Tell Me :
Talk
The producers are Don Was, Matt Clifford and The Glimmer Twins.
The man behind One Direction (Carl Falk) must be way out of the box?
It remains to be seen how much he was involved, though.
If you look at the video for LIAGT you'll see that they're in a recording studio, one of two that they worked on the track in, not one of their homes.
Mick did some work at his place in France to finish it. Apparently Keith has been working on it at in NYC at Germano where he recorded CROSSEYED HEART.
Yeah and why get a external guy? They know their game (tehy basically wrote the book on "how to make a rock album") so hiring a producer would result in :
A - either hearing stupid ideas from a young guy who thinks samples and Pro-tool.
B - hearing suggestions the Twins could have made themselves.
B is what happened to AC/DC when they briefly hired Rick Rubin in 1995. Diplomatically one of the Young bros said that Rubin didn't teach them a single they didn't already know.
(later another bro accused Rubin of being a crook and a complete fraud)
Have you listened to... whatever it's called, that LP... for whatever reason I can never remember it and I have to look it up - I even own the damn thing.
BALLBREAKER.
It's one of their worst albums. It's extremely boring. The songwriting does have something to do with that - Hard As A Rock isn't an enthralling song in modern day AC/DC terms, for me, anyway, like Runaway Train or Stiff Upper Lip and quite a few others from that album or BLACK ICE, both of which are way up there in the Brian Johnson era with BACK IN BLACK and FTATR.
When I found that Rick Rubin was producing that album I instantly thought 'Wow, now he doesn't have to convince AC/DC to rip off AC/DC like he did with The Cult's ELECTRIC - this should be killer!'
Was I ever wrong.
The AC/DCism of The Cult's ELECTRIC was purely because of Rubin and assistant producer George Drakoulias, so much so that Wild Flower, originally much different, became basically an exact copy of Rock'N'Roll Singer.
AC/DC didn't mind Rubin at first - he produced their big single for that Arnold movie.
...those are the problems!!!
Then they went "back home" (=they worked with George Young) and they delivered the very strong "Stiff Upper Lip" lp.
RE Rubin I think the Young bros noticed a hot producer had put their career back on the tracks (Fairbairn in 1990) so another hot producer (Rubin) would propel them to superstardom.
But Rubin is more of a "witch doctor" than a guy who actually goes down to the engine room and get his hand dirty.
I don't think it's a bad idea. They'd come at it from different places and maybe the meetup in the middle would be something very cool. Or not, but at least they'd have experimented a bit.
Historically it's troupers (they aren't soldiers) and you've described how they've worked since 1989 and, Hence "Let's Work?
Mick doesn't like to work anymore! He hasn't since when? UNDERCOVER was the last album he really worked on.
He can't be bothered and he's gotten sloppy (included tracks recorded after SOME GIRLS on the SG deluxe). It's a big reason why a majority of the songs haven't been good or great: they don't work on anything, they just finish them! Which, weirdly, is why so many liked BLUE AND LONESOME - because it was simple and, the songs didn't require any work. I do think Living In A Ghost Town is pretty damn good.
It sounds like they worked on it.
Ian Astbury wanted to work with Rubin again. The Cult started to do an album with him in 1993 after they did a movie single, The Witch, with him in 1992.
They came to the conclusion that he was more of a couch potato and they abandoned the work with him.
What he did with Johnny Cash was brilliant.
The days of Keith laying about the house playing the same riff for 6 hours and then recording it for 10 days...
Mick, lately, is seemingly more savvy with recording equipment since he does a lot of demos. I don't think I've ever read anything ever about what Keith does in terms of "how" he brings a song/songs to a session. It appears to be a recent thing because they demoed for UNDERCOVER and STEEL WHEELS and VOODOO and BRIDGES but since then... maybe that's part of the problem: they stopped working together and have just shown up to record.
I find the details of language quite interesting. I commonly look words up that I read here, like... anorak. I think that's one that gets tossed out here and there. Never heard of it!
There's one I can't remember, if I see it again I'll mention it, it might've been associated with trainspotting, I think there was a thread that had to do with that and some interesting words were flung about. I can't remember when but in some thread I think "eunuch" was said a bit and at the time I was watching one of the POTC movies and Captain Jack used that word.
