Just listened the new Neil Diamond - Home before dark.
Excellent.....

What if Rick Rubin would produce the next Stones album,
(if there is any in the first place).

Think about it: RR dit Johnny Cash, Red Hot Chili Peppers
AC/DC, Mick Jagger, Neil Diamond, etc. and each time he
seems to pulls out the best out of a bag of old bones at a
point where is seemed impossible that there would be
a next album, let alone it was going to be worth listening.

And right now, the Stones reached that point.....

Call Mr. Rubin, right now, and get to work Mr Richards!

Est.1962 :blankfriggingstare1 :blankfriggingstare1

< ------   T Bone Burnett !

Keith be willing, it could happen.
He isn't inspired, so we get crappy Jagger solo type shit...

Keith is only part of the problem. Mick may be a bigger one.

Dont forget that Rubin produced Wandering Spirit. Despite the fact that its widely regarded as the best of Jagger's solo albums, it wasnt a happy experience for either of them.

Rubin has already gone on record as saying how frustrating it was to work with Mick, because, being used to brown noses telling him his shit doesnt stink, he basically found it hard to cope with a hands-on producer like Rubin telling him that "you can write better than this".

In theory, it would be a match made in heaven for many fans, but I dont think Rubin would be in any hurry to work with Jagger again, and the feeling is probably mutual.

Keith's likely reaction to Rubin's style of 'studio management' is too horrific to even contemplate.

I think the last 20 years have shown that Mick/Keith have no interest in letting anyone tell them what works etc.In the glory days their pure genius was plenty to make magic when they cared and had passion.Now we get droning Keith ballads and sappy Mick jingles.Its over from a creativity stand point and has been for a long time.Mick and Keith want to be rock stars while Dylan and Young and Springsteen for instance just love the music.ABB was okay but honestly after first 2 spins I havent played it since.

then the Stones release a sub par album that Rick Rubin produced.

Gazza wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2008 at 1:17pm:

Keith is only part of the problem. Mick may be a bigger one. Dont forget that Rubin produced Wandering Spirit. Despite the fact that its widely regarded as the best of Jagger's solo albums, it wasnt a happy experience for either of them. Rubin has already gone on record as saying how frustrating it was to work with Mick, because, being used to brown noses telling him his shit doesnt stink, he basically found it hard to cope with a hands-on producer like Rubin telling him that "you can write better than this". In theory, it would be a match made in heaven for many fans, but I dont think Rubin would be in any hurry to work with Jagger again, and the feeling is probably mutual. Keith's likely reaction to Rubin's style of 'studio management' is too horrific to even contemplate.

Keith aside, Mick is not the type of person to admit he was wrong. It's funny how he complained about Rubin but when he released that Best of joke, he cited Wandering Spirit as the standout of his solo albums. It would be too big of a blow to his ego to ask Rubin back. Consequently, Rubin is a near impossibility. For all their differences, it's funny how Mick and Keith usually agree on things like producers. It might make an interesting album and stop them from writing shite, but I have no hope.

One note about Mick though. People too readily dismiss his desire to try out new things. If anything, that desire is one of the most unique things about the Stones and what has made them great. It often degenerates into disasters like Goddess or Dirty Work or some of the shite on B2B but it also makes for some amazing songs and albums. Hence this whole back to basics argument is not necessarily always the best thing. A different sound I agree with but just trying to recreate a certain era when you're not in that era sounds stupid for a band like the Stones.

The Wick wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2008 at 2:26pm:

One note about Mick though. People too readily dismiss his desire to try out new things. If anything, that desire is one of the most unique things about the Stones and what has made them great. It often degenerates into disasters like Goddess or Dirty Work or some of the shite on B2B but it also makes for some amazing songs and albums. Hence this whole back to basics argument is not necessarily always the best thing. A different sound I agree with but just trying to recreate a certain era when you're not in that era sounds stupid for a band like the Stones.

Apart from a difference in opinion as to the merits of BTB, I couldnt agree more.

The Wick wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2008 at 2:26pm:

One note about Mick though. People too readily dismiss his desire to try out new things. If anything, that desire is one of the most unique things about the Stones and what has made them great. It often degenerates into disasters like Goddess or Dirty Work or some of the shite on B2B but it also makes for some amazing songs and albums. Hence this whole back to basics argument is not necessarily always the best thing. A different sound I agree with but just trying to recreate a certain era when you're not in that era sounds stupid for a band like the Stones.

Gazza beat me to it. If anything, Mick is ALWAYS ready to try new things. That's why we're not getting any "from the vaults" stuff.  He wants so badly to be current, but it's going to take a magician to produce something that would even approach the lofty standards they set in the early '70s, let alone sound contemporary. I'm surprised he finally admitted that "Wandering Spirit" was a standout among his solo work. A shame he can't take a little constructive criticism from Rubin. They might actually come up with something worthy.  As for Keith: Like Gazza pointed out, just imagining him in the studio with Rubin and Jagger is a hair-raising scenario. It's gonna take a miracle and a little humility, and I'm not sure if they can come up with either. It sure would be nice to have an exciting new Stones album to listen to.

If they record a new album again, I bet the producers will be only Mick and Keith. I can't see outside producers giving orders to them at this point.

Soldatti wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2008 at 9:42pm:

If they record a new album again, I bet the producers will be only Mick and Keith. I can't see outside producers giving orders to them at this point.

they dont. thats probably why they keep using Don Was.

Gazza wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 6:18am:

Soldatti wrote on Jul 2nd, 2008 at 9:42pm: If they record a new album again, I bet the producers will be only Mick and Keith. I can't see outside producers giving orders to them at this point. they dont. thats probably why they keep using Don Was.

This is a problem. Playing it close to the vest doesn't work for an artist.....at least in the long run.

TenThousandMotels wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 9:49am:

This is a problem. Playing it close to the vest doesn't work for an artist.....at least in the long run.

**********************BLANK FRIGGING STARE***************

The long run?  The long run?  Forty-six years for a rock and roll band doesn't constitute "the long run"?  

What are you on?

LOL..46 years.... as Charlie would say..about 2 years recording....12 years on the road..and 32 years sitting on their asses....

Zack wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 3:06pm:

TenThousandMotels wrote on Jul 3rd, 2008 at 9:49am: This is a problem. Playing it close to the vest doesn't work for an artist.....at least in the long run. **********************BLANK FRIGGING STARE*************** The long run?  The long run?  Forty-six years for a rock and roll band doesn't constitute "the long run"?   What are you on?

I wasn't refering to the past. I was refering to the future.

What am I on?

:booze

Can someone fill me in on Rubin's "studio management" that would drive Keith crazy? Is he very strict?

I think they quickly realized that ABB was useless and had zero depth, hence their ignoring it live, so they won't repeat that experience, they're not dumb. Now whether they can be bothered to try to do better is anyone's guess, it does seem like Rubin is the only option in town if they still cared about being musicians and not just superstars. Nothing I've seen since the "1998 UK Tax Incident" shows any hope in this area.

gotdablouse wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 6:16pm:

Can someone fill me in on Rubin's "studio management" that would drive Keith crazy? Is he very strict? I think they quickly realized that ABB was useless and had zero depth, hence their ignoring it live, so they won't repeat that experience, they're not dumb. Now whether they can be bothered to try to do better is anyone's guess, it does seem like Rubin is the only option in town if they still cared about being musicians and not just superstars. Nothing I've seen since the "1998 UK Tax Incident" shows any hope in this area.

He's very pushy and isnt easily intimidated by the artist or what lofty reputation or inflated egoes they may have . See my post above about Jagger.

I think they ended up ignoring ABB because they soon stopped kidding themselves that the audience they've chosen to target nowadays and pay lip service to sees them as any more than a greatest hits jukebox.

1. Thanks, I thought there was something specific you were referring to. It worked for Johnny Cash, I say it works for Jagger and Richards if they still care about being musicians...

2. Probably one of the reasons I haven't bothered since November 2002 after that nice show in Okland, which is a shame when we should be so lucky they're still around, but sometimes the show should really stop...May 10th 2005 when they premiered ONNYA was pretty exciting though!

Why bother doing another Stones record if they are not going to try a create another classic?

I agree with whoever it was to said their ego's wouldn't allow them to work with someone like Rubin. The sad fact of the matter is that they need someone of his stature to create the late in the game classic that I believe they still have left in them.

Wouldn't it be amazing to have a truly relevant Stones album in 2009, rather than just another pretty good record that will be used as an excuse for them to tour behind?

The Stones need to put out a quality record next time around and lose the whole superstar act. It's getting tired.

The Rolling Stones do not need Rick Rubin. Rick Rubin's "ninch" per say as a Producer is in the song writing. He is best suited for an artist or group that has supposedly lost their song writing chops and/or has been putting out average or below average efforts and and Rick Rubin's specialty as a Producer is to supposedly bring the artist or group out of their song writing funk.

1. The Stones last three albums were strong. Period. You may not like them. You may prefer to listen to their classic stuff more. Or you may constantly insist on comparing their recent works to the 68-72 era.
Whatever it is, the truth of the matter is Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, and A Bigger Bang were all in no way shape or form average or lack-luster. From a production standpoint they were great. From a song writing standpoint they were all at least "good". The Stones are not in a recording slump or down and out in terms of songwriting abilities (regardless of what some here still may feel). Their last three albums were all really good albums. So, Rick Rubin's saving production style for a band that has lost their chops is irrelevant in this equation.

