For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
frenki09Quote
Elmo Lewis
If it is truly a raw blues album, I think it will be great.
But..... here are a few things that could mess it up:
1. Clapton playing more than Keith and Ronnie.
2. Don overproducing it.
3. If it is a "return to blues" in name only ala Rod's last 10 "I'm getting back to mandolins and acoustics" albums.
Also, I'd love a couple of (bluesy) originals with the standards.
I just can't stand anything he has done (Dylan, Nelson, Black Crowes etc), and I was hoping they would get someone new for this album who could get the boys out of their comfort zone, not to do something new, but to do something that is less bombastic. Bigger Bang is the worst Stones album. Overproduced, in-your-face, very loud and full, weak songs that feel like outtakes...
There was a time when Jack White's name was quite often mentioned as a possible producer... That would have been interesting...
Unfortunately Don Was is still not past tense.
Quote
Elmo Lewis
3. If it is a "return to blues" in name only ala Rod's last 10 "I'm getting back to mandolins and acoustics" albums.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
As for Mick being the tough one to sell on taking a risk with a new producer, that's highly unlikely. Look at the facts.
An outside producer wasn't essential until CBS made it a contractual requirement. Don Was talks about Keith lecturing him his first day in the studio on why the Stones don't need a producer. Good luck convincing Virgin Records of that, Keith.
Going back to CBS days, Mick wanted Bill Laswell to produce DIRTY WORK but agreed to Steve Lillywhite (Keith's choice). Mick and Keith argued about who would produce STEEL WHEELS (Keith wanted Steve Jordan). They compromised and went back to Chris Kimsey.
Mick has taken a risk and worked with Rick Rubin and Marti Fredericksen on his solo albums. You may not like them as producers, but Mick will stretch out. Likewise, it was Mick who told Keith if they were to shelve their solo albums and do BRIDGES TO BABYLON, Keith had to agree to outside producers. Mick was critical of both Don Was and Rick Rubin preferring to evoke the past with their productions. BRIDGES was experimental.
Along with Marti Fredericksen, Mick worked with Chris Potter, Danny Saber, Lenny Kravitz, and Wyclef Jean on his last solo album. Since then Dave Stewart, Ashley Beadle, and Jimmy Iovine have produced Mick's solo sessions. Mick prefers taking chances with new producers.
So why only Don Was for the Stones for 23 years? Simple. It's always a struggle between Mick and Keith. Mick's guy won't be acccepted by Keith (ask Babyface or The Dust Brothers) and Keith's guy isn't what Mick wants (ask Steve Jordan or Rob Fraboni), so they need compromise and someone who has worked with them before is the safe solution.
Don Was has walked away saying never again, but he comes back. Does he say stuff he doesn't mean praising the material? Of course, do you want him to say "it's the best they're willing to do and you'll probably dislike it."
Does everything he produce sound the same? No, all his sessions with the Stones have unique character. You wouldn't confuse VOODOO LOUNGE, BRIDGES TO BABYLON, FOUR NEW LICKS, A BIGGER BANG, the reworked 1970s outtakes, or the two new tracks on GRR, or even the STRIPPED studio tracks for one another.
You may not love the results. Blame Jagger and Richards. Was is an employee for hire doing the best he can. They'll never have another Jimmmy Miller. They surround themselves with yes-men. Look at Rick Rubin who went through hell with Jagger and decided the result was only 80% successful. These guys are too old to be challenged by a producer. Cary Grant reached a point where he considered himself director-proof. So did Bing Crosby. The Stones are producer-proof. They know what they're doing, work around them if you're the producer.
Quote
Whale
So did anybody find the interview with Don Was on the Le Figaro site?
Quote
Koen
"Raw, crude, authentic blues"
And Clapton plays on it?
Quote
MonkeyMan2000Quote
Koen
"Raw, crude, authentic blues"
And Clapton plays on it?
Haha that's exactly what I thought. Clapton plays what I call Las Vegas blues or guitar hero blues. Real blues is much more than just flashy guitar playing...
Quote
MonkeyMan2000Quote
Koen
"Raw, crude, authentic blues"
And Clapton plays on it?
Haha that's exactly what I thought. Clapton plays what I call Las Vegas blues or guitar hero blues. Real blues is much more than just flashy guitar playing...
Quote
frenki09Quote
Elmo Lewis
If it is truly a raw blues album, I think it will be great.
But..... here are a few things that could mess it up:
1. Clapton playing more than Keith and Ronnie.
2. Don overproducing it.
3. If it is a "return to blues" in name only ala Rod's last 10 "I'm getting back to mandolins and acoustics" albums.
Also, I'd love a couple of (bluesy) originals with the standards.
