[jon]

Cool ideas so far.

How much do you feel the appeal of those old albums might come from the fact that many of them were performed relatively live and done quickly? Back then, spending three to four months on an album was a luxury that only people like George Martin or Brian Wilson could get away with at the peak of their careers. Most albums up to the mid-sixties, like the first ones by the Doors, the Stones or the Beatles, were done in a week or less. For a long time, cutting 3-4 songs in a 3-hour union shift was standard. Sinatra might do an album in a day or two. James Brown would write a song in the studio with session cats and have it done in three hours. Etc, etc.

On occasion, I propose the studio "at cost" to young bands I think are ready to make a good first album, though this is getting difficult to do as we're booked several months in advance at this time. Problem is, these guys invariably want to track basics first, then re-do every instrument separately in a quest for perfection...they think it's the 'pro' way to make a record...and they can't afford this long, drawn-out process in a real studio, even at cost. So they do it at home by themselves and it sounds like another demo...and the process starts over again until they get signed eventually, and then the home tracks are simply remixed in the studio rather than re-recorded well first...because the band can't play the songs well enough and no one, including the band, wants to spend the time and money to do it.

What it comes down to is that few bands have the preparedness, performance and material ready to play it down in a take or two all together in the studio, cut a great track and it's done.

This sound familiar to anyone else?