Article Images
Content deleted Content added
Line 42: Oldham and Easton signed the Rolling Stones to Decca Records.<ref name="alop212-213">{{cite book |last=Oldham |first=Andrew Loog |authorlink=Andrew Loog Oldham |title=Stoned: A Memoir of London in the 1960s |publisher=St. Martin's Griffin |year=2000 |location=New York |isbn=0-312-27094-1 |pages=212–213}}</ref> According to Oldham, Decca's regret at passing on the Beatles led to favourable terms, including three times the royalty rate of a typical new recording act, artistic control of recordings, as well as ownership of the recording masters, which they were obliged to lease to Decca. The contract - which was with Oldham's company Impact Sound - also allowed Oldham his choice of recording studios.<ref name="alop212">Oldham 2000. p. 205, 212</ref><ref name="accordingto2003p68">Jagger, Richards, Watts & Wood 2003. p. 68</ref> With minimal recording experience, Oldham made himself the band's producer and booked them into independent studios such as [[Olympic Studios|Olympic]], [[De Lane Lea Studios|De Lane Lea]], and most importantly [[Regent Sound Studios|Regent Sound]], a relatively primitive, [[Monaural|monophonic]] demo facility on [[Denmark Street]] featuring egg boxes on the ceiling for sound treatment.<ref name="alop209-210">Oldham 2000. pp. 209-210</ref><ref name="blackandwhiteblues">{{cite book |last=Hinckley |first=David |coauthors= Rodman, Debra and Coral, Gus|title= The Rolling Stones: Black & White Blues |publisher=Turner Publishing Inc. |year=1995 |id=ISBN 1-57036-150-9}}</ref><ref name="nzentgraf">{{cite web |last =Zentgraf |first=Nico |title=The Complete Works of The Rolling Stones 1962-2008 |url=http://www.nzentgraf.de/books/tcw/works1.htm|accessdate=23 February 2008 }}</ref> All tracks for the first Rolling Stones album were recorded at Regent, where, because studio time was inexpensive, the band recorded for extended intervals instead of the typical three hour slot, a practice Using independent studios also let Oldham contrast the Rolling Stones with the Beatles, the latter of whom Oldham said appeared to be "mere mortals ... sweating in the studio for the man".<ref name="alop205">Oldham 2000. p. 205</ref> Although Oldham initially tried more conventionally to present the band in identical suits—only to see them return to wearing their own clothes for public appearances,<ref name="stonealone1990p136">Wyman 1990. p. 136</ref> his strategy became to portray the Rolling Stones as the nasty opposites of the Beatles, suggesting and welcoming such provocative headlines such as "Would you let your daughter marry a Rolling Stone?", and having the band pose unsmiling on the cover of the first UK album.<ref name="rollingstone.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/therollingstones/biography |title=The Rolling Stones | Rolling Stone Music | News and Reviews |publisher=Rollingstone.com |date= |accessdate=2010-09-06}}</ref> According to Wyman: "Our reputation and image as the Bad Boys came later, completely accidentally. Andrew never did engineer it. He simply exploited it exhaustively." In other matters of presentation, Oldham changed the spelling of the band from "The Rollin' Stones" to "The Rolling Stones" and changed the spelling of Richards last name to Richard because it "looked more pop".<ref name=KeithTheBiop63>Bockris 1992. p. 63</ref><ref name="alop222">Oldham 2000. p. 222</ref> Oldham also thought Stewart did not fit his mould, according to Wyman, of "pretty, thin, long-haired boys", and he was removed from band photos and live appearances to become the band's road manager and occasional pianist.<ref name="stonealone1990p133">Wyman 1990. p. 133</ref><ref name="alop222-225">Oldham 2000. pp. 222-225</ref> | |||