| re: Jim's involvement in Bat 3? | |
|
Posted by: |
Rob 06:18 pm UTC 04/15/08 |
| In reply to: | re: Jim's involvement in Bat 3? - daveake 07:24 pm UTC 04/14/08 |
| I got the impression that it was partly due to Meat not being willing to wait for Jim (which, given Jim's fabulously lengthy timescales, I can kinda understand). But yes, with Jim calling the shots Bat 3 could still have been an excellent album. > If it would have been on Jim's terms - with Jim in charge, > using musicians of his choice, insisting on Meat repeating > the damn vocals till he gets it right, etc etc., then yes > it would have been a top-notch product. Personally I > doubt that was the option otherwise surely Jim would have > taken the job? > > Dave > > > Difference is with Bat 3 Jim would have effectively been > > in charge (day to day), and no doubt produced a top-notch > > product (or better than the Bat 3 we did get), whereas > > with DOTV it appears Jim was treated as just the > > 'hired-help', and Sonnenberg & Crawford were the clowns > > running the circus. > > > > > > ... and yet Jim appears to have been the > > > > one to back away? > > > > > > Maybe because, post DotV, Jim had learnt how to avoid a > > > train wreck before it's too late? > > > > > > Dave | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Jim's involvement in Bat 3? - daveake 07:24 pm UTC 04/14/08 |
| Next: | re: Jim's involvement in Bat 3? - Evil_One 08:11 pm UTC 04/14/08 |
| Thread: | |