the who

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Dan Woffard x8757

unread,
May 15, 1989, 5:52:54 PM5/15/89
to

KBCO Denvers alt.radio_station announced yesterday that Joe (got any gum)
Walsh was the guitarist backing up Townsend on the electric guitar work
while Townsend dedicates himself to acoustic guitar because of his hearing
problems. I don't know how the rest of the net fills about this but I can't
think of a worse choice. I am going to wait for some reviews before commiting
to this one.

Walsh was in Denver for a 1 week radio morning show last year and completely
em bare assed himself. If his last album and radio performance are ANY indecation he could single handedly ruin this whole show. I really hope this is not the
case and a truly talented guitarist shows up instead.

Patrick Madden

unread,
May 16, 1989, 3:40:18 PM5/16/89
to
In article <4...@ncsc1.ATT.COM> d...@ncsc1.ATT.COM (Dan Woffard x8757) writes:
> KBCO Denvers alt.radio_station announced yesterday that Joe (got any gum)
> Walsh was the guitarist backing up Townsend....
> If [Joes] last album and radio performance are ANY indecation he could

> single handedly ruin this whole show.

I guess somebody has to defend Joe.... Joe did the same radio business
in Albuquerque last summer, and got the same bad reviews. No one bought
the new album, just like everywhere else....
**** THE SHOW IN SANTA FE WAS GREAT! **** His playing was in top
form, and his "stage persona" was acceptable. I don't think you
should worry about him detracting from the Who show.
As to what happened with "Got Any Gum" and why he did the radio-thing,
your guess is as good as mine. The only thing I can imagine is some sort
of contractual obligation.
I suppose I ought to mention that he didn't (as far as I could tell) play
anything off "GAG" in Santa Fe--there was some material I didn't recognize,
but it sounded like old James Gang stuff. Hope this puts your mind at ease.

Pkl
--
Patrick "I try to play guitar so I have to defend Joe" H. Madden
...!ucbvax!unmvax!nmtsun!pickle V pic...@nmt.edu
Xytec III: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

Stephen Abbott Carpenter

unread,
May 16, 1989, 10:13:52 PM5/16/89
to
In article <4...@ncsc1.ATT.COM> d...@ncsc1.ATT.COM (Dan Woffard x8757)
writes:
> KBCO Denvers alt.radio_station announced yesterday that Joe (got any
gum)
> Walsh was the guitarist backing up Townsend...I can't think of a worse
choice...

> If [Joes] last album and radio performance are ANY indecation he could
> single handedly ruin this whole show.

By the way, Pete Townshend and Joe Walsh have been good friends for
some time now. Pete credits Walsh with influencing his playing and
improving it immensely. Walsh has said the same. If you don't think
Walsh would be any good, I think you have a poor perception of what Pete
actually gives the group as a guitarist. Their styles are remarkably
similar. I don't think it's fair to judge Joe Walsh's guitar playing
ability, or his ability to back up The Who, based upon his songwriting
(which I like, but it ain't The Who, granted) or his interviewing style
(he does seem like a bum) as opposed to his demonstrated talent.
Besides, if they end up playing a blues song, I'd want Walsh, not
Townshend on lead. Just wait, it's gonna be the best rock'n'roll
combination since Clapton and Allman.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc Carpenter Carnegie Mellow (wish that it were)

John Shipman

unread,
May 17, 1989, 5:21:40 PM5/17/89
to
Doc Carpenter (sc...@andrew.cmu.edu) writes:
> ...Just wait, [Townshend and Walsh is] gonna be the best

> rock'n'roll combination since Clapton and Allman.

Speaking of Clapton and Allman: I bought one of those
terrible first-cut CD's of ``Layla'' and it sounds
worse than my old scratchy LP. Has Polydor or anyone
else done this right? My CD has these numbers on it:

823 392-2 01 #

If I understand correctly how these numbers work, the
second mastering should be 823 393-2 02.

This CD is legendary for its rotten sound. I read at
least two reviewers that raked them over the coals
for it; the Green Catalog rates this a 3 sonically.

