I forget who it was, I'm thinking maybe Marley, but I had read that a very famous old school producer had said he came up as a producer, by interning in a studio. I think beat makers not being producers is more prevalent now then back then.
Kanye was just handing beats over for Blueprint, you can tell on the Plain-Pat beat tape where he was saying, "they added the 'LLAAAMMMEE' (to the takeover), that was so creative", you can tell he wasn't even in the studio when it happened.
But most of the time now you see the artist being the exe-producer, and the "beat-maker" getting co-production credits.
instead of 'produced by' they should just use 'composed by' because that is a much more accurate description. But I guess the classical guys would get their panties in a bunch over that.
you submit a beat, you get a "producer" credit.I always thought this was just because they "produced" the beat.
you answered your own question right there.
So how come they don't just get a "beat" credit, rather than a producer credit?
what is a "beat" credit?
if you produce music, then you are a producer. if this involves writing, then you are a writer as well. if this involves engineering, then you have also engineered. if this means performance, then you have performed and are a performer.
the last 30 years have already established hip hop as a valid form of music. so why is there a question if someone who produces hip hop music is truly deserving of this title??
my take on it is that, maybe because rap music is largely truntbale and sample based, the idea of a producer being the cat that coordinates the band may not apply since the band in the case of hip hop is often the sample or dumrs being used or the keyboard or live sintruments being used to create music in a looped format. Maybe if hip hop followed more of the rules of music generally or was generally live band based, then we could use the band coordinator concept to describe hip hop production.
I'll agree with many the points made before, especially those mentioning a difference between a beat maker and a producer, but with that said, i believe that with the availability and accesibility of equipment like turntables, samplers, keyboard workstations etc. and the simple guidlines for making rap music, it is much easier to buy an mpc read the manual and sample records you think sound dope than it is to buy a guitar and spend years learning to play it. I guess thats just how music has evolved.
The term "producer" has been historically reserved for people who serve a variety of purposes. Some times the "producer" named on a record was merely the person who bank-rolled the release. So I think this has always been sort of a gray area.
The term "producer" is reserved for stooges who want to meddle in art. "Variety of purposes," "person with experience in the process," and "someone who knows what the people want" are all euphimisms for a record label stooge trying to change the art to fit his (or the label he is working for) taste.
An engineer has very specific, technical duties. To insure the art (music) makes it onto tape in the way the artist wishes. There is no art to engineering. It is science, experience, and duty. Comparing engineers to artists is ridiculous. Their job requires skill, experience, and savvy, but not art. An engineer deserves our respect. Still, it remains that they create nothing of themselves. They are execution. They are worthy of our admiration, but they are not art.
Mixing is a part of engineering. To expect one person to "engineer" a record and someone else to "mix" it is just inviting problems. The process is fluid, and should be handled by the same person. A label (or producer acting through the interest of a label) who asks someone to "mix" a record is just looking for another way to divert funds from the artist.
The whole argument that producers are experienced in what people want is bullshit. If someone knew what the people wanted, he would be the only one making records, and they would all be hits. The other, more degrading argument, is that a producer can be "objective," or "provide an outside opinion" for the artist. I believe much creativity is stifled when outside ideas are imposed on difficult situations or critical junctures as "solutions." Part of what makes music gripping is the way the artist finds its way through its aesthetic in moments like this. I think it is crucial to allow the artist to find his own answers. Making the answering idea a reality is where enigneers are of assistance, and producers stand in the way.
Hip-hop "producers" should be considered "artists." If one artist writes the music and another artist raps, then there were two artists working in collaboration. A producer (usually labeled an "executive" producer) in the hip-hop scenario is just another way to subvert decision (and money) from the artist.
Which do you think is a bigger problem, people who don't do enough to change the music they record, or people who do too much to the sound, trying to somehow "make it special?"
I think there is too much of the latter, and a judicious, minimal approach is far from "hands-off" engineering. It is a response to the problem we all see all around us, that of records that are overcooked in every aspect, and so standardized to a level of abstraction. I think this common tragedy is easily avoidable.
I think there are vanishingly few records that would better serve the bands by being more tweaked, more "produced," or generally more slaved-over. It is so easy to manipulate sound that manipulating the sound has become a goal unto itself. I find that ridiculous, and I defend the approach less likely to create freakish sounds and cliches.
Fuck producers and their points. Let the artist write their own music. Let the engineers insure it is recorded to the artist's delight. And let the record label release it.
The term "producer" has been historically reserved for people who serve a variety of purposes. Some times the "producer" named on a record was merely the person who bank-rolled the release. So I think this has always been sort of a gray area.
The term "producer" is reserved for stooges who want to meddle in art. "Variety of purposes," "person with experience in the process," and "someone who knows what the people want" are all euphimisms for a record label stooge trying to change the art to fit his (or the label he is working for) taste.
Bam - hope you got my PM over the holiday. And a happy born day to you as well.
Would you disagree that there are records out there - beautiful, maybe perfect records - that would have been a mess of artistic meandering and technical noodling had not a producer stepped in and said, "take this, leave that, here's the record, here are the outtakes"?
I agree that most of the time exec. producers, A&Rs, and "producers" that are not actually artists are basically businessmen looking after their bottom line. But, being an artist, I recognize how important it is to have someone you trust and respect that can say "more of this, less of that."
Hip-hop currently is a mess of A&Rs and executive producers who are sifting through beat reels and making albums that have ZERO flow because there are eighteen different writers on the record. They don't sound like albums.
Then you have producers who get a great singer, a great writer (or team of writers), and a great band or what have you into a great studio and make genius music. I'm looking at Minnie Riperton - Come Into My Garden on the wall, and I think about Stepney and Evans, how much they meant to that record, you know?
(...) Would you disagree that there are records out there - beautiful, maybe perfect records - that would have been a mess of artistic meandering and technical noodling had not a producer stepped in and said, "take this, leave that, here's the record, here are the outtakes"?
Hip-hop currently is a mess of A&Rs and executive producers who are sifting through beat reels and making albums that have ZERO flow because there are eighteen different writers on the record. They don't sound like albums.
Then you have producers who get a great singer, a great writer (or team of writers), and a great band or what have you into a great studio and make genius music. I'm looking at Minnie Riperton - Come Into My Garden on the wall, and I think about Stepney and Evans, how much they meant to that record, you know? (...)
I'd rather hear a record the way an artist wrote it. To assume that when an artist arrives at the studio, his songs are not "ready" is degrading, presumptuous and pushy. Let them record their record, and let me decide if I like it or not.
The exception is the artist who makes a record in the studio, over months or even years. Those records are usually shit.
The example of Minnie Riperton assumes that when Minnie came to record her album, everyone involved thought her art was "sub-standard" and decided to apply their tastes to her album.
She has to live with that record. Her name is on the cover. Let Stepney and Evans write their own records. Let me listen to Minnie.
That is to say, there are hundreds of records I love that were "produced" by someone. Would I love them less if they weren't produced? I doubt it. I'd probably hear more of the artist I love, and less of the team of stooges trying to filter sales data into art.