I thought that was, you know, "oh the planets are aligned in" blah blah blah silliness. I think at first I didn't really get it (hear it). Had to look that one up as well.
I guess that's exactly what Dylan does when he's producing his own albums. I love the sound on Time Out Of Mind, Love And Theft and his other late albums.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: June 29, 2020 22:31
I don't think they need a producer at all. The virus is still around. They are all over 70 (risk group). The fewer people the better. As I understand most of the work
is already done on their individual home studios. Then additional work is added in the studio. The real work is probably to decide which songs to choose...
is already done on their individual home studios. Then additional work is added in the studio. The real work is probably to decide which songs to choose...
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 29, 2020 23:01
Quote
Stoneage
I don't think they need a producer at all. The virus is still around. They are all over 70 (risk group). The fewer people the better. As I understand most of the work
is already done on their individual home studios. Then additional work is added in the studio. The real work is probably to decide which songs to choose...
The producers are Don Was, Matt Clifford and The Glimmer Twins.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
TheGreek
()
Date: June 30, 2020 13:34
They could do a lot worse and why not take a chance and think outside of the box for a change ? It wont happen though as they have a formula in working in the studio and no outsiders are allowed in to the inner sanctum .
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 30, 2020 13:37
Quote
TheGreek
They could do a lot worse and why not take a chance and think outside of the box for a change ? It wont happen though as they have a formula in working in the studio and no outsiders are allowed in to the inner sanctum .
The man behind One Direction (Carl Falk) must be way out of the box?
It remains to be seen how much he was involved, though.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: June 30, 2020 20:38
Quote
Stoneage
I don't think they need a producer at all. The virus is still around. They are all over 70 (risk group). The fewer people the better. As I understand most of the work
is already done on their individual home studios. Then additional work is added in the studio. The real work is probably to decide which songs to choose...
If you look at the video for LIAGT you'll see that they're in a recording studio, one of two that they worked on the track in, not one of their homes.
Mick did some work at his place in France to finish it. Apparently Keith has been working on it at in NYC at Germano where he recorded CROSSEYED HEART.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: July 1, 2020 12:03
He would have to have SOMETHING to, like, produce. Nothing going on is there?????????????????????
But God, no, he's a great soundscape producer. We'd need, surely, a rock and roll producer to get the best out of our lads?
If they ever had anything to give a producer to produce....
Rod
But God, no, he's a great soundscape producer. We'd need, surely, a rock and roll producer to get the best out of our lads?
If they ever had anything to give a producer to produce....
Rod
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: July 1, 2020 12:35
Quote
Stoneage
Let's face it, they are on the home-stretch now.
Yeah and why get a external guy? They know their game (tehy basically wrote the book on "how to make a rock album") so hiring a producer would result in :
A - either hearing stupid ideas from a young guy who thinks samples and Pro-tool.
B - hearing suggestions the Twins could have made themselves.
B is what happened to AC/DC when they briefly hired Rick Rubin in 1995. Diplomatically one of the Young bros said that Rubin didn't teach them a single they didn't already know.
(later another bro accused Rubin of being a crook and a complete fraud)
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: July 1, 2020 14:03
Many years ago I thought Jack White would have been a good collaborator with Mick and Keith. Jack White can be unorthodox but he still works with the blues tradition in mind. I know it won't happen but they could at least have had something musically in common.
Rockandroll,
Mops
Rockandroll,
Mops
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: July 1, 2020 14:36
its not the producer as much as the "secret sauce"....Keith doesn't write much of anything...and Jagger doesn't have the patience to wait for the inspiration to show up....
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
bob r
()
Date: July 1, 2020 17:05
I like Lanois a lot, but he would never fit with the Stones. Jack White maybe, but at this point, they should just do it themselves.
I don't know if any outside guy would be able to do anything -- Don Was has been with them now for so long, I don't see it changing
I don't know if any outside guy would be able to do anything -- Don Was has been with them now for so long, I don't see it changing
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 1, 2020 20:30
Quote
dcbaQuote
Stoneage
Let's face it, they are on the home-stretch now.
