I saw a post by Doxa in another thread about this album and it made me think. That album always had something slightly sterile about it. Was it the Twins production? Or the first time in that Munich studio? I remeber I always blamed it on that studio. To me it has an overall feel that I also hear on "Machine Head" by Deep Purple. But DP was in that damn hotel probably with mattresses on the walls, so that accounts for some of the muffled sounds. It's in the drums, cymbals, the amps all sound very dry. Very little reverb or echo.
The two epic tracks get it on on performance. Time has taylor and Nicky taking it all the way, and on Fingerprint Jagger rules in the Preston clavinet and Bass groove.But notice the difference even in the way weaker LYL version.(Yes I know it's live). The tilte track is so much mud that it really never mattered where they tok that one. It never was going to saound different than it does. I.e. perfect.
"Luxury" and "Dance Sister", "If you can't rock me" suffer the most IMO. All three were mentioned in the overlooked thread and they could all have been bigger. The first two especially fell along the wayside. "Luxury" should have been either a lot choppier or a lot more on fire. As is we can see the potential but what we got was jelly. Those revolving guitars and Hihat don't cut at all.The vox are there in performance and spirit but convey no excitement because they sound stacked in a clinical manner.
Sister" comes off forced. It has the ingredients. Sparse instrumentations. Keith on the hot rythm, Taylor on the Wah lead, Charlie on the cracking snare, Jagger with a good hook. Chords from A to D to E. How could the6y fail? I feel that some reverb would have done wonder. Some aural enhancement. On this one I actually think it could have stood more instruments. An electric piano maybe..
But Short and Cuyrlies and If you really want to be with all the overdubs and even the Blue magic STILL sounds "packed" and "muffled".
I hear it everywhere: the cowbell on Ain't too proud to beg, the slide on Till the next goodbye, the hihat on Fingerprint.
What do you think?

Hi Chelsea. You do have a point. Yet I have embraced that sterile ambience because it has always reminded me of something ending. In terms of IORR, it was the Mick Taylor era. So I find the CD a bit tired perhaps, yet I've always loved it too. There was never going to be another "Till the Next Goodbye " or "Time Waits for No One." It was the last Stones album with finesse. In that sense, "Short & Curlies" just doesn't fit in. It should have waited until Black & Blue.

One small thing that disappointed me about the most recent release of IORR is the short gap between the end of Ain't Too Proud to Beg and It's Only Rock 'n' Roll. On the LP, I believe that there was no gap of silence at all. On the CD, there is.

Chelsea Chelsea Chelsea... did I scare you off w/my talk of dronken times in Hampstead???? ;`}

Sat. night at work I listened to IORR. I gotta tell ya, the first three songs are the Stones at their absolute best! The rest of the album is arguably downhill from there. If you played IFYCRM, ATPTB and IORR to somebody who'd never heard the Stones before I bet they'd be jaw-dropping amazed!

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

Chelsea:
Don't agree, but I believe it is just a matter of tastes!
Again your critic fits well if referred to the CBS cd. Awful sound. I have not heard the Virgin remaster, IORR is one of those albums that I still love best on old vynil.
As always, it has to be played LOUD: via via the volume goes up, things start taking shape and fitting in the right place.
Let alone the rest, Dance and Fingerprint (with IYCR and IORR the best trax on the LP) are performed - mixed exactly how I would have wanted them. Dance is a rythm pattern. The focus is on Keith/Charlie tribal pulse. In my opinion a kb would have mellowed it too much and drowned the driving idea. Fingerprint has the guitar & bass right in your face! The last crescendo would make even a dead man shake his butt!!!
Maybe (maybe) the only thing I think could have been done better is Taylor's sound on IYCR. Could be the choice of guitars (Wood's strat fits better).
By the way, going back to your beloved bass discussions, on IYCR, just seconds before the fade out, did you notice the kick the bass gives to the last D C G runs? Great!