I'm glad no one told Whitehouse they needed more "punch." I'm glad no one told Crucifucks that Wisconsin probably wasn't a "solid LP." I'm glad no one told Mingering Mike that his ideas were silly and he'd never "get big" recording the way he did.
The dollarbins are full of examples of how records should not be made. The exceptions (where a producer actually helped facilitate an artist's vision) are rare, and I doubt I would like those records any less minus the producer's "vision."
Yeah, definitely the minority but I wasn't asking rhetorically. I personally like the meeting of the minds that goes on. I don't believe that *every* producer is label-hired scum that seeks to subvert the artist. Matter of fact, I know this is not the case; there are producers that are great lovers of music and want to bring the best out of the artist. They are good at helping artists get to their highest level. I don't believe that *every* artist knows how best to frame their raw talent, how to write a great song, or how to arrange.
I really appreciate, as an artist, people that help me reach my best. Not their best, my best. I don't think it happens alone (unless you're lucky or extraordinarily gifted or both).
I'd rather hear a record the way an artist wrote it. To assume that when an artist arrives at the studio, his songs are not "ready" is degrading, presumptuous and pushy. Let them record their record, and let me decide if I like it or not.
that's a valid statement, but sometimes the artist is way too close to the music to be objective. I have the the demos of Jane's Addiction's Nothing Shocking, Tracy Chapan's 1st LP, The Cult's Love Removal Machine, Aerosmith's "Get A Grip," Slayer's Reign in Blood and Guns & Roses Appetite for Destruction and with the exception of Tracy Chapman's demos (everything's just her voice & a guitar) the rest of them all blow IMO in comparison to the final product and that's even if you made them sonically on par.
the most drastic differences from demo to final release are with The Cult & The Guns & Roses records. Neither band would've had the success they had without Rick Rubin or Thompson & Barberio (big disco producers before making rock records!) helping their finished product.
But don't artists hire producers in the first place???? I never buy into "the record company made me" rant. If you're mature and/or confident, no one should be able to make you do shit.
*derailed into paycheck and bambouche discussions*
producers are art directors.
sometimes they hire artists to fulfill their visions. sometimes they just do it themselves with an SP1200 and a breakface. this 'vision' of a producer can be anything, good and bad--sell more records, acheive this feeling, so on and so forth.
the producer is an artist in his own right. vocalists, musicians, are sometimes just hired talent. They have technical skill they can provide for somebody's artistic vision.
Not all producers should be artists, and not all musicians should be artists. Not all artists should be musicians, and not all musicians should be producers.
Good things come together for many reasons. You can have a meeting of the minds creating a masterpiece. You can have a musician messiah with the ultimate vision and direction for a project. You can have a million dollar voice that can only be utilized by a million dollar producer.
There are a million ways to appreciate music. Ignoring certain music because it doesn't fit a certain criteria is a sad way to live.
Lizard people will always be around to package music for the 11 year old girl. But there will always be panda people that who just want to make a great record.
I don't believe that *every* producer is label-hired scum that seeks to subvert the artist. Matter of fact, I know this is not the case; there are producers that are great lovers of music and want to bring the best out of the artist. They are good at helping artists get to their highest level. I don't believe that *every* artist knows how best to frame their raw talent, how to write a great song, or how to arrange.
that's a valid statement, but sometimes the artist is way too close to the music to be objective.
The "way to close," "objective ears," "bring the best out" arguments are all euphemistic of "you're doing it wrong." In art, what is wrong? And who is a producer to assume that they know "the right way" to do something?
To tell an artist their arragements are weak, their chord progression is faulty, their sound isn't "punchy" enough is all bullshit. It's still working under the assumption that the art doesn't belong to the artist, and their album wasn't enough when they arrived at the studio (with it finished and ready to record).
I'd prefer to hear it as the artist intended. I appreciate a lack of objectivity in art. I love the singlemindedness of songs.
Under these guidelines then, you would think it perfectly acceptable for someone to step to Picasso with "what's with all this square-headed shit? This ain't gonna sell, let me help you find your voice."
Working with someone, in collaboration, or the artist asking people close to him for help is something different. Those people are usually friends, or share songwriting credits. These are people that are subordinate to the art. They are there to help. "Dog, what you think of this beat?" "It's aight, I'd make it faster." This type of solicitation leaves the artist with an outsider's view (if he so chooses to ask for it), but the decision to change his art is still up to him.
The role of a producer is one above the artist. "I'd let you tinker with it, but know, in the end, I have all this experience, and I will decide what is right, what the people want, and what you're true voice is trying to say."
How is that not insulting? To take someone's life work and smear your taste all over it.
In what sense does a producer or co-producer take any "responsibility" if he fucks up a record? He's getting paid, surely. There is no consequence there. He doesn't pay for the process, so he is at no risk. He can move on to another record immediately. The artist has to carry that record around for the rest of his career, and effectively pay for everything, even the producer.
They are the only people taking any responsibility for any of it.
I have the the demos of Jane's Addiction's Nothing Shocking, Tracy Chapan's 1st LP, The Cult's Love Removal Machine, Aerosmith's "Get A Grip," Slayer's Reign in Blood and Guns & Roses Appetite for Destruction and with the exception of Tracy Chapman's demos (everything's just her voice & a guitar) the rest of them all blow IMO in comparison to the final product and that's even if you made them sonically on par.
Demos ae quite different from finished albums. If you compare the highly technical and complex aspect of engineering (multi-tracking), mixing, and mastering with a demo, you will likely be disappointed with the latter.
If you had a controlled comparison, say something like Quicksand's Slip LP, which was commercially released as an over-produced mess, but was also released under another name, minus all the "make it big" production. I find the latter to be much more interesting.
But don't artists hire producers in the first place???? I never buy into "the record company made me" rant. If you're mature and/or confident, no one should be able to make you do shit.
You get to decide what someone else's music is supposed to sound like, based on what you think is "good." Why would any band who actually liked their own material allow themselves to be subject to that?
The major labels have little concern for art. That should be obvious. They've no interest in paying their artists, much less letting them call the shots. Anyone who has been privy to how these labels work can obviously see it's a sham. If you don't believe the "label made me do it" shit, let's pretend for a moment that I am the label and you are the band:
In a conventional (royalty-minus-recoupment) arrangement, I promise to give you, say 12 percent of the MSRP of each record I sell. But I will also deduct 10 percent of that, because the records might break. They might not -- almost certainly won't -- but I will take that 10 percent like sunrise comes at six.
I will also claim, say, 5 percent will be non-accountable, because they will be "free goods." You will think this means free promotional copies, and some of them will be, but even if none of them are, I will not pay you for that 5 percent, because they might be.
I will reserve 25 percent (up to 50 percent, but I'm generous) of your royalties, in case we get returns. I will certainly not get 25 percent returns, but I will hang on to that 25 percent because I can.