Yeah and why get a external guy? They know their game (tehy basically wrote the book on "how to make a rock album") so hiring a producer would result in :
A - either hearing stupid ideas from a young guy who thinks samples and Pro-tool.
B - hearing suggestions the Twins could have made themselves.
B is what happened to AC/DC when they briefly hired Rick Rubin in 1995. Diplomatically one of the Young bros said that Rubin didn't teach them a single they didn't already know.
(later another bro accused Rubin of being a crook and a complete fraud)
Have you listened to... whatever it's called, that LP... for whatever reason I can never remember it and I have to look it up - I even own the damn thing.
BALLBREAKER.
It's one of their worst albums. It's extremely boring. The songwriting does have something to do with that - Hard As A Rock isn't an enthralling song in modern day AC/DC terms, for me, anyway, like Runaway Train or Stiff Upper Lip and quite a few others from that album or BLACK ICE, both of which are way up there in the Brian Johnson era with BACK IN BLACK and FTATR.
When I found that Rick Rubin was producing that album I instantly thought 'Wow, now he doesn't have to convince AC/DC to rip off AC/DC like he did with The Cult's ELECTRIC - this should be killer!'
Was I ever wrong.
The AC/DCism of The Cult's ELECTRIC was purely because of Rubin and assistant producer George Drakoulias, so much so that Wild Flower, originally much different, became basically an exact copy of Rock'N'Roll Singer.
AC/DC didn't mind Rubin at first - he produced their big single for that Arnold movie.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
loog droog
()
Date: July 1, 2020 21:48
Glyn Johns would be able to get a good sound.
More importantly, he has known them since their beginning and he wouldn't be in awe of them. He could tell them what's good and what's bad, and what actually works for a Rolling Stones record.
More importantly, he has known them since their beginning and he wouldn't be in awe of them. He could tell them what's good and what's bad, and what actually works for a Rolling Stones record.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
billwebster
()
Date: July 1, 2020 22:17
I like the sound that engineer Manny Marroquin got out of the Stones on the new tracks for the GRRR! compilation.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
iraq0708
()
Date: July 1, 2020 23:26
Nice kick in the arse might produce something...
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: July 2, 2020 00:10
This is my vision of the band today. It might be very wrong, but anyway: Sir Michael calls all the shots. He is the leader. In the end he decides what to do. Keith seems to have a veto though.
Sir Michael is more productive than the others. He likes to work. (Hence "Let's Work...). He meets up with a lot of songs and suggestions. Finished, or almost finished. Keith has a few, if any.
Ron and Charlie follows suit. They are troopers. Schedules are hard to keep since they all live on different places and their main focus is their private lives. Work comes second.
Is that a fair assessment? Or am I completely off the mark?
Sir Michael is more productive than the others. He likes to work. (Hence "Let's Work...). He meets up with a lot of songs and suggestions. Finished, or almost finished. Keith has a few, if any.
Ron and Charlie follows suit. They are troopers. Schedules are hard to keep since they all live on different places and their main focus is their private lives. Work comes second.
Is that a fair assessment? Or am I completely off the mark?
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
iraq0708
()
Date: July 2, 2020 00:13
Been that way for quite some time my friend.Quote
Stoneage
This is my vision of the band today. It might be very wrong, but anyway: Sir Michael calls all the shots. He is the leader. In the end he decides what to do. Keith seems to have a veto though.
Sir Michael is more productive than the others. He likes to work. (Hence "Let's Work...). He meets up with a lot of songs and suggestions. Finished, or almost finished. Keith has a few, if any.
Ron and Charlie follows suit. They are troopers. Schedules are hard to keep since they all live on different places and their main focus is their private lives. Work comes second.
Is that a fair assessment? Or am I completely off the mark?
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: July 2, 2020 15:33
Lanois ? Good for Dylan, Emmylou Harris, Willie Nelson, but not the Stones.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: July 2, 2020 18:19
Quote
jaggered1
Daniel Lanois would be ideal as Stones producer.
Just listen to Emmylou Harris's Wrecking Ball or Dylan's Oh Mercy.
He creates a very moody feel and might give The Stones the kick they may need.
