A tale of two Ian Andersons and a nice Guy

[That Was Jonathan E. Then]

I was once lucky to briefly work with the legendary Guy Stevens . . .

You must surely have a story or two, perhaps even repeatable. Please don't leave us hanging like this. It's unkind, especially in the Christmas season.

[Ian A.]

I was once lucky to briefly work with the legendary Guy Stevens . . .

You must surely have a story or two, perhaps even repeatable. Please don't leave us hanging like this. It's unkind, especially in the Christmas season.

Not really - just that he was a nice, boundlessly enthusiastic and very honourable man. I was briefly signed to Island Records for my first proper album (Ian Anderson's Country Blues Band Stereo Death Breakdown 1969) but when the management of J. Tull held a metaphorical gun to Island's head after my namesake - so I was told - claimed that having two I.A.s on Island would "ruin their chances of becoming the next Beatles", Guy went out of his way to find another deal for my album with Andrew Lauder at Liberty/UA. (But the cover photo for the '69 Island sampler You Can All Join In had already been taken, which is why I'm in the class photo but not on the LP).

The later indignity suffered by that album of mine was that the masters - multiitrack and stereo - got lost, which is why it has never been re-issued.

[That Was Jonathan E. Then]

Thanks for filling us in. I guess there are a few other stories about Guy Stevens that give a different impression of his personality — I prefer yours. I always rather idolized him because of his production of the first Mott The Hoople album, one of the several albums I played near endlessly in 1970. I didn't have much to choose from back then, but Mott The Hoople had a big effect on me. I think the first concert I ever went to was their London debut at the Roundhouse on a Sunday afternoon.

I can't pick out the Ian Anderson of the time on the cover of You Can All Join in, but that's a wonderful bit of trivia. Seeing as how there are no pigs wallowing in mud in that photo, I think I'm safe in assuming that's not you on the cover of Son Of Gutbucket sampler (now fetching £25, I see), which includes a track from Stereo Death Breakdown! Sorry the tapes got lost. That's the sort of story that always boggles the mind a bit, even as common as it unfortunately is.

Isn't it wonderful how we started off talking about the future of music as projected by a contemporary New Yorker and we're already back in the London of yore?!

[Ian A.]

I can't pick out the Ian Anderson of the time on the cover of You Can All Join in

2nd row, left, heavy specs, strange facial hair, bad haircut & fur coat, with Stevie Winwood looking piercingly over my shoulder . . . scary, huh

[That Was Jonathan E. Then]

Perhaps the strange facial hair and bad haircut were just a bit ahead of their time. Add some piercings and tattoos and you'd look almost contemporary — at least around the Pacific Northwest, world fashion center (not!). But still scary . . . or was Stevie Winwood's piercing look the scary thing? The picture overall looks like one of those attempts to herd cats.

[NormanD]

I can't pick out the Ian Anderson of the time on the cover of You Can All Join in

2nd row, left, heavy specs, strange facial hair, bad haircut & fur coat, with Stevie Winwood looking piercingly over my shoulder . . . scary, huh

Here's a small image of scary.....

[That Was Jonathan E. Then]

Thanks, normand. I have trouble with graphics — among other things.

Obviously, in my opinion, Ian A. was the one who was likeliest to go furthest — and so it has been, although Stevie W. has tried to keep up in his own way. His album of 2003, About Time, had its moments and I still enjoy them. However, overall, I have paid far more attention to the works of Ian A. over the past 20 odd (sometimes very odd) years than those of Stevie W. Not sure he's always appreciated that, but really it's only a sign of his effectiveness and achievement as a proponent of Local Music From Out There. (For those who think I may be constantly ironic and sarcastic, this is intended as a genuine compliment. It's the holiday season as the Americans say! Tidings of good will 'n' all that.)

[Charlie]

The later indignity suffered by that album was that the masters - multiitrack and stereo - got lost, which is why it has never been re-issued.

It is not hard to make a digital copy of a good quality vinyl album, editing out the snap and crackle (while keeping the pop, of course). There's even an argument to propose this method as the most realistic representation of the original experience of listening to music that was first issued on vinyl.

[Ian A.]

It is not hard to make a digital copy of a good quality vinyl album, editing out the snap and crackle (while keeping the pop, of course). There's even an argument to propose this method as the most realistic representation of the original experience of listening to music that was first issued on vinyl.

