I like the soundproduction on Hackney.Watt and his team should remix IORR

Quote
Elmo Lewis
I know absolutely nothing of the technical aspects, I just know the album sounds muffled (for lack of a better word). Maybe dull.

In an interview when the album was first released, Keith made a comment about "F**kin' Dolby's!" so I'm assuming he was aware of the issue.

Mick said in a recent interview that the production on Wild Horses made it sound like they through blankets on it.I don’t know what he meant by that .It sounds pretty great to me

Quote
Spud
We all have different tastes and values when it comes to sound quality...and, obviously, different playback systems...

But some folks I think equate "good" sound with a big impressive "in yer face" and overtly HiFi presentation ...which isn't always what you want from a recording.

True. What you said earlier is very much the way I feel about Hackney Diamonds. While I like it a lot, I don't really feel the need to hear it again. It holds no secrets.
Re the IORr album, and sound issues, it seems that it is only a few songs that are the main offenders. IMO 'If you cant rock me', and 'Luxury' are mixed and mastered badly. Right behind "Dance Little Sister' and "Aint too proud to beg' don't really sound all that bad. It's more like they over played them, and ended up with a sterile, sanitized take.
As I write this I'm thinking that in mid 70's it was the fast rockers that suffered. One could say that 'Crazy Mama' is pretty lead footed.

I swear it was in this thread, but now I can’t find it when talking about the run of big albums. Somebody mentioned that only the Beatles possibly came closest to what the stones pulled off, and I don’t necessarily agree that the Beatles were able to do that. Rubber Soul is a classic, phenomenal album. They dip down with Revolver, which I know many people hold as their best album, but for me I ’s a big dud. Sergeant Peppers is a decent enough album. I don’t think it’s on par with the Stones big 4. The White Album is as bloated an album as anything ever made and could’ve been an incredible long EP or a very short LP. There’s so much crap on that album interspersed with some true gems. And then you go to Let It Be and Abbey Road and they were at the pinnacle at almost the same time that the Stones were really, and I don’t think that string of albums is anywhere near as consistent as what the Stones did. If anyone comes close, I would say it would probably be Skynyrd’s five

Quote
Taylor1
I like the soundproduction on Hackney.Watt and his team should remix IORR

But I like it!

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Spud
We all have different tastes and values when it comes to sound quality...and, obviously, different playback systems...

But some folks I think equate "good" sound with a big impressive "in yer face" and overtly HiFi presentation ...which isn't always what you want from a recording.

True. What you said earlier is very much the way I feel about Hackney Diamonds. While I like it a lot, I don't really feel the need to hear it again. It holds no secrets.
Re the IORr album, and sound issues, it seems that it is only a few songs that are the main offenders. IMO 'If you cant rock me', and 'Luxury' are mixed and mastered badly. Right behind "Dance Little Sister' and "Aint too proud to beg' don't really sound all that bad. It's more like they over played them, and ended up with a sterile, sanitized take.
As I write this I'm thinking that in mid 70's it was the fast rockers that suffered. One could say that 'Crazy Mama' is pretty lead footed.

I was referring to B&B at the time.

An album that most folks think sounds great...and it does in many ways...

..but it's too transparent ...not enough layers to peel off and decipher over time. When you've played it...you've heard it all.

Does that make any sense ?

Quote
Spud

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Spud
We all have different tastes and values when it comes to sound quality...and, obviously, different playback systems...

But some folks I think equate "good" sound with a big impressive "in yer face" and overtly HiFi presentation ...which isn't always what you want from a recording.

True. What you said earlier is very much the way I feel about Hackney Diamonds. While I like it a lot, I don't really feel the need to hear it again. It holds no secrets.
Re the IORr album, and sound issues, it seems that it is only a few songs that are the main offenders. IMO 'If you cant rock me', and 'Luxury' are mixed and mastered badly. Right behind "Dance Little Sister' and "Aint too proud to beg' don't really sound all that bad. It's more like they over played them, and ended up with a sterile, sanitized take.
As I write this I'm thinking that in mid 70's it was the fast rockers that suffered. One could say that 'Crazy Mama' is pretty lead footed.

I was referring to B&B at the time.

An album that most folks think sounds great...and it does in many ways...

..but it's too transparent ...not enough layers to peel off and decipher over time. When you've played it...you've heard it all.

Does that make any sense ?

Yes, mAkes total sense. And that is the way I understood it: that you were referring to B&B. The way you feel about B&B, is how I feel about HD, LOL.
It's a very good point you make.

I was pleasantly surprised by the sound of HD .

In the context of today's typically over loud and over compressed offerings..it sounds pretty good.

I hope and I think there will be due out a special 2 CD edition ..I hope with the "original" first edition of Ronnie Woods version!

I hope they clean up the sound of the original album. It has some fantastic songs, but it is so muddy.

...very muddy....!

I thought Giles Martin did a great job with GHS.

Ah, maybe this is the release people are expecting. Would make sense. And yes, I agree on Giles Martin on GHS. Fingers crossed this turns out just as good, if indeed it's the release.