C

Yes liddas I know exactly that last kick that you're talking about. It's really cool.
Liddas, the mix is cool, the instrumentation too, the perfirmances very very good. The things I was talking about on Luxury and Dance are optional. I mena the performances on Tima and Fingerprint, on IORR and IYCRM could not be better.
It is the MASTERING probably that I am referring to, but even beofre the mastering it is the FINAL sheen they put on it in the final mixes. That is what I am criticizing. It's like one of those overall coloring schemes that one just feels at the end of an album. Like SW has the digital ultra pristine clenaliness to it. Thye way Exile has the perfect amount of dirty water from the Mississippi poured over the tapes. The way satanic reeks of overloaded four track machine tapes, bleeding left and right. (Although I must say that Satanic comes out looking remearkably clean when compared to Sgt Pepper. Surprising, but that is another thread)

>>One small thing that disappointed me about the most recent release of IORR is the short gap between the end of Ain't Too Proud to Beg and It's Only Rock 'n' Roll. On the LP, I believe that there was no gap of silence at all. On the CD, there is.<<

That's one the things I hate the most from CDs: no respect anymore for the "rythmn of love", back from when music creators frowned upon such details.

I agree with Chelsea that there is something sterile about the album. I think that's the best word to describe: sterile. And that's much to do with the production. Perhaps it is really The Twins learning to do the job, and taking it too seriously. Another reason can also be the condition of Keith at the time; perhaps it really was so bad, that his natural instinct and judgment may have been questionable.

But there is something more. Someone guessed that there is that farawell feeling in the album; the end of era sentiments ("Time Waits For No oNe", "Till The Next Time WE Say Goodbye"). I think that there is, and that's not really the question of the soon following Taylor's departure; I think it is the question of the whole band saying goodbye, at least to their creativity, of pushing really forward. The whole band sounds tired and repetative. The whole concept of the album is quite "hey, we got nothing more to say; it's only rock'n'roll, let's do it as we used to"; the growth and evolution of the band has stopped, and everything -the album seems to say - from now on will be repetative, because they have milked everything out of this band. We were discussing in the other thread awhile ago about the original Rolling Stone article of Taylor's departure and there were lots of talk about solo careers that really were seem to be option, at least for Jagger. It seemed like that Richards was thought to be out of the game already or very soon.

There is so much repetiviness in the album, compared to their gradual-change (or even -progress) from their first album to Goats Head Soap, including the ground-breaking Beggars-Exile-period. I think for the first time The Stones are not really looking forward, but backwards. After the melodic and half-experentialism (of two Micks) of Goats Head Soap and "Angie", it was a return to the 'form', to the simple good ol' rock'n'roll, but somehow without the edge; Mick Taylor once described the title song as Mick's and Keith's attempt to create a hit a'la "Honky Tonk Women", but it failed. To me the whole IORR is sort of a polished version of Exile. The same elements are there, but where as in Exile everything they attempt succeeds, here the result is too forced, manufactured. And where as in Exile there is so much stuff of kind of "strange, never heard before, but jeez it rocks", these sort of moments of pleasent surprises are very rare. Yeah, "Luxury" has a odd but nice rhythm, etc. but does that really excite anyone? Nice to hear the Stones do a R&B cover again, but is that really so remarkable? "If You Can't Rock Me" is "Rocks Off" vol. 2. Just compare these two cuts and you will hear the difference between these two albums. Elements are the same, but the result is not. (And as usually, Take Two is never that interesting as the original).

Chelsea's original point was about the production; I believe that it is an important part of the 'problem' (if there really is one); but to me the real problem lies in the band itself, and in the lack of creativity of its mind and heart. In Black&Blue we will hear a new-born, fresh band.

But let me add one thing, to put my criticism into perspective: The Stones and The Glimmer Twins were so great at time that the material of which IORR is created, is I think superior to anything they have done since, let's say, Tattoo You. Some boring "You Got Me Rocking" is a far cry from the potential of "If You Can't Rock Me".

- Doxa

The reason it sounds sterile is quite easy: the LP runs for about 47 minutes, which is the absolute max for vynil. In order to squeze all the music in, the grooves are close together. In order to make this possible you need to deeply compress the music before you press the album. This is also the reason that most singles sound better than albums, and the more heavy the vynil is the better the sound. Chech the Acetates CD for some of the IORR tracks in the original, far better quality. Listen to the cymbels at Ain't Too Proud on Acetates, and compare them to the CD version.

