Tell Me :
Talk
well, I'm more of an amateur than an expert, but let me paraphrase what I think Johns is saying. Actually, it's a few things. First, with 4-track recording, there are only 4 different channels available at one time, so that to overdub (depending on how many channels are used for the basic track), a sub-mix of what's already there needs to be made and "bounced" to an empty channel, or perhaps to a new tape. George Martin and the Beatles pioneered this, according to the standard narrative, but evidently other pop groups were not far behind. This "bouncing" is I think what Johns means when he talks about going "4 to 4 to 4" for "She's a Rainbow." (I love how he doesn't even pause over the wrong title... he of course may have known it best before it was titled anything, as it was being made.)
this is still multitrack recording, a new development from cutting live to mono (1 channel) or stereo (2). Mixing was always involved, but not as a separate stage from recording. Johns actually explains this fairly well, also when he talks about the move from recording the room--placing a few (how many?) mikes around the room to get a balanced sound of the group--to "close miking" individual instruments, each of which eventually would get its own track (or more! if you double them as Johns describes) under 8- and 16-track recording.
one advantage he mentions is that, because the submix for bouncing was permanent--you couldn't go back and remix the tracks that made up the submix--each submix had to sound right, which meant that listening for the final cut was a priority at each stage of the recording. It's a productive limitation that focuses creativity rather than delaying every decision and putting the kitchen sink into a mix. There's a parallel here to the stones becoming a group who shows up and says, "what should we do tonight?" but I'm not sure that's correlated.
he also says you simply _can't_ do a record like "She's a Rainbow" in 16 track. Why not?... I _think_ the key is that he's talking about mixing at a time before "flying faders," or having parts of the mix automated. All of the subtle and not-subtle adjustments that go into a mix needed to be performed by the engineer, really a performance. With 16 tracks, there are too many elements to keep "track" of, so the adjustments are probably more basic, like turn this channel on for the solo, then turn it off. With automated mixing, where you can do one task at a time and "record" it and keep building a mix, this concern goes away. But I'm not really sure that's what he means.
hmm, makes sense, but somehow I got the sense that keith was the genius behind the pop hits of the 60s, with for example "Have You Seen Your Mother" as a noble failure, for the first time biting off more than he could chew. I think I got this from John Perry's short book about Exile--something in there about a keith adage that in a track meant for a hit, something new should happen or enter the mix every 30 seconds. Maybe I extrapolated from that unjustifiably into keith as Master Arranger of Hits. Not that the recent keith is any stranger to quotable nonsense, but I thought this piece of wisdom had a more creditable provenance. And if it wasn't him directing those cuts, who was it? mick then, I suppose...
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: January 18, 2008 22:45
I generally agree but have a different sense of what Johns is saying.
you're right in that Johns is talking about mixing when he brings up the Rude Keith anecdote. But the anecdote itself could be taking place at any stage of recording. He doesn't link the anecdote to mixing explicitly, though the writer puts it all in the same paragraph.
It sounds to me as if the stones at this point basically recorded in 3 stages: 1-jam for basic track, 2-edit basic track and overdub as necessary, 3-mix for final cut. A rough mix would presumably come before stage 2, so that they could decide what overdubs were needed. (This goes at least for the 70s, starting it would seem according to Johns from Sticky Fingers, whereas he says that before, they were more "professional musicianly" and came in with songs ready to go--he also explains, somewhat less clearly, how 4-track recording made this more necessary and led, he argues, to generally better records--and aren't the stones a good example. Can we talk about this instead of taylor?). The stones were still somewhat old-school as they preferred to use the original basic track with the band all playing live together, whereas groups with less concern for organics would record a song piecemeal from the outset, using a demo for a guide.
Johns mentions taylor both playing "incredibly" loud at stage 1 and, when he had the chance, mixing himself too loud in stage 3. A loud guitar for overdubbing is not a problem and is in fact often what's wanted. Though part of what I hear in keith's comment is: "You have one sound. It's great for our stage show, but cutting a record requires more variety."
But Johns does seem to say keith plays loud in the studio as well... or "drives his equipment hard." He means some difference I don't quite understand. I think I know what he means by "bad," crackly distortion--by which he's suggesting keith wears his amps out. But how, exactly? Did keith play through smaller amps and have to blast them to match taylor (at this point--those Vox solid state amps certainly aren't small, nor is a Fender Dual Showman)? Wasn't my impression.
