Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
Hey there, Neal opens the door... And to all you non Los Angelenos out there, this has got to at least prove that there's what, at least three, four or five cool folks that hail from this his region, right? Who are the other four? ...and I step through. Boom boom. One in a row. Later... CK ___ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Jeff Lynne (was Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread)
Will Miner wrote: I know we've been focusing, or trying to, on producers of twang, but I've been surprised that no one's mentioned Jeff Lynne, one of the most wretched of the wretched. No matter what the lineup of the band or their style, after going through his meat grinder they all sound the same, with the limp but loud drums and those horrendous drive-by backing vocals with all the life compressed out of them. Jeez. And otherwise relatively sane people hire him, just like Spector. Michael Berick replied: I must chime in and agree here about Jeff Lynne - particularly with the godawful synth bath production jobs he did to Dave Edmunds back in the early 80's. I think we even got Lynne-defender Jerry Curry to sorta kinda agree to the truth of his mishandling of Dave Edmunds best sound on those two records, though he maintained those were still big sellers for DE. And Dave was often twangy- it was great material for him, and he did it well. Thing is, Dave's been trying to make a comeback ever since those Lynne-produced releases. b.s. "The truth ain't always what we need, sometimes we need to hear a beautiful lie." -Bill Lloyd
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
I must chime in here too, pointing out that my pal Michael Berick (MoMZine and ND contributor) has foolishly taken my advice and logged on to P2. Welcome MB. And to all you non Los Angelenos out there, this has got to at least prove that there's what, at least three, four or five cool folks that hail from this his region, right? Neal Weiss Um, yeah, sure, Neal. Uh-huh, right. -- Terry Smith
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
Most assuredly every writer does not like every editor he/she is ever assigned to work with, but I've never been in a position where I just handed my manuscript to an editor and said "Here, change it at will." There's a give and take there, much like what El Presidente Gracey described. Looking back on this thread (that was Shane excerpted above, and below), it's becoming evident that of the many facets of music we can discuss around here, production is perhaps the most slippery. Since music appreciation is inately subjective, and, lacking personal testimony from the participants, it's impossible to really know how a producer and artist are collaborating, arguing about production is sort of like arguing about which primary color is prettiest. And I started the damn thread! Anyhow, in my own arbitrary, subjective head, I do prefer to maintain the myth that the artist is the one calling the shots on production. As for Chet Atkins, since most of the artists he worked with wound up receiving similar arrangements for their tunes, I'd say that's fairly good evidence that he was calling the shots. That doesn't mean the artists had a problem with his choices (though I don't know that you can assume perfect harmony on those choices either). Yes, young upstart writers don't always get the luxury of choosing their editor, but a good editor worthy of the job title doesn't take the writer out of the editing process-- indeed, the writer is the key ingredient in the editing process. As an editor, and a writer, I'll just say that it pisses me off when a writer leaves all the work to me, as an editor. The final product is going to look a lot more like what the writer intended, if he or she thinks it through, and does internal editing him or herself, before handing it to me. So, maybe in the same way, I prefer those producers who gently usher the artist through the process, and expect the artist to call the shots on fundamental issues, such as, do we use a 40-piece orchestra, or just call in Del McCoury et al. With the caveat, of course, that sometimes my sense of how the record came to be is fabricated in my own head, molded with my own preconceptions and dispositions. -- Terry Smith np Bobby Bare/Chet Atkins again. "The Game of Triangles" is a killer song. I'm wondering how it would go over here in the late 90s. It has one line that goes something like this, "A woman can't steal a husband who's happy at home." Yikes.