His solo work is not shabby either.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: July 3, 2020 18:25
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Stoneage
I don't think they need a producer at all. The virus is still around. They are all over 70 (risk group). The fewer people the better. As I understand most of the work
is already done on their individual home studios. Then additional work is added in the studio. The real work is probably to decide which songs to choose...
The producers are [[u]b]Don Was, Matt Clifford[/u][/b] and The Glimmer Twins.
...those are the problems!!!
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: July 3, 2020 20:18
Quote
GasLightStreet
Have you listened to... whatever it's called, that LP...
BALLBREAKER.
It's one of their worst albums. It's extremely boring. ed their big single for that Arnold movie.
Then they went "back home" (=they worked with George Young) and they delivered the very strong "Stiff Upper Lip" lp.
RE Rubin I think the Young bros noticed a hot producer had put their career back on the tracks (Fairbairn in 1990) so another hot producer (Rubin) would propel them to superstardom.
But Rubin is more of a "witch doctor" than a guy who actually goes down to the engine room and get his hand dirty.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 4, 2020 20:33
Quote
KRiffhardQuote
jaggered1
Daniel Lanois would be ideal as Stones producer.
Just listen to Emmylou Harris's Wrecking Ball or Dylan's Oh Mercy.
He creates a very moody feel and might give The Stones the kick they may need.
His solo work is not shabby either.
I don't think it's a bad idea. They'd come at it from different places and maybe the meetup in the middle would be something very cool. Or not, but at least they'd have experimented a bit.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 4, 2020 20:57
Quote
Stoneage
This is my vision of the band today. It might be very wrong, but anyway: Sir Michael calls all the shots. He is the leader. In the end he decides what to do. Keith seems to have a veto though.
Sir Michael is more productive than the others. He likes to work. (Hence "Let's Work...). He meets up with a lot of songs and suggestions. Finished, or almost finished. Keith has a few, if any.
Ron and Charlie follows suit. They are troopers. Schedules are hard to keep since they all live on different places and their main focus is their private lives. Work comes second.
Is that a fair assessment? Or am I completely off the mark?
Historically it's troupers (they aren't soldiers) and you've described how they've worked since 1989 and, Hence "Let's Work?
Mick doesn't like to work anymore! He hasn't since when? UNDERCOVER was the last album he really worked on.
He can't be bothered and he's gotten sloppy (included tracks recorded after SOME GIRLS on the SG deluxe). It's a big reason why a majority of the songs haven't been good or great: they don't work on anything, they just finish them! Which, weirdly, is why so many liked BLUE AND LONESOME - because it was simple and, the songs didn't require any work. I do think Living In A Ghost Town is pretty damn good.
It sounds like they worked on it.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 4, 2020 21:06
Quote
dcbaQuote
GasLightStreet
Have you listened to... whatever it's called, that LP...
BALLBREAKER.
It's one of their worst albums. It's extremely boring. ed their big single for that Arnold movie.
Then they went "back home" (=they worked with George Young) and they delivered the very strong "Stiff Upper Lip" lp.
RE Rubin I think the Young bros noticed a hot producer had put their career back on the tracks (Fairbairn in 1990) so another hot producer (Rubin) would propel them to superstardom.
But Rubin is more of a "witch doctor" than a guy who actually goes down to the engine room and get his hand dirty.
Ian Astbury wanted to work with Rubin again. The Cult started to do an album with him in 1993 after they did a movie single, The Witch, with him in 1992.
They came to the conclusion that he was more of a couch potato and they abandoned the work with him.
What he did with Johnny Cash was brilliant.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: July 4, 2020 21:27
Thanks for the correction, GLS. Appreciate it. You may be right about Jagger. But I have a feeling he comes in with more material when they meet up.
I might be wrong though. I'm not the fly on the wall...
I might be wrong though. I'm not the fly on the wall...
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 5, 2020 23:12
Quote
Stoneage
Thanks for the correction, GLS. Appreciate it. You may be right about Jagger. But I have a feeling he comes in with more material when they meet up.
I might be wrong though. I'm not the fly on the wall...
The days of Keith laying about the house playing the same riff for 6 hours and then recording it for 10 days...