I just can't stand anything he has done (Dylan, Nelson, Black Crowes etc), and I was hoping they would get someone new for this album who could get the boys out of their comfort zone, not to do something new, but to do something that is less bombastic. Bigger Bang is the worst Stones album. Overproduced, in-your-face, very loud and full, weak songs that feel like outtakes...
There was a time when Jack White's name was quite often mentioned as a possible producer... That would have been interesting...
Unfortunately Don Was is still not past tense.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
As for Mick being the tough one to sell on taking a risk with a new producer, that's highly unlikely. Look at the facts.
An outside producer wasn't essential until CBS made it a contractual requirement. Don Was talks about Keith lecturing him his first day in the studio on why the Stones don't need a producer. Good luck convincing Virgin Records of that, Keith.
Going back to CBS days, Mick wanted Bill Laswell to produce DIRTY WORK but agreed to Steve Lillywhite (Keith's choice). Mick and Keith argued about who would produce STEEL WHEELS (Keith wanted Steve Jordan). They compromised and went back to Chris Kimsey.
Mick has taken a risk and worked with Rick Rubin and Marti Fredericksen on his solo albums. You may not like them as producers, but Mick will stretch out. Likewise, it was Mick who told Keith if they were to shelve their solo albums and do BRIDGES TO BABYLON, Keith had to agree to outside producers. Mick was critical of both Don Was and Rick Rubin preferring to evoke the past with their productions. BRIDGES was experimental.
Along with Marti Fredericksen, Mick worked with Chris Potter, Danny Saber, Lenny Kravitz, and Wyclef Jean on his last solo album. Since then Dave Stewart, Ashley Beadle, and Jimmy Iovine have produced Mick's solo sessions. Mick prefers taking chances with new producers.
So why only Don Was for the Stones for 23 years? Simple. It's always a struggle between Mick and Keith. Mick's guy won't be acccepted by Keith (ask Babyface or The Dust Brothers) and Keith's guy isn't what Mick wants (ask Steve Jordan or Rob Fraboni), so they need compromise and someone who has worked with them before is the safe solution.
Don Was has walked away saying never again, but he comes back. Does he say stuff he doesn't mean praising the material? Of course, do you want him to say "it's the best they're willing to do and you'll probably dislike it."
Does everything he produce sound the same? No, all his sessions with the Stones have unique character. You wouldn't confuse VOODOO LOUNGE, BRIDGES TO BABYLON, FOUR NEW LICKS, A BIGGER BANG, the reworked 1970s outtakes, or the two new tracks on GRR, or even the STRIPPED studio tracks for one another.
You may not love the results. Blame Jagger and Richards. Was is an employee for hire doing the best he can. They'll never have another Jimmmy Miller. They surround themselves with yes-men. Look at Rick Rubin who went through hell with Jagger and decided the result was only 80% successful. These guys are too old to be challenged by a producer. Cary Grant reached a point where he considered himself director-proof. So did Bing Crosby. The Stones are producer-proof. They know what they're doing, work around them if you're the producer.
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
Rocky Dijon
As for Mick being the tough one to sell on taking a risk with a new producer, that's highly unlikely. Look at the facts.
An outside producer wasn't essential until CBS made it a contractual requirement. Don Was talks about Keith lecturing him his first day in the studio on why the Stones don't need a producer. Good luck convincing Virgin Records of that, Keith.
Going back to CBS days, Mick wanted Bill Laswell to produce DIRTY WORK but agreed to Steve Lillywhite (Keith's choice). Mick and Keith argued about who would produce STEEL WHEELS (Keith wanted Steve Jordan). They compromised and went back to Chris Kimsey.
Mick has taken a risk and worked with Rick Rubin and Marti Fredericksen on his solo albums. You may not like them as producers, but Mick will stretch out. Likewise, it was Mick who told Keith if they were to shelve their solo albums and do BRIDGES TO BABYLON, Keith had to agree to outside producers. Mick was critical of both Don Was and Rick Rubin preferring to evoke the past with their productions. BRIDGES was experimental.
Along with Marti Fredericksen, Mick worked with Chris Potter, Danny Saber, Lenny Kravitz, and Wyclef Jean on his last solo album. Since then Dave Stewart, Ashley Beadle, and Jimmy Iovine have produced Mick's solo sessions. Mick prefers taking chances with new producers.
So why only Don Was for the Stones for 23 years? Simple. It's always a struggle between Mick and Keith. Mick's guy won't be acccepted by Keith (ask Babyface or The Dust Brothers) and Keith's guy isn't what Mick wants (ask Steve Jordan or Rob Fraboni), so they need compromise and someone who has worked with them before is the safe solution.
Don Was has walked away saying never again, but he comes back. Does he say stuff he doesn't mean praising the material? Of course, do you want him to say "it's the best they're willing to do and you'll probably dislike it."