RE: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
Terry says: As for Chet Atkins, since most of the artists he worked with wound up receiving similar arrangements for their tunes, I'd say that's fairly good evidence that he was calling the shots. That doesn't mean the artists had a problem with his choices (though I don't know that you can assume perfect harmony on those choices either). I'm going to pick at this a little bit more, if y'all can stand it. The problem, as I see it, is that this still suggests a model in which the artist simply comes in to get his orders and has the choice of objecting or assenting, when the way things work in the studio is typically somewhat more complicated, if only because it's not a vacuum. A lot of records, not just those produced by Atkins, had similar arrangements in the sense I think you mean, Terry; everyone would arrive at the studio with the same commercial/artistic context in mind. Let me recommend again to anyone with an interest in the subject the current issue of the Journal of Country Music, which has a lengthy excerpt from a transcript of a 1989 roundtable discussion among a bunch of studio musicians who were on many of those old records; the title is "Let's Cut A Hit: talking with A-Team Nashville Studio Musicians." Personally, having had experience both as a writer and as a recording musician, I think the differences between the two situations outweigh the similarities. np Bobby Bare/Chet Atkins again. "The Game of Triangles" is a killer song. I'm wondering how it would go over here in the late 90s. It has one line that goes something like this, "A woman can't steal a husband who's happy at home." Yikes. Haven't we talked about this before? I don't mean "The Game Of Triangles" (BTW, since the liner notes to the RT set don't mention it, let me point out that the Liz Anderson singing on this cut with Bare and pretty Miss Norma Jean is the one that wrote "I'm A Lonesome Fugitive" and a bunch of other stuff that helped make Merle Haggard a star), but the way that changing social mores have affected the content, or how we perceive it, of cheating songs. OK, *I've* talked about it before. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
RE: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
-Original Message- From: Shane S. Rhyne [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I guess I said all that to say this-- it doesn't make sense to me that folks can single-handedly blame Chet Atkins (or insert name of producer here) for any perceived faults in the production of Bobby Bare's (or insert name of artist here) records. Atkins may have acheived a good level of power, but I find it hard to believe he could force "Countrypolitan" down the throat of anyone who did not willingly want to collaborate to some degree. [Matt Benz] This is true, but there are terrible producers who will not only ruin the sound of a song, but actually add lyrics, bridges, etcessentially re-write your song. So a artist can be manipulated easily. Surprising that anyone would allow this to happen, but it does. I've seen it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears. Young bands-offered a chance to record-are easily waylaid and manipulated. I wouldn't say this about Atkins. The Countrypolitian Sound, was like the Motown and Stax sound, created by a group of musicians and producers working together on many projects, hence the similarities in sound and style. But it was still organic and complex, not a rote system applied like whitewash. There are as many producer/musician relationships as there are musicians and producers. There's the Ken Nelson school, where he kept out of the way of creativity for the most part, letting Buck Owens run the show while he ran the technical end, listened for problems. Then there's the George Martin type, who starts out in control, but over time becomes more of a musical partner, learning as much as the artist, then there's those producers who Rule as Gods, ala Phil Spector. And every other kind you can think of, from drinking buddy to the guy in the band who owns the board. Did you know the Beatles, in 1969, claimed that Phil Spector ruined their "Let It Be" songs with heaps of strings and choirs? Well, at least McCartney complained. I don't think the others cared anymore. Matt, wearing his new Turncoat proudly