I don't understand why the sound is so bad. This was
not exactly a garage band when the recording was made;
Clapton and Allman were already superstars. There
should be a decent master around somewhere.
--
John Shipman/Zoological Data Processing/Socorro, New Mexico
USENET: ucbvax!unmvax!nmtsun!john CSNET: jo...@nmtsun.nmt.edu ``A lesson from
past over-machined societies...the devices themselves condition the users to
employ each other the way they employ machines.'' --Frank Herbert

Gary L Dare

unread,
May 18, 1989, 1:04:16 AM5/18/89
to
In article <26...@nmtsun.nmt.edu> John Shipman wrote:
>
>I don't understand why the sound is so bad.
>There should be a decent master around somewhere.

The CD has been pressed off of a digital version of the LP master! )-;
The original masters were only found recently during the assembly of
Clapton's "Crossroads", which includes cuts from the never-released
second album. I've read that a re-release in a deluxe package with
bonus cuts comprised of studio jams (two to three hours worth) is now
under consideration. That's why I'm holding off.

gld

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare > g...@eevlsi.ee.columbia.EDU
> g...@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU
"SLAINTE MHAITH!" > g...@cunixc.BITNET

Bob Schneider

unread,
May 19, 1989, 3:12:57 PM5/19/89
to
In article <26...@nmtsun.nmt.edu> jo...@nmtsun.nmt.edu (John Shipman) writes:

>I don't understand why the sound is so bad. This was
>not exactly a garage band when the recording was made;
>Clapton and Allman were already superstars. There
>should be a decent master around somewhere.

I wouldn't count on a decent master. You can clearly hear that
there was too much gap between the tape and the heads when Layla
was recorded. Also, you can actually hear nasty buzzing in a couple
of places where it soulds like channels were overloaded during
recording. The recording engineer must have been taking some
serious drugs during Layla. It's really a travesty of justice that
such an incredible music work was ruined by poor equipment and poor
engineering.

Bill Puig

unread,
May 19, 1989, 12:29:09 PM5/19/89
to
In article <26...@nmtsun.nmt.edu> jo...@nmtsun.nmt.edu (John Shipman) writes:
>second mastering should be 823 393-2 02.
>
>I don't understand why the sound is so bad. This was
>not exactly a garage band when the recording was made;
>Clapton and Allman were already superstars.

Clapton was indeed a superstar by the time "Layla" was recorded
(late '70) but he was hardly a sound connosseiur. Ever listen
to the albums Clapton made with Cream, or the Blind Faith album?
They all were recorded and mixed using equipment that was less
than late '60's "state of the art". I'm pretty sure all of these
records were mastered in 4-track.

"Layla" was also one of Clapton's first attempts at record production,
which didn't help the album's sound much -- Bill Halverson must have
worked his butt off to achieve a decent mix. And, of course, the album
was recorded over a VERY short time span during which, according to
Clapton in various interviews conducted over the years, enormous
amounts of controlled substances were consumed!

In 1970, calling Duane Allman a "superstar" would have been more than
a bit gratuitous. Allman was well respected in the music biz by '70
based on his work as an Atlantic Records session player, as well as
for the first Allman Brothers album. (The Allmans' second album,
"Idlewild South", came out in the fall of '70, around the time "Layla"
was recorded.) But his "superstardom" wasn't really established
until later, with the releases of "Layla" (late '70) and "The Allman
Brothers Band at Fillmore East" (mid-'71). Unfortunately for Duane --
and the listening public in general -- he would have only a few short
months to enjoy this status.

---+---

-- Bill "There you sit, lookin' so cool
{bellcore!}rruxjj!billp while the whole world
is passin' you by..."

-- Clapton/Whitlock

Michael Bennett Klein

unread,
May 21, 1989, 5:27:21 AM5/21/89
to
This reminds me...I just picked up an Atlantic Records
"Classic Rock 1966-1988" collection. It's a 3 CD set (I don't
know about its availability on other formats). It's a good
assortment, and the sound quality is pretty good. Better,
even, than some of the songs sound on their "native" albums.
The tracks, in the order they appear:

DISC ONE (1964 - 1970)
---- ---
The Young Rascals In the Midnight Hour
Buffalo Springfield Bluebird
Iron Butterfly In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida
Buffalo Springfield I Am a Child
Cream White Room
Vanilla Fudge You Keep Me Hanging On
Led Zeppelin Dazed and Confused
Crosby, Stills & Nash Suite: Judy Blue Eyes
Led Zeppelin Whole Lotta Love
Derek & the Dominoes Layla
CSN & Young Ohio

