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.

Andrew Loog Oldham as producer: Good , Bad, Or, Ugly?
Posted by: RankOutsider ()
Date: April 23, 2005 04:00

I mean this guy guided The Stones through an incrdible transformation, from a powerhouse bar band to international stars. But Bill Wyman says all he was really good for as far as production in the studio was for "turning the reverb up to 11" That being said, why then did they keep him around for so long? What were his qualities, if any? Any opinions?

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

Re: Andrew Loog Oldham as producer: Good , Bad, Or, Ugly?
Posted by: tomk ()
Date: April 23, 2005 04:27

Boy, what a great question, RO.
I'm gonna have to think aobut this one before I comment more but...
Part of me says he deserves a great deal of credit for the way
they sounded in the studio (later, that is, as AOL says when they
first entered the studio to record, he had no idea what mixing was).
However, I'm not sure how involved he was in the actual studio process,
That is editing songs (repeat this riff there, use this instrument,
lose the chorus here, fade it here, good guitar sound, lousy guitar soud, etc...),
or did he leave most of that to the band and just function as manager and all the other things he was involved in at the time. I haven't read 2Stoned yet.
Does he comment on this? I do believe AOL doesn't get the credit he deserves
for making the Rolling Stones what they are. My wife says she was "afraid" of
the Stones for years when she was growing up, and that's due to AOL's master plan.
The press picked up on it and...BOOM. The Rolling Stones we all know.
Also, does anyone listen to AOL being a DJ on Sirrius satellite radio
on the weekends? He's on the garage band station. I don't know if he picks the songs, but he tells some great stories using that wonderful use of language that he has.

Re: Andrew Loog Oldham as producer: Good , Bad, Or, Ugly?
Posted by: neptune ()
Date: April 23, 2005 04:32

ALO was the master marketer and publicist. That's what he was good at. In the studio, however, he was a lost little puppy . . .

Re: Andrew Loog Oldham as producer: Good , Bad, Or, Ugly?
Posted by: RankOutsider ()
Date: April 23, 2005 04:42

I've been wondering (as I'm reading "Rolling With The Stones" by Wyman), what ALO has been doing lately, thanks. In fact, what has he done with his life, (aside from writing his book), since breaking with The Stones?

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

Re: Andrew Loog Oldham as producer: Good , Bad, Or, Ugly?
Posted by: tomk ()
Date: April 23, 2005 04:53

Lives in Vancouver, last I heard. LIved in South America
for many years. His son, I think, goes to college out here in LA.
As I stated before, he DJ's on Sirius satelite radio
on the weekends. It's pretty intersting.

Re: Andrew Loog Oldham as producer: Good , Bad, Or, Ugly?
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: April 23, 2005 06:16

RankOutsider Wrote:
"
--- this guy guided The Stones through an
incredible transformation, from a powerhouse bar
band to international stars. But Bill Wyman says
all he was really good for as far as production in
the studio was for "turning the reverb up to 11"
That being said, why then did they keep him around
for so long? What were his qualities, if any? Any
opinions? --- "

... I hope you aim at the production issue of ALO.
But I´s say he also contributed in the recording situations;
maybe not so much in a direct was as in a influential way,
to go with the flow (which Mick still does); and to be a pop
band, not just a bunch o´rockers (yes! Keith also leanrt to write
2-2½ minutes songs). If ALO hadnt had that influence, the Stones would
have been in size with Dolls, Kinks, Aerosmith now. Or even smaller.
The image thing that grown in contrast against the Beatles, I hope all people that read this knows very well.
Still it sounds like shite, the early tracks (maybe with the exception of Chess sessions & some other take, e.g. Memphis Tennesse).
I havent a clue; but I´d guess Brian had a far greater hand over the early recordings than we usually picture. Mick wasnt so cocky at that time... And remember, Brian was older. Brians influence may be good and bad; during 1966-67 I figure he had a good impact, just before he lost it. ... - Other opinons?



Re: Andrew Loog Oldham as producer: Good , Bad, Or, Ugly?
Posted by: Milo Yammbag ()
Date: April 24, 2005 05:51

It's a well known fact that the take that was used was the one that had Keith smiling after they played it. Mick and Keith learned real quick (or maybe not) how to produce. Don't forget some of the great engineers who most likely, in the end actually mixed the record and gave it the sound.

Andrew was kept around because he was a friend and he could stir shit up. After his stirring shit up services were no longer needed, he got the boot cause everybody knows he was useless in the studio.

Milo, NYC
Oh Andrew

Re: Andrew Loog Oldham as producer: Good , Bad, Or, Ugly?
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: April 24, 2005 11:45

Not totally correct history writing.
ALO was primarily the Stones´ manager, not producer.
When Allen Klein was phazed in in the business, ALO went out.
He had an ear for popular music; still has, I´s say.
I met the man in November 2004. He has had a hard life,
but he´s still going strong down there in Bogotá, Colombia.
....No use throwing nor major nor minor crap at Andrew;
without him (or without Phelge... ?) there would have been no Stones
they way we know them today. Basta.



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1712
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