Anyway, I definitely agree that keith would have a better sense of where things should sit in a mix. That's his reputation from the 60s hits, which are probably where he learned the style of songcraft that taylor with his more limited blues-rock sensibility (turning to soft-rock mush by IORR) wouldn't get. But it's notable that according to Johns, keith didn't voice this sense very often anymore in this period, and mostly sat back in the mixing room. I suppose trusting Johns (and mick j, apparently) fits under knowing what a track needs: a good engineer.
Then again, more of his input probably would have been welcome, as few would argue IORR is a better album than, say, Aftermath. I'd love to read an article like this about _that_ record!
Quote
Doxa
Namely, it is not the question of him PLAYING loud while recording, but his involvment in the mixing. There he ends up mixing his guitar too loud, and that's what Keith complains.
you're right in that Johns is talking about mixing when he brings up the Rude Keith anecdote. But the anecdote itself could be taking place at any stage of recording. He doesn't link the anecdote to mixing explicitly, though the writer puts it all in the same paragraph.
It sounds to me as if the stones at this point basically recorded in 3 stages: 1-jam for basic track, 2-edit basic track and overdub as necessary, 3-mix for final cut. A rough mix would presumably come before stage 2, so that they could decide what overdubs were needed. (This goes at least for the 70s, starting it would seem according to Johns from Sticky Fingers, whereas he says that before, they were more "professional musicianly" and came in with songs ready to go--he also explains, somewhat less clearly, how 4-track recording made this more necessary and led, he argues, to generally better records--and aren't the stones a good example. Can we talk about this instead of taylor?). The stones were still somewhat old-school as they preferred to use the original basic track with the band all playing live together, whereas groups with less concern for organics would record a song piecemeal from the outset, using a demo for a guide.
Johns mentions taylor both playing "incredibly" loud at stage 1 and, when he had the chance, mixing himself too loud in stage 3. A loud guitar for overdubbing is not a problem and is in fact often what's wanted. Though part of what I hear in keith's comment is: "You have one sound. It's great for our stage show, but cutting a record requires more variety."
But Johns does seem to say keith plays loud in the studio as well... or "drives his equipment hard." He means some difference I don't quite understand. I think I know what he means by "bad," crackly distortion--by which he's suggesting keith wears his amps out. But how, exactly? Did keith play through smaller amps and have to blast them to match taylor (at this point--those Vox solid state amps certainly aren't small, nor is a Fender Dual Showman)? Wasn't my impression.
Anyway, I definitely agree that keith would have a better sense of where things should sit in a mix. That's his reputation from the 60s hits, which are probably where he learned the style of songcraft that taylor with his more limited blues-rock sensibility (turning to soft-rock mush by IORR) wouldn't get. But it's notable that according to Johns, keith didn't voice this sense very often anymore in this period, and mostly sat back in the mixing room. I suppose trusting Johns (and mick j, apparently) fits under knowing what a track needs: a good engineer.
Then again, more of his input probably would have been welcome, as few would argue IORR is a better album than, say, Aftermath. I'd love to read an article like this about _that_ record!
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
Lightnin'
()
Date: January 18, 2008 22:56
Quote
with sssoul
>> problems with his sinuses ...
Ehmm dear with ssoul. Leaving all jokes aside but this is highly suggestive. I think someone on this board is trying to create a connection between two completely unrelated things.
Yes, Taylor did have a very bad sinusitis in the winter (Dec '73/ Jan '74) for which he needed hospital treatment. And no, sinusitis is not an indication of a coke addiction. Although various people in the band (everyone except Bill) took cocaine at parties and things like that, Taylor did not actually get addicted to any drugs during his time with the Stones.
Have you ever had sinusitis ? I've had it myself and it left me wiped out for 6 weeks straight. It can be very difficult to get rid of. Once you've had sinusitis, you're more susceptible for it and it can develop into chronic sinusitis.
It is caused in most cases by streptococci, pneumococci, Hemophilus influenza, or staphylococci. The symptoms are general malaise, headaches, nausea, toothache and a constant feeling of pressure on your head (the obstruction of the ostium of the paranasal sinus causes negative pressure in the sinus, "vacuum sinusitis" ) which is very painful. Frontal sinusitis causes frontal headaches. Ethmoid sinusitis causes pain behind and between the eyes which is often described as "splitting".