Does everything he produce sound the same? No, all his sessions with the Stones have unique character. You wouldn't confuse VOODOO LOUNGE, BRIDGES TO BABYLON, FOUR NEW LICKS, A BIGGER BANG, the reworked 1970s outtakes, or the two new tracks on GRR, or even the STRIPPED studio tracks for one another.
You may not love the results. Blame Jagger and Richards. Was is an employee for hire doing the best he can. They'll never have another Jimmmy Miller. They surround themselves with yes-men. Look at Rick Rubin who went through hell with Jagger and decided the result was only 80% successful. These guys are too old to be challenged by a producer. Cary Grant reached a point where he considered himself director-proof. So did Bing Crosby. The Stones are producer-proof. They know what they're doing, work around them if you're the producer.
Hi Rocky, always love your comments, and usually agree with them. But I am of a different mind here. I think DW is detrimental to a fine album. Of all the albums you listed, where he has some sort of producer credit, it is really only Voodoo that can be taken as his production. And IMO it is a failure as far as producing goes. Sure, Jagger has worked with new producers; new for him. But only once did he really take a chance; and it is telling that it resulted in his best solo album. (Rick Rubin). He also swore not to work with him again. And many of these names are lukewarm; barely more than a bad collaboration. Dave Stewart, Wyclef, Lenny Kravitz - it;s grim. Iovine used to be a fine, fine producer. He got eaten by the American Idol monster.
Yes, producer for the Stones in the 2000's is a tough nut; almost a paradox. Were Jimmy Miller to come along today, chances are they would barely consider him. I do believe the Stones would benefit from a strong producer; Rubin or Fraboni. I don't think someone like Jack White or Dan Auerbach can be considered; they are just too young.
But I think who stands a chance of being accepted by both twins, and who could really make an impact is Danger Mouse.
Maybe John Leckie, who did the early Radiohead discs. But I sense not enough R&B influence in his CV to please Keith.
So, I believe the Stones should go with an outside producer. Don Was is equal to self producing; which is equal to no challenge. Need someone with cojones.
Quote
MKjan
I think it should have been MT instead of EC on the forthcoming record.
Quote
HMS
Btw, I think the Stones had no plans for another guitarist participating, it just happened that EC was recording his own album at the same studio at the same time. So he just sat in for one or two tracks.
Quote
Koen
"Raw, crude, authentic blues"
And Clapton plays on it?
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Koen
"Raw, crude, authentic blues"
And Clapton plays on it?
And what's different from him playing on it than Keith? Millionaires are millionaires. Millionaire blues.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
A guess (educated or otherwise) would be that releasing the blues album six months before an album of new material is a marketing decision. That way you can spin the new material as the product of the band returning to their roots and reconnecting to their past. That works better than releasing a pricey 2-disc set that won't sell huge numbers anyway or offering the blues disc as an iTunes exclusive and run the risk of people saying they prefer the old blues songs to an album of new material. This marketing plan lets both releases stand alone and support one another independently as part of the prepackaged story "we got back together for the 50th anniversary and after playing live for four years, went back to our roots did this record and then look at what amazing new material resulted once the band was on fire." [Never mind the fact that most of the songs will have been written and demoed with Matt Clifford six years before they were released and that the rest of the band just added overdubs. And in fairness, yes, Keith did some demos with Steve Jordan earlier this year as well.]
Quote
Stoneage
"Authentic"? How authentic can a bunch of billionaire limeys singing the blues be? Have they even ever seen a cotton field?
Quote
Rocky Dijon
...offering the blues disc as an iTunes exclusive and run the risk of people saying they prefer the old blues songs to an album of new material.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Mick has taken a risk and worked with Rick Rubin and Marti Fredericksen on his solo albums. You may not like them as producers, but Mick will stretch out.
Look at Rick Rubin who went through hell with Jagger and decided the result was only 80% successful.
Quote
frenki09
Mick got a bit carried away around the time his solo career started, and Dancing In The Street hit number 1. I am not sure if his choice of producers is always for the sake of music. He wants to stay trendy, fresh, which is not a bad thing, but seems a bit forced and unnecessary. Bridges To Babylon is a very good example of this. I can't remember the last time I listened to it.
Quote
frenki09
Shine A Light. What a joke! They made a fool out of Scorsese. A good example how ridiculous the Stones can get.
Quote
TravelinManQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Koen
"Raw, crude, authentic blues"
And Clapton plays on it?
And what's different from him playing on it than Keith? Millionaires are millionaires. Millionaire blues.
Yeah, thats exactly why poor, distraught Mick Taylor should wail on it, he's an authentic bluesman!
Also, you're right about him not recording an album. The guy should have done about three authentic blues albums by now with guest appearances by Slash, etc.