2. Don Was has the right temperament for them. Rick Rubin does not. Keith and Mick would never "click" with Rubin. Truthfully, I seriously doubt they would care for Rubin and his personality much at all as Gazza already pointed out. Don Was lets The Stones do their thing, yet records them REALLY well. Although it would be "interesting" to have someone eles writing with The Stones while Don Was could handle the recording direction and process. Rubin would try to push the band to his song writing liking and his own direction. That simply would not work with The Rolling Stones. Don Was is a "recording" Producer for the most part when he works with The Stones. Rick Rubin is a "song writing" producer. The Rolling Stones are still writing darn good tunes and they surely would never let someone other than them have complete control in the studio over them. Rubin is known to want complete, or as close to it as he can get complete control over the artists he produces. Rubin and The Stones simply would not do real well together. As Gazza stated, Keith would never stand for any of it (yikes I seriously think Keith would tell him where to go sooner or later) ...Just ask Mick.


Ian

Sorry to see your "remission" in the bass player topic has been shortlived, you are wrong on almost all counts, back to your "Mick is not on the cover of Tattoo You" style it seems.

1. No, bluntly put the songs on the last 3 records generally don't hold their weight, other than a few here and there. Maybe 2 on VL, 4 on B2B and...1/2 on ABB, that's pathetic by their standards or anyone's. This has certainly not been helped by a dull production, particularly on VL and ABB.

2. What are you on Ian with that "songwriting producer"  business. Rubin will be remembered as a MAJOR producer for his work with Johnny Cash and last I checked it didn't include a lot of songwriting by the Man in Black did it ?

No, what we need is a man who will bring out the musicians in them, be it with their own songs or covers, not megastars who have lost touch with the music that made them megastars and indulge in "crap"

Lets face it they've been on auto pilot for years.Largly our fault too as once we started paying huge amounts to hear the same setlists what need did they have to create anything new of classic proportion.Hell Mick cant even sing an entire song now without saying "here we go" four times during it.Anyone know when the next presale opens?

[quote author=Ian Billen link=1215020757/0#19 date=1215225694]The Rolling Stones do not need Rick Rubin. Rick Rubin's "ninch" per say as a Producer is in the song writing. He is best suited for an artist or group that has supposedly lost their song writing chops and/or has been putting out average or below average efforts and and Rick Rubin's specialty as a Producer is to supposedly bring the artist or group out of their song writing funk.

1. The Stones last three albums were strong. Period. You may not like them. You may prefer to listen to their classic stuff more. Or you may constantly insist on comparing their recent works to the 68-72 era.
Whatever it is, the truth of the matter is Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, and A Bigger Bang were all in no way shape or form average or lack-luster. From a production standpoint they were great. From a song writing standpoint they were all at least "good". The Stones are not in a recording slump or down and out in terms of songwriting abilities (regardless of what some here still may feel). Their last three albums were all really good albums. So, Rick Rubin's saving production style for a band that has lost their chops is irrelevant in this equation.

2. Don Was has the right temperament for them. Rick Rubin does not. Keith and Mick would never "click" with Rubin. Truthfully, I seriously doubt they would care for Rubin and his personality much at all as Gazza already pointed out. Don Was lets The Stones do their thing, yet records them REALLY well. Although it would be "interesting" to have someone eles writing with The Stones while Don Was could handle the recording direction and process. Rubin would try to push the band to his song writing liking and his own direction. That simply would not work with The Rolling Stones. Don Was is a "recording" Producer for the most part when he works with The Stones. Rick Rubin is a "song writing" producer. The Rolling Stones are still writing darn good tunes and they surely would never let someone other than them have complete control in the studio over them. Rubin is known to want complete, or as close to it as he can get complete control over the artists he produces. Rubin and The Stones simply would not do real well together. As Gazza stated, Keith would never stand for any of it (yikes I seriously think Keith would tell him where to go sooner or later) ...Just ask Mick.



The Stones have made  three pretty good records in a row. Granted it's the only three records they have made in 14 years.

The problem is, the world does not want another pretty good Stones album. The public wants the greatest and most famous band in the world to make a truly great record. It may not be fair, but the Stones are held to a higher standard.

In my mind Rubin could get that out of the Stones the same way he did for Jagger.  Is it simply a coincidence that "Wandering Spirit"
is Jagger's best solo album by far? Somebody needs to tell Mick and Keith no in the studio just as Rubin did with Jagger for "Wandering Spirit"

The Stones have fallen into a trap of being superstars and not artists. Mick has had this issue for years, but always had Keith to bring him back to reality. Now Keith is believing his own press clippings these days. Ask yourself this question. What % of time does Keith actually play on stage compared to his posing? Keith may not want a kick in the ass, but artistically he needs one. While he is a bigger "star" than ever. Musically he is a shadow of his former self.

Enough posing, fashion shows, movie projects...etc  The Stones need to make a GREAT album and not simply a pretty good one next time around. Rubin, is one of the few people who can bring them to the next level.

If the Stones next album isn't a considerable hit will they be able to sell tickets the way they have in the past? How many times can they charge outrageous ticket prices and expect the same audience to show up to see and hear basically the same show they have been putting on since 1989?

This time out I think the Stones need a hit album to sell their tour.  Rather than just put out an album as an excuse to tour. They have more riding on this next album than usual. They would be foolish not to work with Rubin or a producer of his stature. Assuming that there is a next album.

Dudes need to bust a move.

I don't think they'll bother again, too much pain to do it right and not enough financial reward, the only thing they've been interested in since 1998 and arguable 1989. Money is the foundation of the 1989 reunion 'Keith and I were laughing about how much money we were going to make", Jagger on the Barbados meeting in early 1989 at Eddie Grant's studio and who was there with them...Rupert Lowenstein, not a music producer !


PS - "Poison Dart" please fix your quotes !

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 9:41pm:

The Rolling Stones do not need Rick Rubin. Rick Rubin's "ninch" per say as a Producer is in the song writing. He is best suited for an artist or group that has supposedly lost their song writing chops and/or has been putting out average or below average efforts and and Rick Rubin's specialty as a Producer is to supposedly bring the artist or group out of their song writing funk.

Sorry Ian, but what are you on about. Have you looked down the list of the records he's produced? Lots of the people he produced were at their peak. A perfect example is Tom Petty who has been putting out consistently good songs for ages and the Wildflowers album is up there with some of the best stuff he's ever done. The rest of your post is just pure opinion and making it seem like a cold hard fact that the last three albums were strong or that the production was excellent, doesn't make it so. I find the production on the last three to be pretty boring at best and it makes me laugh that ABB was supposed to be stripped down and back to basics. Maybe in terms of how they wrote and recorded, but the production (Mick and Keith's fault) was rubbish.

A Reply to Gotablouse:



gotdablouse wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 6:36am:

Sorry to see your "remission" in the bass player topic has been shortlived, you are wrong on almost all counts, back to your "Mick is not on the cover of Tattoo You" style it seems. 1. No, bluntly put the songs on the last 3 records generally don't hold their weight, other than a few here and there. Maybe 2 on VL, 4 on B2B and...1/2 on ABB, that's pathetic by their standards or anyone's. This has certainly not been helped by a dull production, particularly on VL and ABB. ___________________________ That is a matter of opinion. The majority opinion, from a non-bias and nonobjective ear is that in fact they were good albums with good songs. So, you are telling me that their were only a total of two good tracks on Voodoo Lounge and the rest is total garbage? Your also saying here there is a total of one or two good songs on A Bigger Bang? I am being realistic gotablouse. You are not. As I said before those last albums may not be your particular "Stones cup of tea" per say but they were well done albums and the song writing was good enough. 2. What are you on Ian with that "songwriting producer"  business. Rubin will be remembered as a MAJOR producer for his work with Johnny Cash and last I checked it didn't include a lot of songwriting by the Man in Black did it ? _________________________________ That is example from one album. Rubin's career in the industry and production credits span decades. He is best known now for his stripped down recording style and having the artist write songs with his input and control all over it without a glossy production. That is Rick Rubin's latest signature and what he is most known for. That is fact. *I personally know, and have worked with some people that have recorded with both Mick and Rubin separately (very true). They really feel it would not be it a good mix. I am going to have to take their word on it versus yours. Aside from what they say or believe, it is and has been my personal opinion for quite a while now that there would not be good chemistry between Rubin and The Stones and the two sides would ultimately result in a clash of heads. No, what we need is a man who will bring out the musicians in them, be it with their own songs or covers, not megastars who have lost touch with the music that made them megastars and indulge in "crap"

Regardless of whatever man that does this it would take a certain type of person to bring out the "musicianship" of a group. Especially a group in The Rolling Stones class. They are the only ones in that class.  19 times out of 20 bringing out the musicianship in a group is not accomplished by trying to strong arm them (only in certain situations). In this situation a group of the Rolling Stones age and stature it simply would not make them adhere, but they would go the other way.

You can say what you want. That is the reality of the matter. My opinion is mostly based on facts and incite from seasoned recording professionals that I had the privilege of knowing and working with (Michael Reid, Elan Trujilio, and one other that must remain anonymous) who have actually worked with Mick and Rick Rubin on separate occasions. Two of these people said it probably would not be a good idea at all and the last person was "ify" and unsure on whether or not that could work. He acted as if it would be risky.