It can also be very hard to concentrate or complete a simple mental task which would normally not take much of an effort.
In chronic sinusitis treatment consists of controlling the infection by prolonged antibiotic therapy (4-6 weeks) and measures to improve drainage (steam inhalation). Sinusitis not responsive to antibiotics may require operative intervention.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-18 23:26 by Lightnin'.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: January 18, 2008 23:20
>> he also explains, somewhat less clearly, how 4-track recording made this more necessary
and led, he argues, to generally better records ... Can we talk about this instead of Taylor? <<
yes please! i get what Johns is saying, but i'd love to hear some of our learned experts talk about it.
i'll make popcorn :E
and led, he argues, to generally better records ... Can we talk about this instead of Taylor? <<
yes please! i get what Johns is saying, but i'd love to hear some of our learned experts talk about it.
i'll make popcorn :E
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
J-J-Flash
()
Date: January 18, 2008 23:49
Interesting article thanks for posting. IORR has always been my least favorite Stones album from the 70s. Would love to hear a similar perspective on other albums..
By the way, I had been traveling and not on the board for a while.. its funny to come back and read the same posts from the same people about Mick Taylor, almost word for word from other posts.. some things never change..
By the way, I had been traveling and not on the board for a while.. its funny to come back and read the same posts from the same people about Mick Taylor, almost word for word from other posts.. some things never change..
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: January 18, 2008 23:53
Quote
with sssoul
>> he also explains, somewhat less clearly, how 4-track recording made this more necessary
and led, he argues, to generally better records ... Can we talk about this instead of Taylor? <<
yes please! i get what Johns is saying, but i'd love to hear some of our learned experts talk about it.
i'll make popcorn :E
well, I'm more of an amateur than an expert, but let me paraphrase what I think Johns is saying. Actually, it's a few things. First, with 4-track recording, there are only 4 different channels available at one time, so that to overdub (depending on how many channels are used for the basic track), a sub-mix of what's already there needs to be made and "bounced" to an empty channel, or perhaps to a new tape. George Martin and the Beatles pioneered this, according to the standard narrative, but evidently other pop groups were not far behind. This "bouncing" is I think what Johns means when he talks about going "4 to 4 to 4" for "She's a Rainbow." (I love how he doesn't even pause over the wrong title... he of course may have known it best before it was titled anything, as it was being made.)
this is still multitrack recording, a new development from cutting live to mono (1 channel) or stereo (2). Mixing was always involved, but not as a separate stage from recording. Johns actually explains this fairly well, also when he talks about the move from recording the room--placing a few (how many?) mikes around the room to get a balanced sound of the group--to "close miking" individual instruments, each of which eventually would get its own track (or more! if you double them as Johns describes) under 8- and 16-track recording.
one advantage he mentions is that, because the submix for bouncing was permanent--you couldn't go back and remix the tracks that made up the submix--each submix had to sound right, which meant that listening for the final cut was a priority at each stage of the recording. It's a productive limitation that focuses creativity rather than delaying every decision and putting the kitchen sink into a mix. There's a parallel here to the stones becoming a group who shows up and says, "what should we do tonight?" but I'm not sure that's correlated.
he also says you simply _can't_ do a record like "She's a Rainbow" in 16 track. Why not?... I _think_ the key is that he's talking about mixing at a time before "flying faders," or having parts of the mix automated. All of the subtle and not-subtle adjustments that go into a mix needed to be performed by the engineer, really a performance. With 16 tracks, there are too many elements to keep "track" of, so the adjustments are probably more basic, like turn this channel on for the solo, then turn it off. With automated mixing, where you can do one task at a time and "record" it and keep building a mix, this concern goes away. But I'm not really sure that's what he means.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
MCDDTLC
()
Date: January 19, 2008 00:10
Lightin - Where did you get this??
"Taylor did not actually get addicted to any drugs during his time with the Stones"
Are you kidding?? Keith & him where BIG Smack addicts!!! Coke, Weed you name it!
That's why Taylor and Jack Bruce had their falling out, drugs in the studio!
do some research...
