Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous123Next
Current Page: 2 of 3
Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: April 30, 2010 01:44

Quote
loveyoulive75
Quote
StonesTod
i think the presumption that the stones have the songs "in them" if someone could just "pull them out" is seriously flawed....

I don't. The same Mick Jagger that wrote a rhyming dictionary piece of garbage like "Streets Of Love" (IMO) also wrote songs like "Jigsaw Puzzle" and "Sympathy For The Devil". When he's not simply writing on autopilot the man can come up with some good, incisive stuff.

you're citing 42-year-old songs as evidence of what mick jagger is capable of writing today? i think you've proven my point very nicely...

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: loveyoulive75 ()
Date: April 30, 2010 02:22

Quote
StonesTod
Quote
loveyoulive75
Quote
StonesTod
i think the presumption that the stones have the songs "in them" if someone could just "pull them out" is seriously flawed....

I don't. The same Mick Jagger that wrote a rhyming dictionary piece of garbage like "Streets Of Love" (IMO) also wrote songs like "Jigsaw Puzzle" and "Sympathy For The Devil". When he's not simply writing on autopilot the man can come up with some good, incisive stuff.

you're citing 42-year-old songs as evidence of what mick jagger is capable of writing today? i think you've proven my point very nicely...

Well, perhaps you'd care to explain how the presumption is "flawed" then, Tod. I mean, if anything, given that Mick has had 42 years more life experience, wisdom, etc that he is capable of writing better stuff than the "Streets Of Love" crap. And I think you know it too. It's not like the man's gotten stupider over the years or anything...the fact that at one time he could put in the effort to come up with something like "Jigsaw Puzzle" and now chooses not to strikes me as pure laziness on his part. Like I said: it's autopilot, plain and simple. I think it's sad that Jagger has dumbed his lyrics down so much over the years, is all. The man has written some great, intelligent, witty lyrics over the years. You're telling me he's incapable of writing at a higher standard than what he's been doing? I highly doubt that. The bottom line is, he just doesn't want to, and therein lies the problem...I repeat: "You CAN do better than that." To which I might as well add, "Or don't even bother."

I sincerely believe the Stones are more than capable of writing songs of the "Beggars Banquet" caliber, yes. You mean to tell me that you as a Rolling Stones fan wouldn't want an album of that high standard as opposed to "A Bigger Bang, Part II"? If us fans shouldn't have to settle for less, why should the group themselves? Either go big or go home, I say. Or don't bother, and they can continue to be made fun of as a bunch of greedy old geezers who are simply too lazy and/or complacent to make music as great as they once did. If artists like Dylan and McCartney can produce late-period music that stands up against their classics so can the Stones. As far as I'm concerned, quite frankly they owe it to their fans...but at the end of the day they owe it to themselves more. "Some Girls" was thirty two years ago, and arguably that was the last time the Stones were even remotely close to being artistically relevant. That's sad. If they make another brand-new album, it will likely be their epitaph. Epitaphs should endure, not be the punchline to a bad joke.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: bernardanderson ()
Date: April 30, 2010 02:54

Quote
loveyoulive75
I sincerely believe the Stones are more than capable of writing songs of the "Beggars Banquet" caliber
maybe so, maybe not. but, are they capable of recording at that caliber? definitely not.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: April 30, 2010 03:14

Quote
71Tele
A) Would a Rick Rubin approach to a new studio album (a la his work with Johnny Cash or Neil Diamond) work for the Rolling Stones, and cool smiley would you want to see it?

Jagger & Rubin didnt get on during WS and Rubin has made it very clear he didnt enjoy the experience because Mick is so surrounded by yes-men that he couldnt deal with being told that he could 'do better'.

Keith would probably slash his beard with a cutlass within 48 hours of working with him, as his ego couldnt deal with an uppity, hands-on producer.

In theory, he could be great for the Stones. In practice, it will, unfortunately, never happen.

Make a collect call to Jack White, Mick.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-04-30 03:16 by Gazza.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: BluzDude ()
Date: April 30, 2010 04:02

Rick has quantity and variety to his credit, but overall I am not impressed with his results. I'd rather be in the studio with Mutt Lange or Jimmy Iovine any day of the week.
...and then again, that's just me

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: April 30, 2010 04:14

Quote
loveyoulive75
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
loveyoulive75
Quote
StonesTod
i think the presumption that the stones have the songs "in them" if someone could just "pull them out" is seriously flawed....