Mr. Gotablouse, without being rude I am going to have put it like this. I will take these peoples word on it any day versus yours. This is also coupled with my own opinion. I know a bit about recording and the production process myself. These people have been there for years. I more less just scratched the surface compared to them. They know the industry quite well, know production styles, seen the two sides of this debate work in person in the very same room and know how each interacts with the artist and runs things. You should now take MY word for it. Tattoo You or no Tattoo You, take this one from me.


Ian

[quote author=gotdablouse link=1215020757/0#20 date=1215257773]Sorry to see your "remission" in the bass player topic has been shortlived, you are wrong on almost all counts, back to your "Mick is not on the cover of Tattoo You" style it seems.

1. No, bluntly put the songs on the last 3 records generally don't hold their weight, other than a few here and there. Maybe 2 on VL, 4 on B2B and...1/2 on ABB, that's pathetic by their standards or anyone's. This has certainly not been helped by a dull production, particularly on VL and ABB.

___________________________

Second part to Gotablouse:

Gotablouse that is a matter of opinion. The majority opinion, from a non-bias and nonobjective ear is that in fact they were good albums with good songs. So, you are telling me that their were only a total of two good tracks on Voodoo Lounge and the rest is total garbage? Your also saying here there is a total of one or two good songs on A Bigger Bang? I am being realistic Gotablouse. You are not. As I said before those last albums may not be your particular "Stones cup of tea" per say but they were well done albums and the song writing was good enough. It sure as heck was not amateur garbage as you are implying here. In fact it was some of the better music of the year of their releases. A Bigger Bang, Voodoo Lounge, and as well Bridges to Babylon were all easily arguably in the top ten albums in terms of quality in the years they came out. You may not care for them, but that is the reality of it.

Ian

Response to Poison Dart:

Guy (or Maam), I hear where your coming from as far as your wanting a super great record from The Stones.

As far as the Rick Rubin factor - Please See my responses to Gotablouse on this subject.


I think Voodoo Lounge was darn good. I think BTB was good as an album (although not a personal fav but it is rated as a "good" album in my opinion). I think ABB is "pretty good" by Stones standards (which are high) but more-over was a "needed" album" in terms of The Rolling Stones needing to return to basics and put out a simplistic, direct, hard hitting disc without any poppy overtones or really, much any poppy influence at all. That one was for the fans that longed for that. It was needed in my opinion.

Now, Can they do better than any of the last three? Hmmm I truly don't know. I am usually the one who always keeps the faith around here but truly I do not know on this one. Sure, I would LOVE TO DEATH to see them put out a huge hit album again. Even a few top ten singles. Can you imagine that? That would make my year ten fold!!! But with today's radio we both know that is almost impossible.

but my question to you is ....IS IT STILL POSSIBLE to get that out of them in 2008/2009?

forget the radio top ten hits. Can they do even better than Voodoo Lounge and A Bigger Bang if they REALLY and Truly put everything they had into it with a hit making producer that tried to also stay gounded to The Stones musical roots?

COULD they do even better? Or is that their limit today, in any circumstance?

I am curious what you, and the board TRULY feel. I truly would be surprised if they surpassed the quality of any of the past three works (remember they were pretty good works over all). Could they make a great album again? At their age? Could they even sound great at their age again as in "Yeah, great fuckin tune"..... "This song kicks ass and it's classic" I realize those last two phrases sound silly but ...you know what I mean. Could they?

Ian

Oh man, three idiotic posts by Ian to start the week, that's tough !

The fact that your twisted or confused mind would make you write that I said that other than the good tracks the rest was garbage is a good summary of why I won't waste my time reading your posts any more.

Something to ponder for the day Ian, how does it feel being constantly asked "what are you on" by 99% of the posters here make you feel, don't you think there's a reason for this?

gotdablouse wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 2:59am:

Oh man, three idiotic posts by Ian to start the week, that's tough ! The fact that your twisted or confused mind would make you write that I said that other than the good tracks the rest was garbage is a good summary of why I won't waste my time reading your posts any more. Something to ponder for the day Ian, how does it feel being constantly asked "what are you on" by 99% of the posters here make you feel, don't you think there's a reason for this?

_________________________________________

Gotablouse wrote:

"1. No, bluntly put the songs on the last 3 records generally don't hold their weight, other than a few here and there. Maybe 2 on VL, 4 on B2B and...1/2 on ABB, that's pathetic by their standards or anyone's. This has certainly not been helped by a dull production, particularly on VL and ABB."

Ok. You said "don't hold their weight" ....meaning what? ... slightly below average? Clear the air. What exactly are you saying here? I am used to some here completely knocking ABB. A few also knock VL. It was my assessment you were headed or are in that same direction.

Still, they are not below average songs (if that is what you mean). Don Was's production is of the best in the world. Yes, he is much better than Rubin as far as a production standpoint goes. Don knows much more about that part than Rubin does. Was knows what mics, processors, positions, and mastering techniques to use in each situation where it would benefit the album. Was piocks the right mixing engineer for the recordings at hand. One that would compliment the specific recording. Rubin does not know as much from a  techie standpoint. He openly admits that. So you thinking Rubin would do better simply "does not hold water". Glossy, or really going heavy, or even too different on the production side of things does not mean better. This can lead to material being "over-produced" . with a band that sounds like The Stones this is much easier screw up. Even adding little nuances will make them sound over produced if you don't do it perfectly or....just leave things as-is. Like I said with how the Stones are often trying to spruce things up would hurt a track more than help it.

Ian

They should work with Phil Spector, I say. Maybe they wouldn't get a lot of work done, but the craziness would be unmatched.

What's a 'ninch' ?

MrPleasant wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 2:34pm:

They should work with Phil Spector, I say. Maybe they wouldn't get a lot of work done, but the craziness would be unmatched.

They could compare wigs and guns for starters.

lol Gazza !  :aimama

i'm suprised you haven't been "coleman'd" for that!

Gazza wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 2:47pm:

What's a 'ninch' ?

It's something that if you give the Stones one, they'll take a nmile.

Gazza wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 2:47pm:

What's a 'ninch' ?

Sorry it is actually "Ninche".

If you are serious I suppose I'll explain being as your from the UK. It may be an American thing (not sure).

These are my definitions but this is what it means basically-

A specific aspect of something.
A certain area of something.
A unique part of something or a specific branch of something that is someones strong point or the aspect which gains them notoriety.

As in.... this is Rubins ninche.

Rubins particular "ninche" as a record producer in the most recent part of his career far as recording artists as of late is his stripping down the production and reviving an artists songwriting skills. Taking someone that is in a rutt, out of their slump while laying off the glossy and slick production and sticking to their core sound. That is Rubins ninche (at least right now).

I realize this is exactly what many here want him to do with The Stones. I realize this is specifically what many here feel The Stones need exactly. Hell, it seems (before ABB) that would of been just what the doctor ordered right. Well maybe they do. But Rubin is not the dude that can get that done with them.

I'll admit it really looks great on paper but ....my opinion (and some quality insiders I spoke to on this very debate) think it would be a big mistake.

*Not everyone here can understand that. They think "well Rubin did it with Cash so he needs to do that with The Stones. Thats what they need". It is not that simple. Johny Cash is not The Rolling Stones and The Rolling Stones are not Johnny Cash.  Certain producers get along well with certain artists and vice-versa.

Hint Hint ....in case Gotablouse and some others do not understand....you have to not only respect your producer you have to like them and want to listen to them as well. Preferably the artist and the producer will actually "click". This is necessary before you can put out really good music for him (or her).

Rick Rubin and The Rolling Stones would never "gel" together. Ask people in the industry who know how the camps operate and who know and have had the pleasure of working with the two's separate personalities and many of them will tell you that. In a perfect world it would be nice to get them together. However in the real world they would never get that sewed up. Hell Mick was so fed-up with it in 93 he just left the tracks for Wondering Spirit it in Rubin's hands and went his own way after the tracks were recorded. He wanted away from it. Double that with both he and Keith who would be much less cooperative under Rubin's control. The Stones would never record for someone and then say screw what he does with the record and mixing of the album in this day and age. He was not around for the mixing because he and Rubin were not seeing eye to eye. This is my understanding at least.

I realize Rubin did Micks best solo album...but that was not easy and it did not go as Mick wanted it in the recording or the release of the material. Mick would NEVER stand for it now, on a Stones album and Keith would be worse. Remember Babyface, Puffdaddy, and the Dust Brothers on BTB   ....it didn't fly and they chucked them.

*If Rubin could not get along with Mick Solo in 93 how on earth could he try this with both Mick AND Keith (Keith yikes) in 2008? I just can't see them getting on.


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 9:33pm:

Gazza wrote on Jul 7th, 2008 at 2:47pm: What's a 'ninch' ? Sorry it is actually "Ninche".

0 for 2.

left shoe shuffle wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 10:19pm:

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 7th, 2008 at 9:33pm: Gazza wrote on Jul 7th, 2008 at 2:47pm: What's a 'ninch' ? Sorry it is actually "Ninche". 0 for 2.

LOL!!!



