not logged in
| re: Paul Crook producing Hell In A Handbasket | |
Posted by:  |
rockfenris2005 05:13 pm UTC 05/15/11 |
| In reply to: | re: Paul Crook producing Hell In A Handbasket - Wilbury 04:38 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) It must be that *Yawns* I'll respond...later today. > > 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 - Wilbury 04:38 pm UTC 05/15/11 |
| Next: | re: Paul Crook producing Hell In A Handbasket - samurai7 03:56 pm UTC 05/15/11 |
| Thread: | |