Quote
saltoftheearth

Quote
swiss
... and Vivaldi]

Never heard of that group. Who were they? A one-hit wonder, I presume?

Just this guy, sort of like Phillip Glass but a bit older.

Quote
Blueranger
I like the album, but it suffers from bad production. If you listen to the instrumental versions from boots, you'll hear really groundbreaking sonic landscapes. I think they did a lot of "bouncing down" on that album.

That's the way I hear it too. The Beatles were better in the studio; (not to bring up the B vs RS topic), but the Stones almost hide many beautiful sound pictures under too much generation loss; pinging tracks down. Like the clip of YP up there shows - that is one gorgeous song.

One of my personal favourites! Is it a overlooked classic? Maybe. Did the Beatles do this style of music better? Perhaps...who cares. I just know I've always enjoyed the variety, the biting lyrics, the humour, the spacey sound of BTB. The true start of the golden era.

classic! better than sgt pepper imho,,,for the era

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Quote
DeliveranceStraightwayHoliness

Quote
Blueranger
I like the album, but it suffers from bad production. If you listen to the instrumental versions from boots, you'll hear really groundbreaking sonic landscapes. I think they did a lot of "bouncing down" on that album.

That's the way I hear it too. The Beatles were better in the studio; (not to bring up the B vs RS topic), but the Stones almost hide many beautiful sound pictures under too much generation loss; pinging tracks down. Like the clip of YP up there shows - that is one gorgeous song.

Even though ALO did some absolutely genious choices, but in a long run The Stones suffured, unlike the Beatles, from not having a real producer. That really started to show from "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby?" on. ALO's masterpieces were the 1965 singles "The Last Time", and "Satisfaction", and AFTERMATH album over-all. I think the whole 1967 were lost due having lost the focus. They were not out of great ideas (Mick and especially Keith's creative imagination was in its brightest and widest), Brian was still quite functional, but they somehow screwed up how to get them through. Most of the stuff they did back them sounds very dated compared to many of thir rivals (especially the Big One, but there other up there rising: Cream, Hendrix, etc.).

I don't know how much ALO still had to do with messing BETWEEN THE BUTTONS but at least SATANIC MAJESTIES were screwed up by the boys themselves. Perhaps the greatness of the sharp production, of say, "Satisfaction" and the beautiful sonic atmosphere of AFTERMATH was more to do with the personnel in the US studios than in ALO's visions. When they get back to Olympic studios in England, the engineers didn't save their asses anymore. (The assumption: I don't think Andrew ever really helped a lot at least technically, but was just around, creating the atmosphere, kicking the butts or something.) How on earth they could release a chaotic mess like "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby", or how on earth dared to release Mick sing the fourth note of "Ruby Tuesday" totally flat and out of key (the low note)? Things like that seemed to start gathering... "Let's Spend The Night Together" - a great tune in itself - sounds with its childish pop beat soundwise and technically stemming more from the forties than sixties... the over-all feeling in BETWEEN THE BUTTONS is somehow flat. THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES sounds technically distinctive and sharp but it was screwed up by other means.

With BEGGARS BANQUET Jimmy Miller shows what having a real producer around actually means.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-23 09:45 by Doxa.

I think one way to explain a certain failure of BETWEEN THE BUTTONS to not really hit the point home - to be a masterpiece - is perhaps the new technology around. Having all these new tracks available and possibilities - plus time - demand a more focused attitude than the 'archaic' method they were used to earlier (record a cut in twenty minutes maximun, and mostly live to a mono record).

For example, if ALO's production ideals came from Phil Spector mono wall sounds - "Not Fade Away", "The Last Time", "Get Off of My Cloud", "Have You Seen Your Mother" seem to herit from there - by 1967 these were a thing of the past. Perhaps ALO couldn't update his ideas and follow the newest trends. His limited skills as a producer were to be seen when the whole recording process took a more professonal form. So the new techology and the new possibilities - and also the possibili ty spend more time in studio - were confusing them, and partly that is the reason for some of the 1967 weaknesses. Too much new toys, and they couldn't resist teh temptation to use them (thinking of, say, the strange echo in some of the cuts, a Spector reminder still, ALO? the changing the vocals from a speaker to other in "We Love You", etc.) At the same time some other acts - like Hendrix or Pink Floyd - started their recording career with this better technology already available, and they learn the game already by these means.