Before your record hits the street, I will control exactly how much money is spent on it, and how you will make it. Your contract says we must both agree, but that means I have to agree to any suggestion of yours, and I won't, unless it is exactly what I want. If you disagree, I will wait until you agree. Or I will let you try it your way, and then make you do it my way "as an option." You will agree to that. You have no choice, because I can decline to "accept" the master until you have done it.
"Both Agree" means "You Will Do It My Way."
I can require you to re-mix a record, and hang the cost on your recoupable account, even if none of the new mixes are used. I can require you to record additional songs, at your expense (ultimately), even if I don't use them (although I reserve that right, if it suits me). I can require you to use a producer, who will be paid with points taken off of your royalty, at a rate you cannot negotiate. I can splurge for expensive promotion, radio plugging, promotional gifts (including not just imprinted mugs and matchbooks, but bribes and other marginally-viable strategies), all at your expense.
Once your record hits the street, it takes a short while for this initial expense to be paid back to me, and I start earning a profit. Your royalty account however, will remain negative until I have earned (literally) 10 times this amount, because I earn from the gross, but you recoup from 75 percent of 95 percent of 90 percent of 12 percent -- minus the points I gave your producer (who you "chose").
At the distant point where I might actually have to write you a royalty check, I can hang additional expenses (including bonus points your producer will get from your money) on your account, at no marginal cost to me. It is possible for conditions to be such that every time you sell a record, you lose money, until you have sold a fabulous number of them. All the while, I am earning money on every copy.
If you realize you have been taken, and want to leave, you may not. If we get into a disagreement, you will have no money with which to sue me. I may sue you. Since I have ensured that you have no money, you will be unable to mount a defense, and the cost of doing so will take whatever money you have earned outside of our arrangement. Even the threat of a legal battle will cripple you. Me? I have lawyers on staff, so it costs me nothing to do it, and I am not shy.
If your record is not successful, or if I decide to write the project off unfinished, I will not allow you to leave. It would be embarrassing if you left and were successful elsewhere. I prefer you to disappear.
br />How did you get into this?
By investing years of hard work into your band, writing songs and performing them well enough to draw an audience I deem worth exploiting. By spending 300 days a year playing your ass off, attracting an audience that will buy your records from me. By crippling your personal life in subservience to a demanding profession. By having those rare and unique things: A creative impulse and the talent to execute it. That's how you earned a seat at my table, and you should be grateful I gave it to you.
Every night you play a show, you are building that audience, and they will come to me to buy your records. I will sell them. I will earn money from these people you have sent to me. You will not. They love you, so I get their money.
What did I do to earn my lion's share? I pressed copies of the record you made of the songs you wrote and the performance you gave, and made them available to your audience -- the audience you earned with your years of hard work and dedication, and continue to work hard to earn every night. People who like your band. I pressed those records, so I get all the money.
Demos ae quite different from finished albums. If you compare the highly technical and complex aspect of engineering (multi-tracking), mixing, and mastering with a demo, you will likely be disappointed with the latter.
the demos are the band's idea of what they thought the songs should be. Like I said, if you made those demos to sound sonically on par with what was put out, TO ME, they wouldn't be as good. Again, in case you're not reading this correctly, it's simply my opinion - not a "their way was wrong"
Anyone who has been privy to how these labels work can obviously see it's a sham
Still the artists sign on for that. You can make it like the record companies are the big bad wolf, but no one really holds guns to their heads. It's well documented how they get over and still there are people willing to pay that game. Anybody who says "I didn't know" is either stupid or unwilling to accecpt the resonbility that they played themself.
Bam, it's true that those kind of arrangements exist, but it's also true that many many artists are able to get out or around bum deals once they stop trying to do it all themselves. Are lawyers also stooges sent from below to further compromise an artist's vision?
Like I said, if you made those demos to sound sonically on par with what was put out, TO ME, they wouldn't be as good. Again, in case you're not reading this correctly, it's simply my opinion - not a "their way was wrong"
G, Sorry, I don't think I understood your first point. I wasn't trying to be combative. I see what you're saying.
Sounds like you had your expiriences !!!
I've had no dealings with major labels.
Bam, it's true that those kind of arrangements exist, but it's also true that many many artists are able to get out or around bum deals once they stop trying to do it all themselves. Are lawyers also stooges sent from below to further compromise an artist's vision?
Tell me if I understand your position. If an artist (whose main job is to write songs) gets signed to a label to help get those songs to "the people," then gets screwed by the label, being forced to take breaks, or remix albums, your opinion is all the artist needs to do is "stop trying to do so much" and they can "get out or around" the deal.
Wasn't the deal originally intended to help them with "the dumb stuff?"
Are lawyers also stooges sent from below to further compromise an artist's vision?
Lawyers are easily definable. Their jobs are understandable. The write hard to read contracts that are enforcable.
They also are generally unneeded in independent art.
Bam, it's true that those kind of arrangements exist, but it's also true that many many artists are able to get out or around bum deals once they stop trying to do it all themselves. Are lawyers also stooges sent from below to further compromise an artist's vision?
Tell me if I understand your position. If an artist (whose main job is to write songs) gets signed to a label to help get those songs to "the people," then gets screwed by the label, being forced to take breaks, or remix albums, your opinion is all the artist needs to do is "stop trying to do so much" and they can "get out or around" the deal.
Wasn't the deal originally intended to help them with "the dumb stuff?"
I think artists should be well-represented, managerially and legally, I totally advocate working with a good producer who understands the artist's vision and is in agreement as to where they are going. However, that's the difference between making music and making a record. You just want to make music? Sit in your room, sit in a park, stand on your head on the street or whatever and do the damn thang. Get your gigs and play your heart out and spread the word and reap the rewards of playing live. In all honesty that's where the money's at anyway. When it comes to making a record on a label that is not your own, then I think it is very foolish to leave all "the dumb stuff" to people who do not have your best interests in mind. I do not think that producers, managers, or lawyers are diametrically opposed to the artist by necessity though. They are, or should be, working for the artist.
Are lawyers also stooges sent from below to further compromise an artist's vision?
Lawyers are easily definable. Their jobs are understandable. The write hard to read contracts that are enforcable.
They also are generally unneeded in independent art. That is the difference in what we are talking about - making a record, unless you are controlling the process from start to finish, is dependent by nature. Any time you are entering into a contract with someone, whether it's to paint your house or put out your record, I'd say it's smart to consult a lawyer.
i'm no industry insider, but i've always thought the job of artist is, first and foremost, to perform songs. you're rewriting a lot of musical history by giving the performer the role of songwriter.
and what of the performer who has no interest in writing music? are they not artists? most classical musicians make careers out of performing nothing but songs composed 100+ years before they were born.
what of the producer/composer who lacks the skill or faculties to adequately record the music that he or she conceptualizes. if a man writes a song he feels would only fully be realized if sung by a female what option does he have than to hire an outside vocalist?
where does the role of collaboration fall into your definition? must every work of art be the product of a singular vision?
i'm no industry insider, but i've always thought the job of artist is, first and foremost, to perform songs. you're rewriting a lot of musical history by giving the performer the role of songwriter.
and what of the performer who has no interest in writing music? are they not artists? most classical musicians make careers out of performing nothing but songs composed 100+ years before they were born.
what of the producer/composer who lacks the skill or faculties to adequately record the music that he or she conceptualizes. if a man writes a song he feels would only fully be realized if sung by a female what option does he have than to hire an outside vocalist?
where does the role of collaboration fall into your definition? must every work of art be the product of a singular vision?