Mathijs

I think it's the vocals, no reverb. And, the mixing. On ATPTB the synth, bass and guitars suddenly disappear and it seems they havent really mixed the song. Strange. But a unique sound. And funky. Like it even if its a bit stiff and forced. Maybe Mick tried to be hip. Gene Simmons sang the same way and Kiss were new at the time. I think they were a bit too high for their own good.

Everything that felt real about Exile is unreal and industrial here. Keith's muse had left him hadnt she? Anita and he split around this time and got back together in early '76 or something?

man I just read so many interesting things in the last few posts. Doxa saying it was the first time the band wasn't looking forward but backwards. That is very perceptive Doxa. That shit be deep.
And I also agree with Mathijs about the grooves being so close together on vinyl. (Leave it to M. to find the techno angle LOL) That reminds me of the Todd Rundgren album "Initiaion" which runs way over an hour. I believe it may even up to this point be the longest vynil album recorded. If not it is right up there. It also has that pristine clean sound. It is so hyper sensitive that it often skips if you even breathe in it's direction. Todd fans don't like that album very much but it is my favorite TR album, excepting that wankfest on Side 2.
And yes, ther is precuous little reverb on the vox. which does make for a good funksound that worked GREAT on "Hot Stuff" but not so good on "Luxury".
NP "Real live Bleeding Fingers and broken Guitarstrings" by Lucinda. What great song! Give it up Marc Ford.

Lots of good points made above. Mathijs is definitely correct about the compression, it affected the sound of a lot of 70s releases. As Chelsea called it, IORR has a very "dry" sound, almost muffled. There's no air in the recording, and this no doubt is a symptom of compression. BTW, the Virgin re-release is a definite improvement.

IORR was a somewhat new sound for the Stones. The bottom end is much more pronounced than anything that preceded it. Charlie's kick drum is way up front on a lot of tracks. This more bass-oriented sound set the stage for a move to funkier material, which arrived later with Black and Blue.

The performance suffers somewhat from 1) a kind of burned-out, tired feel to the songwriting (as discussed by liddas above) and 2) missing-in-action Keith. His contribution, which had been so vital to the 68-73 period, really dropped-off.

Despite all this, it's still not a bad album.

Karl

'Don’t forget, if you’re on your bike, wear white'

Haha Hello Menace, the Curse of Mayfair and Hampstead. No no don't look at that mailbox often enough. I'll do you one better on the Mint Juleps: they also make an excellent facemask.
You know, there's also Crawlin Kingsnakes down here. I know because I shot one. Kapow!

So the vynil lenght is the reason to that compressed and dry sound... It's amazing what I can learn here, folks!

BTW, agree with Mathijs about the songs on Acetates sounding better, at least for my ears and taste.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

About the importance of production: Tattoo You is basically a hasty collection of re-worked and re-mixed left-overs from their mid-seventies "low period", but shit, how great, timeless and fresh and coherent that album still sounds!! And the band, especially Mick, sounds so inspirated. And the quality of the material is superb compared to the albums released since. For example, the last true classics are from this album ("Start Me Up", "Waitin On A Friend").

One can just wonder what sort of album it would have been if they still have had in the vaults material already released, for example, in IORR?

- Doxa

With all the talk of production and all, in my opinion it is just a weak album because of the songs. I think Till the Next Time and If You Really Want to be My Friend are just poor efforts and the vocals on those choruses make the song feel a bit forced. For a Temptations cover I would always prefer Just My Imagination over Ain't To Proud. I think that some of their later albums are much better than this one in terms of song writing and overall groove.

If they would dig down deep one more time for Pottes Schrimp, Separetly and a few more they would have a new Tattoo you. Love is strong is from 67 by the way. Heard the outtkes from Satanic and there it was - my brother played it and compared. Same chords, harmonica etc.

The slightly sterile feeling may be heard at IORR
but IMHO also on Sticky Fingers; to a wider extent.

