The Beatles
retired
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Posts
- 1,328
- Reaction score
- 0
The Entire Pet Sounds album by the Beach Boys.
Songs That You Like For Their Production
- Thread starter Soot and Stars
- Start date
Well, now that my work has been fully trashed by you folks, I could ask why you (presumably) purchased the albums in the first place, if you hated the production? For thew record, 2 members of Motley Crue were actively shooting heroin during all three albums, and when they went to record with Bob, they were totally clean. Does make some difference. Nikki approved all 3 records before I handed them in, and sat in on the mixes. If he thought they sucked, why did he rehire me twice? Why did he completely fabricate what went on in the studio in his "Heroin Diaries"? Similarly, Dee Snider sat in on the mix and approved "Stay Hungry". Why did Stay Hungry sell 4 million albums and his remake of it sell a total of 30,000? Dee is quite the hypocrite, being completely affable and friendly during the sessions and then dissing my work afterward. I've emailed him twice, asking him to have me on his radio show to tell my side of the story, but have not had a reply. Why? Cheap Trick blamed everybody who ever had anything to do with them for whatever they failed to achieve. And I did three albums with them, too. Rick rehired me twice-- how come? And how come George Martin produced the album which followed "Dream Police", and it was a stiff? You folks on this forum are certainly free with your armchair criticism. It reads as though I had personally insulted this guy "Aeroplane", who repeatedly trashes my work. And BOC was very happy with the record -- especially Donald (Buck).
Maybe we can have a productive discourse, and maybe I can answer some of your questions, if you'll actually consider that there are indeed two sides to every story.
Maybe we can have a productive discourse, and maybe I can answer some of your questions, if you'll actually consider that there are indeed two sides to every story.
I didn't trash all of your work,,,in fact if you are Tom Werman I thought you did a really good job on BOC's Mirror's even if they didn't like the end result.(According to what information I have read the majority of the band was not happy with Mirrors,). I have it rated as the best production values of any of their 70's - 80's material easily.
I haven't seen Aeroplane in a long time, but I don't think he was being personal as much as just wanting the best quality possible.
I haven't seen Aeroplane in a long time, but I don't think he was being personal as much as just wanting the best quality possible.
Without a doubt, every story has two sides. I can see where you would be upset some 20+ years after the fact, where Nikki Sixx and Dee Snider both have dissed you publicly.
The fact that members on the forum have also expressed their opinions is really not a reflection upon you but an end response to all the controversy. If one member feels the sound production was not up to par, then he is entitled to that opinion. That opinion is exacerbated by the claims of Sixx and Snyder, which does make the scenario look like it was the producer's fault.
Blaming the problems on the musician's drug use, is a scapegoat. If the musicians were not up to par, then you did the best you could with what you had to work with. Also the fact would have to be taken into account, that there have been claims the producer was a drug abuser, too. If poor quality is achieved from drug use, then I have to assume all parties are guilty for any claims of poor production.
Wow. Claiming that the performance and sound quality were affected by the musicians' hard drug use is a "scapegoat"? Interesting allegation. Perhaps you could explain this. And perhaps you could tell us what specific aspects and components of the production you don't like -- of course Sixx is going to claim that I was a drug user, mainly because I embarrassed him in the pages of the New York Times Sunday Book Review.
We were all drug users of some sort in the 80"s, but do you think that perhaps there's a small difference between doing a few lines with the band after the session is over, and injecting heroin into your veins during the course of recording the album? Daily? And what about the approval of the final mixes by the principal individual in each group? Even if they were on the road, I'd send them the final mix before I went to mastering. I would not mix a record without a leading member of the band in attendance. It would be more productive if you and others on this forum who are so convinced that my records sound terrible could address these questions, and be specific about what made the production so unacceptable -- and why 40 million fans with no apparent taste bought 23 gold and platinum records over my 20-year career as a producer.
We were all drug users of some sort in the 80"s, but do you think that perhaps there's a small difference between doing a few lines with the band after the session is over, and injecting heroin into your veins during the course of recording the album? Daily? And what about the approval of the final mixes by the principal individual in each group? Even if they were on the road, I'd send them the final mix before I went to mastering. I would not mix a record without a leading member of the band in attendance. It would be more productive if you and others on this forum who are so convinced that my records sound terrible could address these questions, and be specific about what made the production so unacceptable -- and why 40 million fans with no apparent taste bought 23 gold and platinum records over my 20-year career as a producer.
^^I don't question your personal success as far as producing best selling albums.
Best sounding albums however are Not your forte'.
If the Beatles could record "Abbey Road" in 1969, then what was your excuse TW? I could list many more examples of recordings that sound better than the majority of the albums you produced.
I am not a big fan of the Rolling Stones studio work either, very sloppy, terrible compared to many of their contemporaries and they were also notorious for using copious amounts of drugs before during and after a recording session. And yet their albums have also sold untold millions of copies.
Best sounding albums however are Not your forte'.
If the Beatles could record "Abbey Road" in 1969, then what was your excuse TW? I could list many more examples of recordings that sound better than the majority of the albums you produced.
I am not a big fan of the Rolling Stones studio work either, very sloppy, terrible compared to many of their contemporaries and they were also notorious for using copious amounts of drugs before during and after a recording session. And yet their albums have also sold untold millions of copies.
Sox
Avoiding The Swan Song
The production on the classic Rush album "Moving Pictures" is awesome. I think they were experimenting with their sound and enjoying the results and with the headphones on and all other sound locked out this album is killer IMO.
Sox
Avoiding The Swan Song
^^ I think it's a masterclass LG, there was a lot of hard work went into that album IMO.
I think it's amusing that Lord Grendel asks me why an album like, for example, Motley Crue's "Girls Girls Girls" doesn't sound as good as Abbey Road. Come on, folks -- I thought this was a production forum. Perhaps there was a difference in the studio, the engineer, the producer himself, the type of song, the arrangements, the songwriting (!!) and the musicianship involved. Don't you think there's a little more sonic separation between the Beatles' instruments than Motley Crue's? And maybe the unlimited budget and allotted time frame had something to do with it. It seems that you might not be as familiar with the recording process as you could be in order to discuss these things. There was literally no separation between frequencies on Crue records, while there was tons of separation on Beatles records. Half of Vince's vocals, the top of Tommy Lee's snare, the high end of Nikki's bass and most of Mick's guitars were all fighting for the same small frequency range (upper middle). That hurts the listener's ear, and makes it more difficult for the listener to actually distinguish the parts. Did George's guitar sound like Mick Mars? Did Ringo's drum kit sound like Tommy's? It's all about assigning the instruments and vocals to different frequencies, so that the entire frequency spectrum is used. It's the difference between turning two records up, and having one sound loud while the other sounds simply painful. And if the producer wants to change the sound of the instruments in order to accomplish this, the band screams bloody murder. Every member wants to be the loudest. I could go on, but I think you might be able to get the general idea here -- at least it's a start.