Mick, lately, is seemingly more savvy with recording equipment since he does a lot of demos. I don't think I've ever read anything ever about what Keith does in terms of "how" he brings a song/songs to a session. It appears to be a recent thing because they demoed for UNDERCOVER and STEEL WHEELS and VOODOO and BRIDGES but since then... maybe that's part of the problem: they stopped working together and have just shown up to record.
I find the details of language quite interesting. I commonly look words up that I read here, like... anorak. I think that's one that gets tossed out here and there. Never heard of it!
There's one I can't remember, if I see it again I'll mention it, it might've been associated with trainspotting, I think there was a thread that had to do with that and some interesting words were flung about. I can't remember when but in some thread I think "eunuch" was said a bit and at the time I was watching one of the POTC movies and Captain Jack used that word.
I thought that was, you know, "oh the planets are aligned in" blah blah blah silliness. I think at first I didn't really get it (hear it). Had to look that one up as well.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
kovach
()
Date: July 6, 2020 00:07
I love Lanois' swampy New Orleans sound on his work with Dylan and Emmylou and his own solo stuff.
Would be an interesting expirament with the Stones maybe mid/late career, but if the next album is probably their last, I want it to sound like classic Stones.
Would be an interesting expirament with the Stones maybe mid/late career, but if the next album is probably their last, I want it to sound like classic Stones.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
AmpegVT22
()
Date: July 7, 2020 10:31
Dead right. Lanois generally produces a soupy, ambient sounding record.
He might have done OK with 'Just Wanna See His Face' but generally, no sir.
THE great, technical, overlooked Stones production is Glyn Johns 'Bright Light Big City' session from (I think) 1963. It precedes the first Decca singles and is an astonishingly good production.
Everything sits right as the band rests on the Piano/Bass/Drums r/section; guitars vocals harps &c. balance on top.
For a recording of an English blues band, that early in the decade it's magnificent. (Magnificent in any decade). Ably demonstrates how little outboard Studio ambience is needed when the band are playing together right. The performance too has much more swing than anything from the relatively recent blues album.
Stick good mics in front of a good band and press 'RECORD'.
He might have done OK with 'Just Wanna See His Face' but generally, no sir.
THE great, technical, overlooked Stones production is Glyn Johns 'Bright Light Big City' session from (I think) 1963. It precedes the first Decca singles and is an astonishingly good production.
Everything sits right as the band rests on the Piano/Bass/Drums r/section; guitars vocals harps &c. balance on top.
For a recording of an English blues band, that early in the decade it's magnificent. (Magnificent in any decade). Ably demonstrates how little outboard Studio ambience is needed when the band are playing together right. The performance too has much more swing than anything from the relatively recent blues album.
Stick good mics in front of a good band and press 'RECORD'.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
Papo
()
Date: July 7, 2020 11:08
Quote
AmpegVT22
(..) Stick good mics in front of a good band and press 'RECORD'.(...)
I guess that's exactly what Dylan does when he's producing his own albums. I love the sound on Time Out Of Mind, Love And Theft and his other late albums.
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
kovach
()
Date: July 8, 2020 04:20
Now a Lanois produced Keith Richards album would be welcome imo!
Re: Why not Daniel Lanois as Producer?
Posted by:
AmpegVT22
()
Date: July 9, 2020 22:46
>Stick good mics in front of a good band and press 'RECORD'.(...)
>>I guess that's exactly what Dylan does when he's producing his own albums. I >>love the sound on Time Out Of Mind, Love And Theft and his other late albums.
Nope, it's exactly what John Simon did on tour with Dylan and the Hawks in 1966 and the reason we have such great recordings of that tour.
Simon's 'Music from Big Pink' and 'The Band' sound Ok too...
>>I guess that's exactly what Dylan does when he's producing his own albums. I >>love the sound on Time Out Of Mind, Love And Theft and his other late albums.
Nope, it's exactly what John Simon did on tour with Dylan and the Hawks in 1966 and the reason we have such great recordings of that tour.
Simon's 'Music from Big Pink' and 'The Band' sound Ok too...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Doxa , gotdablouse , marclaff , Mr.Soul , NathanLaze , novica , rover , Satisfaction , souldoggie , Spud , StonyRoad , straycatuk , Topi
Guests:
1825
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10