MLC
"Taylor did not actually get addicted to any drugs during his time with the Stones"
Are you kidding?? Keith & him where BIG Smack addicts!!! Coke, Weed you name it!
That's why Taylor and Jack Bruce had their falling out, drugs in the studio!
do some research...
MLC
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
Glam Descendant
()
Date: January 19, 2008 01:17
>Lightin - Where did you get this??
Taylor's made that claim himself, repeatedly.
Taylor's made that claim himself, repeatedly.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
Lightnin'
()
Date: January 19, 2008 01:46
Quote
MCDDTLC
Lightin - Where did you get this??
"Taylor did not actually get addicted to any drugs during his time with the Stones"
Are you kidding??
- No I'm not kidding.
Keith & him where BIG Smack addicts!!! Coke, Weed you name it!
- No Keith developed a heavy dependency on heroin and a few people around him got into it as well. Taylor was not one of those.
That's why Taylor and Jack Bruce had their falling out, drugs in the studio!
- Please, you're so far off it's not even funny anymore.
do some research...
MLC
MLC, please calm down a little.
You call that research...? You mean reading books about the Stones, the content of which is based on informaton that gets perpetually copied and pasted after an insider (like Andy Johns for instance) makes an off-the-cuff or sensationalised remark ? You might actually be surprised to find where I get my information from.
I maintain that although "experiments" were carried out, an addiction is a different thing. Contrary to your claims Taylor did not really get involved with the heavy stuff. He did not take drugs on a daily basis, he was perfectly able to stop taking drugs whenever he wanted to (without going to rehab) and did not develop a serious addiction in the way that Keith did.
Would you mind not make sweeping statements about Taylor's personal life. You should not just go by things you've read in Spanish Tony's books and the like. There is a lot of myth forming around the Stones and this is one of the major misconceptions. Please take some time to think about this and ask yourself how much you can say with absolute certainty about Taylor's personal life.
If taking cocaine at parties/social occasions means you're a drug addict then everyone in the Stones (except Bill) qualifies as a drug addict.
Then again, Bill did smoke spliffs, so I suppose we can write the whole band and many associates (wives/girlfriends, roadies, producers and engineers) off as addicts if you follow that way of reasoning. As opposed to the pretty hysterial attitude some Americans have towards smoking weed or grass, in UK and Europe this is not seen as problematic (leaving exceptions like real heavy cases aside) and nobody bats an eyelid at it.
As for the working situation with Jack Bruce, don't even go there. Taylor decision to leave the Stones was partially influenced by seeing Keith's problems deteriorate. He agrees to start a new band with JB. When they start rehearsing he discovers JB's condition is possibly worse than Keith's. Bruce's volatile nature is well-documented and he's an extremely difficult person to get on with. He really doesn't need to take drugs to become that way. After the Cream reunion concerts in NY (2005), Ginger Baker went on record to say he would never work with Jack Bruce again because he's got a Jekyll and Hyde personality. I can assure you you've got the wrong idea there - this has been verified by several people that were involved with the JB band.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-19 20:35 by Lightnin'.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
bumbum
()
Date: January 19, 2008 17:03
Talking about using coke - it was Mick and Mick that were using coke together not Keith - that was commonly know and true. And this is not said to harm or offend Mick T.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
dixiecup
()
Date: January 19, 2008 17:43
some comments on the old ways of recording. since recording costs were low it meant that you could spend a lot of time jamming it out in the studio as we read from johns.
the concept of 'loss' refers to when you lose a lot of the detail in the sound in terms of depth and dynamic range. the way a lot of pop stuff is produced today is heavily compressed, effected and tone focused. that means that we do not hear the highs and lows or the fine detail as we should. also all the inputs have the same volume - loud.
in those days, there were no digital 'punch ins' as the physical process of recording on tape was irreversible. going back to remix the tapes could result in a different mix as the process was not documented all the way through most times. sieving through all the all takes to incorporate a song together could take days or weeks if you didn't know what your stuff.
compare the the stones rate and quality of output at this time, tell me which band today would complain to have iorr called theirs. no band.
the physical approach of live recording in the studio has changed little. the basic technology of backline instruments has changed little. analog recording (with some live takes if you're up to it) with the use of some digital processing (for cleaning up and balancing the sound but not greatly altering it) is a common way for rock to be recorded.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-19 17:46 by dixiecup.