RE: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Matt Benz wrote: Did you know the Beatles, in 1969, claimed that Phil Spector ruined their "Let It Be" songs with heaps of strings and choirs? Well, at least McCartney complained. I don't think the others cared anymore. Well, both Lennon and Harrison shortly subsequently got Spector to produce their records (Plastic Ono Band, Imagine, All Things Must Pass) so they must either never have listened to Let It Be (which offers as good a reason as any to never hire Spector for anything) or they (god help us) actually liked it. I know we've been focusing, or trying to, on producers of twang, but I've been surprised that no one's mentioned Jeff Lynne, one of the most wretched of the wretched. No matter what the lineup of the band or their style, after going through his meat grinder they all sound the same, with the limp but loud drums and those horrendous drive-by backing vocals with all the life compressed out of them. Jeez. And otherwise relatively sane people hire him, just like Spector. Somewhere in there is a point that relates to Terry's objections to Chet Atkins, but it's escaping me at this point on a Friday morning. Will Miner Denver, CO
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
"Shane S. Rhyne" wrote: I suppose I always assumed that production was a more collaborative effort than what it sounds like. Sometimes the producer is the de facto artist, like Phil Spector, whose artists were pretty much nameless and interchangeable (except perhaps the Righteous Bros) and who really was the star of the show. Some producers are very hands-off and just interject an opinion when needed to steer things in the right direction. some of them are overpaid airheads who sleep through the session (I have personally engineered sessions with a famous-name producer who slept through the whole damn thing). There is no definition of what a record producer is or does. Some of them are people who put the money up for the session and appropriate the "producer" title just because they can, not having a clue. There are musician-producers, engineer-producers, financier-producers, label owner-producers, and increasingly now there are songwriter-producers who have very definite ideas about how they want their songs done. I swear fifty percent of the job lies in knowing when to say "that's the one. Stop now", since most musicians are perfectionists and will play something to death and go 'way past it. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
RE: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
I swear fifty percent of the job lies in knowing when to say "that's the one. Stop now"... And another twenty-five percent lies in knowing when to say "hey, have you got that tuner nearby?" Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
Terry A. Smith wrote: np Bobby Bare/Chet Atkins again. "The Game of Triangles" is a killer song. I'm wondering how it would go over here in the late 90s. It has one line that goes something like this, "A woman can't steal a husband who's happy at home." Yikes. Interesting question, since there's a nice cover of it on the excellent The Wandering Eyes collaboration from last year. b.s.
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
"Terry A. Smith" wrote: As for Chet Atkins, since most of the artists he worked with wound up receiving similar arrangements for their tunes, I'd say that's fairly good evidence that he was calling the shots. That doesn't mean the artists had a problem with his choices (though I don't know that you can assume perfect harmony on those choices either). There is no question that Chet was making the conscious attempt to popularize country music by using pop elements the the RCA records he was making. I was a kid dj in Ft. Worth during this time, and my boss was the guy who wrote "Fraulein" and was on RCA and Chet and he talked the radio station into putting in what he called a "countrypolitan" format, which was in essence a non-twangy country format aimed at urban audiences. We played all the new Ray Price and all the RCA stuff and all of the rash of "Hank with Strings" and all that mess. However, I must say that in Atkins' defense (as if he needed it- he's a giant) that in the instances where the addition of pop elements would have been jarring, he didn't do it (like for Charley Pride and Johhny Bush.) (I still maintain that those Bare records were not jarring when we heard them for the first time- they fit perfectly with the era. Objecting to the Anita Kerr singers just would have seemed silly in the 60s.) He didn't just run from studio to studio cramming strings and singers onto country records, he used good sense to try to slick up what could be slicked up and left the rest alone. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Joe Gracey wrote: I was a kid dj in Ft. Worth during this time, and my boss was the guy who wrote "Fraulein" Your boss was Lawton Williams?! Not only did he write "Fraulein," but he also wrote what may very well be my all-time favorite country song, Gene Watson's "Farewell Party." He's still writin' some good 'uns too -- he wrote a coupla fine tunes for Justin Trevino's Texas Honky Tonk album.--don
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
