I still stand by my comments above 


best,

..................john

Quote:

I'm afraid I have to agree. It would be interesting to know what your Dad thinks of it.

I don't know how old John is but like him I grew up with the Stones. Mick Jagger is a few months younger than me. The rhythm guitarist in my group & his wife used to babysit for Charlie Watts before they were married. I always preferred the raw sound of their first albums as this reflects the excitement of the sixties when I was young. These were basically live recordings of their stage act at the time, flaws & all. I doubt it took more than a few days to record a complete album. They might be more experienced musicians now but they're no longer young & recording is so much more technical & expensive these days.

Quote:


Hagar,

Aha... another lurking musician, I see.  Now we're digging up bones.  In my case I'm a very "retired" one now .  (But I still have my full kit sitting in hard cases........ wooden shell champagne sparkle Gretch with Zildjan's all arouind.)  We are not too far off each other for age...... Mick and the boys are just a couple of years older than me.  

I 100% agree that recording was a whole different thing "back in the day"  .  When we were in the studio, 16 track was kinda standard but still new and 32 track was "it".  Of course it was all analog on tape for mastering.   And the contortions that you had to go thru for any real decent effects was amazing.  "Black Boxes" and patch cords up the wazzoo.

I look at some of the computerized digital stuff that you can buy in a general computer store today.... and really wish that kind of stuff had been available back when I was in "the biz".   It was a "big deal" when my group finally bought our own TEAC 1/4" 4 track machine for quick demo work and to do "post mortums" on live performances when we had it patched into the board.

And god.... a lot of demos were still "cut vinyl" for god's sake.  Lost all the low end in the process.  

I still have some 15"ps reels of some masters sitting around in the basement that are likely unplayabe now....having sat wound tight for years and years.  Probably brittle and full of print through.  Some stuff I converted from old vinyl to digital a long while back... but most of it is lost forever.

One of the things that I like about this Stones album is that it is not over produced.  Closer to their raw'er stuff. A lot of the tracks, while not "live", are likely played mostly live in the studio with minimal dubbing fleshing it out.

I still can't believe that "Infamy" was released on it though in the state that it is in....... Richards voice just seems really weak on that one.  At least they could have pulled it down in the mix into the other tracks a bit.

Anyway.......... I don't think the disk is all that bad.


best,

.....................john

Quote:


He's a huge Stones fan. 'Nuff said.