Hip-hop "producers" should be considered "artists." If one artist writes the music and another artist raps, then there were two artists working in collaboration. A producer (usually labeled an "executive" producer) in the hip-hop scenario is just another way to subvert decision (and money) from the artist.
instead of 'produced by' they should just use 'composed by' because that is a much more accurate description. But I guess the classical guys would get their panties in a bunch over that.
Bam, it's true that those kind of arrangements exist, but it's also true that many many artists are able to get out or around bum deals once they stop trying to do it all themselves. Are lawyers also stooges sent from below to further compromise an artist's vision?
actually, in many cases they are stooges that are on retainer from whatever label an artist is signing to, and when the label finds out that the artist has no representation they pull out said stooges card and are like 'here, let me reccommend this guy'
Bam, it's true that those kind of arrangements exist, but it's also true that many many artists are able to get out or around bum deals once they stop trying to do it all themselves. Are lawyers also stooges sent from below to further compromise an artist's vision?
actually, in many cases they are stooges that are on retainer from whatever label an artist is signing to, and when the label finds out that the artist has no representation they pull out said stooges card and are like 'here, let me reccommend this guy'
I mean, again though, if you agree to be represented by the label's lawyer, then you are not a very bright person.
i'm no industry insider, but i've always thought the job of artist is, first and foremost, to perform songs. you're rewriting a lot of musical history by giving the performer the role of songwriter.
Jay-Z Sings the Standards?
New Orleans Bounce by the Art Fielder Orchestra?
Ant Banks - Big Bad Ass Covers?
Who are you talking about?
Crooners, standards singers, jazz traditionalists, country folks, sure, they perform other people's songs. Most of my record collection, however, is full of people who wrote and performed their own songs.
Are you a closet Perry Como buff, or what?
and what of the performer who has no interest in writing music? are they not artists?
Brittney Spears. Ashlee Simpson. InSync. NKOTB. Madonna. Clay Aiken. Paris Hilton. "Refridgerator" Perry, Shaq, and Kobe. Are these the people you are talking about?
most classical musicians make careers out of performing nothing but songs composed 100+ years before they were born.
Most classical musicians are extremely talented. Sight-reading, large ensemble performance, taking direction, endless rehersal, theoretic study, interpreting. Their job is extremely demanding. They are generally writers themselves. They make a living, however, performing other people's work.
I worked with a symphony clarinetist, Dave Bergman. An extremely talented gentleman. Very knowledgable. Could play anything. Understood every musical notation (Risoluto, Adagio, Castrato, Energico, Stretto, Allegro) at sight and could instantly know whether it pertained to how he played or not -- all while he was playing! He practiced a few hours a day, worked a full-time job, had a family, and performed with small ensembles for hire outside of the symphony. What was his passion? His favorite thing to talk about? This stupid ass keyboard/sequencer/sampler he bought to help him compose his writing. He was always asking me questions about MIDI programming, sequencing, multi-instrument mode.
Just because one "makes his career" as a performer of other's works, it doesn't mean his songs won't be performed by generations to come. Or, in the case of people like Maria Callas, performing operas using the "Callas interpretation" of the music.
Besides, when did you start giving a fuck about classical musicians? Please post the url of cocaine blunts' article about Glenn Gould. Or post a picture of your Maria Callas box set collection, then I will start taking your questions with some credential.
what of the producer/composer who lacks the skill or faculties to adequately record the music that he or she conceptualizes. if a man writes a song he feels would only fully be realized if sung by a female what option does he have than to hire an outside vocalist?
Define what a producer does in this scenario? Ask someone to sing someone else's song?
As for the composer. This is quite normal. Write a song, then decide you'd like someone else to collaborate with you. Willie Nelson's Half Nelson or Waylon & Willie's WWI and WWII albums are perfect examples. Beautiful songs made better by collaboration.
But...
where does the role of collaboration fall into your definition? must every work of art be the product of a singular vision?
We covered collaborations back on page 1, dog. You musta been listening to Perry Como. [color:pink] (HE DIDN'T) [/color]
(...) You just want to make music? Sit in your room, sit in a park, stand on your head on the street or whatever and do the damn thang. Get your gigs and play your heart out and spread the word and reap the rewards of playing live. In all honesty that's where the money's at anyway.
Just make music. You say that like it's the most trivial part of the process. Someone creating something new and genuinely theirs is beautiful. Everything else is subservient to that. The engineer is their to help the artist with the technical aspect of transferring pushed air to wax. The label is there to help manufacture. The "people" are their to decide if they like it or not.
I do not think that producers, managers, or lawyers are diametrically opposed to the artist by necessity though. They are, or should be, working for the artist.
I don't understand what being "diametrically opposed" "by necessity" is, but there are a million examples of these people screwing artists. Whether it's necessity or not, it's happening. So let's assume instead that producers, managers, and lawyers should be, but aren't working for the artist. Instead, they work for the label, as that's what history has proven.
That is the difference in what we are talking about - making a record, unless you are controlling the process from start to finish, is dependent by nature. Any time you are entering into a contract with someone, whether it's to paint your house or put out your record, I'd say it's smart to consult a lawyer.
I'd say it's smart to avoid the lawyer. If I had to consult a lawyer every time I wanted to get shit done, I wouldn't be able to do half the shit I want.
The major label model is clearly fucked. It places the burden on the artist for decisions they do not get to make, and ensures that whatever money is spent, it will not end up in their hands, but will be spread out within the industry. This sort of spending increases the power and influence (within the industry) of him who cuts the checks, but is only possible because the bands are attracting an audience.
In contrast, many independent labels have operated on a profit-sharing model, and they have proven to be fair, stable and profitable for both bands and labels.
They operate with no contract, no lawyers, and they split everything 50/50 with their artists. There are very few lawsuits, and artists tend to stay on those labels for many year, releasing many records. The labels themselves enjoy profit and longevity.
The majors are faltering, litigious, over-inflated wrecks. The indies are still working and releasing more records all the time.
Why do I need a lawyer when I don't even need a contract?
Plus, there is a great deal of fun to be had doing these things "yourself" (there are several involved). I just got a laquer cut for a 12" EP. We got to take the 1/4" master tape to the mastering engineer ourselves, sit in on the session, offer our thoughts, and watch him do his work (sharing Vietnamese sandwiches and hearing his George Clinton stories in the process). When we sent that master to the cutting engineer, he asked what matrix numbers should be etched in the aluminum/laquer. We asked, "Well, does it have to be a number?" Turns out, we could put anything we wanted on there.