the concept of 'loss' refers to when you lose a lot of the detail in the sound in terms of depth and dynamic range. the way a lot of pop stuff is produced today is heavily compressed, effected and tone focused. that means that we do not hear the highs and lows or the fine detail as we should. also all the inputs have the same volume - loud.
in those days, there were no digital 'punch ins' as the physical process of recording on tape was irreversible. going back to remix the tapes could result in a different mix as the process was not documented all the way through most times. sieving through all the all takes to incorporate a song together could take days or weeks if you didn't know what your stuff.
compare the the stones rate and quality of output at this time, tell me which band today would complain to have iorr called theirs. no band.
the physical approach of live recording in the studio has changed little. the basic technology of backline instruments has changed little. analog recording (with some live takes if you're up to it) with the use of some digital processing (for cleaning up and balancing the sound but not greatly altering it) is a common way for rock to be recorded.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-19 17:46 by dixiecup.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
pmk251
()
Date: January 19, 2008 19:37
The dynamics of the band when Taylor was there is, obviously, a continuing source of interest and speculation. I was hoping Wyman's second book would illuminate on the point, but it turned out to be more of coffee table book. Jagger is profoundly silent on the point. He rarely talks about Taylor and his avoidance of the subject fuels my speculation that Taylor's quitting at THAT party was meant in some manner and for some reason to be a slap in the face of Jagger. By many accounts Jagger has subsequently acted like it was.
Keith has said this and that about Taylor. He can be complimentary, but usually he likes to take a shot at him.
Taylor seems to me to be in a total state of denial about his relationship with the band. On one hand he's claimed a good relationship with the band. On the other he's called it a "love/hate" relationship (whatever that means). Whatever he says about the band (complimentary or otherwise), I believe about half of it. He still seems to go out of his way not to offend them.
Comments like Johns' offer a glimpse of what went on, but the core of the matter seems to me to have not been adequately addressed by the three main participants. To those of us interested in the band, past or present, it is still a point of interest.
One thing I do find fascinating and a great source of enjoyment is following the band from west coast to east on the '69 tour. The changing dynamics of the band with Taylor are happening right before your ears, live and on stage. That tour gave us "Ya-Ya's," the great LIV and classic (best?) live versions of SFTD and MR. Very exciting stuff, very live and very real.
Keith has said this and that about Taylor. He can be complimentary, but usually he likes to take a shot at him.
Taylor seems to me to be in a total state of denial about his relationship with the band. On one hand he's claimed a good relationship with the band. On the other he's called it a "love/hate" relationship (whatever that means). Whatever he says about the band (complimentary or otherwise), I believe about half of it. He still seems to go out of his way not to offend them.
Comments like Johns' offer a glimpse of what went on, but the core of the matter seems to me to have not been adequately addressed by the three main participants. To those of us interested in the band, past or present, it is still a point of interest.
One thing I do find fascinating and a great source of enjoyment is following the band from west coast to east on the '69 tour. The changing dynamics of the band with Taylor are happening right before your ears, live and on stage. That tour gave us "Ya-Ya's," the great LIV and classic (best?) live versions of SFTD and MR. Very exciting stuff, very live and very real.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: January 20, 2008 14:50
Quote
Lightnin'Quote
MCDDTLC
Lightin - Where did you get this??
You call that research...? You mean reading books about the Stones, the content of which is based on informaton that gets perpetually copied and pasted after an insider (like Andy Johns for instance) makes an off-the-cuff or sensationalised remark ? You might actually be surprised to find where I get my information from.
I maintain that although "experiments" were carried out, an addiction is a different thing. Contrary to your claims Taylor did not really get involved with the heavy stuff. He did not take drugs on a daily basis, he was perfectly able to stop taking drugs whenever he wanted to (without going to rehab) and did not develop a serious addiction in the way that Keith did.
Taylor's addictions to various kind of drugs have been reported quite well, mainly by people who actually worked with him and were around him. Part of the reason he left the Stones were his growing dependency of drugs. He was hospitalized due to a severe coke addiction in early '74. Bobby Keys can be quoted saying that the Bruce/Taylor European tour was a "bus full of people spending a grand a day on heroin, and Taylor's, Bruce's and Bley's state was terrible. They spend 24 hours per day arguing over drugs". There's a quote (I forgot by whom) that during sessions for John Philips this guy picked Taylor up from his house for the sessions, only to find Taylor and his wife Rose being totally reclusive drug addicts.