Quote
Bashlets
I thought Giles Martin did a great job with GHS.

Yep , despite altering the emphasis on certain instruments in an unsettling way on some numbers, it opened the sound right up.

More of the same for IORR would be quite welcome ...

What was the supposed deal with IORR originally? One side of covers and one side of live tracks?

Yet they only recorded two covers for IORR. Well, finished.

Certainly they recorded a ton of covers as they usually do.

Three of the TY deluxe tracks were from the 1974 IORR sessions.

The final album with mister Taylor! Still my (Stones)hero!

Good album, but for some reason I hardly ever play it - anyone else same?

Quote
Lynd8
Good album, but for some reason I hardly ever play it - anyone else same?

I play it all the time

Quote
Lynd8
Good album, but for some reason I hardly ever play it - anyone else same?

I see where you are coming from.

I often find myself struggling to appreciate the two post-Big Four albums, i.e. Goats Head Soup and It’s Only Rock ‘N Roll.

For me, GHS is too esoteric and unfocused while IORR is too accessible and more or less lacking the mystery that made the Big Four so fascinating.

That being said, of the two, I prefer IORR to GHS, for the overall songwriting is better of the two IMHO, and it contains Time Waits For No One, the greatest Rolling Stones song they have never played live.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-05-03 20:42 by RisingStone.

Quote
Lynd8
Good album, but for some reason I hardly ever play it - anyone else same?

In phases.

It's important to leave The Big Four behind and listen elsewhere. That's why GHS, IORR, BAB, ER, TY and U get played often enough - I don't need to listen to BB, LIB, SF and EOMS ever again, only if I want to. There's way more to the Stones than the 4 and 2.

I hardly listen to SG: it's really not that good. I get it but it's not something that works as well as TY or even U.

Quote
DiamondDog7
The final album with mister Taylor! Still my (Stones)hero!

+1

I wouldn't be too worried about having a load of good additional material...

..the main thing is that this album could be made a whole lot better with a reworking of the eq and mastering . It's just too polite, lacking energy and dynamics.

Quote
Bashlets
I thought Giles Martin did a great job with GHS.

Giles Martin destroyed the mix of Dancing With Mr.D.
He took the female scream out of the song, now it is a clean nice version and not the deep dark version of the original.

I hope some others versions of Fingerprint File !!!

Quote
UrbanSteel

Quote
Bashlets
I thought Giles Martin did a great job with GHS.

Giles Martin destroyed the mix of Dancing With Mr.D.
He took the female scream out of the song, now it is a clean nice version and not the deep dark version of the original.

I think "destroyed" is a bit strong but I get your feelings on that...

The whole Giles Martin album is very interesting alterative listen, with the greater clarity offset sometimes by a loss of the original feel and vibe.

I don't think IORR would suffer so much in that way, as it arguably has less of a great vibe to lose...and might in fact gain some with a bit more "welly" .

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Lynd8
Good album, but for some reason I hardly ever play it - anyone else same?

In phases.

It's important to leave The Big Four behind and listen elsewhere. That's why GHS, IORR, BAB, ER, TY and U get played often enough - I don't need to listen to BB, LIB, SF and EOMS ever again, only if I want to. There's way more to the Stones than the 4 and 2.

I hardly listen to SG: it's really not that good. I get it but it's not something that works as well as TY or even U.

Interesting...I'm pretty close to that opinion as well. SG I want to like more, and I don't dislike it at all, but it's just not the love that I have for everything else you listed, with the exception of GHS perhaps.

Would really like an IORR 50th anniversary with a 2nd CD/album of outtakes/demos.

Outtakes/demos dont need adding to, just cleaned up please.

Mick Taylor's last album as well..........

Go on Stones......u know it makes sense !!

Definitely a second-tier album. Not one I will listen to often, but I will put on the Virgin edition from time to time. Hard to say where it fits. Better than what came later, EmotionalUnderDirty, but less than Black and Blue, and, obviously, Some Girls, their last coherent album before Hackney Diamonds.

I remember the first time I heard the single coming out of a radio at a record store. I was disappointed because it seemed so obvious and commercial. Almost like they were disavowing their wonderful dark past in favor of being top forty friendly hitmakers. That being said, there are some good, memorable songs on the album besides the IORR single. It still seems beneath them when they play it in concert. Of course I'm not wild about the way they've played Tumblin' Dice since the 1972/73 tours.

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
Lynd8
Good album, but for some reason I hardly ever play it - anyone else same?

I see where you are coming from.

I often find myself struggling to appreciate the two post-Big Four albums, i.e. Goats Head Soup and It’s Only Rock ‘N Roll.

For me, GHS is too esoteric and unfocused while IORR is too accessible and more or less lacking the mystery that made the Big Four so fascinating.

That being said, of the two, I prefer IORR to GHS, for the overall songwriting is better of the two IMHO, and it contains Time Waits For No One, the greatest Rolling Stones song they have never played live.

I play GHS a lot, maybe the most outside of big 4 + SG. I guess I like the weird stuff. Hardly ever play IORR, except for If You Can't Rock Me, which I love.