So, there is a note on Side B of this EP to a girl we went to high school with. She will likely never hear this record, but still, we had a good laugh amongst ourselves.
Indie bands I know love their labels. They have fun, they know the score, their labels trust them, and they get to do what they love and see results.
I don't see why there is so much defending of major labels, or the practices (producers, contracts, lawyers) of major labels in this thread when it seems like we all agree that the artists usually get screwed by the label.
Again, my allegiance is with the artist.
Now, I have to finish transferring these (independently released, producer free, extreme Black art) reel-to-reels for BigSpliff before he sicks his lawyer on me.
that's rather myopic view of what music is important to the grand scheme of things, don't you think?
regardless, you brought up the notion of what a musician's *job* was. jimmy iovine, la reid, et al (the musicians employer) could give a fuck who writes the music, as long as they get that hit. now in the case of most of the music we discuss on the site, the performer is often the writer, but their *job* is to make a great product (record), no matter who writes it. if they were unable to write a song that can sustain them financially, they would be wise to turn to outside collaborators (writers, producers, whatever) or they probably wouldn't be able to call music their *job* for much longer.
bringing it back to the original point of the thread. producer=writer. take the neptunes for instance, they're responsible for many great rap records where they S>made/S> composed the beat and wrote the hook. these elements are far more important to the songs success than the raps. and honestly, i trust the neptunes vision a little more than noreaga's. i don't know if the world is ready for melvin flynt the singer/songwriter/producer.
Besides, when did you start giving a fuck about classical musicians?
i give a fuck about music. just because i can't snap a jpeg of a bunch of boxsets doesn't mean that i don't think classical music has a place when discussing the larger context of music as a whole.
Bam, it's true that those kind of arrangements exist, but it's also true that many many artists are able to get out or around bum deals once they stop trying to do it all themselves. Are lawyers also stooges sent from below to further compromise an artist's vision?
actually, in many cases they are stooges that are on retainer from whatever label an artist is signing to, and when the label finds out that the artist has no representation they pull out said stooges card and are like 'here, let me reccommend this guy'
I mean, again though, if you agree to be represented by the label's lawyer, then you are not a very bright person.
I agree, but when your young and hungry, and still idealistic, you may think that the labels have your best interests in mind at first. (Not realizing that you get waaaaaaay better interest rates at a traditional bank - which is what labels basically are: banks with shitty interest rates) So you might as well bankroll your own shit.
that's rather myopic view of what music is important to the grand scheme of things, don't you think?
regardless, you brought up the notion of what a musician's *job* was. jimmy iovine, la reid, et al (the musicians employer) could give a fuck who writes the music, as long as they get that hit.
I guess this is where I lose. I could care less how a record is "doing." Soundscan numbers don't make a record sound better. If the starting point of art is "how we gonna get that hit," isn't that myopic?
now in the case of most of the music we discuss on the site, the performer is often the writer, but their *job* is to make a great product (record), no matter who writes it. if they were unable to write a song that can sustain them financially, they would be wise to turn to outside collaborators (writers, producers, whatever) or they probably wouldn't be able to call music their *job* for much longer.
If the goal of their writing is money, they should stick to jingles, car commercials, and placement on the OC. I don't think it's good for art to be created and then have someone (or a committe of someone's) stand around and say, "Now, how can we change this to make it sell?"
Besides, when did you start giving a fuck about classical musicians?
i give a fuck about music. just because i can't snap a jpeg of a bunch of boxsets doesn't mean that i don't think classical music has a place when discussing the larger context of music as a whole.
So you don't have any Maria Callas records then?
To be serious, though. This comes back to my original question in this thread:
Which do you think is a bigger problem, people who don't do enough to change the music, or people who do too much to the sound, trying to somehow "make it special," "make it suit the audience's taste," "make it sell," etc.?
I think there is too much of the latter.
I think the common tragedy of making records that are overcooked in every aspect (and so standardized to a level of abstraction) is easily avoidable.
There was a time when records weren't so commercially driven, and there was less pressure on everyone to invent some ideal of what people want. The dollar bins are full of that shit.
CastleD raises a good point (we've been talking), and that is, "I don't want to hear myself. I can predict myself." My position is not that artist has to work in total isolation and everyone else can't say a word. My position is that the art is the thing. That's why people show up. So the art should come first, and the rest of us in the process are subservient. If the artist wants a producer, collaborations, that "Murder Dog Look," let them have it.
But for some chode to force himself on the art under the guise of knowing what's best? Let me hear his record, then. I bet it tanks.
Comments
Kanye was just handing beats over for Blueprint, you can tell on the Plain-Pat beat tape where he was saying, "they added the 'LLAAAMMMEE' (to the takeover), that was so creative", you can tell he wasn't even in the studio when it happened.
But most of the time now you see the artist being the exe-producer, and the "beat-maker" getting co-production credits.
you answered your own question right there.
what is a "beat" credit?
if you produce music, then you are a producer. if this involves writing, then you are a writer as well. if this involves engineering, then you have also engineered. if this means performance, then you have performed and are a performer.
the last 30 years have already established hip hop as a valid form of music. so why is there a question if someone who produces hip hop music is truly deserving of this title??
I'll agree with many the points made before, especially those mentioning a difference between a beat maker and a producer, but with that said, i believe that with the availability and accesibility of equipment like turntables, samplers, keyboard workstations etc. and the simple guidlines for making rap music, it is much easier to buy an mpc read the manual and sample records you think sound dope than it is to buy a guitar and spend years learning to play it. I guess thats just how music has evolved.
The term "producer" is reserved for stooges who want to meddle in art. "Variety of purposes," "person with experience in the process," and "someone who knows what the people want" are all euphimisms for a record label stooge trying to change the art to fit his (or the label he is working for) taste.
An engineer has very specific, technical duties. To insure the art (music) makes it onto tape in the way the artist wishes. There is no art to engineering. It is science, experience, and duty. Comparing engineers to artists is ridiculous. Their job requires skill, experience, and savvy, but not art. An engineer deserves our respect. Still, it remains that they create nothing of themselves. They are execution. They are worthy of our admiration, but they are not art.
Mixing is a part of engineering. To expect one person to "engineer" a record and someone else to "mix" it is just inviting problems. The process is fluid, and should be handled by the same person. A label (or producer acting through the interest of a label) who asks someone to "mix" a record is just looking for another way to divert funds from the artist.
The whole argument that producers are experienced in what people want is bullshit. If someone knew what the people wanted, he would be the only one making records, and they would all be hits. The other, more degrading argument, is that a producer can be "objective," or "provide an outside opinion" for the artist. I believe much creativity is stifled when outside ideas are imposed on difficult situations or critical junctures as "solutions." Part of what makes music gripping is the way the artist finds its way through its aesthetic in moments like this. I think it is crucial to allow the artist to find his own answers. Making the answering idea a reality is where enigneers are of assistance, and producers stand in the way.
Hip-hop "producers" should be considered "artists." If one artist writes the music and another artist raps, then there were two artists working in collaboration. A producer (usually labeled an "executive" producer) in the hip-hop scenario is just another way to subvert decision (and money) from the artist.
