Mike Chapman

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author

Comment

VC10

Mike Chapman

Lead

[-]

Posts: 4767

06/06/09 18:17:19

Sweet Indulgence

Having said what I said about Nicky Chinn; I bloody love the Chapster. Ive been playing his demos and, although Sweet's arrangements improved them, his hooky tricks are just brilliant. And he would just keep churning them out; been enjoying Cindy Cindy, Why did Caroline Cry, Moonlight In Baskerville etc and they didn't even get a release.

Not to mention all the fodder for Mud, Smokie, Suzi and the like.

Was Touch Too Much written for Sweet? It's got Sweet written all over it...but maybe too similar to the WWB riff.

Anyway, top writer of 70s bubblegum.

"Burn On The Flame!"

Reply Quote

richard65

#1

[-]

Posts: 2972

06/06/09 18:26:05

Action

Agreed, very talented guy who wrote the soundtrack to my youth, and his work with Blondie still stands up. I'll never forgive him for 'Mickey' though!!!

Reply Quote

Dyynam0

#2

[-]

Posts: 977

06/06/09 19:48:27

richard65 wrote:
Agreed, very talented guy who wrote the soundtrack to my youth, and his work with Blondie still stands up. I'll never forgive him for 'Mickey' though!!!

He didn't write a song called Mickey though. It was called Kitty.

Cheers. Ewan.

GET OUTA MY F***ING WAY!

Last Edited By: Dyynam0 06/06/09 19:57:06. Edited 1 time.

Reply Quote

hongkongmick

Touch Too Much

#3

[-]

Posts: 1120

07/06/09 01:55:21

Hellraiser

Excerpt from my forthcoming book: "Steve added, 'We got halfway through the album with the help of Mike Chapman and Nicky Chinn, but when we listened to it in the cold light of day, we didn't find the songs very inspiring. So (in September) we shelved the whole thing.' One of the tracks Touch Too Much was later lifted by Mickie Most and given to a new band The Arrows who scored a minor hit with it."

Reply Quote

musicguru62

#4

[-]

Posts: 326

07/06/09 05:07:15

Action

I've heard and reading nothing but good things about Mike Chapman. I've read interviews with Blondie, Doug Fieger (The Knack) and Suze de Marchi (Baby Animals) who have all basically said the same thing - he's a hard taskmaster in the studio, but he gets results.

Reply Quote

VC10

#5

[-]

Posts: 4767

07/06/09 07:02:08

Sweet Indulgence

what was the shelved album Mick, was that Okker The Rocker? And if they were halfway through an album how come no outtakes have never surfaced after all these years? If the Arrows single was 1974 then what period are we in?

So many questions, too few answers..!

"Burn On The Flame!"

Reply Quote

Baba O Jimmy

My guess...

#6

[-]

Posts: 4223

07/06/09 09:49:15

Sweet Indulgence

It would be "Okker the Rocker", John (nice pic of Mick Tucker's Gretsch-kit btw.!). This would fit in the time frame of late ´73 then;
if they shelved it in Sep. ´73, it meant that perhaps Chinn & Chapman grew a bit tried of the ungreatful "sweeties", and went to America for a while instead,
while the sweeties and Phil Wainman probably went ahead with what would be SFA eventually.

"Ballroom Blitz" had already been recorded, and "Teenage Rampage" was already written and presented to them (so they could record, produce and release it in early ´74).
Perhaps "No You Don't" and "AC/DC" were meant for OTR-project at first, but then ended up on SFA instead? Perhaps there were some other songs
- if they were already recorded, as blueprints, - which were owned by Chinn & Chapman, which the sweeties and Wainman couldn't (or wouldn't) touch,
because they were below sweetie-standard/not more than just blueprints, and hence either erased or taken into the vaults by Chapman...?

Both Andy and Mick have claimed in interviews that Chinn and Chapman went to America for some 6 months. So, if they went there around October ´73,
and had nothing to do with SFA, they would have been duly back to around March/April ´74; right in time to present "The Sixteens" for the sweeties (perhaps written in,
and inspired by their stint in the US, on "Desolation Bouevard" in N.Y/L.A?).

Intriguing though! But I think they did right to release SFA instead. The thing that intrigues me though, is why that one never did better on the UK-list when they were so
hot in the spring of ´74?

Reply Quote

Dyynam0

#7

[-]

Posts: 977

07/06/09 15:39:22

Baba O Jimmy wrote:

Intriguing though! But I think they did right to release SFA instead. The thing that intrigues me though, is why that one never did better on the UK-list when they were so
hot in the spring of ´74?

