not logged in
| re: Paul Crook producing Hell In A Handbasket | |
Posted by:  |
Wilbury 04:38 pm UTC 05/15/11 |
| In reply to: | re: Paul Crook producing Hell In A Handbasket - rockfenris2005 04:28 pm UTC 05/15/11 |
| It may just be because it's 2:30 in the morning, but you're points of discussion seem to be getting increasingly less… related? :o) Yeah I agree with all that. I think Jim's involvement with Bat could NEVER be considered producer, I think he was the artist. Todd extracted Jim's baby, where Jim was the artist. Meat was to the project as Roy Bittan or Max Weinberg were. And I don't doubt that Meat had dick all to do with the intricacies of Bat 2. Clearly he had dick all to do with Bat 3, when it comes down to it. If it had been someone other than Desmond producing, the end result would bare NO relation to what we got. Desmond was the artist. And he was let down big time by his own inability to get decent vocal performances from Meat. I'm sure he didn't enjoy recording Bat 2. That would explain why the story was "Jimmy will be producing Bat 3, but Peter Mokran will be recording my vocals cause he's the best thing since sliced bread". Then it changed to "Jimmy will be writing, but Michael Beinhorn will be producing cause he's the best thing since sliced bread". Then it changed to "Desmond will be writing and producing, and god how I love me some white sliced bread." > > > > If it isn't a real psychological issue on Meat's part, the > > only other thing I can think of is that he is a REAL prick > > to work with. Like, just total arsehole to work with in > > the studio. Eats people's lunches from the fridge, runs > > over the cat on the way to the studio, never refills the > > toilet paper when he finishes a role. > > I don't know. But I don't think he had a lot of control on > Bat 2. I've heard stories. How Jim was an insane > perfectionist who made Meat record dozens and dozens and > dozens of takes for each line. And doing that at night, > because Jim leads a nocturnal existence, bloody hell... > Bugger that!!! > > I can't imagine he would have had much control over Jim's > baby, though he did get a credit for co-arranging the > songs with the band. > > > > That would explain the rapid turnover of producers and > > songwriters, even when he explicitly expresses a desire to > > work with them again. > > And then there's the record labels, which you realize > makes it infernally difficult to release a box set. I > wouldn't expect anything like Beatles Anthology or Pink > Floyd Oh, by the way because ALL of the different labels > would have to cooperate in order for something to be > released. That's the reason why half the crappy > compilations stop in the 80s because they don't have > access to the other albums. > > I'm surprised he isn't recording his new one on ANOTHER > label. I thought he might have gotten a 3 album deal, > unless TMIL was SUCH a disappointment that he demanded > another album, bahahaha. > > > > For all that he talks about working with these people > > again, Jim is in fact the ONLY producer he has worked with > > more than once (Bat 2 --> No Matter What, even if Bat 1 > > doesn't count. Which actually, I don't think it does. That > > would have been Todd showing them how it's done cause they > > must have both been pretty green). > > Mmmm, the recent Jim demos have made me doubt just how > involved he was with the production. Or was it simply that > whoever produced the demos convinced him to make them > Country and Western because it was the only way he could > make his music commercial? Hmmmm........ > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Paul Crook producing Hell In A Handbasket - rockfenris2005 04:28 pm UTC 05/15/11 |
| Next: | re: Paul Crook producing Hell In A Handbasket - rockfenris2005 05:13 pm UTC 05/15/11 |
| Thread: |
|