Which do you think is a bigger problem, people who don't do enough to change the music they record, or people who do too much to the sound, trying to somehow "make it special?"
I think there is too much of the latter, and a judicious, minimal approach is far from "hands-off" engineering. It is a response to the problem we all see all around us, that of records that are overcooked in every aspect, and so standardized to a level of abstraction. I think this common tragedy is easily avoidable.
I think there are vanishingly few records that would better serve the bands by being more tweaked, more "produced," or generally more slaved-over. It is so easy to manipulate sound that manipulating the sound has become a goal unto itself. I find that ridiculous, and I defend the approach less likely to create freakish sounds and cliches.
Fuck producers and their points.
Let the artist write their own music.
Let the engineers insure it is recorded to the artist's delight.
And let the record label release it.
Fuck the audience. Who are they anyway?
Bam - hope you got my PM over the holiday. And a happy born day to you as well.
Would you disagree that there are records out there - beautiful, maybe perfect records - that would have been a mess of artistic meandering and technical noodling had not a producer stepped in and said, "take this, leave that, here's the record, here are the outtakes"?
I agree that most of the time exec. producers, A&Rs, and "producers" that are not actually artists are basically businessmen looking after their bottom line. But, being an artist, I recognize how important it is to have someone you trust and respect that can say "more of this, less of that."
Hip-hop currently is a mess of A&Rs and executive producers who are sifting through beat reels and making albums that have ZERO flow because there are eighteen different writers on the record. They don't sound like albums.
Then you have producers who get a great singer, a great writer (or team of writers), and a great band or what have you into a great studio and make genius music. I'm looking at Minnie Riperton - Come Into My Garden on the wall, and I think about Stepney and Evans, how much they meant to that record, you know?
Cause they may be an underlying disdain for Puffy that goes beyond the notion he makes unacceptable music to some.
the sidebar question might be why aren't Dre and Axelrod spoken in the same breath as production giants.
I'd rather hear a record the way an artist wrote it. To assume that when an artist arrives at the studio, his songs are not "ready" is degrading, presumptuous and pushy. Let them record their record, and let me decide if I like it or not.
The exception is the artist who makes a record in the studio, over months or even years. Those records are usually shit.
The example of Minnie Riperton assumes that when Minnie came to record her album, everyone involved thought her art was "sub-standard" and decided to apply their tastes to her album.
She has to live with that record. Her name is on the cover. Let Stepney and Evans write their own records. Let me listen to Minnie.
That is to say, there are hundreds of records I love that were "produced" by someone. Would I love them less if they weren't produced? I doubt it. I'd probably hear more of the artist I love, and less of the team of stooges trying to filter sales data into art.
I'm glad no one told Whitehouse they needed more "punch." I'm glad no one told Crucifucks that Wisconsin probably wasn't a "solid LP." I'm glad no one told Mingering Mike that his ideas were silly and he'd never "get big" recording the way he did.
The dollarbins are full of examples of how records should not be made. The exceptions (where a producer actually helped facilitate an artist's vision) are rare, and I doubt I would like those records any less minus the producer's "vision."
I realize I am in the minority in this view.
I really appreciate, as an artist, people that help me reach my best. Not their best, my best. I don't think it happens alone (unless you're lucky or extraordinarily gifted or both).
that's a valid statement, but sometimes the artist is way too close to the music to be objective. I have the the demos of Jane's Addiction's Nothing Shocking, Tracy Chapan's 1st LP, The Cult's Love Removal Machine, Aerosmith's "Get A Grip," Slayer's Reign in Blood and Guns & Roses Appetite for Destruction and with the exception of Tracy Chapman's demos (everything's just her voice & a guitar) the rest of them all blow IMO in comparison to the final product and that's even if you made them sonically on par.
the most drastic differences from demo to final release are with The Cult & The Guns & Roses records. Neither band would've had the success they had without Rick Rubin or Thompson & Barberio (big disco producers before making rock records!) helping their finished product.
But don't artists hire producers in the first place???? I never buy into "the record company made me" rant. If you're mature and/or confident, no one should be able to make you do shit.
producers are art directors.
sometimes they hire artists to fulfill their visions. sometimes they just do it themselves with an SP1200 and a breakface. this 'vision' of a producer can be anything, good and bad--sell more records, acheive this feeling, so on and so forth.
the producer is an artist in his own right. vocalists, musicians, are sometimes just hired talent. They have technical skill they can provide for somebody's artistic vision.
Not all producers should be artists, and not all musicians should be artists. Not all artists should be musicians, and not all musicians should be producers.
Good things come together for many reasons. You can have a meeting of the minds creating a masterpiece. You can have a musician messiah with the ultimate vision and direction for a project. You can have a million dollar voice that can only be utilized by a million dollar producer.
There are a million ways to appreciate music. Ignoring certain music because it doesn't fit a certain criteria is a sad way to live.
Lizard people will always be around to package music for the 11 year old girl. But there will always be panda people that who just want to make a great record.
The "way to close," "objective ears," "bring the best out" arguments are all euphemistic of "you're doing it wrong." In art, what is wrong? And who is a producer to assume that they know "the right way" to do something?
To tell an artist their arragements are weak, their chord progression is faulty, their sound isn't "punchy" enough is all bullshit. It's still working under the assumption that the art doesn't belong to the artist, and their album wasn't enough when they arrived at the studio (with it finished and ready to record).
I'd prefer to hear it as the artist intended. I appreciate a lack of objectivity in art. I love the singlemindedness of songs.
Under these guidelines then, you would think it perfectly acceptable for someone to step to Picasso with "what's with all this square-headed shit? This ain't gonna sell, let me help you find your voice."
Working with someone, in collaboration, or the artist asking people close to him for help is something different. Those people are usually friends, or share songwriting credits. These are people that are subordinate to the art. They are there to help. "Dog, what you think of this beat?" "It's aight, I'd make it faster." This type of solicitation leaves the artist with an outsider's view (if he so chooses to ask for it), but the decision to change his art is still up to him.
The role of a producer is one above the artist. "I'd let you tinker with it, but know, in the end, I have all this experience, and I will decide what is right, what the people want, and what you're true voice is trying to say."
How is that not insulting? To take someone's life work and smear your taste all over it.
In what sense does a producer or co-producer take any "responsibility" if he fucks up a record? He's getting paid, surely. There is no consequence there. He doesn't pay for the process, so he is at no risk. He can move on to another record immediately. The artist has to carry that record around for the rest of his career, and effectively pay for everything, even the producer.
They are the only people taking any responsibility for any of it.
Demos ae quite different from finished albums. If you compare the highly technical and complex aspect of engineering (multi-tracking), mixing, and mastering with a demo, you will likely be disappointed with the latter.
If you had a controlled comparison, say something like Quicksand's Slip LP, which was commercially released as an over-produced mess, but was also released under another name, minus all the "make it big" production. I find the latter to be much more interesting.