The principal reason has to be that there were no hit singles lifted from it. Imagine if it had been released with another four tracks dotted about, ie; Blockbuster, Hell Raiser, Ballroom Blitz and Teenage Rampage, It would have sold by the bucketload. Whoever made the decision to release the album without any of those songs is, in my view, the main culprit behind Sweet not being the major force in music that they should have been.

Cheers. Ewan.

GET OUTA MY F***ING WAY!

Reply Quote

SGBrass

#8

[-]

Posts: 635

07/06/09 18:55:08

Action

Whoever made the decision to release the album without any of those songs is, in my view, the main culprit behind Sweet not being the major force in music that they should have been.

It could have been the band themselves. They always wanted to be part of the hard rock league and bands like Zeppelin, Purple or Floyd were seen as album acts, who sold their records usually without singles. This might have been the strategy that in the end didn't work for them. Or think of the Beatles. "Sgt Pepper" and the "white album" didn't have any singles.

Reply Quote

zabadak

#9

[-]

Posts: 4784

07/06/09 19:26:55

Sweet F A

Yeah, although, with 20/20 hindsight, it may be seen to have been commercial suicide, I think it's really cool that it didn't have any singles on it (although Sweet FA was later a B-side, of course).

What do I know about music? Sweet FA!!!

Reply Quote

Dyynam0

#10

[-]

Posts: 977

08/06/09 00:18:47

zabadak wrote:
Yeah, although, with 20/20 hindsight, it may be seen to have been commercial suicide, I think it's really cool that it didn't have any singles on it (although Sweet FA was later a B-side, of course).

I didn't need 20/20 hindsight in 1974 to know it was a stupid idea not to have any hit singles on the album, and I was only 13 years old then. I'm not so sure it was that cool either, even if it is a brilliant album.

Cheers. Ewan.

GET OUTA MY F***ING WAY!

Reply Quote

zabadak

#11

[-]

Posts: 4784

08/06/09 05:48:02

Sweet F A

It was "arty", like the second Beatles album.

What do I know about music? Sweet FA!!!

Reply Quote

Dyynam0

#12

[-]

Posts: 977

08/06/09 13:14:20

SGBrass wrote:

It could have been the band themselves. They always wanted to be part of the hard rock league and bands like Zeppelin, Purple or Floyd were seen as album acts, who sold their records usually without singles.

Just because these bands sold albums without singles doesn't mean they didn't release singles. Apart from LZ, the others all released singles but the majority of them flopped. They still gained their initial success from having albums with hits singles on them though. The same goes for the Beatles. Maybe Sgt pepper and The White album didn't have any singles on them, but they'd already had considerable album success before that with albums that did contain hit singles. Lets face it, if the Fab Four had brought out an album for the under fives, they'd still have sold copies in their millions. In fact McCartney proved that with the majority of his solo singles.

GET OUTA MY F***ING WAY!

Reply Quote

musicguru62

#13

[-]

Posts: 326

08/06/09 15:23:19

Action

As has been mentioned around here previously, Peppermint Twist/Rebel Rouser was issued as a single by RCA in Australia (and I believe it went to #1). Also Restless was the b-side here to the later single "4th of July" from Give Us A Wink. "Sweet F.A." was the b-side here to "Action".

Reply Quote

SGBrass

#14

[-]

Posts: 635

08/06/09 19:13:02

Action

Just because these bands sold albums without singles doesn't mean they didn't release singles. Apart from LZ, the others all released singles but the majority of them flopped. They still gained their initial success from having albums with hits singles on them though. The same goes for the Beatles. Maybe Sgt pepper and The White album didn't have any singles on them, but they'd already had considerable album success before that with albums that did contain hit singles.

In the sixties the philosophy of many bands and artists was to see singles and albums as different products. And they felt it wasn't right to sell a song, that was already available as a single, again on an album. You find statements like that from George Martin and other producers of that era.

And returning to Sweet...They had an album out that contained 2 hit-singles. Did it help? No.
While "Fanny Adams" without a single made it to Number 2 in Germany and remains their most loved album. Guess why Andy is touring with that album. And he won't do it with "Funny how sweet co co can be"....

Reply Quote

Sherman Tank

#15

[-]

Posts: 3157

09/06/09 22:54:27

Hellraiser

Reading your post John, I had to dig out the Chapmans demo CD and yes I totally agree. The songs sound 80 per cent there. Sweets vocal texture put the polish on the final tracks for sure but the vocal lines are virtually the same =Chaps/Brians. A talented guy.

Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Mike Chapman

Mike Chapman

Quick Reply