I don't. The same Mick Jagger that wrote a rhyming dictionary piece of garbage like "Streets Of Love" (IMO) also wrote songs like "Jigsaw Puzzle" and "Sympathy For The Devil". When he's not simply writing on autopilot the man can come up with some good, incisive stuff.

you're citing 42-year-old songs as evidence of what mick jagger is capable of writing today? i think you've proven my point very nicely...

Well, perhaps you'd care to explain how the presumption is "flawed" then, Tod. I mean, if anything, given that Mick has had 42 years more life experience, wisdom, etc that he is capable of writing better stuff than the "Streets Of Love" crap. And I think you know it too. It's not like the man's gotten stupider over the years or anything...the fact that at one time he could put in the effort to come up with something like "Jigsaw Puzzle" and now chooses not to strikes me as pure laziness on his part. Like I said: it's autopilot, plain and simple. I think it's sad that Jagger has dumbed his lyrics down so much over the years, is all. The man has written some great, intelligent, witty lyrics over the years. You're telling me he's incapable of writing at a higher standard than what he's been doing? I highly doubt that. The bottom line is, he just doesn't want to, and therein lies the problem...I repeat: "You CAN do better than that." To which I might as well add, "Or don't even bother."

I sincerely believe the Stones are more than capable of writing songs of the "Beggars Banquet" caliber, yes. You mean to tell me that you as a Rolling Stones fan wouldn't want an album of that high standard as opposed to "A Bigger Bang, Part II"? If us fans shouldn't have to settle for less, why should the group themselves? Either go big or go home, I say. Or don't bother, and they can continue to be made fun of as a bunch of greedy old geezers who are simply too lazy and/or complacent to make music as great as they once did. If artists like Dylan and McCartney can produce late-period music that stands up against their classics so can the Stones. As far as I'm concerned, quite frankly they owe it to their fans...but at the end of the day they owe it to themselves more. "Some Girls" was thirty two years ago, and arguably that was the last time the Stones were even remotely close to being artistically relevant. That's sad. If they make another brand-new album, it will likely be their epitaph. Epitaphs should endure, not be the punchline to a bad joke.

the proof is in the pudding, right? i don't think he's written much of note (not just talking lyrics here) in a very long time. that's just laziness? maybe. maybe he's just lost it - wouldn't be the first or last songwriter that's happened to. in fact, it happens all the time. as for keith - i can pretty much guarantee you he's lost his muse. he doesn't even bother trying anymore.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: Rip This ()
Date: April 30, 2010 04:36

.......Mick's really into L'Wren's dresses these days...and Keith..well he's about his library and having "matured"....and of course he'll come out with his book in the fall....which is why the "new" tunes are so interesting from the Exile re master..if there is a positive reaction...it might get them to go back in and look at some more...

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: April 30, 2010 05:26

You know who I would like to see produce the Stones?

1. Paul Westerberg

2. Jack Frost (aka that Zimmerman guy).

Interesting things would happen in either case.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: nonfilter ()
Date: April 30, 2010 07:33

I used to be very into the idea of Rick Rubin producing the Stones. I absolutely loved Wandering Spirit's sound. But over the years, Rick Rubin-produced records have developed a certain sameness. The Johnny Cash full-band songs sound just like the last Dixie Chicks record which sounds just like the last few Chili Peppers's albums. I like the sound a lot, but the newness has worn off. I'm not sure it's the sound for The Stones. It is analog, but highly compressed, and really quite clean.

I prefer the idea of Jack White. I just really don't think Mick could handle it. He seems to be very into the clean pop radio sound these days. I would love to hear one of Mick's beloved 70s dance tunes through the Jack White production filter. It just might make the hit that Mick has been chasing in vain for so many years. It would be very eccentric to say the least. Jack White's best attribute is taking the bluesy riffs that everyone plays when they first get their guitar in tune and building them into a song instead of moving on to something 'better'. This could make ten more albums of brilliant Keith-led classics.

As for Don Was. His time with the Stones is over. I don't think he did particularly bad work. I just don't know that he did a lot of anything. Everyone here seems to disagree with me, but I think Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon were brilliant. I don't really see why anyone would disagree. I played both of them til they were burnt into my subconsious. Maybe it depends on your age when an album was released, but I rank them high in the Stones catalogue.
A Bigger Bang is a different story. It sucks. I loved 'Rough Justice' the first time I heard it on the radio, and a small handful of others on the album, but it's mostly very boring. That's where they need a Jack White to tell Keith that he should do more than noodle around aimlessly on 'Biggest Mistake' and do something fresh and exciting. He should also tell Mick that 'I just watch the tv and I drink on the couch' is a lame and embarrassing lyric. I think the songs were good, minus a few corny lyrics, it just needed a lot more work and inventive thinking.