Riffy

Riffhard wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 10:22pm:

left shoe shuffle wrote on Jul 7th, 2008 at 10:19pm: Ian Billen wrote on Jul 7th, 2008 at 9:33pm: Gazza wrote on Jul 7th, 2008 at 2:47pm: What's a 'ninch' ? Sorry it is actually "Ninche". 0 for 2. LOL!!! Riffy

________________________________________

OK Niche. I don't use spell check on my computer unless it is business related or something official. Otherwise I "try" to spell everything on my own ....as you can often tell.

And guess what, I do spell everything on my own. It is just not always correct spelling.


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 7^th, 2008 at 9:33pm:

Gazza wrote on Jul 7th, 2008 at 2:47pm: What's a 'ninch' ? Sorry it is actually "Ninche". If you are serious I suppose I'll explain being as your from the UK. It may be an American thing (not sure). These are my definitions but this is what it means basically- A specific aspect of something. A certain area of something. A unique part of something or a specific branch of something that is someones strong point or the aspect which gains them notoriety. As in.... this is Rubins ninche. Rubins particular "ninche" as a record producer in the most recent part of his career far as recording artists as of late is his stripping down the production and reviving an artists songwriting skills. Taking someone that is in a rutt, out of their slump while laying off the glossy and slick production and sticking to their core sound. That is Rubins ninche (at least right now). I realize this is exactly what many here want him to do with The Stones. I realize this is specifically what many here feel The Stones need exactly. Hell, it seems (before ABB) that would of been just what the doctor ordered right. Well maybe they do. But Rubin is not the dude that can get that done with them. I'll admit it really looks great on paper but ....my opinion (and some quality insiders I spoke to on this very debate) think it would be a big mistake. *Not everyone here can understand that. They think "well Rubin did it with Cash so he needs to do that with The Stones. Thats what they need". It is not that simple. Johny Cash is not The Rolling Stones and The Rolling Stones are not Johnny Cash.  Certain producers get along well with certain artists and vice-versa. Hint Hint ....in case Gotablouse and some others do not understand....you have to not only respect your producer you have to like them and want to listen to them as well. Preferably the artist and the producer will actually "click". This is necessary before you can put out really good music for him (or her). Rick Rubin and The Rolling Stones would never "gel" together. Ask people in the industry who know how the camps operate and who know and have had the pleasure of working with the two's separate personalities and many of them will tell you that. In a perfect world it would be nice to get them together. However in the real world they would never get that sewed up. Hell Mick was so fed-up with it in 93 he just left the tracks for Wondering Spirit it in Rubin's hands and went his own way after the tracks were recorded. He wanted away from it. Double that with both he and Keith who would be much less cooperative under Rubin's control. The Stones would never record for someone and then say screw what he does with the record and mixing of the album in this day and age. He was not around for the mixing because he and Rubin were not seeing eye to eye. This is my understanding at least. I realize Rubin did Micks best solo album...but that was not easy and it did not go as Mick wanted it in the recording or the release of the material. Mick would NEVER stand for it now, on a Stones album and Keith would be worse. Remember Babyface, Puffdaddy, and the Dust Brothers on BTB   ....it didn't fly and they chucked them. *If Rubin could not get along with Mick Solo in 93 how on earth could he try this with both Mick AND Keith (Keith yikes) in 2008? I just can't see them getting on. Ian

Fair enough Ian. I don't completely agree but I think you're right on some points. By the way, I never remember Puff Daddy ever being on BTB or on any outtakes. I don't think he's ever worked with the band in any way- Thank God.

Mr. Wick:

They were talking about getting Puff Daddy to produce some things on BTB I believe (but I'm still not sure if this was more fiction than fact)  I am not sure why but it didn't happen. He never made it to the studio. Maybe they were "scouting" potential producers and he was contacted.

Babyface never had any release with The Stones. He gave an attempt to produce "Already Over Me" on BTB and Mick didn't like the keyboards. In Mick's words "it just sounded like keyboards over top of Wild Horses". Keith said Baby Face would be "F#### Face" when Mick got done with him in reference to Mick might not liking the production sound from Babyface.

Keith did not like The Dust Brothers sound and made that known. He said they ruined two good Stones songs.

It takes a certain type of Producer to work with The Stones. Rubin isn't that type what-so-ever. In fact, he is opposite and a complete "180" of that type, and this pair of opposites would not attract. The two parties would just clash heads IMO.

Rubin has been known to put out a good album from a band and they not particularly caring for the experience. The Stones would halt the process I believe instead of going on with it when the Stones seen things were not going as they wanted versus a band like Slipknot who just carried on with it and then put out a good record. Don Was has indicated on a few occasions you have to be careful around them or they can instantly revolt and put you out.

I know it may not always be the best approach to take for them but that is how they are.

*The heck of it is you can't change that and ask the members of The Rolling Stones to be much more "willing" and to let somebody eles  control more because that would be altering and changing who they are and then the creativity suffers and good music simply is really hard to get out of a band like The Stones when they have to cir cum to someone elese's wants versus theirs.  So it isn't like they could just say "do it his way and let it happen" because they would be blocked by this creative wise as well as putting quality output in the sessions that would take place. Again, this, of coarse is all just my opinion. We don't know for sure. It is just an educated guess by me.

Recording a record is often (not always) 50% hard work and know-how and 50% personality interaction.

This is how The Stones equation is in recording a record to my knowledge.


Ian

Gazza wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 6:18am:

Soldatti wrote on Jul 2nd, 2008 at 9:42pm: If they record a new album again, I bet the producers will be only Mick and Keith. I can't see outside producers giving orders to them at this point. they dont. thats probably why they keep using Don Was.

_______________________

Don Was doesn't give orders. that is not his style. Besides, as you know The Stones would never stand for it. Don Was "steers" a band in the direction he thinks is right for what they want, and what he thinks it could be like.

However, Don Was is not that much of a push-over to The Stones as he says in interviews and as this board feels he is.

Remember in VL he "insisted" to Mick that he deliver lyrics to songs that were not yet written in order to form the songs around the lyrics. Mick wanted to make the songs and fill in the lyrics as they went along and dis-agreed with Was adamantly. Regardless, Was's approach for that album worked well for it.  

Also in that album Mick and Charlie were working on some good African grooves that Was steered the band away from consistently. I remember Mick remarking in that he wondered what would of came out of those grooves if Was had not kept steering them away from those grooves.

Then again, that was 14 years ago. The Stones may have changed a bit in their production out-look toward Was since then but still...  He didn't always say yes to The Stones as many think he does here.

Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 4:30am:

Remember in VL he "insisted" to Mick that he deliver lyrics to songs that were not yet written in order to form the songs around the lyrics. Mick wanted to make the songs and fill in the lyrics as they went along and dis-agreed with Was adamantly. Regardless, Was's approach for that album worked well for it.   Also in that album Mick and Charlie were working on some good African grooves that Was steered the band away from consistently. I remember Mick remarking in that he wondered what would of came out of those grooves if Was had not kept steering them away from those grooves.

If both of these things are true, it makes me even more convinced that Was is not the man for the job. I just wish they tried something new, whatever it may be. The music first lyrics later method worked on their best songs, so I wouldn't mind that at all. Also, Mick made what seemed like a very valid criticism of VL when he said Was and the engineer were trying to recreate Exile. I actually like VL more than the other newer stuff but it does have a half baked Exile feel to it with not enough good songs to complete. As for African grooves, I wish they had stuck to some of them. On the technical stuff, fine, Was is great and as a solid musician, he can connect in way that others may not, but the records sound wimpy and for all of Keith's criticism about Mick's wimpy solo efforts, I don't see too much difference in production terms between those and the Stones records.

Agreed, his production is dull and certainly doesn't help average songs, that's why B2B stands out in their post Exile production, it had different ideas and different producers. Everyone may not like Juiced, but at least it's memorable, who outside some crazy mothers remembers "Baby break it down" or half of the studd on SW, VL or ABB.

What Ian wrote is indeed what I remember from the VL era, except that Was bugged Mick for lyrics on the B-Sides, he probably should have worried more about the music for the B-sides, just blues jams, I guess he didn't want another "Cook, Cook"! Mick was also unhappy about Was nixing the grooves although Charlie said they were just grooves. If you listen to the fabulous VB, VS, VR boots, you'll see that Keith also had great grooves in store, it kills me that stuff like "Make it Now" was not used, this is Keith's best song in decades, the fact that Was passed on it and that Mick and Keith dind't insist on using it shows they don't care much about the music anymore IMHO.

VL is really a poor man's Exile, the average songs and by the numbers playing are in no way redeemed by the dull and boring production.

He's not affiliated with Jack, is he?

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b237/open-g/Computer/newozzyr.jpg

Don Was's production is dull? Hmmmm, well that opinion is surprising. I am really surprised at how many here don't care for him and some others don't care for his production.

I know so many audiophiles and engineers and they could say nothing bad about him and held him on a pedestal. Many thought he was beyond other producers (as I do). ....Not because of who he was or who he worked with but because of how good they thought he recorded/produced people. Some of these people were not real easy to impress as well being as they sort of had ego's.


Ian

Ian I don't think anyone doubts his producing talent. I actually like a lot of other albums he's worked on, especially his stuff with Bonnie Raitt, but I just don't think it has really turned out too great with the Stones. That may be entirely Mick and Keith's fault, but I still think they should give someone else a try.