The major labels have little concern for art. That should be obvious. They've no interest in paying their artists, much less letting them call the shots. Anyone who has been privy to how these labels work can obviously see it's a sham. If you don't believe the "label made me do it" shit, let's pretend for a moment that I am the label and you are the band:
In a conventional (royalty-minus-recoupment) arrangement, I promise to give you, say 12 percent of the MSRP of each record I sell. But I will also deduct 10 percent of that, because the records might break. They might not -- almost certainly won't -- but I will take that 10 percent like sunrise comes at six.
I will also claim, say, 5 percent will be non-accountable, because they will be "free goods." You will think this means free promotional copies, and some of them will be, but even if none of them are, I will not pay you for that 5 percent, because they might be.
I will reserve 25 percent (up to 50 percent, but I'm generous) of your royalties, in case we get returns. I will certainly not get 25 percent returns, but I will hang on to that 25 percent because I can.
Before your record hits the street, I will control exactly how much money is spent on it, and how you will make it. Your contract says we must both agree, but that means I have to agree to any suggestion of yours, and I won't, unless it is exactly what I want. If you disagree, I will wait until you agree. Or I will let you try it your way, and then make you do it my way "as an option." You will agree to that. You have no choice, because I can decline to "accept" the master until you have done it.
"Both Agree" means "You Will Do It My Way."
I can require you to re-mix a record, and hang the cost on your recoupable account, even if none of the new mixes are used. I can require you to record additional songs, at your expense (ultimately), even if I don't use them (although I reserve that right, if it suits me). I can require you to use a producer, who will be paid with points taken off of your royalty, at a rate you cannot negotiate. I can splurge for expensive promotion, radio plugging, promotional gifts (including not just imprinted mugs and matchbooks, but bribes and other marginally-viable strategies), all at your expense.
Once your record hits the street, it takes a short while for this initial expense to be paid back to me, and I start earning a profit. Your royalty account however, will remain negative until I have earned (literally) 10 times this amount, because I earn from the gross, but you recoup from 75 percent of 95 percent of 90 percent of 12 percent -- minus the points I gave your producer (who you "chose").
At the distant point where I might actually have to write you a royalty check, I can hang additional expenses (including bonus points your producer will get from your money) on your account, at no marginal cost to me. It is possible for conditions to be such that every time you sell a record, you lose money, until you have sold a fabulous number of them. All the while, I am earning money on every copy.
If you realize you have been taken, and want to leave, you may not. If we get into a disagreement, you will have no money with which to sue me. I may sue you. Since I have ensured that you have no money, you will be unable to mount a defense, and the cost of doing so will take whatever money you have earned outside of our arrangement. Even the threat of a legal battle will cripple you. Me? I have lawyers on staff, so it costs me nothing to do it, and I am not shy.
If your record is not successful, or if I decide to write the project off unfinished, I will not allow you to leave. It would be embarrassing if you left and were successful elsewhere. I prefer you to disappear.
br />How did you get into this?
By investing years of hard work into your band, writing songs and performing them well enough to draw an audience I deem worth exploiting. By spending 300 days a year playing your ass off, attracting an audience that will buy your records from me. By crippling your personal life in subservience to a demanding profession. By having those rare and unique things: A creative impulse and the talent to execute it. That's how you earned a seat at my table, and you should be grateful I gave it to you.
Every night you play a show, you are building that audience, and they will come to me to buy your records. I will sell them. I will earn money from these people you have sent to me. You will not. They love you, so I get their money.
What did I do to earn my lion's share? I pressed copies of the record you made of the songs you wrote and the performance you gave, and made them available to your audience -- the audience you earned with your years of hard work and dedication, and continue to work hard to earn every night. People who like your band. I pressed those records, so I get all the money.
the demos are the band's idea of what they thought the songs should be. Like I said, if you made those demos to sound sonically on par with what was put out, TO ME, they wouldn't be as good. Again, in case you're not reading this correctly, it's simply my opinion - not a "their way was wrong"
Still the artists sign on for that. You can make it like the record companies are the big bad wolf, but no one really holds guns to their heads. It's well documented how they get over and still there are people willing to pay that game. Anybody who says "I didn't know" is either stupid or unwilling to accecpt the resonbility that they played themself.
G,
Sorry, I don't think I understood your first point. I wasn't trying to be combative. I see what you're saying.
I've had no dealings with major labels.
Tell me if I understand your position. If an artist (whose main job is to write songs) gets signed to a label to help get those songs to "the people," then gets screwed by the label, being forced to take breaks, or remix albums, your opinion is all the artist needs to do is "stop trying to do so much" and they can "get out or around" the deal.
Wasn't the deal originally intended to help them with "the dumb stuff?"
Lawyers are easily definable. Their jobs are understandable. The write hard to read contracts that are enforcable.
They also are generally unneeded in independent art.
I think artists should be well-represented, managerially and legally, I totally advocate working with a good producer who understands the artist's vision and is in agreement as to where they are going. However, that's the difference between making music and making a record. You just want to make music? Sit in your room, sit in a park, stand on your head on the street or whatever and do the damn thang. Get your gigs and play your heart out and spread the word and reap the rewards of playing live. In all honesty that's where the money's at anyway. When it comes to making a record on a label that is not your own, then I think it is very foolish to leave all "the dumb stuff" to people who do not have your best interests in mind. I do not think that producers, managers, or lawyers are diametrically opposed to the artist by necessity though. They are, or should be, working for the artist.
Lawyers are easily definable. Their jobs are understandable. The write hard to read contracts that are enforcable.
They also are generally unneeded in independent art.
That is the difference in what we are talking about - making a record, unless you are controlling the process from start to finish, is dependent by nature. Any time you are entering into a contract with someone, whether it's to paint your house or put out your record, I'd say it's smart to consult a lawyer.
i'm no industry insider, but i've always thought the job of artist is, first and foremost, to perform songs. you're rewriting a lot of musical history by giving the performer the role of songwriter.
and what of the performer who has no interest in writing music? are they not artists? most classical musicians make careers out of performing nothing but songs composed 100+ years before they were born.
what of the producer/composer who lacks the skill or faculties to adequately record the music that he or she conceptualizes. if a man writes a song he feels would only fully be realized if sung by a female what option does he have than to hire an outside vocalist?
where does the role of collaboration fall into your definition? must every work of art be the product of a singular vision?
There are no rules in art.
actually, in many cases they are stooges that are on retainer from whatever label an artist is signing to, and when the label finds out that the artist has no representation they pull out said stooges card and are like 'here, let me reccommend this guy'
I mean, again though, if you agree to be represented by the label's lawyer, then you are not a very bright person.
Jay-Z Sings the Standards?
New Orleans Bounce by the Art Fielder Orchestra?
Ant Banks - Big Bad Ass Covers?
Who are you talking about?
Crooners, standards singers, jazz traditionalists, country folks, sure, they perform other people's songs. Most of my record collection, however, is full of people who wrote and performed their own songs.
Are you a closet Perry Como buff, or what?