If Jack White can't make it, call Tom Waits.

[www.non-filters.com]

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: liddas ()
Date: April 30, 2010 11:42

I know Rubin only for his work with the Peppers, Beastie Boys and, of course, Jagger.

On my book Spirit is just slightly better than Primitive cool. So that's it.

On the other hand I truly love those Peppers and BB albums. How much has Rubin got to do with the quality of the songs, though, I don't know. For sure to my ears they sound like the most compressed albums I ever owned. Great guitar sounds, so so drum sound. Bass slightly overcharged.

In terms of production what is so different between ABB and Californication?

C

p.s. I still think that ABB is a very very good album-

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: marquess ()
Date: April 30, 2010 14:00

Bring Ricik Rubin!

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: Ricky ()
Date: April 30, 2010 14:33

I think the best ones (for the Stones) are:
Brendan O'Brien
Jack White
Jack Frost
T-Bone Burnett

and Rick Rubin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-04-30 15:10 by Ricky.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: April 30, 2010 17:33

T-Bone Burnett is a guy who makes everyone's record sound like a "T-Bone Burnett Record" - for better or worse. Just like Daniel Lanois, etc. They sound great at first but the effect can wear off quickly.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: whitem8 ()
Date: April 30, 2010 19:00

Hmmm not sure I agree with that one 71tele. The two Dylan albums produced by Lanois are fantastic. Actually, a career resurgence from Zimmer with some stunningly layered production that echos the swamp. I think Raising Sand is another beautifully produced album with roots steaming from the grooves. Great stuff and I think either would add a new sound to the stones that could reinvigorate their sound.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: April 30, 2010 19:12

Quote
whitem8
Hmmm not sure I agree with that one 71tele. The two Dylan albums produced by Lanois are fantastic. Actually, a career resurgence from Zimmer with some stunningly layered production that echos the swamp. I think Raising Sand is another beautifully produced album with roots steaming from the grooves. Great stuff and I think either would add a new sound to the stones that could reinvigorate their sound.

Agree with the last part. I am not sure those Dylan albums are quite as good as you think, but they are much better than what he had come up with immediately before. As usual, there was a tug of war about which tunes made it on, and Dylan's choices were not always the best. Lanois has a little too much "atmosphere" for my taste, sort of like Robert Altman's films. Lots of atmosphere, but the actual content is not always top rate.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: skipstone ()
Date: April 30, 2010 19:18

Here's a good example of the absurdity of Mick's writing recently - Streets Of Love and Laugh, I Nearly Died are on the same album. One is awful bad, one is fantastic. And the fantastic one got out right ignored, the awful bad one got released as a single, put on an awful bad US soap opera and played live.

That's beyond Don Was or Rick Rubin or anyone else. That's Mick Jagger. That says it all for me.

Rubin's work is more organic - he's way more into letting the amps do the work to get the sound right and getting the musicians to play with some edge. He prods them, sometimes with pretty damn good results (The Cult's Electric and "The Witch", the Chili Peppers and Tom Petty - all have outstanding results with Rubin). AC/DC did one with him and surprisingly it's rather dull! That should have been a perfect AC/DC album, a throwback to the 1970s and yet it's rather flat. I loved what he did with Cash - just let him go it old skool. It sounds more along the lines that Rubin just hit record and got Johnny at what he wanted to do, which was just record whatever however. His covers of Rusty Cage and Hurt are fantastic, along with most of everything else. There are some duds but that's more on Cash than Rubin.

I agree it would be a fantastic move. But it will never happen. Jack White's production of Loretta Lynn's album Van Lear Rose was pretty damn good - but there's nothing really significant about it. Nothing that really truly stands out. And I think that's what people are hoping would happen - or thinking/expecting. I don't see that happening. I have ZERO expectations that any new Stones recordings will be of any integrity, they'll just be The Stones being The Stones.

Which is better than nothing. Or is it?

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: April 30, 2010 19:38

Quote
71Tele
Quote
whitem8
Hmmm not sure I agree with that one 71tele. The two Dylan albums produced by Lanois are fantastic. Actually, a career resurgence from Zimmer with some stunningly layered production that echos the swamp. I think Raising Sand is another beautifully produced album with roots steaming from the grooves. Great stuff and I think either would add a new sound to the stones that could reinvigorate their sound.