Jon Weisberger wrote: Matt says: There are as many producer/musician relationships as there are musicians and producers. There's the Ken Nelson school, where he kept out of the way of creativity for the most part, letting Buck Owens run the show while he ran the technical end, listened for problems. Except that Nelson apparently wasn't nearly so hands-off when it came to the Louvin Brothers (it was his comments about the mandolin that got Ira into such a swivet). It really is hard to generalize about this stuff. I saw him produce a record one time. He did the weirdest thing: when it came time to mix, he got a pair of good headphones, set up a little table in front of a picture window out in the studio, opened up a good bottle of red wine, and sat there looking out over the Hill Country, sipping wine, and listening to the mix progress over the phones. It finally dawned on me what he was doing- he was removing himself from the process so that all he could be aware of was the mix itself. Brilliant, really. (Other guys do the same thing by leaving and just coming in from time to time to see how it's going.) -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
RE: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
Joe says: It finally dawned on me what he was doing- he was removing himself from the process so that all he could be aware of was the mix itself. Brilliant, really. (Other guys do the same thing by leaving and just coming in from time to time to see how it's going.) Or, to get back to the producer that started the thread, here's a snippet from the JCM roundtable I mentioned earlier: Q. What about the producers? I'd like for you to talk about what they contributed. Buddy Harman: A lot of 'em were smart enough to let us do what we felt like would fit the song.A lot of 'em left us alone, and they'd just play a demo and we would come up with something. Ray Edenton: Chet made that statement one time. He was really interested in it - one of the better producers, I thought. Somebody said (Chet was in there reading a book), "Why don't you tell these guys what to play?" He said, "Why the hell should I tell 'em? There're six guys out there. They could all be producers. Why should I tell 'em that when I got six people telling me how this record should be made? If I hear something I don't really like, I'll tell 'em. Otherwise, I'll read my book." Harold Bradley: Or he'd sit there and practice his guitar. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
Jon Weisberger wrote: I swear fifty percent of the job lies in knowing when to say "that's the one. Stop now"... And another twenty-five percent lies in knowing when to say "hey, have you got that tuner nearby?" you know, I'm speaking with forked tongue because I rely on them, but I hate tuners. Have a stated this rant before? Before tuners records sounded really cool, with the slight disonances created by individuals tuning the best they could and never perfectly. Imagine how much less cool Jimmy Reed or Dylan in the 60s would have been, perfectly in tune? I think it is something we are missing from modern records. And what with ProTools, you will never hear anything even approaching an off-key note from a vocalist again. Imagine what they would do to Sinatra now, tweaking every one of those little slightly-off notes to perfection? It is a sad thing. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
RE: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
Any way we can see this whole article, Jon? Or, to get back to the producer that started the thread, here's a snippet from the JCM roundtable I mentioned earlier: Q. What about the producers? I'd like for you to talk about what they contributed. Buddy Harman: A lot of 'em were smart enough to let us do what we felt like would fit the song.A lot of 'em left us alone, and they'd just play a demo and we would come up with something.
RE: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
Any way we can see this whole article, Jon? Yeah, you can buy the issue (of Journal of Country Music); it's the current one. The masthead says you can also get a photocopy of articles through The Genuine Article, (215) 386-0100, but really, the whole issue is well worth having, not only for this lengthy roundtable, but for the other big features, too: one on "Hillbilly Boogie" and a great piece on Fan Fair by occasional Guest Rocket Richard D. Smith. If it were some mass media mag, I wouldn't hesitate to scan post it, but this is a publication of the Country Music Foundation we're talking about, and they deserve the $$ - in fact, anyone with more than a passing interest in country music ought to have a subscription ($18/year) anyhow. You can reach 'em at (615) 256-1639. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
RE: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
I'm not Jon, but go get yourself a subscription to the Journal of Country Music. It's in the latest issue. Jim Nelson Matt Benz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/26 2:08 PM Any way we can see this whole article, Jon?