There's plenty of these quotes. But, for whatever reason, there's various people who think it is in Taylor's interest to rewrite his history. Check Taylor's wikipedia page for example. Any mention of his addictions gets deleated constantly.
Mathijs
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
LieB
()
Date: January 20, 2008 23:57
There's a lot of food for thought in Lightnin's posts about drug addiction. It's well documented that Keith and several others got seriously addicted to heroin (for Keith this was around 1970). But these things are difficult to know exactly. Many (former) addicts don't know themselves when they got hooked, because the process is very gradual and undefined.
Don't forget that all of the people around the Stones got addicted after a period of being exposed to it, and after various occasions of experimentation. Andy Johns himself did heroin with Keith in France in '71, but it wasn't until around the Goats sessions that he started to get heavily involved. (According to Johns himself).
As for Mick Taylor, his situation was similar. As Wyman wrote, he had "dallied with the hard stuff" around the Exile sessions. I've also read Taylor himself saying he was hospitalized as a result of heroin use in '74, after suggestions from Keith (and Jagger?). I'll try to check this out again (not a safe source here).
Taylor has also said that he and Keith had serious drug problems. "We don't today, but back then". If Taylor's supposed heroin addiction emerged before or after he left the Stones, I don't know. But it's pretty sure the Stones influenced him, and I'm guessing he developed serious problem in the middle of the decade, and that they continued well into the 80's. It's also common that people develop worse drug problems when they get less to do, so quitting the Stones -- and especially the Jack Bruce band -- might have made his situation worse. Compare to Keith being on and off tour.
Don't forget that all of the people around the Stones got addicted after a period of being exposed to it, and after various occasions of experimentation. Andy Johns himself did heroin with Keith in France in '71, but it wasn't until around the Goats sessions that he started to get heavily involved. (According to Johns himself).
As for Mick Taylor, his situation was similar. As Wyman wrote, he had "dallied with the hard stuff" around the Exile sessions. I've also read Taylor himself saying he was hospitalized as a result of heroin use in '74, after suggestions from Keith (and Jagger?). I'll try to check this out again (not a safe source here).
Taylor has also said that he and Keith had serious drug problems. "We don't today, but back then". If Taylor's supposed heroin addiction emerged before or after he left the Stones, I don't know. But it's pretty sure the Stones influenced him, and I'm guessing he developed serious problem in the middle of the decade, and that they continued well into the 80's. It's also common that people develop worse drug problems when they get less to do, so quitting the Stones -- and especially the Jack Bruce band -- might have made his situation worse. Compare to Keith being on and off tour.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: January 21, 2008 01:46
>> But it's notable that according to Johns, Keith didn't voice this sense very often anymore in this period <<
according to ALO, Keith never did voice much in the studio, but was the one everyone looked to
to know whether they'd got The Take - he communicated it mainly nonverbally, but unmistakably.
it must be in the book Rip This Joint that someone - probably Andy Johns - is quoted as saying
that Keith was still very much in that role in the mid-70s, despite appearances.
i'll look the exact quote up tomorrow - good night all.
according to ALO, Keith never did voice much in the studio, but was the one everyone looked to
to know whether they'd got The Take - he communicated it mainly nonverbally, but unmistakably.
it must be in the book Rip This Joint that someone - probably Andy Johns - is quoted as saying
that Keith was still very much in that role in the mid-70s, despite appearances.
i'll look the exact quote up tomorrow - good night all.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
The Joker
()
Date: January 21, 2008 01:59
I like the intro: "How many groups can even stay together long enough to go through two blonde guitarists?"
Here is something to thing about: a lasting Rolling Stones cannot be blonde.
Here is something to thing about: a lasting Rolling Stones cannot be blonde.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
Smokey
()
Date: January 21, 2008 05:14
Quote
MCDDTLC
Coke, Weed you name it!