Agree with the last part. I am not sure those Dylan albums are quite as good as you think, but they are much better than what he had come up with immediately before. As usual, there was a tug of war about which tunes made it on, and Dylan's choices were not always the best. Lanois has a little too much "atmosphere" for my taste, sort of like Robert Altman's films. Lots of atmosphere, but the actual content is not always top rate.

this is what i don't understand - i'm not sure how a producer affects content. either the writer is inspired or not - inspiration comes from within.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: whitem8 ()
Date: May 1, 2010 12:23

Quote
71Tele
Quote
whitem8
Hmmm not sure I agree with that one 71tele. The two Dylan albums produced by Lanois are fantastic. Actually, a career resurgence from Zimmer with some stunningly layered production that echos the swamp. I think Raising Sand is another beautifully produced album with roots steaming from the grooves. Great stuff and I think either would add a new sound to the stones that could reinvigorate their sound.

Agree with the last part. I am not sure those Dylan albums are quite as good as you think, but they are much better than what he had come up with immediately before. As usual, there was a tug of war about which tunes made it on, and Dylan's choices were not always the best. Lanois has a little too much "atmosphere" for my taste, sort of like Robert Altman's films. Lots of atmosphere, but the actual content is not always top rate.

Oh dear Tele71, Oh Mercy and Time Out of Mind are minor masterpieces! Wonderfully lush and poignant statements. Dylan in top form with his writing, singing and playing. Pure classics from Zimmy. Cold Irons Bound is an incredible song that oozes dirt road blues. Great stuff!

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Date: May 1, 2010 13:29

I think Rubin would be good for them. Yes, nobody could have shined ABB up, but the idea from someone like Rubin is that he wouldn't have allowed such an album in the first place. IF the Stones choose to do one more album they have to do something, anything that shakes them (and us) up a bit. Something daring.
And I have to be honest: within the Stones confines I can see Jagger agreeing to this. Keith is the one who seems unmovable and stuck.
Which is weird; because Keith solo is inventive and bold.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: May 1, 2010 15:44

"either the writer is inspired or not - inspiration comes from within"

No, you have to work and work to turn your inspiration into sth tangible (a song, a novel a painting). Nothing incarnates itself with a snap of the fingers.

Imho it's laziness that damage the Stones's recent records, not a lack of inspiration...

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: May 1, 2010 18:30

Quote
dcba
"either the writer is inspired or not - inspiration comes from within"

No, you have to work and work to turn your inspiration into sth tangible (a song, a novel a painting). Nothing incarnates itself with a snap of the fingers.

Imho it's laziness that damage the Stones's recent records, not a lack of inspiration...

disagree - you don't go to the studio and find inspiration. you go there WITH inspiration. you can't just suddenly discover your muse when the producer tells you it's time. like in anything else in life, inspiration comes from within.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: KeefintheNight82 ()
Date: May 1, 2010 19:46

Well, if this is a thread to list our, top -never- gonna -happen- in- a- million -years, dream producer for the next Rolling Stones album, here's mine.

Nick Curran

and Fred Foster

But I would like to hear what Jack White or T-Bone Burnett would do and those two seem like they are the most likely candidates should they decide to drop Don Was.

At this stage, I see them sticking with Was till the bitter end.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: Brue ()
Date: May 1, 2010 20:02

Quote
StonesTod
Quote
71Tele
Quote
whitem8
Hmmm not sure I agree with that one 71tele. The two Dylan albums produced by Lanois are fantastic. Actually, a career resurgence from Zimmer with some stunningly layered production that echos the swamp. I think Raising Sand is another beautifully produced album with roots steaming from the grooves. Great stuff and I think either would add a new sound to the stones that could reinvigorate their sound.

Agree with the last part. I am not sure those Dylan albums are quite as good as you think, but they are much better than what he had come up with immediately before. As usual, there was a tug of war about which tunes made it on, and Dylan's choices were not always the best. Lanois has a little too much "atmosphere" for my taste, sort of like Robert Altman's films. Lots of atmosphere, but the actual content is not always top rate.

this is what i don't understand - i'm not sure how a producer affects content. either the writer is inspired or not - inspiration comes from within.
It's like when Jimmy Miller got on the drums and turned Honky Tonk Woman into a rocker from a country song. It's 'why don't you do it this way' and then it takes on a whole new direction, the artists are inspired in that direction, and the song becomes different. Maybe a producer will pull out an old outtake - something like Start Me Up, which was originally a reggae song, and produce it a different way with a different beat. All of a sudden it's a completely different song.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: May 1, 2010 20:06

Quote
Brue
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
71Tele
Quote
whitem8
Hmmm not sure I agree with that one 71tele. The two Dylan albums produced by Lanois are fantastic. Actually, a career resurgence from Zimmer with some stunningly layered production that echos the swamp. I think Raising Sand is another beautifully produced album with roots steaming from the grooves. Great stuff and I think either would add a new sound to the stones that could reinvigorate their sound.