And we have to remember that at the time the progress in every level of the rock business was such a rapid one, and The Stones surely did they best to stay current and adapt the latest trends. And they never actually were true leaders (expect of the r&b movement in 1963/64). That was especially true in 1967.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-23 10:28 by Doxa.

Oldham produced NOTHING he was a PR man who probably influenced what was put out in the studio he added NOTHING! If the Stones had a George Martin or Jimmy Miller the music would have a better feel.

Quote
slew
Oldham produced NOTHING he was a PR man who probably influenced what was put out in the studio he added NOTHING!

how do you know?

I have heard MIck and Keith both state that the man knew nothing about music and had nothing to do with recording. But, I do not know for certain but if the man could produce where the hell has he been since 1967 except coming out and saying Mick is an a-hole for the past 43 years?!

Quote
swiss

Quote
saltoftheearth

Quote
swiss
... and Vivaldi]

Never heard of that group. Who were they? A one-hit wonder, I presume?

Just this guy, sort of like Phillip Glass but bit older.

You got it... just a joke...

Quote
71Tele
You're right. Dulcimer. But I didn't know there were electric ones...Brian on kazoo as well? Looking forward to this being performed on the next tour. Maybe Lisa Fischer could do the kazoo part. I'd pay to see that.

Brian had two electric dulcimers made for him by Vox in Dartford. They are called Vox Bijou and I believe that they also produced them on deman for a short period of time. In the ad they said it had a "sitar-twang to it".

But I can believe that people have thought it was a sitar since they sound very special. I can't get my dulcimer to sound like that Brian's at all. But I don't master using slide with dulcimer either.

Anyways. I like Cool, Calm & Collected. To me this is like the beta-Satanic Majesties. Lisa Fischer on Kazoo would be great on the next tour!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-23 19:45 by tonterapi.

Quote
slew
I have heard MIck and Keith both state that the man knew nothing about music and had nothing to do with recording. But, I do not know for certain but if the man could produce where the hell has he been since 1967 except coming out and saying Mick is an a-hole for the past 43 years?!

If i remember well Andrew got the blame for the strange sound quality of the US album Got Live If You Want It for as we know from the 65, 66 and 67 bootlegs there were some good quality live recordings from that time, so there was no reason to mix it so badly. In Roy Carr's book it is written that Keith blamed Andrew for the over producing of Between the Buttons, so clearly Andrew was responsible for the recording quality, Anyway i disagree with Keith for i think Andrew did a wonderfull job with Between the Buttons.
Yes after 67 we didn't see Andrew anymore, he did try though, but ofcourse it is not just the producer, it is also the band. And the Stones were ofcourse allready a club sensation right from the first club gig they did in 1962. Andrew was lucky to be so fast to get to them before anyone else did, and the Stones were lucky because Andrew was the right guy to lead them beyond being a R&B cover band. Haven't really heard much of Jimmy Miller either, well haven't really looked for it i must admit.

between the buttons is an overlooked classic.

its another album that shows the stones amazing versatility and variation.

Andrew Oldham is The Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man!

I give him credit for making the Stones huge! Musically the guy offered little.

Quote
slew
Oldham produced NOTHING

Nonsense!

He produced a Donovan album in the early 70's, so it's not like he didn't work at all without the Stones.

Maybe technically or musically he didn't measure up, but he knew the sound of a hit, so at least give him credit for good ears.

Quote
slew
Oldham produced NOTHING he was a PR man who probably influenced what was put out in the studio he added NOTHING! If the Stones had a George Martin or Jimmy Miller the music would have a better feel.

Understand that a producer back then meant something totally different
than it does now. Producers back then had little do do with the actual sound
(guitar tone, drum tone, etc). That was the enginner to do: Ron Malo,
Dave Hassinger, Norman Smith, Ken Scott, Geoff Emerick.
The producer's main role was with the material: does the song work?
IS the tempo right? In the right key? Harmonies okay? Intro need to be changed?
Middle eight changed? Too short a song? Too long a song? Choose the A and B side
to the single, do the album order.
Nowadays producers do this and have engineering experience.
George Martin even acknowledges this.
BTW, Oldham was a great produver. Look at his track record.

In 2003, the album was ranked number 355 on Rolling Stone Magazine's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. So don't think it's underrated as a classic piece of work by critics.

The three tracks BSG, Connection and SSS are an awesome trio.

Quote
squando
In 2003, the album was ranked number 355 on Rolling Stone Magazine's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.

that sounds about right.

ok ok ok I don't think of Oldham like I think of Jimmy Miller

It's the Stones take on typical Brit music like that of the Kinks and the Small Faces -witty, middle-class well-educated music. And that's just exactly what the Stones aren't.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs
It's the Stones take on typical Brit music like that of the Kinks and the Small Faces -witty, middle-class well-educated music. And that's just exactly what the Stones aren't.

Mathijs

They ain't/weren't a bunch of black blues musicians in the Mississippi delta, or 50's Chicago either.

Quote
tonterapi
I can't get my dulcimer to sound like that Brian's at all. But I don't master using slide with dulcimer either.

Now, I'm going to quote and correct myself.

Today I tried to use a wooden stick for the first time when I played my dulcimer and suddenly it was pretty easy to play Cool Calm & Collected and Gomper on it! I totally misunderstood the meaning of slide! Brian didn't use a slide for a guitar but a wooden stick - a very classic way to fret the dulcimer! You can slide but it sounds more precise than with a slide made for a guitar.

Sorry for being a little off topic but I just got so happy!

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Mathijs
It's the Stones take on typical Brit music like that of the Kinks and the Small Faces -witty, middle-class well-educated music. And that's just exactly what the Stones aren't.

Mathijs

They ain't/weren't a bunch of black blues musicians in the Mississippi delta, or 50's Chicago either.

No, but they where deriving their inspiration from the US, whereas the Kinks where deriving their inspiration from East Finchley. To me (as a Dutchman) the Kinks and the like always seemed very British, very eloquent, witty and well manored. Just as Monty Python very well could be the definition of British humor, so could The Kings define 60's British pop music. And the Stones to me are the opposite of this with their darker, meaner and more aggressive approach.

Mathijs

The album to me does show the Stones versatality as a band. The Stones did not create the style of very British music on this album nor did they create the blues, or the 70's funk, or disco or punk but they were able to soak it all in and create their own takes on all different styles of music and they have played all well.

I think (although I love the album, but that's because I'm a Stones fan) it's a flop, I agree with Mathijs they try to sound like the Britisch sound of The Kinks, Small Faces and other popular bands of that genre in '67

__________________________

Nicos - They did but it sounded good to me it's better then the Kinks!

Quote
tonterapi

Today I tried to use a wooden stick for the first time when I played my dulcimer and suddenly it was pretty easy to play Cool Calm & Collected and Gomper on it! I totally misunderstood the meaning of slide! Brian didn't use a slide for a guitar but a wooden stick - a very classic way to fret the dulcimer! You can slide but it sounds more precise than with a slide made for a guitar.

I agree that the traditional stick way of fretting was used for CCC, but Gomper is more likely an actual slide.

Quote
Mathijs


No, but they where deriving their inspiration from the US...

Regardless of what they wanted to sound like, their more overt english sounding pop period is just as much them as the blues stuff.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Mathijs
It's the Stones take on typical Brit music like that of the Kinks and the Small Faces -witty, middle-class well-educated music. And that's just exactly what the Stones aren't.

Mathijs

They ain't/weren't a bunch of black blues musicians in the Mississippi delta, or 50's Chicago either.

No, but they where deriving their inspiration from the US, whereas the Kinks where deriving their inspiration from East Finchley. To me (as a Dutchman) the Kinks and the like always seemed very British, very eloquent, witty and well manored. Just as Monty Python very well could be the definition of British humor, so could The Kings define 60's British pop music. And the Stones to me are the opposite of this with their darker, meaner and more aggressive approach.

Mathijs

somewhat OT, but didn't the Kinks only begin to write more well-mannered songs after first establishing themselves as mean & aggressive with their first few singles? Those are easily as aggressive as the Stones' early records, perhaps even more so, and the Kinks live shows, at least of the late 70-early 80s which are in wide circulation, are plenty wild if less choreographed than the Stones'. Granted, Ray Davies was going for more theatrical effect for many years in the 70s.