MLC
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: January 22, 2008 01:23
Quote
with sssoul
according to ALO, Keith never did voice much in the studio, but was the one everyone looked to
to know whether they'd got The Take - he communicated it mainly nonverbally, but unmistakably.
it must be in the book Rip This Joint that someone - probably Andy Johns - is quoted as saying
that Keith was still very much in that role in the mid-70s, despite appearances.
i'll look the exact quote up tomorrow - good night all.
hmm, makes sense, but somehow I got the sense that keith was the genius behind the pop hits of the 60s, with for example "Have You Seen Your Mother" as a noble failure, for the first time biting off more than he could chew. I think I got this from John Perry's short book about Exile--something in there about a keith adage that in a track meant for a hit, something new should happen or enter the mix every 30 seconds. Maybe I extrapolated from that unjustifiably into keith as Master Arranger of Hits. Not that the recent keith is any stranger to quotable nonsense, but I thought this piece of wisdom had a more creditable provenance. And if it wasn't him directing those cuts, who was it? mick then, I suppose...
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: January 22, 2008 11:47
smile: see how inadequate words can be as a means of communication, cc? what i wrote up there is:
people report that Keith didn't TALK much in the studio, but he WAS very much in charge.
people report that Keith didn't TALK much in the studio, but he WAS very much in charge.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
toomuchforme
()
Date: January 22, 2008 12:53
I've read this great article this morning.
What Johns tells confirm and summarize what I think about IORR album :
- several sessions at different places, some overdubs, 2 engineers, some "unknown' people at the mixing desk, different musicians. You can hear the result... the sound is really weird and I remember that Mickboy told me when I had received his own 'remastered' version of IORR that it was difficult to improve that sound. IORR suffers a lack of clarity in the sound.
Johns pretends it's due to the mixing. I would be curious to listen to a proper mixing made with the master tapes. Could IORR sounds different ? I always thought it was about the recording process itself rather than the mix...
and when the Virgin remaster came out, I was excited but nothing new at the time in the sound quality... very muddy.
- there are some weak songs. I never liked 'short and curlies' or the repetitive 'DLS'. And some are so brilliant like 'Fingerprint file' with Jagger mainly on guitar like Johns reveals it.
I never paid attention to the fact BW and CW was not on IORR song ! can you imagine that ? IORR song, so many times played live, one of the best known Stones song, without the best rythmic section on it ?? amazing.
I loved to read this :
" well, what are we gonna do tonight ?"
"I don't know, I haven't got anything. Maybe Keith's got something. Keith have you got anything ?"
"What ?"
I laughed a lot. This is typically Stones. A very mess thing, free, without plans. But something oustanding was coming out at last. This is exactly the same in concert. Some weird moments, awful nights and the next day something terrific or even in the same concert, the best and the badest.
Interesting too the comparative with Led Zepp way of working.
I think we can say that you can hear the differences on records of each band.
Zepp work is more chiseled and precise.
But this does not mean the Stones aren't hard at work. Johns mentions that a song could be played many many times, during hours (we know it, listen to the satanic sessions and to a certain point the Some girls ones).
What Johns tells confirm and summarize what I think about IORR album :
- several sessions at different places, some overdubs, 2 engineers, some "unknown' people at the mixing desk, different musicians. You can hear the result... the sound is really weird and I remember that Mickboy told me when I had received his own 'remastered' version of IORR that it was difficult to improve that sound. IORR suffers a lack of clarity in the sound.
Johns pretends it's due to the mixing. I would be curious to listen to a proper mixing made with the master tapes. Could IORR sounds different ? I always thought it was about the recording process itself rather than the mix...
and when the Virgin remaster came out, I was excited but nothing new at the time in the sound quality... very muddy.
- there are some weak songs. I never liked 'short and curlies' or the repetitive 'DLS'. And some are so brilliant like 'Fingerprint file' with Jagger mainly on guitar like Johns reveals it.
I never paid attention to the fact BW and CW was not on IORR song ! can you imagine that ? IORR song, so many times played live, one of the best known Stones song, without the best rythmic section on it ?? amazing.
I loved to read this :
" well, what are we gonna do tonight ?"
"I don't know, I haven't got anything. Maybe Keith's got something. Keith have you got anything ?"
"What ?"
I laughed a lot. This is typically Stones. A very mess thing, free, without plans. But something oustanding was coming out at last. This is exactly the same in concert. Some weird moments, awful nights and the next day something terrific or even in the same concert, the best and the badest.
Interesting too the comparative with Led Zepp way of working.
I think we can say that you can hear the differences on records of each band.
