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.

What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: Pietro ()
Date: May 26, 2006 20:23

I was impressed with A Bigger Bang. It covers a lot of musical territory -- rock, blues, country, ballads. It really is the best Stones album since Tattoo You.

The more I listen to the record, though, the more I realize how much Jimmy Miller's producing skills meant to the band. I keep thinking how good A Bigger Bang would be if Miller were producing.

Most people would acknowledge that Miller's records with the Stones -- Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile, (although not Goats Head Soup) -- were some of their best, if not their best records.

These records have a lot of "texture." Miller was famous for being able to record drums as though you were hearing them live. Each drumbeat and symbol strike can be heard clearly and succinctly. More so than that, the records he produced have so much sound variety. The sax, harmonica, background vocals, marimbas, strings all come through in the mix. These instruments blend in, but especially in a record like Exile, you can clearly hear them. You can listen to the recordings again and again and always hear something new in the background -- like the marimbas in "Sweet Black Angel" or the background gospel-style vocals in "Tumbling Dice."

If Miller in his heydey had been producing A Bigger Bang, it might have been a really great record. Some of the songs could do with a sax or even a piano for more texture and spice. Some good gospel or soul background singers would've been great. I like on Stones records how these type of singers' voices contrast with Jagger's rough-hued voice -- it makes for a great sound.

Anyhow, listening to A Bigger Bang has made me appreciate Miller more.

This is only my humble opinion, tenderly offered and thoughfully proferred.

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: The Worst. ()
Date: May 26, 2006 21:06

You are so right about the drums. It's a well known story that he made the famous rythm (the cowbell as well) for Honky Tonk Women,and had a major influence on Charlie's drumming on Jumping Jack Flash too. by the way, JJF, was Jimmy Miller's first production with The Stones. what a debut. What a legend, all the best Stones albums are produced by him. He's up there with Phil Spector and George Martin.

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: KSIE ()
Date: May 26, 2006 21:28

Great post Pietro, could not agree more. I like your term "texture", that's exactly what JM added. He really seemed to sense what extras would really complement the material (I'm of course guessing that certain decisions were his). IMHO Beggar's Banquet is the best-sounding album of the entire Stones' catalog.

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: humanriff77 ()
Date: May 26, 2006 21:39

Yes thats a very interesting idea, to go in the Jimmy Miller production direction would have been a great idea for that record, but Mick don't dig nostalgia

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: mickijaggeroo ()
Date: May 26, 2006 21:42

I´m right now reading " The Rolling Stones - and the making of Let It Bleed"
by Sean Egan. [www.mqpublications.com].
It deals among other interesting things, with Jimmy Miller, and what he brought in to the sesions, especially drumming. Recommended reading, and the book is pretty cheap.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: stoned_in_dc ()
Date: May 26, 2006 23:59

first of all i agree that jimmy miller was the best..

but i have to say that crystal clear sound was not his focus...i'm not sure if i'm misreading the above posts but he wanted it to sound like he thought it should sound... and often times that was muddy.. the idea that on exile everything is clear prompts me to laugh! its quite muddy!.. if you want crystal lear production where you can hear everything you go to DON WAS! thats what don was brings with his 64 or 500,000 track production.. jimmy miller is the opposite letting the different instruments bleed together..its much more primitive production, much more live sounding and of course much more suited to what i believe are the rolling stones needs... but clear? i don't think so..

check this quote out from wikipedia's entry on jimmy miller:

Most importantly, Miller's goal was to make a recording sound like what he and the band thought the recording should sound like instead of trying to achieve the best sound quality possible. If a song needed the vocals to be buried in the mix he would do it, even though it would make it unlistenable on AM radio. The Rolling Stones Exile on Main Street is the best example of this. To this day, many critics cite Exile on Main Street as one of the best rock albums ever made. The Stones stopped working with Miller after 1973's Goats Head Soup because of his heroin addiction, which lasted the rest of his life

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: mickijaggeroo ()
Date: May 27, 2006 00:05

Get the book I mention above, it´s all about how he worked in the studio on LIB.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: john r ()
Date: May 27, 2006 04:49

Speaking of summer reading, Bill Janovitz's "Exile On Main Street" is a well written, and the author's listened closely and thought a great deal about this great record - and gives Jimmy M his due.
Other interesting JM productions, the Spencer Davis Group material, Blind Faith, and 2 very grungey Johnny Thunders projects, "In Cold Blood" & "Too Much Junkie Business"

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: KSIE ()
Date: May 27, 2006 06:54

stoned_in_dc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but i have to say that crystal clear sound was not
> his focus...

jimmy miller is the opposite letting
> the different instruments bleed together..its much
> more primitive production, much more live sounding
> and of course much more suited to what i believe
> are the rolling stones needs...