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
However, I must say that in Atkins' defense (as if he needed it- he's a giant) that in the instances where the addition of pop elements would have been jarring, he didn't do it (like for Charley Pride and Johhny Bush.) (I still maintain that those Bare records were not jarring when we heard them for the first time- they fit perfectly with the era. Objecting to the Anita Kerr singers just would have seemed silly in the 60s.) He didn't just run from studio to studio cramming strings and singers onto country records, he used good sense to try to slick up what could be slicked up and left the rest alone. That was Joe. Yeah, notwithstanding my grumping about Chet the Producer, I have tremendous respect for the man. I still have my "Superpickers" LP, too! And are those suburban singers really the anita kerr singers? Sheesh. One more thing, people today hear things differently, have different attitudes about production, so, I'm curious, was Atkins slick production really the "normal" way folks expected to hear country tunes produced in the 60s? I just have to think that it still bothered a lot of folks back then. Of course, I'm just guessing. -- Terry Smith ps I just got a press release from a publicist for Atlantic Records' "Old Dogs" session, a record with Bobby Bare, Waylon Jennings, Jerry Reed, Shel Silverstein and Mel Tillis that was originally sold via telemarketing. It really stresses their outlaw status. Check this out: "Unlike the glossy 'flatbellies' or more homogenized icons of today, these country music trailblazers were the discontented and brilliantly expressive Marlon Brandos and James Deans of country music. If they couldn't have done it their way, they wouldn't have done it at all Included in their touring legends is the template for many of the 'bad boy' bands that came after them..." PR BS
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
Don Yates wrote: On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Joe Gracey wrote: I was a kid dj in Ft. Worth during this time, and my boss was the guy who wrote "Fraulein" Your boss was Lawton Williams?! Not only did he write "Fraulein," but he also wrote what may very well be my all-time favorite country song, Gene Watson's "Farewell Party." He's still writin' some good 'uns too -- he wrote a coupla fine tunes for Justin Trevino's Texas Honky Tonk album.--don Yep. Lawton was the Program Director and was taking the Gospel of Chet to the people of Cowtown. This was in 1967, when FM radio was a stepchild, unused format that nobody listened to. Putting music on FM radio was hopeless, since very few people had the receivers for it. Chet's idea was that if you removed the hard-core honky tonk stuff you could attract a much wider audience, especially females. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
"Terry A. Smith" wrote: And are those suburban singers really the anita kerr singers? Sheesh. Yep, they and the Jordanaires were all over Nashville records. One more thing, people today hear things differently, have different attitudes about production, so, I'm curious, was Atkins slick production really the "normal" way folks expected to hear country tunes produced in the 60s? I just have to think that it still bothered a lot of folks back then. Of course, I'm just guessing. -- Terry Smith Well, there was some grumbling from the purist camps when people like Ray Price went countrypolitan and Chet started to gussie up the product, but since most of them were the same 10,000 drunk males who had bought every other record for the past ten years, nobody much cared. There has always been the push-pull of "keep it country" vs. "pop it up" in nashville music. However, nobody thought it was odd to have singers on country records, they were a staple. Strings was usually the dividing line. ps I just got a press release from a publicist for Atlantic Records' "Old Dogs" session, a record with Bobby Bare, Waylon Jennings, Jerry Reed, Shel Silverstein and Mel Tillis that was originally sold via telemarketing. It really stresses their outlaw status. Check this out: "Unlike the glossy 'flatbellies' or more homogenized icons of today, these country music trailblazers were the discontented and brilliantly expressive Marlon Brandos and James Deans of country music. If they couldn't have done it their way, they wouldn't have done it at all Included in their touring legends is the template for many of the 'bad boy' bands that came after them..." Although much of this is patent nonsense (they did it both ways, in fact), I think it is striking to think about how utterly different and original each of these men were. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
Will Miner wrote: I know we've been focusing, or trying to, on producers of twang, but I've been surprised that no one's mentioned Jeff Lynne, one of the most wretched of the wretched. No matter what the lineup of the band or their style, after going through his meat grinder they all sound the same, with the limp but loud drums and those horrendous drive-by backing vocals with all the life compressed out of them. Jeez. And otherwise relatively sane people hire him, just like Spector. I must chime in and agree here about Jeff Lynne - particularly with the godawful synth bath production jobs he did to Dave Edmunds back in the early 80's. MichaelBerick
