by, in his own town, with HIS connects. He comes from his house in his car and his all laid back. As opposed to flying him across the world, unload him, pay him to play, and send him back.
What made me think about this, was this very remote possibilty of Jack White stepping up to produce. I could see a countrified album recorded in Nashville by the Stones as really intrigueing.
Would Jagger ever agree to a young gun like JW to run the Stones?
What does it even mean to produce the Stones nowadays?

I think they should record a live club date, half IORR's and half locals, in Buenos Aires.

I'll tell you where they shouldn't record. They shouldn't record in a tropical island paradise. They should record in a city, preferably in the worst possible neighborhood in which a recording studio is located.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-05 01:44 by tatters.

Jack White just might be able to persuade them to record at Toerag.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

With TSOOL in Western Sweden with Stones Viking's Prez as daily guest?

Yeah Toe Rag sounds good ........And it's analog....



ROCKMAN

I also go along with Toe Rag. In fact, any half-decent studio in Londom!

When was the last time they actually had a recording session in the city?

Rotterdam/Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris or Helsinki. I agree it should be a city environment, but they should avoid the States and Great Britain.

Really glad everyone seems to think a city should be the place. Europe.. (via Nashville)

Jamaica or some easier corner around Caribbean wont be wrong either.
Good for Keef's health.

Quote
tatters
I'll tell you where they shouldn't record. They shouldn't record in a tropical island paradise. They should record in a city, preferably in the worst possible neighborhood in which a recording studio is located.

Hmmm. Toronto?

And then they can slide right into practicing for the tour!

They should record in my basement. Its damp & musty. Kinda of like where they recorded Exile. It could be their masterpiece of the 2000s, and I'll be there in the front row.....

If not maybe 2120 Michigan Avenue.

It's so very lonely, you're 2,000 Light Years from home

Quote
Baboon Bro
Jamaica or some easier corner around Caribbean wont be wrong either.
Good for Keef's health.

Jamaica would mean too much dope for Keith, too much reagge and eventually no new CD

Toerag would be good. So would RCA Nashville Studio B.
I think they still do some recording there, but not much, just tours and
teaching recording techniques. RCA probably still has a good room sound. I don't think they changed the room much. However, most studios nowadays are similiar worldwide. It's not like the old days where a great many of them had certain sounds and gear. Today, a studio in Omaha is gonna have probably the same gear
as a studio in Paris. But this will never happen. Jagger would see it as too retro of an idea. If I had to pick a CITY, I'd say Nashville or London (bring it all back home).

Rick Rubin's Studio, PRONTO !!!

Muscle Shoals Sound Studio Alabama United States along with a producer who wouldn't be afraid to tell the stones if their songs are any good and limit the use of pro tools.

In my home studio

Quote
winter
Rotterdam/Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris or Helsinki. I agree it should be a city environment, but they should avoid the States and Great Britain.

Why? London is their home-turf and where they recorded some of their finest music. Is Olympic Studios still up and running? They could record there.

Chicago. That's the place they should record. Or London. A big city worked well for them during Bridges.

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-05 13:03 by JumpingKentFlash.

Dick Taylors old living room living room in Dartford!

Definitely not some 48 track glitzy place where they'll feel the need to put on tons of overdubs. Keep it minimal, let the music breathe and yes, analogue would be nice.

Quote
ghostryder13
Muscle Shoals Sound Studio Alabama United States along with a producer who wouldn't be afraid to tell the stones if their songs are any good and limit the use of pro tools.

Muscle Shoals is down.

In a garage

__________________________

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Baboon Bro
Jamaica or some easier corner around Caribbean wont be wrong either.
Good for Keef's health.

Jamaica would mean too much dope for Keith, too much reagge and eventually no new CD

It's a well known fact that too much sunshine turns your brains to mush. Jamaica, or any place like it, might be okay for recording light, acoustic material, but it's NOT the place to record rock and roll.

FAME studios in Muscle Shoals is what the person is talking about, which is very much up - Jason Isbell recorded his newest record there.

There are studios in New Orleans and throughout Louisiana (Studio In The Country is very nice - and isolated but it's in probably one of the worst areas possible - near the absolutely awful smelling stench of Bogalusa) that are fantastic.

I've worked at Piety in New Orleans - it's an old post office - and the Truck Farm is a shotgun house on 2 inch analog. Right now it's in limbo right now.

So whatever.

How about Olympic?

How bout anywhere and all the time

How about a Nellcote environment again!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

Quote
Fan Since 1964
How about a Nellcote environment again!

I'm still with ToeRag

The Cribs at ToeRag from this month's Mojo

[www.toeragstudios.com]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

For me, it isn't so much as the where they should record the album more than what kind of album it should be and how it gets recorded. I would really like for them to go back and do their own original Blues and roots music material again and have no concerns whatsoever about how many units they sell.
Also, here's a wild idea that should be considered. They should really consider going back to recording an album in mono. John Mellencamp is already doing so with his forthcoming new album. He's also been cutting some of it at Sun Studios in Memphis.
It really boils down to the attiudes in their mind more than anything-especially Jagger. I could see Keith doing a roots album again with no sense of guilt if he didn't have to consider Mick's commercial goals so much in order to keep the partnership happy.

Quote
skipstone
FAME studios in Muscle Shoals is what the person is talking about, which is very much up - Jason Isbell recorded his newest record there.

There are studios in New Orleans and throughout Louisiana (Studio In The Country is very nice - and isolated but it's in probably one of the worst areas possible - near the absolutely awful smelling stench of Bogalusa) that are fantastic.

I've worked at Piety in New Orleans - it's an old post office - and the Truck Farm is a shotgun house on 2 inch analog. Right now it's in limbo right now.

So whatever.

How about Olympic?

I have heard great things about NO, and much of Twilight Singer's "Powder Burns" was recorded there; in supposedly adventurous circumstances.
Like the previous poster says: much of this hangs on Jagger's attitude, and the thin chance of him going along with some more adventurous ideas and surroundings. The Stones ALWAYS come through in a major way under stressful circumstances.