Brittney Spears. Ashlee Simpson. InSync. NKOTB. Madonna. Clay Aiken. Paris Hilton. "Refridgerator" Perry, Shaq, and Kobe. Are these the people you are talking about?
Most classical musicians are extremely talented. Sight-reading, large ensemble performance, taking direction, endless rehersal, theoretic study, interpreting. Their job is extremely demanding. They are generally writers themselves. They make a living, however, performing other people's work.
I worked with a symphony clarinetist, Dave Bergman. An extremely talented gentleman. Very knowledgable. Could play anything. Understood every musical notation (Risoluto, Adagio, Castrato, Energico, Stretto, Allegro) at sight and could instantly know whether it pertained to how he played or not -- all while he was playing! He practiced a few hours a day, worked a full-time job, had a family, and performed with small ensembles for hire outside of the symphony. What was his passion? His favorite thing to talk about? This stupid ass keyboard/sequencer/sampler he bought to help him compose his writing. He was always asking me questions about MIDI programming, sequencing, multi-instrument mode.
Just because one "makes his career" as a performer of other's works, it doesn't mean his songs won't be performed by generations to come. Or, in the case of people like Maria Callas, performing operas using the "Callas interpretation" of the music.
Besides, when did you start giving a fuck about classical musicians? Please post the url of cocaine blunts' article about Glenn Gould. Or post a picture of your Maria Callas box set collection, then I will start taking your questions with some credential.
Define what a producer does in this scenario? Ask someone to sing someone else's song?
As for the composer. This is quite normal. Write a song, then decide you'd like someone else to collaborate with you. Willie Nelson's Half Nelson or Waylon & Willie's WWI and WWII albums are perfect examples. Beautiful songs made better by collaboration.
But...
We covered collaborations back on page 1, dog. You musta been listening to Perry Como. [color:pink] (HE DIDN'T) [/color]
Just make music. You say that like it's the most trivial part of the process. Someone creating something new and genuinely theirs is beautiful. Everything else is subservient to that. The engineer is their to help the artist with the technical aspect of transferring pushed air to wax. The label is there to help manufacture. The "people" are their to decide if they like it or not.
I don't understand what being "diametrically opposed" "by necessity" is, but there are a million examples of these people screwing artists. Whether it's necessity or not, it's happening. So let's assume instead that producers, managers, and lawyers should be, but aren't working for the artist. Instead, they work for the label, as that's what history has proven.
I'd say it's smart to avoid the lawyer. If I had to consult a lawyer every time I wanted to get shit done, I wouldn't be able to do half the shit I want.
The major label model is clearly fucked. It places the burden on the artist for decisions they do not get to make, and ensures that whatever money is spent, it will not end up in their hands, but will be spread out within the industry. This sort of spending increases the power and influence (within the industry) of him who cuts the checks, but is only possible because the bands are attracting an audience.
In contrast, many independent labels have operated on a profit-sharing model, and they have proven to be fair, stable and profitable for both bands and labels.
They operate with no contract, no lawyers, and they split everything 50/50 with their artists. There are very few lawsuits, and artists tend to stay on those labels for many year, releasing many records. The labels themselves enjoy profit and longevity.
The majors are faltering, litigious, over-inflated wrecks. The indies are still working and releasing more records all the time.
Why do I need a lawyer when I don't even need a contract?
Plus, there is a great deal of fun to be had doing these things "yourself" (there are several involved). I just got a laquer cut for a 12" EP. We got to take the 1/4" master tape to the mastering engineer ourselves, sit in on the session, offer our thoughts, and watch him do his work (sharing Vietnamese sandwiches and hearing his George Clinton stories in the process). When we sent that master to the cutting engineer, he asked what matrix numbers should be etched in the aluminum/laquer. We asked, "Well, does it have to be a number?" Turns out, we could put anything we wanted on there.
So, there is a note on Side B of this EP to a girl we went to high school with. She will likely never hear this record, but still, we had a good laugh amongst ourselves.
Indie bands I know love their labels. They have fun, they know the score, their labels trust them, and they get to do what they love and see results.
I don't see why there is so much defending of major labels, or the practices (producers, contracts, lawyers) of major labels in this thread when it seems like we all agree that the artists usually get screwed by the label.
Again, my allegiance is with the artist.
Now, I have to finish transferring these (independently released, producer free, extreme Black art) reel-to-reels for BigSpliff before he sicks his lawyer on me.
that's rather myopic view of what music is important to the grand scheme of things, don't you think?
regardless, you brought up the notion of what a musician's *job* was. jimmy iovine, la reid, et al (the musicians employer) could give a fuck who writes the music, as long as they get that hit. now in the case of most of the music we discuss on the site, the performer is often the writer, but their *job* is to make a great product (record), no matter who writes it. if they were unable to write a song that can sustain them financially, they would be wise to turn to outside collaborators (writers, producers, whatever) or they probably wouldn't be able to call music their *job* for much longer.
bringing it back to the original point of the thread. producer=writer. take the neptunes for instance, they're responsible for many great rap records where they S>made/S> composed the beat and wrote the hook. these elements are far more important to the songs success than the raps. and honestly, i trust the neptunes vision a little more than noreaga's. i don't know if the world is ready for melvin flynt the singer/songwriter/producer.
i give a fuck about music. just because i can't snap a jpeg of a bunch of boxsets doesn't mean that i don't think classical music has a place when discussing the larger context of music as a whole.
I agree, but when your young and hungry, and still idealistic, you may think that the labels have your best interests in mind at first. (Not realizing that you get waaaaaaay better interest rates at a traditional bank - which is what labels basically are: banks with shitty interest rates) So you might as well bankroll your own shit.
I guess this is where I lose. I could care less how a record is "doing." Soundscan numbers don't make a record sound better. If the starting point of art is "how we gonna get that hit," isn't that myopic?
If the goal of their writing is money, they should stick to jingles, car commercials, and placement on the OC. I don't think it's good for art to be created and then have someone (or a committe of someone's) stand around and say, "Now, how can we change this to make it sell?"
So you don't have any Maria Callas records then?
To be serious, though. This comes back to my original question in this thread:
Which do you think is a bigger problem, people who don't do enough to change the music, or people who do too much to the sound, trying to somehow "make it special," "make it suit the audience's taste," "make it sell," etc.?
I think there is too much of the latter.
I think the common tragedy of making records that are overcooked in every aspect (and so standardized to a level of abstraction) is easily avoidable.
There was a time when records weren't so commercially driven, and there was less pressure on everyone to invent some ideal of what people want. The dollar bins are full of that shit.
CastleD raises a good point (we've been talking), and that is, "I don't want to hear myself. I can predict myself." My position is not that artist has to work in total isolation and everyone else can't say a word. My position is that the art is the thing. That's why people show up. So the art should come first, and the rest of us in the process are subservient. If the artist wants a producer, collaborations, that "Murder Dog Look," let them have it.
But for some chode to force himself on the art under the guise of knowing what's best? Let me hear his record, then. I bet it tanks.