The Wick wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 4:54pm:

Ian I don't think anyone doubts his producing talent. I actually like a lot of other albums he's worked on, especially his stuff with Bonnie Raitt, but I just don't think it has really turned out too great with the Stones. That may be entirely Mick and Keith's fault, but I still think they should give someone else a try.

_________________________


When I first heard "Love Is Strong" I knew they had someone really good. I can remember exactly where I was, who I was with, and was remarking to them how "rich and raw" sounding it was and noted that it is a very different groove the Stones style evolved into on that song. I was impressed from the first listen and have been impressed ever since.

*In addition I can distinctly remember how impressed I was from the first few singles I heard on the radio. I noted it was far better and totally renewed sounding in naturalness and smoothness compared to Steel Wheels. It was not forced and they sounded like a band again. It sounded natural again.

Have you heard The Black Crowes Lions album? WOW! How about Iggy Pop Avenue B?

Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 4:30am:

[quote author=Gazza link=1215020757/0#10 date=1215083889] Remember in VL he "insisted" to Mick that he deliver lyrics to songs that were not yet written in order to form the songs around the lyrics. Mick wanted to make the songs and fill in the lyrics as they went along and dis-agreed with Was adamantly. Regardless, Was's approach for that album worked well for it.   Also in that album Mick and Charlie were working on some good African grooves that Was steered the band away from consistently. I remember Mick remarking in that he wondered what would of came out of those grooves if Was had not kept steering them away from those grooves. Ian

Two reasons why Was is such a crappy Rolling Stones producer right there.  

This is a band where the best songs have come from the music guy mumbling something to the word guy and the word guy figuring out what it all means while they play along.  Making noises with his mouth until real words came out.  Which is why it sounds so organic.  But no, instead, let's make them write lyrics and then make music to go with it, like they were "song writers" or something!  Good, one, Don.  Result?  Voodoo Lounge is Jagger's most mannered, least engaging, and most over-wrought performance on record.  With some of his dullest words.

And, oh, let's steer them away from that scary unknown territory they were going in, and put them back on safer, known, "classic rock" ground.  Let's put THAT GUY in charge of a creative renaissance!

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 5:05pm:

When I first heard "Love Is Strong" I knew they had someone really good. I can remember exactly where I was, who I was with, and was remarking to them how "rich and raw" sounding it was and noted that it is a very different groove the Stones style evolved into on that song. I was impressed from the first listen and have been impressed ever since.   Have you heard The Black Crowes Lions album? WOW! How about Iggy Pop Avenue B? Ian

Sorry Ian, but I disagree again. Love is Strong is the poor man's Wicked As It Seems. Not the vocals because I would take Mick over Keith on vocals any day, but the sound on Wicked As It Seems is just a better sound. Some of the stuff like the harmonica on Love Is Strong sounds amazing and Charlie's drums, but I wasn't that impressed. I was far more impressed with Moon Is Up in terms of sound.

As far as the Black Crowes- to each his or her own. I know some people love them and all that on the board, but not my taste. I've never really liked them and one of the many reasons is that the sound on their records is incredibly boring. I don't hear anything original either in their songs or sounds.

The Wick wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 6:03pm:

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 8th, 2008 at 5:05pm: When I first heard "Love Is Strong" I knew they had someone really good. I can remember exactly where I was, who I was with, and was remarking to them how "rich and raw" sounding it was and noted that it is a very different groove the Stones style evolved into on that song. I was impressed from the first listen and have been impressed ever since.   Have you heard The Black Crowes Lions album? WOW! How about Iggy Pop Avenue B? Ian Sorry Ian, but I disagree again. Love is Strong is the poor man's Wicked As It Seems. Not the vocals because I would take Mick over Keith on vocals any day, but the sound on Wicked As It Seems is just a better sound. Some of the stuff like the harmonica on Love Is Strong sounds amazing and Charlie's drums, but I wasn't that impressed. I was far more impressed with Moon Is Up in terms of sound. As far as the Black Crowes- to each his or her own. I know some people love them and all that on the board, but not my taste. I've never really liked them and one of the many reasons is that the sound on their records is incredibly boring. I don't hear anything original either in their songs or sounds.

_____________________________

OK yes, your very right Love Is Strong is a close cousin (or even sister more to the point) of As Wicked As It Seems. I like Love Is Strong better although I do dig Keiths solo tune. We can agree to dis-agree there.

Oh yeah???? Well guess what.... I was certainly no Black Crowes fan either before hearing the LIONS album. I thought they were nothing more than a simple Rolling Stones/Faces generic sound that wasn't authentic or any where near as good. BORING.

To say The Black Crowes are unoriginal is actually being kind to them on this issue...
I never cared for them because I thought they just were too generic sounding and acting and molded themselves after The Stones and The Faces and were nowhere near as good. They were boring sounding and uninteresting as an act because of that.

*************Then I heard ... LIONS!!! Wow!!!!  Ballsy Zepllin-esk guitar, Beatle-esk songwriting towards the end of the album, coupled with a thick, authentic sounding analogue production style. I am not big Led-Zep or Beatles fan either. But darn, that album's production in itself could be described as basically classic it is so good. Even Chris Robinson sounds bigger, raspier, and venomous. He never sang or sounded like that before (or since).

*I'd have to say it is more than probably my favorite "sounding" album of all time from a recording/production stand point.

If you have not heard this album... then I can tell you that you simply will be blown away in the fact that it is actually The Black Crowes.


Try it ...you won't be dis-appointed. In fact, you will be praising it.



Ian

Ian, again, WTF do you have quote the ENTIRE MESSAGE above yours, this makes NO SENSE and makes the forums harder to read, hope it's not too much to ask ?

Anyway, yes, I'd probably rate Love is Strong as the best Don Was produced track ever, it's too bad it's "rawness" never really materialized on other tracks, that would have been something indeed.

I defy anyone to play Exile and VL back to back and not to be depressed for a whole month...other than the excitement they generated before they were released most of thes LPs since TY have little intrinsic value, muscially or lyrically. If they hadn't somehow found the magic formula for making a killing on mega tours, the Stones probably wouldn't be better off than the Kinks or the Moody Blues, after 1986 it looked like that was about to happen...

Gotablouse,

The quotes:
All I am doing is hitting "quote" option on the posts I'd like to directly repond to.  This is how YaBB is coded to work with my browser (Mozilla Firefox) or it is a problem with the board ....not my posting. I don't care for it either and wish it would stop. I'll see if I can just cut and paste the qoutes I want to repond to from here on out in most situations.


*****Now, speaking of quotes you posted this:  

"If they hadn't somehow found the magic formula for making a killing on mega tours, the Stones probably wouldn't be better off than the Kinks or the Moody Blues, after 1986 it looked like that was about to happen..."

Earlier in this thread you stated that 99% of the people here think I must be on something by the comments and ideas that are mine. Well, how on earth can you tell me that with comments like this? The Rolling Stones were always by far and away much bigger, had much more weight, were more influential globally, and much more recognized around the entire planet than The Kinks or The Moody Blues could ever dream of... they were the premier Rock and Roll band for years and the world knew that.

Even if nothing happened after 81 The Rolling Stones would arguably still be remembered as possibly the greatest Rock n Roll band of all time by a lot of people. They would still easily be in the top five every time the topic came up (if not ranked first or second place). They were the heavy weights and had released several classic albums and showed the world what a rock n roll band really is. Bands acted and  mimic'd them back then and several more do now. They were HUGE all along and EASILY and always would be way ahead of The Kinks or Moody Blues for cryin out loud as far as people remembering them and what they did for music. Yikes.

How could you say they would be nothing more than The Moody blues or The Kinks even if they stopped after 81???

We are talking about The Rolling Stones here Gotablouse. They would always easily be ahead of these bands you speak of. They could of done nothing from 81 until right now and still would outsell The Moody Blues and The Kinks if there was a way to put them all on tour side by side and they were all still around.
They would also still be remembered as much more and in a different class as The Kinks and Moody Blues. They already had a very big catalogue of classic songs and albums that the world knew and were very familiar with. Everybody knew them.  

Geeze Man. You obviously under-rate things incredibly. You say I am supposed to be on something???....just read your last post here with that one.


Ian

1. Just hit the friggin' REPLY button Ian, looks like you found it this time, good !
2. You've obviously never heard of "second degree" and the fact that you waste your time writing a 20 line on message because you only focused your reply on that off the cuff second degree comment instead of the actual arguments in my post does confirm the question we have all been asking since the Tattoo You affair, "what are you on" ?

Now if you want to get back to actually discussing the topic at hand, just hit reply (and not Play as per the title of an Aerosmith record) button.

Ok. The Stones would never be considered second degree. The only other band to achieve a level of popularity The Stones saw in the 60's was The Beatles. Nobody had been so popular since as a "group". Maybe Guns n Roses for a short short period in 88 but that's it. Guy, The Stones were all around legends by 81. They would never be considered "second degree" or second rate as The Moody Blues are now. They had done too much for music and culture. The Moody Blues never had near an impact like The Stones.

Ok. Regardless I have you pegged. It is nothing bad. You love The Stones all time classic stuff from 68-72 because they help mold music for what it became for the next 20 years.

But now you like "edgy" things, "Edgy" recording. OK. I just don't think you have to really be careful if you are gonna try it to do it with the Stones. I bet you really liked How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb by U2.