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
I must chime in and agree here about Jeff Lynne - particularly with the godawful synth bath production jobs he did to Dave Edmunds back in the early 80's. MichaelBerick I must chime in here too, pointing out that my pal Michael Berick (MoMZine and ND contributor) has foolishly taken my advice and logged on to P2. Welcome MB. And to all you non Los Angelenos out there, this has got to at least prove that there's what, at least three, four or five cool folks that hail from this his region, right? Doing everything I can to not work today. Neal Weiss
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
"Shane S. Rhyne" wrote: On a personal note, I don't hold to the theory that is sometimes advanced here that artists are "forced" to bend to the will of producers against any artists' better judgment. I don't know jack about how to record an album, but I've always operated under the assumption that it's a collaborative process and that just maybe in the case of experienced artists, the artist has a bit of an upper hand in influencing the production of the album. depends on who holds the power, what type of person the artist is, how desperate they are to hang onto the deal, etc. However, my experience with artists is that for the most part they don't get to any degree of achievement by being milktoasts and are fairly hard to push around, if not impossible. some artists just don't care about the process and just want to come in, sing to the track, and leave. Some get into every minute decision in the studio until they have to be hog-tied and removed, screaming "take that note out!" as they are carried out the door. I have had many like this, my sweet mate included, and the problem with the picky types is they are almost invariably correct. Everybody made fun of Lucinda for re-cutting her record umpteen times, right? -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: Production-- Ralph Emery's take on this thread
Howdy, Thanks for the input Matt!, Jon, Joe and Terry. Your responses to my post (particularly my personal testimony) bring me to some new questions. As I mentioned, I don't know jack about how to make a record. I'm just a listener. I suppose I always assumed that production was a more collaborative effort than what it sounds like. In language I can understand, I'll illustrate the point that I always carried the idea that it was something like the relationship between writers and editors. Most assuredly every writer does not like every editor he/she is ever assigned to work with, but I've never been in a position where I just handed my manuscript to an editor and said "Here, change it at will." There's a give and take there, much like what El Presidente Gracey described. Yes, young upstart writers don't always get the luxury of choosing their editor, but a good editor worthy of the job title doesn't take the writer out of the editing process-- indeed, the writer is the key ingredient in the editing process. Even a young writer without a single byline to his credit has the ability (if not the flat-out responsibility) to stand-up for himself and exercise some semblance of control over the editing process. The editor (and, in my perhaps naive assumption, the producer) is part-technician, part-advisor, part-midwife, and part-security blanket. Since each the editor and the writer has some stake in the success of the project, it is ideally suited that they work collaboratively, not independently. Now, I fully understand, this isn't always the case. Editors can be power-mad jerks sometimes. And writers can be sniveling primadonnas who won't remove an extra word (or parentheses g) because they don't want to. I guess I said all that to say this-- it doesn't make sense to me that folks can single-handedly blame Chet Atkins (or insert name of producer here) for any perceived faults in the production of Bobby Bare's (or insert name of artist here) records. Atkins may have acheived a good level of power, but I find it hard to believe he could force "Countrypolitan" down the throat of anyone who did not willingly want to collaborate to some degree. Hey, I'd like to eventually sell a novel, but I won't allow an editor to change my story about an East Tennessee string band into a slasher thriller because he thinks it will sell better. Writers and editors of like mind tend to find each other over time. I just kind of assumed it was the same with artists and producers (i.e, Bare and Atkins). Yes, again, I know that the balance of power in the strange world of music business is not *always* tipped in the favor of the artist, but I just can't swallow the notion that Chet Atkins was some sort of task master telling his galley-slave musicians to play "Countrypolitan" or walk the plank. I am enjoying re-reading this particular thread. I find the relationship between artist and producer to be increasingly fascinating to me. Take care, Shane Rhyne Knoxville, TN [EMAIL PROTECTED] NP: John Wesley Harding, Trad. Arr. Jones