DISC TWO (1971 - 1978)
---- ---
Yes I've Seen All Good People
The Rolling Stones Brown Sugar
Led Zeppelin Stairway to Heaven
Yes Heart of the Sunrise
The J. Geils Band Give it to Me
Emerson, Lake & Palmer Karn Evil 9/1st Impression, part 2
Bad Company Can't Get Enough
Genesis The Carpet Crawlers
Alice Cooper Welcome to My Nightmare
Firefall You Are the Woman
Foreigner Feels Like the First Time
Peter Gabriel Solsbury Hill
The Rolling Stones Miss You

DISC THREE (1979 - 1988)
---- -----
AC/DC Highway to Hell
AC/DC Back in Black
Pete Townshend Rough Boys
Phil Collins In the Air Tonight
Foreigner Juke Box Hero
Stevie Nicks Stop Draggin' My Heart Around
Crosby, Stills & Nash Southern Cross
Yes Owner of a Lonely Heart
Twisted Sister You Can't Stop Rock 'n' Roll
Julian Lennon Valotte
Ratt Round and Round
Mike + The Mechanics All I Need is a Miracle
Genesis Tonight, Tonight, Tonight
INXS New Sensation
White Lion Wait
Robert Plant Tall Cool One


Depite the 'duds' on the collection (Twisted Sister and
Alice Cooper?!), I like it a lot. I've made myself a couple
mix tapes off of it, and it's great for some of those songs
where you "like the song but don't wanna buy the album." (Has
this ever happened to YOU?!) There's a little hiss on some of
the tracks, especially in the 1964-1970 stuff, but not much.
And I listen to it cranked through headphones, so there's
bound to be a certain amount anyway.

Michael

Les...@cup.portal.com OR m...@bucsf.bu.edu

John J. Wood

unread,
May 21, 1989, 2:54:58 PM5/21/89
to

Let's not forget that a LOT of Clapton/Allman releases before LAYLA
sound pretty shoddy, too. ALL of Cream's studio output is a great example.
The Allman Brothers studio albums (the self titled debut and IDLEWIDE
SOUTH) suffer the same injustice.

Tom Dowd was the producer and engineer for LAYLA and The Allman Brothers
albums. Considering the sound quality of the Cream and Allmans output,
the sound of LAYLA shouldn't be a big surprise.

Let's not forget the fact that the recording technology was not the
best back in the late sixties and early seventies. That is primarily
the principal problem here, IMHO.

I have heard the LAYLA CD, and frankly, outside the first pressing of
Clapton's 461 OCEAN BOULEVARD, the first pressing of The Doors'
STRANGE DAYS and Jethro Tull's M.U. - THE BEST OF, this is the WORST
sounding domestic CD these ears have heard.

I understand that LAYLA will be re-released with a much cleaner mix and
extra tracks. Still, don't expect any sonic miracles.


Catfish John W.


"It's too late, she's gone..."

John Shipman

unread,
May 22, 1989, 3:26:38 AM5/22/89
to
In article <750...@hpfcdc.HP.COM> r...@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Bob Schneider) writes:
> I wouldn't count on a decent master.

In article <20...@ur-cc.UUCP> jo...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (John J. Wood) writes:
> Let's not forget the fact that the recording technology was not the

> best...don't expect any sonic miracles.

Thanks to everyone who posted and e-mailed on this topic.
I'm not expecting THAT much out of old albums...however,
when the CD sounds DISTINCTLY worse than my original vinyl
pressings, something is rotten somewhere! I just got out
my LP pressing and AB'd it against the CD, and the CD has
noticeably more hiss, dirtier transients, and a rather
smeared image. I don't think it's my equipment, because
most of the time when I compare CDs against LPs the CDs
sound better.

Dennis J. Kosterman

unread,
May 22, 1989, 7:49:48 AM5/22/89
to
In article <750...@hpfcdc.HP.COM> r...@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Bob Schneider) writes:
>
> ......... The recording engineer must have been taking some

> serious drugs during Layla. It's really a travesty of justice that
> such an incredible music work was ruined by poor equipment and poor
> engineering.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "ruined". Despite the bad
sound, it's still one of my favorite records. Sound isn't everything.
As you say, it's an "incredible music work", and that's what really
matters. The sound is good enough for me. It could be better, but
that never really bothered me -- it certainly doesn't keep me from
enjoying the album...