"Just Push Play"...good album, for the record (pun intended). Better than Nine Lives. Nine Lives was I don't know ...stupid. "Avant Garden" is really a good song. I love that song. "Sunshine" is good too. Hey .....Aerosmith has not put out a studio release since then ....unless your counting Honkin on Bo-Bo. Well, I think even the 15 year old girls are tired of their act by now.

Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 6:42am:

Ok. The Stones would never be considered second degree. The only other band to achieve a level of popularity The Stones saw in the 60's was The Beatles. Nobody had been so popular since as a "group". Maybe Guns n Roses for a short short period in 88 but that's it. Ian

Led Zeppelin and ABBA are two groups apart from the Beatles who have sold more records than the Stones.  I would imagine that Pink Floyd's total would be close as well.

Gazza wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 7:01am:

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 9th, 2008 at 6:42am: Ok. The Stones would never be considered second degree. The only other band to achieve a level of popularity The Stones saw in the 60's was The Beatles. Nobody had been so popular since as a "group". Maybe Guns n Roses for a short short period in 88 but that's it. Ian Led Zeppelin and ABBA are two groups apart from the Beatles who have sold more records than the Stones.  I would imagine that Pink Floyd's total would be close as well.

While we're checking how about Springsteen and U2?

Didnt include Bruce as Ian referred specifically to bands, but neither U2 or Springsteen would have outsold the Stones.

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 6:42am:

Ok. The Stones would never be considered second degree. The only other band to achieve a level of popularity The Stones saw in the 60's was The Beatles.

Oh man this is a riot, "second degree"="irony" !

To bring back the topic on track I just listened to one of Rubin's latest productions, the Neil Diamond album, not really my cup of tea, but excellent production, Mick and Keiths songs with that type of treatment would certainly be a treat.

" To bring back the topic on track I just listed to one of Rubin's latest productions, the Neil Diamond album, not really my cup of tea, but excellent production, Mick and Keiths songs with that type of treatment would certainly be a treat. "


http://www.grioo.com/images/rubriques/7/1005.jpg !!!!!!

Gazza wrote: (although I think he is missing the point)

"Led Zeppelin and ABBA are two groups apart from the Beatles who have sold more records than the Stones.  I would imagine that Pink Floyd's total would be close as well."

________________________________________


Sure they have. The Stones are not the head cream of the crop in album sales. We know that. They are up there but they are probably in fifth, sixth or seventh place. My guess would be Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led-Zepplin, Bee-Gees, U2, Abba, AC/DC, Stones.

Something in that order. BUT, Abba, Bee-Gees and even AC/DC do not have the name, reputation, or legendary status as The Stones (and even U2 aren't quite to that level) . They never have been. Over-all neither does Led-Zepplin on a global scale. You could ask a 75 year old guy at the grocery store if he knows who The Rolling Stones are and he will know. You could also ask the 16 year old female cashier when checking out. She will know as well. She may not know the songs, but at least she will know who they are or what they do for a living. It was basically the same notoriety for The Stones in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's. Guess what, that 16 year old girl may very well not know who Abba is today. When Rolling Stone or Time Magazine writes about the most influential "music groups" of all time, Abba, and The Bee-Gees very well may not be mentioned in a serious note (if they are mentioned at all.....). It is always = Beatles, Stones, Who, Led-Zepplin. These groups are viewed, for the most part as the corner stones of pop or Rock music and generally educated people would not argue that....even if they don't care for any of these groups music. Maybe Pink Floyd or AC/DC would get honorable mention. So album sales do not mean everything. The Stones are still a house-hold name and are legendary status. They were since the 60's. That is my point.


Ian

Ian ever.

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 3:48pm:

Gazza wrote: (although I think he is missing the point) "Led Zeppelin and ABBA are two groups apart from the Beatles who have sold more records than the Stones.  I would imagine that Pink Floyd's total would be close as well." ________________________________________ Sure they have. The Stones are not the head cream of the crop in album sales. We know that. They are up there but they are probably in fifth, sixth or seventh place. My guess would be Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led-Zepplin, Bee-Gees, U2, Abba, AC/DC, Stones. Something in that order. BUT, Abba, Bee-Gees and even AC/DC do not have the name, reputation, or legendary status as The Stones (and even U2 aren't quite to that level) . They never have been. Over-all neither does Led-Zepplin on a global scale. You could ask a 75 year old guy at the grocery store if he knows who The Rolling Stones are and he will know. You could also ask the 16 year old female cashier when checking out. She will know as well. She may not know the songs, but at least she will know who they are or what they do for a living. It was basically the same notoriety for The Stones in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's. Guess what, that 16 year old girl may very well not know who Abba is today. When Rolling Stone or Time Magazine writes about the most influential "music groups" of all time, Abba, and The Bee-Gees very well may not be mentioned in a serious note (if they are mentioned at all.....). It is always = Beatles, Stones, Who, Led-Zepplin. These groups are viewed, for the most part as the corner stones of pop or Rock music and generally educated people would not argue that....even if they don't care for any of these groups music. Maybe Pink Floyd or AC/DC would get honorable mention. So album sales do not mean everything. The Stones are still a house-hold name and are legendary status. They were since the 60's. That is my point. Ian

I'm not missing any point. You said that the "only band to achieve a level of popularity" greater than the Stones was the Beatles.

You're wrong.

Unfortunately.

You may wish to rely on the 75 year old at the grocery store for your insight on popular music if it suits your own personal agenda. 300-400 million other people will disagree.

Theres not much value in a few critics or "generally educated" people  having an opinion which suits your view on greatness (and your personal taste is something I dont disagree with), but if your limiting your worldview to people over the age of 45-50, then it nullifies your argument.

Sorry to say, record sales and the opinions of people in different generations to ours (regardless of how dumb they are) would suggest different.

This snobbery in favour of 'serious music' is another issue entirely. Abba split 25 years ago, and today there are still sell out musicals and a new film which celebrate their music. It might not be YOUR taste or that of most of us, but to suggest theyre not a household name, people no longer know who they are or arent still influential simply isnt true.

There's more music in the world than rock music, amazingly.

" To bring back the topic on track I just listed to one of Rubin's latest productions, the Neil Diamond album, not really my cup of tea, but excellent production, Mick and Keiths songs with that type of treatment would certainly be a treat. "

Right Joey, that's exactly what I had in mind when I started this topic about Rubin with the Stones!

Unregardless Keith will fist-fight with Rick Rubin or not, the treatment by Rubin on the Jagger/Richard compositions would most probably be a very big treat.

Perhaps they should invite Jack White III as well, to finally bring back that RIFF by Mr. Richard, in stead of him crooning all over the place. Mr. Richard should sing about Tits and Ass.
And Mr. Jagger should patch up his lyrics, they are qua shallow for the last 2 decades if you ask me.

I know it's 2008 and 1968-1972 is a long time ago, but I think the Stones are still able to create songs that matter, and thar are timeless like the songs from that period. Why not? They just need Rubin and White to help. Most of all: They should not try to be contemporary, and I think ABB was a good effort in that direction! And Rubin and/or White have that spirit. Like The Raconteurs, you know what I mean?

Aahhh :funny... maybe I am just dreaming....

Est.1962

"snobbery" LOL, well I certainly mis-spoke. Truthfully. I meant well  .....anyone shall we say "normal". I meant to say as in your average bloke. Anyone who was not commited or mentally handicap would know who The Stones were. I should of phrased it differently. There are tons of un-educated people who know who the Stones are and have select sense that truly counts.

I don't think Abba had all the Grampa's in this country knowing exactly who they were when they came out. When the Stones hit it really big (65-68) ....everyone knew them. Barbers, Moms, Dads, elderly. I don't think the same is true about Abba or The Bee-Gees. All the 50 and under knew these people. But everyone from 8-65 knew who The Rolling Stones were when they hit it big. This is what I mean. I mean having a huge impact. Album sales do not mean everything.

Yes, other groups are influential, not just rock groups. Yes, there are many other types of music out there that is quite interesting, and influences. Hell, I think my catalog is as diverse as anyones I know personally. From Pink and Tommy Lee (forgive me, i just had to see how bad he was) to Conway Twitty to The New York Dolls to Rage Against The Machine to Bonnie Raitt to Muddy Waters to White Zombie  and yes, I own an Abba album from when I was a kid. Gosh, it has been so long. In fact Abba were a pretty good pop gig. By the way ...speaking of which ....aren't they getting back together, as a group that is??

Look out Stones, look out U2, look out MCcartney and ...step down.. Because ...... here comes Abba!!!!

*No wonder why The Stones are having trouble getting a new record deal. They all want to sign the bucks over to Abba instead...


Gosh, I could of had a V8!


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 9:00pm:

I meant well  .....anyone shall we say "normal". Ian

Jesus Ian just quit before you get even further into semantic knots - you cannot dig your way out of a hole

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 9:00pm:

" I don't think Abba had all the Grampa's in this country knowing exactly who they were when they came out. When the Stones hit it really big (65-68) ....everyone knew them. Barbers, Moms, Dads, elderly. I don't think the same is true about Abba or The Bee-Gees. All the 50 and under knew these people. But everyone from 8-65 knew who The Rolling Stones were when they hit it big. This is what I mean. I mean having a huge impact. Album sales do not mean everything. In fact Abba were a pretty good pop gig. By the way ...speaking of which ....aren't they getting back together, as a group that is?? Ian

To paraphrase Morrissey - "America is not the world..."

Abba became internationally popular by winning Eurovision. An event which (God help us) has a higher audience figure than the Superbowl.

They were absolutely massive - as were the Bee Gees. Hugely popular to a wider audience range age-wise than probably any rock act, I would imagine. So, people not only knew who they were (for what thats worth) but they also bought their music.

No, Abba arent getting back together. Three of them still show up from time to time for major events like the premeires of the film or musicals etc, but Agnetha (the blonde one with the sexy ass) has been a recluse for about 25 years, although she did apparently make an appearance at a premiere recently.

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 9:00pm:

There are tons of un-educated people who know who the Stones are and have select sense that truly counts.

This quote really makes me miss Sir Stonesalot.


Ian Billen wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 9:00pm:

I don't think Abba had all the Grampa's in this country knowing exactly who they were when they came out. When the Stones hit it really big (65-68) ....everyone knew them. Barbers, Moms, Dads, elderly. I don't think the same is true about Abba or The Bee-Gees. All the 50 and under knew these people. But everyone from 8-65 knew who The Rolling Stones were when they hit it big. This is what I mean. I mean having a huge impact. Album sales do not mean everything.

At the height of the disco era ABBA and the Bee Gees had FAR more penetration into the grandpas' and barbers' worlds than the Stones ever did, not to mention the eight year olds (like li'l ol' eight year old Ian).   Everybody knew the Stones because of media mechanations, but they knew ABBA and the Bee Gees because they actually listened to it without turning it off because it was too loud.

In fact, Grandpa John McCain loves him some ABBA.  Grandpas the country over act like they love ABBA when they are trying to prove they are still hip.  

When is Ian's manager goin to throw the white towel over the top rope? He must have the best cut man in the business.

Personally,

I never knew a grandfather that listened to Abba... Many here in the states (I'd say over half) that were 65-70 years of age at the time Abba was big (77-78) would have no clue who Abba was at that time. I can only go by The states. They were very big here but not to the point of Michael Jackson or anything.  They sold well, had top ten songs and everyone under 40 knew them but they did not "sweep" the nation. Fleetwood Mac were more popular over all if that is any indication. I know because I lived here. They did not completely cause this huge sensation. The Bee-Gees were real popular and topped The Stones I admit. They were a "craze" and they did sweep the country here (but were not taken seriously much so I did not include them...who took them as a serious gig  ...nobody really.... even less serious than Michael Jackson), Abba was not to this level. They were just a generously popular pop gig here. Not every body knew them that was elderly. All the elderly knew The Stones ....as well as the young people.  

Were any of you here in the States when Abba was big? ...or are you basing your opinion solely on assumption or just the popularity in the UK?  


Ian

Ian I have been an outside observer of this thread but you are on the wrong side of this debate my friend. You are now trying to move the goal posts by insisting that you were only arguing about the popularity of Abba in the States. Sadly even in this sense you're wrong. Abba albums, and more importantly for them, singles, outsold the Stones here in the States as well by a long shot. I well remember roller skating to almost nothing but Abba back in those more innocent times. There were many times that I got a little pre-pube nookie in the darkened back room of the roller rink in mid 70's and Abba was almost always playing at some point during these early sexual escapades. I remeber it like it was yesterday. In fact I still get a little turned on whenever I hear Dancing Queen. Ok, not really, but I still say your argument is like pissing in the wind.



Riffy

No Riffhard I won't move the goal posts. I had no idea Abba was so big around the globe (UK included).
This is why I could not relate being as I figured to myself based on my opinion that they were even less known in the UK than here (not that they were not known here because they surely were and then some. Just not as an over all impact like The Stones and weren't known to everyone like The Stones were at that time).  

As far as album sales go, as I keep insisting album sales don't mean everything as far as over-all "house hold names" or transcending ages as far as popularity or recognition goes. It is only a part. Secondly I am talking about everyone knowing them, having a culture change based on them, not album sales.

For instance ask a 65 year old dude who Jay-Z is? Will he know him? No. Does Jay-Z sell much more than say Brittany Spears today, or say Madonna? Sure. How about Kelly Clarkson? Yep. But Brittany Spears, Madonna, and Kelly Clarkson are more known over all in this country even though Jay-Z is selling many more albums.

Do the older people know him ....No. There is your difference. So album sales are not everything. As I think is the case with Abba being more of an impact or popular than The Stones at one time. Maybe top 40 surely. And the people under 40-45 all knew Abba. But most people say 60-70 years old at that time may not of known who they were. I guarantee all of these people knew The Stones.

Also, more to add to this, most people who liked or knew who Abba knew they weren't to be taken too seriously and knew in 10 years they probably would be nothing more than an outdated fad, a nostalgia act by then. The Stones were taken seriously for who they were. Abba wasn't. Do you see my point?


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 10^th, 2008 at 10:19pm:

Personally, I never knew a grandfather that listened to Abba... Many here in the states (I'd say over half) that were 65-70 years of age at the time Abba was big (77-78) would have no clue who Abba was at that time. I can only go by The states. They were very big here but not to the point of Michael Jackson or anything.  They sold well, had top ten songs and everyone under 40 knew them but they did not "sweep" the nation. Fleetwood Mac were more popular over all if that is any indication. I know because I lived here. They did not completely cause this huge sensation. The Bee-Gees were real popular and topped The Stones I admit. They were a "craze" and they did sweep the country here (but were not taken seriously much so I did not include them...who took them as a serious gig  ...nobody really.... even less serious than Michael Jackson), Abba was not to this level. They were just a generously popular pop gig here. Not every body knew them that was elderly. All the elderly knew The Stones ....as well as the young people.   Were any of you here in the States when Abba was big? ...or are you basing your opinion solely on assumption or just the popularity in the UK?   Ian

Not "the Uk" - "the world"

Ian, are you drinking with Ronnie?
:blankfriggingstare1

Tell you what, Ian, let's compare grosses of Shine a Light with this:

http://www.mammamiamovie.com/

when it gets released next week and then we'll discuss the relative impact of the Rolling Stones and ABBA on the "average" American, UK, or other World-Type citizen over the last 30 years.

Not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, just a true thing.  

I think you are talking about a perceived cultural relevance as opposed to a general sense of popularity, when it comes to the Stones vs. whomever.  But when it comes to popular music popularity is ultimately the yardstick against which relevance is truly measured.  Without an ABBA or a BEE GEES or a BEATLES (or a Queen) for fans to align themselves against, an allegedly down and dirty "real" rock'n'roll band like the Rolling Stones would have a lot of trouble because what would they stand in opposition to?

As fans, we should want them to be even LESS in the mainstream than they are.  You say ABBA aren't to be taken seriously, but do you really think that, culturally, the last 20 years of the Stones' career can be taken seriously as anything other than a "mass entertainment phenomenon"?  

Nasty Habits Wrote:

"You say ABBA aren't to be taken seriously, but do you really think that, culturally, the last 20 years of the Stones' career can be taken seriously as anything other than a "mass entertainment phenomenon"?    

________________________


No. Not really at all. Abba are not to be taken too seriously. They never were in the USA. I can't speak for the rest of the people in the world. And not to imply that only the USA matters because it doesn't. I don't want to come off like that. Girls and Moms liked Abba moreover and they were seen as a bit you know, sappy or cheezy. They have some good pop tunes. A few classic pop tunes by now. But no, they were just "Abba" here, kinda  like Kelly Clarkson is now or something but not quite that cheezy. And yes, Kelly Clarkson had a good album a few records ago. But she isn't taken seriously much.  God forbid, neither were the Bee-Gees. The Bee-Gees were huge, but you know, we all knew it would never last. Queen was taken seriously, and still is, ... sure. How'd we even get this far into this (probably a lot that  is my fault). We should focus on Producers and The Stones.

LOL Mama Mia? For what??? LOL watch the clip on that site and tell me you take it seriously...? Sure it may sell well, some are going to know that it is coming out on DVD. Guess what, I have not heard anyone talking about it. Who knows, it will probably sell well enough. but as far as pop culture it is kinda silly.

That clip on the site takes the cake. I am supposed to take it seriously. No dis-respect Nasty Habits. I do really admire your acknowledgment of what is a hit and what is not or what will be. That is a good trait in knowing what is going on in the music/entertainment industry as a whole.


Ian

can someone give me the gist of this thread.

Another foul ball..The count is 0-2 no one on base and its lookin bad for the home team.....

Some Guy wrote on Jul 11^th, 2008 at 3:12pm:

can someone give me the gist of this thread.

Things we have learned:

1.  If Rick Ruben tried to produce the Stones with his strongarm tactics, Keith would beat him up and Mick would cry like a baby, then they would take their ball and say "Screw You Guys, We're Going Home".

2.  Rick Rubin is a songwriter's producer, and so the Stones don't need to scratch his ninch, neither his ninche.

3. Don Was on the other hand, is of the best production in the world, and the Stones are better suited by him.  

4.  Posters need to figure out how to use the quote function.  Or YaBB needs to recode the whole thing in Billenese.

5.   The concept of a second degree comment transubstantiates into the notion that the Rolling Stones WERE second degree.    Ian, however, asserts that the Stones, in fact, were killer in the first degree.  Only the Beatles can beat them.  And maybe Guns and Roses.