Exactly. "much more live-sounding" is what Jimmy was all about. With the Stones that's what you want.

To be accurate, I don't think Jimmy really had a lot to do with the sound of Exile. From what I've read, he had the sound from the basement at Nellcote and had to do with it what he could. His quotes about the album made it sound like it was a salvage job-all he could do was clean it up as much as he could. Jimmy's brilliance wasn't in his engineering abilities, it was in his musical ear. He had the ability to find the right instrument accompaniement and the right mix (a live mix to my ears) to create a Stones-y "sound".

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: NCarolblvd ()
Date: April 21, 2013 00:02

I could most definitely be wrong, but things I've read led me to believe that in additional to Jimmy Miller's percussion contributions, it was he who got the most out of Nicky Hopkins. Mick and Keith are the Stones, but Jimmy Miller and Nicky Hopkins were huge during the beggars banquet to goats head soup run.

Is my interpretation of that era correct?

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: April 21, 2013 00:06

I always thought LIB sounded too clinical and clean, I much prefer the sound Miller got on Sticky and Exile.

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: April 21, 2013 00:09

Charlie's drums have been recorded horribly for some time. They sound like old John Cougar records. They obviously can't get Jimmy Miller, but someone new, like Jack White, would be interesting. But I don't know what they heck they can ever do about the bass. Even Keith seems unable any more to get a good swing out of it like he did on JJF and Happy.

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: April 21, 2013 00:20

Miller also gave them ideas and brought ideas to the studio. He did a lot more than just the "sound". That I think explains those albums. Was it Miller who brought in Merry Clayton on Gimme Shelter?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-21 00:20 by Redhotcarpet.

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: April 21, 2013 00:24

According to Andy Johns the stones started to not listen to Jimmy Miller so much circa Exile so perhaps that's why Exile - IORR albums sound more murky than the previous 3 studio albums.

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: April 21, 2013 00:26





ROCKMAN

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: NICOS ()
Date: April 21, 2013 01:20

Quote
Pietro
I was impressed with A Bigger Bang. It covers a lot of musical territory -- rock, blues, country, ballads. It really is the best Stones album since Tattoo You.

The more I listen to the record, though, the more I realize how much Jimmy Miller's producing skills meant to the band. I keep thinking how good A Bigger Bang would be if Miller were producing.

Most people would acknowledge that Miller's records with the Stones -- Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile, (although not Goats Head Soup) -- were some of their best, if not their best records.

These records have a lot of "texture." Miller was famous for being able to record drums as though you were hearing them live. Each drumbeat and symbol strike can be heard clearly and succinctly. More so than that, the records he produced have so much sound variety. The sax, harmonica, background vocals, marimbas, strings all come through in the mix. These instruments blend in, but especially in a record like Exile, you can clearly hear them. You can listen to the recordings again and again and always hear something new in the background -- like the marimbas in "Sweet Black Angel" or the background gospel-style vocals in "Tumbling Dice."

If Miller in his heydey had been producing A Bigger Bang, it might have been a really great record. Some of the songs could do with a sax or even a piano for more texture and spice. Some good gospel or soul background singers would've been great. I like on Stones records how these type of singers' voices contrast with Jagger's rough-hued voice -- it makes for a great sound.

Anyhow, listening to A Bigger Bang has made me appreciate Miller more.

This is only my humble opinion, tenderly offered and thoughfully proferred.

What more can I say thumbs upsmileys with beer



__________________________

Re: What Jimmy Miller meant to the Stones
Posted by: vincentwhirlwind ()
Date: April 22, 2013 00:25

Quote
Rockman
5:40 AM or PM?



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1744
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