Dennis J. Kosterman
stu...@astroatc.UUCP

estmdhb

unread,
May 25, 1989, 8:27:16 PM5/25/89
to
In article <20...@ur-cc.UUCP> jo...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (John J. Wood) writes:
>
>Let's not forget the fact that the recording technology was not the
>best back in the late sixties and early seventies. That is primarily
>the principal problem here, IMHO.
>

Don't blame it all on "old technology". Many of the recordings I have
from this period are excellent, far better than many produced now, with a
closer, more life like sound; prodably due to better microphone techniques?

Julian

JANET: est...@uk.ac.warwick.cu

Joseph Nathan Hall

unread,
May 26, 1989, 10:46:48 AM5/26/89
to
In article <20...@ur-cc.UUCP> jo...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (John J. Wood) writes:
>Let's not forget the fact that the recording technology was not the
>best back in the late sixties and early seventies. That is primarily
>the principal problem here, IMHO.

Just not true. Noise-gated consoles came into widespread use in the very
early 1970s. Microphones (at least not the most expensive) haven't
improved much since (some would insist) the late 50's, though I'd probably
put that date 10 years later.

Basically the only thing that has changed in recording technology is that
digital recording, with its lower noise floor, has become more common.
Noise gating is universal. Even sloppy gating, plus digital mastering,
will result in an apparently "cleaner" recording in most cases. This
doesn't mean that analog tape (still used for the vast majority of
multitrack sessions) has gotten quieter (the BEST hasn't, not much), or
that studio ventilation has gotten quieter, or that engineers have gotten
better, or anything ... It's just that a sloppy, slightly hissy master
isn't really a problem for the indiscriminate producer.


>
>I have heard the LAYLA CD, and frankly, outside the first pressing of
>Clapton's 461 OCEAN BOULEVARD, the first pressing of The Doors'
>STRANGE DAYS and Jethro Tull's M.U. - THE BEST OF, this is the WORST
>sounding domestic CD these ears have heard.

Obviously you've never heard "In-a-Gadda-da-Vida" on CD. Whew, it stinks!
(Not that it's worse than the vinyl...)
--
v v sssss|| joseph hall || 201-1D Hampton Lee Court
v v s s || j...@ece-csc.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Cary, NC 27511
v sss || jos...@ece007.ncsu.edu (Try this one first)
-----------|| Standard disclaimers and all that . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lazlo Nibble

unread,
May 26, 1989, 2:33:59 PM5/26/89
to
John J. Wood writes:
>>Let's not forget the fact that the recording technology was not the
>>best back in the late sixties and early seventies. That is primarily
>>the principal problem here, IMHO.

Good engineering transcends technology; I have Frank Sinatra CDs that predate
"Layla's" recording by ten years or more, and they sound wonderful. Maybe
Clapton & Co. should have hired Voyle Gilmore to produce them too? :-)

Lazlo (csbr...@ariel.unm.edu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"BRAAATT! Sorry, Hans...wrong answer!"

John J. Wood

unread,
May 28, 1989, 6:49:12 PM5/28/89
to
In article <40...@ece-csc.UUCP> j...@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes:
>In article <20...@ur-cc.UUCP> jo...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (John J. Wood) writes:
>>Let's not forget the fact that the recording technology was not the
>>best back in the late sixties and early seventies. That is primarily
>>the principal problem here, IMHO.
>
>Just not true. Noise-gated consoles came into widespread use in the very
>early 1970s. Microphones (at least not the most expensive) haven't
>improved much since (some would insist) the late 50's, though I'd probably
>put that date 10 years later.
>
>Basically the only thing that has changed in recording technology is that
>digital recording, with its lower noise floor, has become more common.
>Noise gating is universal. Even sloppy gating, plus digital mastering,
>will result in an apparently "cleaner" recording in most cases. This
>doesn't mean that analog tape (still used for the vast majority of
>multitrack sessions) has gotten quieter (the BEST hasn't, not much), or
>that studio ventilation has gotten quieter, or that engineers have gotten
>better, or anything ... It's just that a sloppy, slightly hissy master
>isn't really a problem for the indiscriminate producer.