Zepp work is more chiseled and precise.
But this does not mean the Stones aren't hard at work. Johns mentions that a song could be played many many times, during hours (we know it, listen to the satanic sessions and to a certain point the Some girls ones).
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
LieB
()
Date: January 22, 2008 15:38
toomuchforme --
Your thought about the article are exactly my thoughts too. I'd love to hear a better mix of IORR, but like you, I also think it had a lot to do with the actual recording. Plus, many of the songs weren't quite up to par with their earlier stuff.
Those quotes about "What are we gonna do" are funny indeed, and so very Rolling Stones. Again, one gets the impression that the Stones have no discipline, at least not in the beginning of a project. Definitely 5 years playing, 25 years hanging around, as the saying goes. And so different from Led Zeppelin -- even though, in the end, Led Zep's music has even more improvisation and endless jamming, at least on stage.
Your thought about the article are exactly my thoughts too. I'd love to hear a better mix of IORR, but like you, I also think it had a lot to do with the actual recording. Plus, many of the songs weren't quite up to par with their earlier stuff.
Those quotes about "What are we gonna do" are funny indeed, and so very Rolling Stones. Again, one gets the impression that the Stones have no discipline, at least not in the beginning of a project. Definitely 5 years playing, 25 years hanging around, as the saying goes. And so different from Led Zeppelin -- even though, in the end, Led Zep's music has even more improvisation and endless jamming, at least on stage.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: January 22, 2008 18:08
but didn't you guys see that Johns said it was only with Sticky Fingers that "what are we going to do tonight?" became their way of working? Before that, he says, he thought they worked more like Led Zeppelin (who of course were still to come at that point). He uses a session for "You Can't Always Get What You Want" as an example. And toomuchfor me at least just wrote how he didn't like the results on IORR.
What I think this adds up to, in part, is credit to Jimmy Miller for producing great albums from a state of increasing disorganization (not an original idea but seems worth restating given how mick and keith have revised his role down over the years). But there were also increased external distractions... some of which they should have been able to shut out or solve, given their resources.
What I think this adds up to, in part, is credit to Jimmy Miller for producing great albums from a state of increasing disorganization (not an original idea but seems worth restating given how mick and keith have revised his role down over the years). But there were also increased external distractions... some of which they should have been able to shut out or solve, given their resources.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: January 22, 2008 18:22
Great read, but I understand why Andy Johns remained a only very good engineer and not a no. 1 procucer!
Dance Little Sister is one of the best trax on IORR!!!
C
Dance Little Sister is one of the best trax on IORR!!!
C
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: January 22, 2008 18:56
I can't get the thing to work. Where is it on the internet?
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
toomuchforme
()
Date: January 22, 2008 19:54
the IP adress stillworks skipstone. It is a PDF file
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: January 22, 2008 21:31
Aye. Got it to work. Hilarious. I recall IORR was originally to be Side A 5 tracks or so live from the 1973 tour and Side B covers, of which I've heard two, Ain't To Proud To Beg obviously and Drift Away. Anyone have any idea what the other covers were if they were recorded?
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
LieB
()
Date: January 22, 2008 21:44
Gosh, that record would have smoked IORR as we know it today (although I think some tracks on it would probably be up to par). Never heard of that idea, by the way. Where did you read it, skipstone?
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: January 23, 2008 20:52
I don't know if it was about this time-frame, but I recall they were thinking of doing some new studio versions of older originals like Around and Around and Rooster. Apparently Bill was very keen on this idae. That may be how numbers such as these got included at Knebworth. Perhaps they'd been working on them. Or perhaps Knebbers came first and that gave them the idea to re-record early R&B favourites.
Re: Andy Johns talking about the Stones and IORR
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: January 24, 2008 01:56
I found the live/covers idea in...the Stones Mojo issue for the Licks tour I believe. I have it somewhere. It was either the Licks tour or the Bang tour...they do an entire magazine on them...and there was a whole thing about IORR being that, the original idea, but then the songs started flowing...and of course Ronnie helping out with...it's a shame he never got credit for that tune...or Hey Negrita...proper credit that is...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
cmc , daspyknows , EggersBand , emotionalbarbecue , GJV , HotStuff92 , llsbsk , MadMax , tinnitus , welshphil
Guests:
1278
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10