The problem in this case is that some of it was poorly mixed (e.g. the bass player was virtually inaudible on some songs) - it was all done in 3 hours by the producer without me there - and not very well mastered. To me one of the points in re-issuing anything like that would be to go back to the multi-track, and take some time over mixing and mastering it decently.

Also, one of the reasons I am very hard to convince when people claim a superiority of vinyl sound over CD is that every single record I made over a period of 20 years that came out on vinyl was disappointing when I finally got it home as the pressing never reproduced what we heard in the studio. The first time I ever heard that studio sound in my living room was the first time we released something on CD, and all of my earlier stuff that was originally released on vinyl sounds better (that's a relative term!) remastered from the original tapes for CD, sometimes extraordinarily so.

Maybe this is the misconception: record collectors want it to sound like the vinyl release they remember, whilst artists and producers want to get the most accurate reproduction of what they meant it to sound like in the studio. These aren't necessarily the same thing.

[Charlie]

every single record I made over a period of 20 years that came out on vinyl was disappointing when I finally got it home as the pressing never reproduced what we heard in the studio.

OK, I am with you on this, having had similarly disappointing results during the mid-1970s, and would place much of the blame on my inexperience at both the mixing and mastering stages.

I do marvel at what other people achieved with no more experience than me, such as Lillian McMurray with those 1951 recordings of Sonny Boy and Elmore. Perhaps the performances can sometimes be so great, they overcome the technical inadequacies of the situation.

[Adam Blake]

I do marvel at what other people achieved with no more experience than me, such as Lillian McMurray with those 1951 recordings of Sonny Boy and Elmore. Perhaps the performances can sometimes be so great, they overcome the technical inadequacies of the situation.

Fewer choices in the studio in those days, fewer things to get wrong. The 70s was a bad time for recording music: the technology was just beginning to run away with itself. Nowadays engineers are more aware of the problems that can be caused by having infinite possibilities and tend to be more specific about knowing what they want and not being swayed by any of the billion and one options that can present themselves. So don't give yourself a hard time. Compared to some of the disastrous sounding big budget records put out by major labels, you're a South London Phil Spector!

[That Was Jonathan E. Then]

How I am considered to be the "Author" of this topic is beyond me, not that I care much one way or the other. I'll simply add that the one record I produced sounded horrible, nothing like what we had in our heads or thought we had on tape. Part of the problem was that whoever had transferred the tape to the stamper or whatever it was called just didn't cut the grooves wide enough. About half the the vinyl was unused, the result being that you really have to crank the volume to get any presence. My fault I suppose for not insisting that they redid the job before pressing the whole run. That's what a real (experienced) record producer would have done.

[Rob Hall]

How I am considered to be the "Author" of this topic is beyond me, not that I care much one way or the other.

I think it's because this was originally part of another thread that took this turn, which Charlie thought was interesting enough in its own right to hive off to seed further discussion in this direction. Your post was just a convenient cut-off point and your name is the first to occur: hence, you appear as the "author" of this thread.

[will vine]

Yes, we have got off the subject at the top of the page but I'm not about to turn back at this point. At the risk of starting off another list - I was thinking about this the other day - a couple of records that never sounded as good as they should have.
Now look, I have cheap ears, and little appreciation of recording techniques but;

1) neither on vinyl or cd do my Lovin' Spoonful Greatest Hits records sound right....one side of a couple of tracks completely missing.

and

2) Notwithstanding the incongruity of Albert King paying homage to Elvis' white boy blues, "The King does the King's Thing" produced by Duck Dunn at Stax really should have been a blast but it sounds awfully "thin" to me.

What other horrors lurk out there?

[Adam Blake]

What other horrors lurk out there?

Oh God, too many to list! One of the main reasons I will always try to seek out a record on original vinyl if I can is at least it will sound like the real thing, even if it is a bit scratchy. With things like old Lovin' Spoonful records you need the original 45s. Bear in mind these things were meant to be heard in mono and were mixed accordingly. CD re-issues, especially the cheaper ones, often tend to use horrible stereo re-mastering jobs from the early 70s as source material. One very honourable exception: the recent re-issue of Dusty Springfield's 60s singles on Eclipse records is a perfect model of how well these things can be done when they are done with care and attention by people who know their subject. All the A's and B sides in chronological order, all in pristine mono. My cup runneth over! (Yes, I know. Sad, isn't it?)