You were doing well, Joe, until your "Basically" paragraph. I think there
HAS been a difference in recording technology, as in the RECORDING itself.

The most obvious change has been the "big" drum beat that has dominated
(and ruined quite a few of) most anything recorded today. Also, quality
recording equipment improved drastically over the years. there ARE some
'60's recordings that do sound quite good (the Beatles being the most obvious
example), but in terms of probability, the SOUND of recordings have
gradually improved over the years. Proof: get ANY analog-recorded
album from 1976-on, then get almost any album before 1975. To these ears,
there is a BIG difference. For example, outside the Beatles, find me
ANY pre-1975 album that SOUNDS as good as Little Feat's TIME LOVES A HERO.


>>
>>I have heard the LAYLA CD, and frankly, outside the first pressing of
>>Clapton's 461 OCEAN BOULEVARD, the first pressing of The Doors'
>>STRANGE DAYS and Jethro Tull's M.U. - THE BEST OF, this is the WORST
>>sounding domestic CD these ears have heard.
>
>Obviously you've never heard "In-a-Gadda-da-Vida" on CD. Whew, it stinks!
>(Not that it's worse than the vinyl...)


I have heard some CD's which I feel sound WORSE than vinyl. All the examples
I mentioned, except LAYLA (which is on a par at best) sound that way to these
ears.

And thanks for the tip-off on IN-A-GADDA-DI-VIDA, Joe. :-)

Catfish John W.

"It's late in the evening...."

John M. Relph

unread,
May 30, 1989, 12:18:58 PM5/30/89
to
In article <40...@ece-csc.UUCP> j...@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes:
>Obviously you've never heard "In-a-Gadda-da-Vida" on CD. Whew, it stinks!
>(Not that it's worse than the vinyl...)

Ah, but it IS worse than the vinyl. The vinyl at least is fairly
balanced between channels. The CD sounds like one of the channels is
missing. It's unbelievably bad.
-- John
--
Don't overdo signatures

Joseph Nathan Hall

unread,
May 30, 1989, 6:55:00 PM5/30/89
to
In article <21...@ur-cc.UUCP> jo...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (John J. Wood) writes:
>In article <40...@ece-csc.UUCP> j...@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes:
>>Basically the only thing that has changed in recording technology is that
>>digital recording, with its lower noise floor, has become more common.
>>...

>You were doing well, Joe, until your "Basically" paragraph. I think there
>HAS been a difference in recording technology, as in the RECORDING itself.
>
>The most obvious change has been the "big" drum beat that has dominated
>(and ruined quite a few of) most anything recorded today. Also, quality
>recording equipment improved drastically over the years. there ARE some
>'60's recordings that do sound quite good (the Beatles being the most obvious
>example), but in terms of probability, the SOUND of recordings have
>gradually improved over the years. Proof: get ANY analog-recorded
>album from 1976-on, then get almost any album before 1975. To these ears,
>there is a BIG difference. For example, outside the Beatles, find me
>ANY pre-1975 album that SOUNDS as good as Little Feat's TIME LOVES A HERO.
>
Hmm, one item at a time.

The "big" drum beat... I don't know whether you're referring to "kick" drum
(damped bass drum with an EQ-induced peak of + 5-10 dB at 2-4 kHz, became
very popular with disco in the late 70s, still ubiquitous) or "gated" snare
(snare drum with very wet large-chamber reverb gated through the console or
more commonly with separate unit). The technology to produce kick drum
sounds existed in the 30s (a really bad miking technique would work as well
as EQ), and the technology to produce good gated reverb existed around 1970,
as soon as stable, relatively inexpensive VCOs became available (i.e., in
Moog synthesizers and their descendants). The fact that Steve Lillywhite,
Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins didn't USE gated snare (actually the first
was toms) has nothing to do with the technology. Multi-reverb mixes have
been around for over two decades, although they certainly use more of them now
(20-40 reverb units, sometimes!) than in the late 60s.