Agree with the last part. I am not sure those Dylan albums are quite as good as you think, but they are much better than what he had come up with immediately before. As usual, there was a tug of war about which tunes made it on, and Dylan's choices were not always the best. Lanois has a little too much "atmosphere" for my taste, sort of like Robert Altman's films. Lots of atmosphere, but the actual content is not always top rate.

this is what i don't understand - i'm not sure how a producer affects content. either the writer is inspired or not - inspiration comes from within.
It's like when Jimmy Miller got on the drums and turned Honky Tonk Woman into a rocker from a country song. It's 'why don't you do it this way' and then it takes on a whole new direction, the artists are inspired in that direction, and the song becomes different. Maybe a producer will pull out an old outtake - something like Start Me Up, which was originally a reggae song, and produce it a different way with a different beat. All of a sudden it's a completely different song.

sure - but the material has to exist in some form to begin with. it doesn't come out of nowhere and the producer can't just make crap sound good. that's my point. a good producer can help improve quality material - i'd argue that nobody could have done much with the crap that filled abb....

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: Brue ()
Date: May 1, 2010 20:17

Quote
StonesTod
Quote
Brue
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
71Tele
Quote
whitem8
Hmmm not sure I agree with that one 71tele. The two Dylan albums produced by Lanois are fantastic. Actually, a career resurgence from Zimmer with some stunningly layered production that echos the swamp. I think Raising Sand is another beautifully produced album with roots steaming from the grooves. Great stuff and I think either would add a new sound to the stones that could reinvigorate their sound.

Agree with the last part. I am not sure those Dylan albums are quite as good as you think, but they are much better than what he had come up with immediately before. As usual, there was a tug of war about which tunes made it on, and Dylan's choices were not always the best. Lanois has a little too much "atmosphere" for my taste, sort of like Robert Altman's films. Lots of atmosphere, but the actual content is not always top rate.

this is what i don't understand - i'm not sure how a producer affects content. either the writer is inspired or not - inspiration comes from within.
It's like when Jimmy Miller got on the drums and turned Honky Tonk Woman into a rocker from a country song. It's 'why don't you do it this way' and then it takes on a whole new direction, the artists are inspired in that direction, and the song becomes different. Maybe a producer will pull out an old outtake - something like Start Me Up, which was originally a reggae song, and produce it a different way with a different beat. All of a sudden it's a completely different song.

sure - but the material has to exist in some form to begin with. it doesn't come out of nowhere and the producer can't just make crap sound good. that's my point. a good producer can help improve quality material - i'd argue that nobody could have done much with the crap that filled abb....
That's too black and white of a view - 'either something's good or it isn't'. It's just not good 'yet'. Look, the Stones wrote Honky Tonk Woman, but Jimmy Miller made it a hit by completely changing it. The original with Keith strumming an acoustic guitar with violins in the back is just plain bad imo, and it's certainly not a top 10 hit. Sometimes producers with balls can mediate conflicts, encourage more people to participate with ideas, take tunes in a different direction. They can give the players inspiration to try different things, and they can show them what it might sound like by introducing other music to them. It certainly couldn't hurt.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: May 1, 2010 20:44

ok - so jimmy miller coulda saved SOL, i suppose? yeah, it is black and white - you can't polish a turd....

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: Brue ()
Date: May 2, 2010 04:04

Quote
StonesTod
can't polish a turd....
I also can't convince one.

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: May 2, 2010 04:28

Screeeeeemin' Jay's ---- Constipation Blues



ROCKMAN

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: schillid ()
Date: May 2, 2010 04:33

don't suppose they'll bring back JM

Re: Rick Rubin good for the Stones?
Posted by: lucasd4 ()
Date: May 2, 2010 04:34

Quote
StonesTod
you can't polish a turd....they've lost their muse.....inspiration comes from within

Not only is this guy full of himself.......he's full of silly cliches too

Goto Page: Previous123Next
Current Page: 2 of 3


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1219
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home