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The slightly sterile feeling may be heard at IORR
> but IMHO also on Sticky Fingers; to a wider
> extent.

It's funny, Sticky Fingers is probably my favourite Stones album production-wise...



[There'll be no wedding today...]

I think IORR is one of the Stones' weaker albums, some production is so so but the songwriting is what hurts most. The chorus on If You Really Want to Be my Friend is bad, very non-Stoney even if they are trying to sound different.

It took me a while to warm up to IORR with the exception of IYCRM,IORR and DLS. I was 15 when I first heard this and I thought most of it was boring, escpecially TIme Waits........I know, that is heresy!

Listening to it 30 years later, I really like it. I don't know if the production is sterile but I find it clean, very little distortion. It seemed an album from a band in dissarry (which it was). I sort of tie it to GHS becuase of the flow of styles of the album. You have soul/funk (fingerprint and hearbreaker) rockers( silver train/Star and IORR and DLS) ballads (coming down and Goodbye) etc...

I can never get a grip on Ain't to Proud. Some days I love it , some days I don't

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason it sounds sterile is quite easy: the LP
> runs for about 47 minutes, which is the absolute
> max for vynil. In order to squeze all the music
> in, the grooves are close together.

Well, yes and no. There are many albums that run for 48 minutes
and beyond that have no "sonic" problem like we're talking about with IORR.
Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited and The Beatles Abbey Road are 2 that come to mind
that run a little longer and have none of this so-called "sterility". Both of those have have a fine "vinyl" mix. In those days, you DID have to watch how much
time you put on one side, as the fidelity did suffer. Wyman has mentioned
how they used to go for those "mono mixes" in the seventies, and IORR and GHS
are good examples. I see IORR as a next step from GHS sound-wise, and pretty much a product of the times. I can name a bunch of records from that time that
had the same "muffled" sound. Harrison's Living In The Material World,
McCartney's Red Rose Speedway, Dylan's Planet Waves, Ronnie's IGMOATD come to mind
right away. Look at the charts back then, people. Not too much really
jumped out at you as having a "nice, crisp sound" that perhaps the punk movement
brought about (see Some Girls). THat was just the mix and sound they were
going for at the time. AS for the Acetates, anybody that's been in a studio
can tell you those are gonna have more "high end" than the masters are.
Remember, the Stones didn't want too much retinkering with the re-issues.
Otherwise, they would have boosted the EQ on the high end and we wouldn't
be having this @#$%& discussion!

I confess that I loved GHS and B&B but not IORR. Why? Don't know whether it was the production or whether the songs seemed lacking. Some songs are tremendous (I've always had a soft spot for Luxury) but overall it is not one of my favourites.

Over the years I've picked (mostly downloaded) various Stones outtakes but I don't always know what albums that the outtakes are from. Is there a handy website listing all the Stones 'unreleased' tracks?

Agree with J-J-Flash - it's the songs that are weak, not the production, (with very notable exceptions of Time Waits and FF).

I liked the bass and drum sound of many tracks, however.

And, to contradict someone above, GHS is the weak Keith album. On IORR he is much, much stronger. An attempt to reassert his presence. But the thrill had gone. They are mainly Jagger songs which include some Keith styles, rather than Keith songs with the Jagger embellishment.

I've been thinking recently, that Heroin really did kill his energetic and creative muse. He can still play well - but since 1972 he's not had a lot new to offer on up-tempo numbers. He really came back to life in '85-86 however and to some extent 89 and 94. (Energy of SG was mainly due to Ronnie and Jagger).