As to your claim that 1975 or 1976 represented a turning point in the
"sound" of albums, well, I simply disagree. David Bowie's recordings, and
to some extent those of the Who sound terrible all the way up to the late
70s. On the other hand, early Eagles, BTO, early Alan Parsons engineering
(e.g. DSOTM), etc., and MANY, MANY CLASSICAL RECORDINGS of the period sound
great. There are classical recordings (most from RCA) of the 50s and 60s that
have ambience and mood that could hardly be duplicated easily today ... there's
something to be said for the two-mike approach, you know. What has happened
is that the "de facto" baseline noise floor of recording has improved
through, mostly, the use of NOISE GATING, and that is *it*. VERY FEW ALBUMS,
EVEN NOW, ARE CUT ON DIGITAL MULTI-TRACK TAPE, although most of them are
now mixed down to digital (if they're to be released on CD, although copying
the analog 30ips 1/2" master is still frequently done...)

Go back and listen to the good producers and engineers ... Pink Floyd,
Bob Ezrin, Alan Parsons, George Martin, to name a few ...

John J. Wood

unread,
May 30, 1989, 11:44:05 PM5/30/89
to
In article <41...@ece-csc.UUCP> j...@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) writes:
>Hmm, one item at a time.
>
>The "big" drum beat... I don't know whether you're referring to "kick" drum
>(damped bass drum with an EQ-induced peak of + 5-10 dB at 2-4 kHz, became
>very popular with disco in the late 70s, still ubiquitous) or "gated" snare
>(snare drum with very wet large-chamber reverb gated through the console or
>more commonly with separate unit). The technology to produce kick drum
>sounds existed in the 30s (a really bad miking technique would work as well
>as EQ), and the technology to produce good gated reverb existed around 1970,
>as soon as stable, relatively inexpensive VCOs became available (i.e., in
>Moog synthesizers and their descendants). The fact that Steve Lillywhite,
>Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins didn't USE gated snare (actually the first
>was toms) has nothing to do with the technology. Multi-reverb mixes have
>been around for over two decades, although they certainly use more of them now
>(20-40 reverb units, sometimes!) than in the late 60s.

Good points here, Joe. However, I DO believe that technology changed then.
See my later arguments, amigo. :-)

>
>As to your claim that 1975 or 1976 represented a turning point in the
>"sound" of albums, well, I simply disagree. David Bowie's recordings, and
>to some extent those of the Who sound terrible all the way up to the late
>70s. On the other hand, early Eagles, BTO, early Alan Parsons engineering
>(e.g. DSOTM), etc., and MANY, MANY CLASSICAL RECORDINGS of the period sound
>great. There are classical recordings (most from RCA) of the 50s and 60s that
>have ambience and mood that could hardly be duplicated easily today ... there's

I must say you made some excellent points here, Joe. I think I see your main
point: ENGINEERING, and I agree with that wholeheartedly.

I do agree that most Bowie albums lack the good sound, but I disagree with you
on the Who, especially from WHO'S NEXT on. Listen to the QUADROPHENIA CD
on headphones: definitely a enriching experience. About the only poor-
sounding album (but carried plenty of punch) was TEH WHO BY NUMBERS. WHO
ARE YOU rings very clear as do the two Warner Brothers albums (although IT'S
HARD does sound a tad compressed).


I think you did miss the point on the "drum beat". It seems like every
record I hear today (well, not EVERY but most:-) has that certain drum kick
and sacrifices the other production instruments. Also, I honestly believe
the overall "drum" sound is much clearer than most 60's and 70's recordings.
Some proof: The Police's SYNCHRONICITY compared to most albums from
the past two decades. To me, I have yet to hear better sounding drums
from ANY pre-1973 recording. That Police album used a LOT of "big" drum
beats, which would coincide with your rap.:-)

>
>Go back and listen to the good producers and engineers ... Pink Floyd,
>Bob Ezrin, Alan Parsons, George Martin, to name a few ...
>

Add on Tom Dowd (after LAYLA, that is circa mid-70's), Glyn Johns (for sheer
sonic punch), John Cutler (engineering), and Mark Knophler (surprised?
BROTHERS IN ARMS is all the proof you need:-).

I agree with your list of producers/engineers, but I do think Alan PArsons
overdid it on the echo effects a bit, IMHO. :-)

And, Joe, thanks for this rap. I hope we both learned something from
all this (I certainly did:-).

Catfish John W.

"A rare and different tune...."

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages