[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: covers in general



>BTW for all of those who question Kit Lambert's production
>techniques on Tommy:  Joe Grimes and I were listening to the Kinks'
>"Arthur (or the rise and fall of the british empire)" Saturday and
>really were baffled by the poor production.  Arthur has the sad
>distinction of being released just after Tommy, which of course had
>to take a back seat.  Probably the Kinks best album (well second to
>Village Green Preservation society, a true masterpiece) which has a more
>consise storyline than Tommy, it lacks the musical aspect.
>Ray Davies had learned all of his production techniques from Shel Talmy, 
>who finally left after their album "Something Else" (1968).  Anyway, 
>just be fortunate that Tommy didn't sound dry and lifeless as any Shel 
>Talmy production would indicate.

Ian:
Just a few things...
SOMETHING ELSE was released 9/67.
I have the CD of ARTHUR, and it sounds great. I would say that it is indeed
their best work (even better than VGPS). Davies' songwriting is so much
different than Townshend's, I couldn't say that ARTHUR "lacks the musical
aspect." Rather, Townshend was more innovative musically and Davies more
dancehall. Or more British traditional, if you prefer.
I would say that the production on SOMETHING ELSE is miles above what was
done with VGPS, especially considering the overloads (Johnny Thunder, for
instance) and weak separation. By ARTHUR, Ray had his sea-legs.
Re: Lambert's production of TOMMY. The TOMMY Demos, if you've had a chance
to hear them, are better produced than the album. And Townshend produced
them, I suppose.
 Cheers                 ML