9.  Led Zep, ABBA, and Pink Floyd, it has been argued, have bigger degrees than the Rolling Stones, even though the Stones have more education.  (Pink Floyd, it should be noted, don't need no education.)

10.  There are tons of un-educated people who know who the Stones are and have select sense that truly counts.  

11.  The United States is not the world (someone tell Riffy!).  The UK is not the world.  But even if Ian cannot speak for the rest of the people in the world,  he can apparently speak for the rest of the people in the USA.  

12.  Riffy fingered prepubescent girls in the snack bars of roller rinks to Dancing Queen and consequently has to run to the restroom whenever he hears that song on the radio.  This, apparently, does not meet Ian's standards of cultural penetration.

13.  Either the score is 0 for 2 or the count is 0-2  . . .

Drinking ? Make that freebasing !

Nasty Habits wrote on Jul 11^th, 2008 at 4:47pm:

Some Guy wrote on Jul 11th, 2008 at 3:12pm: can someone give me the gist of this thread. Things we have learned: 1.  If Rick Ruben tried to produce the Stones with his strongarm tactics, Keith would beat him up and Mick would cry like a baby, then they would take their ball and say "Screw You Guys, We're Going Home". 2.  Rick Rubin is a songwriter's producer, and so the Stones don't need to scratch his ninch, neither his ninche. 3. Don Was on the other hand, is of the best production in the world, and the Stones are better suited by him.   4.  Posters need to figure out how to use the quote function.  Or YaBB needs to recode the whole thing in Billenese. 5.   The concept of a second degree comment transubstantiates into the notion that the Rolling Stones WERE second degree.    Ian, however, asserts that the Stones, in fact, were killer in the first degree.  Only the Beatles can beat them.  And maybe Guns and Roses. 9.  Led Zep, ABBA, and Pink Floyd, it has been argued, have bigger degrees than the Rolling Stones, even though the Stones have more education.  (Pink Floyd, it should be noted, don't need no education.) 10.  There are tons of un-educated people who know who the Stones are and have select sense that truly counts.   11.  The United States is not the world (someone tell Riffy!).  The UK is not the world.  But Ian cannot speak for the rest of the people in the world, but he can apparently speak for the rest of the people in the USA.   12.  Riffy fingered prepubescent girls in the snack bars of roller rinks to Dancing Queen and consequently has to run to the restroom whenever he hears that song on the radio.  This, apparently, does not meet Ian's standards of cultural penetration. 13.  Either the score is 0 for 2 or the count is 0-2  . . .

got it, thanks!

Stellar, nearly fell off my chair laughing, I think that at this point, this topic should be locked and preserved for the future ;-)

Nasty Habits wrote on Jul 11^th, 2008 at 4:47pm:

Some Guy wrote on Jul 11th, 2008 at 3:12pm: can someone give me the gist of this thread. Things we have learned: 1.  If Rick Ruben tried to produce the Stones with his strongarm tactics, Keith would beat him up and Mick would cry like a baby, then they would take their ball and say "Screw You Guys, We're Going Home". 2.  Rick Rubin is a songwriter's producer, and so the Stones don't need to scratch his ninch, neither his ninche. 3. Don Was on the other hand, is of the best production in the world, and the Stones are better suited by him.   4.  Posters need to figure out how to use the quote function.  Or YaBB needs to recode the whole thing in Billenese. 5.   The concept of a second degree comment transubstantiates into the notion that the Rolling Stones WERE second degree.    Ian, however, asserts that the Stones, in fact, were killer in the first degree.  Only the Beatles can beat them.  And maybe Guns and Roses. 9.  Led Zep, ABBA, and Pink Floyd, it has been argued, have bigger degrees than the Rolling Stones, even though the Stones have more education.  (Pink Floyd, it should be noted, don't need no education.) 10.  There are tons of un-educated people who know who the Stones are and have select sense that truly counts.   11.  The United States is not the world (someone tell Riffy!).  The UK is not the world.  But even if Ian cannot speak for the rest of the people in the world,  he can apparently speak for the rest of the people in the USA.   12.  Riffy fingered prepubescent girls in the snack bars of roller rinks to Dancing Queen and consequently has to run to the restroom whenever he hears that song on the radio.  This, apparently, does not meet Ian's standards of cultural penetration. 13.  Either the score is 0 for 2 or the count is 0-2  . . .

Rim.........

Thank you Nasty for the great recap..

I now feel edumacated and all about this very very interesting subject ;) :D :willya

Nasty Habits wrote on Jul 11^th, 2008 at 4:47pm:

Some Guy wrote on Jul 11th, 2008 at 3:12pm: can someone give me the gist of this thread. Things we have learned: 1.  If Rick Ruben tried to produce the Stones with his strongarm tactics, Keith would beat him up and Mick would cry like a baby, then they would take their ball and say "Screw You Guys, We're Going Home". 2.  Rick Rubin is a songwriter's producer, and so the Stones don't need to scratch his ninch, neither his ninche. 3. Don Was on the other hand, is of the best production in the world, and the Stones are better suited by him.   4.  Posters need to figure out how to use the quote function.  Or YaBB needs to recode the whole thing in Billenese. 5.   The concept of a second degree comment transubstantiates into the notion that the Rolling Stones WERE second degree.    Ian, however, asserts that the Stones, in fact, were killer in the first degree.  Only the Beatles can beat them.  And maybe Guns and Roses. 9.  Led Zep, ABBA, and Pink Floyd, it has been argued, have bigger degrees than the Rolling Stones, even though the Stones have more education.  (Pink Floyd, it should be noted, don't need no education.) 10.  There are tons of un-educated people who know who the Stones are and have select sense that truly counts.   11.  The United States is not the world (someone tell Riffy!).  The UK is not the world.  But even if Ian cannot speak for the rest of the people in the world,  he can apparently speak for the rest of the people in the USA.   12.  Riffy fingered prepubescent girls in the snack bars of roller rinks to Dancing Queen and consequently has to run to the restroom whenever he hears that song on the radio.  This, apparently, does not meet Ian's standards of cultural penetration. 13.  Either the score is 0 for 2 or the count is 0-2  . . .

ROTFLMAO!!!

Well done!


Riffy

NastyHabits, LOL

That was great. You should write or be a literary critic or at least some sort of critic for a living.

Since there was comment about me in your re-cap and CERTAINLY not to be self-patronizing I can say this... I either "make" a thread ...or "kill" a thread. Sometimes both at the same time. Such as the case with this one. I'm simply not normal and it shows. My the people on this board are of such quality. I feel left out.

Nasty, I wish I had your musical insite. Gazza, I wish I had your musical knowledge and Glencar, I wish I had your cock. Interpet that last one as you want. \


(Alright, that last comment is an extreme joke and nothing more. Don't get nervous Glencar. I am "straight" as a board and always have been).


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 11^th, 2008 at 8:59pm:

Riffy, LOL That was great. You should write or be a literary critic or at least some sort of critic for a living. Since there was comment about me in your re-cap and CERTAINLY not to be self-patronizing I can say this... I either "make" a thread ...or "kill" a thread. Sometimes both at the same time. Such as the case with this one. I'm simply not normal and it shows. My the people on this board are of such quality. I feel left out. Riffy, I wish I had your musical insite. Gazza, I wish I had your musical knowledge and Glencar, I wish I had your cock. Interpet that last one as you want. \ (Alright, that last comment is an extreme joke and nothing more. Don't get nervous Glencar. I am "straight" as a board and always have been). Ian

Well Ian I can not take credit for that brilliant play by play run down of the thread. No, that would be Nasty Habit's work, and I'd say he pretty much nailed it. However, I never got any prepubesent snatch in the snack bar of the roller rink. It was in the back corner of the shoe racks that I got busy.

See Ian, that's how the quote function works. I was quoting Nasty's post, and now I have quoted your post as well.


Riffy

Riffhard wrote on Jul 11^th, 2008 at 9:09pm:

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 11th, 2008 at 8:59pm: Riffy, LOL That was great. You should write or be a literary critic or at least some sort of critic for a living. Since there was comment about me in your re-cap and CERTAINLY not to be self-patronizing I can say this... I either "make" a thread ...or "kill" a thread. Sometimes both at the same time. Such as the case with this one. I'm simply not normal and it shows. My the people on this board are of such quality. I feel left out. Riffy, I wish I had your musical insite. Gazza, I wish I had your musical knowledge and Glencar, I wish I had your cock. Interpet that last one as you want. \ (Alright, that last comment is an extreme joke and nothing more. Don't get nervous Glencar. I am "straight" as a board and always have been). Ian Well Ian I can not take credit for that brilliant play by play run down of the thread. No, that would be Nasty Habit's work, and I'd say he pretty much nailed it. However, I never got any prepubesent snatch in the snack bar of the roller rink. It was in the back corner of the shoe racks that I got busy. See Ian, that's how the quote function works. I was quoting Nasty's post, and now I have quoted your post as well. Riffy

_______________

Sorry Riffy,

I corrected it. I thought Nasty and posted Riffy by accident.


Ian

[quote author=Ian Billen link=1215020757/75#88 date=1215830932
_______________

Sorry Riffy,

I corrected it. I thought Nasty and posted Riffy by accident.


Ian[/quote]

well that explains just about everything