Doxa - how can you say that SMU is great stuff?! - it's as trite a riff-based song as IYCRM and LIS! Wasn't Waiting ona Friend a 1973 out-take? But totally agree about your comments on IORR album.

tomk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mathijs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The reason it sounds sterile is quite easy:
> the LP
> > runs for about 47 minutes, which is the
> absolute
> > max for vynil. In order to squeze all the
> music
> > in, the grooves are close together.
>
> Well, yes and no. There are many albums that run
> for 48 minutes
> and beyond that have no "sonic" problem like we're
> talking about with IORR.
> Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited and The Beatles Abbey
> Road are 2 that come to mind

Well, I'd have to disagree here: both albums are great, but are nowhere near the sonic bass-heavy attack that most early 70's (hard) rock albums have. To mix an album of Dylan circa '65 (with mostly a very plain band not close recorded) to have it sound good on vinyl needs a lot les studio trickey than a full fledged closely recorded early 70's rock band with a booming bass and punding drums. In order to put this on vinyl for almost 50 minutes, you just needed lush amounts of compression.

But, to my ear, still NOTHING sounded as good as the original vinyl releases (or even better: 8 track!). I still think CD's sound harsh and miss the warmth of vinyl.

Mathijs



> that run a little longer and have none of this
> so-called "sterility". Both of those have have a
> fine "vinyl" mix. In those days, you DID have to
> watch how much
> time you put on one side, as the fidelity did
> suffer. Wyman has mentioned
> how they used to go for those "mono mixes" in the
> seventies, and IORR and GHS
> are good examples. I see IORR as a next step from
> GHS sound-wise, and pretty much a product of the
> times. I can name a bunch of records from that
> time that
> had the same "muffled" sound. Harrison's Living In
> The Material World,
> McCartney's Red Rose Speedway, Dylan's Planet
> Waves, Ronnie's IGMOATD come to mind
> right away. Look at the charts back then, people.
> Not too much really
> jumped out at you as having a "nice, crisp sound"
> that perhaps the punk movement
> brought about (see Some Girls). THat was just the
> mix and sound they were
> going for at the time. AS for the Acetates,
> anybody that's been in a studio
> can tell you those are gonna have more "high end"
> than the masters are.
> Remember, the Stones didn't want too much
> retinkering with the re-issues.
> Otherwise, they would have boosted the EQ on the
> high end and we wouldn't
> be having this @#$%& discussion!
>
>
>

Yes, the riffs are very "heroin" on Iorr. GHS is a soft record with Keith in a haze at Redlands and IORR is a rough record. I always loved IORR, it's dirty.

What Mathijs says is true.
A good example of this phenomenom is classical music. There are "demonstration quality" LP recordings of baroque harpsichord pieces, for instance, that last nearly 60 minutes. But if you take the long, "busy" sounding, full orchestra (romantic era) symphony pieces, these often need to be broken down - or speed of performance be adjusted to fit - on several shorter LP sides for the sonics to be good, that is without distorsion.

And I have also noted the vast improvement of bass on 8-tracks, precisely re. "Abbey Road".

Mathijs Wrote:


> Well, I'd have to disagree here: both albums are
> great, but are nowhere near the sonic bass-heavy
> attack that most early 70's (hard) rock albums
> have. To mix an album of Dylan circa '65 (with
> mostly a very plain band not close recorded) to
> have it sound good on vinyl needs a lot les studio
> trickey than a full fledged closely recorded early
> 70's rock band with a booming bass and punding
> drums. In order to put this on vinyl for almost 50
> minutes, you just needed lush amounts of
> compression.
>
> But, to my ear, still NOTHING sounded as good as
> the original vinyl releases (or even better: 8
> track!). I still think CD's sound harsh and miss
> the warmth of vinyl.

Well, we'll agree to diasagree, as the say, regarding IORR.
However, 8-track was wonderful, fidelity-wise.
The one I had of Let It Bleed was excellent!
Far superior to the vinyl and CD even.

tomk Wrote:

>
> Well, we'll agree to diasagree, as the say,
> regarding IORR.
> However, 8-track was wonderful, fidelity-wise.
> The one I had of Let It Bleed was excellent!
> Far superior to the vinyl and CD even.
>
>
My recollection is that 8-tracks had tracks about the width of a cassette, which, in the pre-recorded releases, were nowhere near as good as records. So what was it about 8-tracks that made them better than vinyl: the double speed? the absence of "bass limiting" grooves? The thing about those "bass limiting grooves" is that audiophiles I know think the bass on vinyl is far better than that on CDs though there is disagreement about SACDs...