i hear what you're saying Bam ... i too come from a major label distrusting background
a large part of me is comletely anti major lables / anti lawyers / anti contracts etc etc
i think there's alot to be said for artist run and co operative labels.. and there would be little to no underground punk / riot grrl / emo / straight edge scene without those models.
on the otherhand i LOATHE the rise of the boutique engineer even more than i dislike the idea of a producer.
the trend in underground music for way too long has been to "capture the way the band sounds in the room".
and while this is probably a great way to do one album it's also pumping out some remarkably BORING records...
everybody is so concerned with HONESTY, ACCURACY, STAYING TRUE TO OUR SOUND... and they all want to work without producers and intstead focus on hiring big wig engineers ala Albini / weston / mcentire etc etc
i mentioned my disliking of albini many times in the past...I know loads of dudes who've recorded with him and they all love him to death, but conversly the records they returned with were all super freaking dull.
this one buddy of mine was quoted in a local rag one time regarding how much he loved albini.. he had been recording a take .. finished up and went into the control room to ask steve if the take was good only to find steve on the phone / reading a magazine... and the answer "as long as you're cool with it i don't care"
to me this is YES man behavior at its worst. You can at least form an OPINION on a project you're involved in. Im not saying producers should completely fuck with the project either but the notion of a SECOND OPINION never hurt anyone.
underground rock is being run into the ground by far to many labels releasing records by their buddies bands recorded by their buddies with no thought towards whether or not the final product does anything other "than sound like the band".
hip hop has been[/b] run into the ground by far to many labels releasing records by their buddies bands recorded by their buddies with no thought towards whether or not the final product does anything other "than sound like the band".
i think hip hop has been plagued by the same problem of lack of producers reigning i nthe final product... too many compilations of beats picked by the artist = lp
on the otherhand i LOATHE the rise of the boutique engineer even more than i dislike the idea of a producer.
the trend in underground music for way too long has been to "capture the way the band sounds in the room".
and while this is probably a great way to do one album it's also pumping out some remarkably BORING records...
Dubious, I would argue that the underground engineers you mentioned aren't setting out to "capture the way the band sounds in the room," but starting with the way the band sounds in the room, then letting the band decide where to go from there.
This approach may not work for kids who want to be told what to do or for people who expect to create something and then have someone else shit all over it.
If you find those records boring, it's because the band decided to release a boring record. I'd still prefer to listen to a "remarkably boring" record and decide if I like it or not over listening to something that a committee of people spent twelve months frankensteining into middle-of-the-road passable-to-everyone shit.
Dubious, I would argue that the underground engineers you mentioned aren't setting out to "capture the way the band sounds in the room," but starting with the way the band sounds in the room, then letting the band decide where to go from there.
yes but by removing the tradional producer from the equation how far can the band "go"??
look at george martin and the beatles for example
he booked session musicians at the bands request, and even wrote scores for the arrangments, often based on the hummed melodies of the songwriters. hell he even played on a couple tracks when the band wasnt in the studio and then presented the results after the fact (OH MY GOD!!!!)
when they had an idea for a sound they wanted he called the electrical engineers in and they built the box.. first DI boxes used... hacked into the leslies to run guitars / vocals through etc etc
i dont think a band has any of these options when they choose to run with just an engineer.
especially engineers who have a very very specific set of gear they're willing to use and very set in stone philosophies regarding the engineers art form.
it reminds me of a return to the early brittish rock days where the band had NO say in the sound they just showed up and the engineers set all the levels and mixed the record the same way no matter who was in the session.
it wasn't until dudes like Jimmy Page / the beatles started aggressively pushing for changes in the engineering that more options became available.. and a guy like page was only able to do that because he was credited as the PRODUCER on the session. (im thinkng specifically of the john mayall sessions that Page produced.. he spoke at length about how the engineers refused to record a marshall amp at full volume in the room for fear of it damaging the equipment)
inventing shit like backwards reverb is the realm of the PRODUCER to take the recording session to the NEXT LEVEL
additionally i think you donwplay the most improtant aspect of production and what makes a producer an ARTIST
namely the vibe
would you want a london calling without Guy Stevens??
i believe that record is called Sandinista...
but what exaclty did guy stevens do in the sessions other than show up wasted and pour beer on the piano to "get that sound"???
little to nothing.. but the vibe and atmosphere he created are part and parcel to that great peace of art.
the same band left to their own devices = triple record
i appreciate the concept of sandinista in its "lets put EVERYTHING we recorded out" vibe but its also unlistenable in its entirety.
i doubt very highly that dudes like Jimmy Miller, Viscounti, Jim Dickenson etc could be described as industry stooges who were only interested in fucking wit the artists.
yet for some reason the Stones sounded better with Jimmy Miller.. and a Big Star without Dickenson seems impausible.
First off, a belated Happy Birthday. If I'da known, I'da baked a cake. For serious. I got a flourless chocolate jernt that's pretty decent.
My position is that the art is the thing. That's why people show up.
I'd say you're half-right. Art is in fact the thing, but I'm sure you don't really believe that people show up just because the art exists--just because they, at the precise moment of creation, sense some disturbance in The Force and follow the vibrations to some unheated club or some place with white walls and red dots. People show up because the art exists and because they, you know, know about it--because somebody put the record out, because somebody published the book, because somebody hung the show. And the awful truth is that said somebodies may or may not have given a shit about the art. But even so, until art is perceived--often necessitating the assistance of many such somebodies--the circuit is not complete. "A bell is a cup until it is struck," yunno? Before art is the thing, it is only the potential[/b] thing.
I mean, I really hope I have you wrong here, because 1) you don't seem to be giving much consideration to the fact that music that "suits the audiece's taste" and "gets that hit" and "sells" is also the music that "the people" (who you seem to be sneering at, or at least excluding yourself from) get to actually "hear," and 2) the kind of art you seem to be arguing for--unassailably pure, completely untouched by interlopers throughout the whole of its conception, execution, distribution, and perception--sounds elitist, hermetic, and sterile. Above all, it sounds pretty fucking fragile: hothouse-bred artists wilting in the hands of manipulative producers and devious lawyers and disinterested somebodies and all the other barbarians at the gate, producing art that can only survive through withdrawal from a heathen popular culture. And I'm perplexed, because you really don't strike me as being That Guy; you seem to appreciate art that knows how to scrap, so I don't quite get this strident artist-as-pawn tack you're taking.
Moreover, all of us on here--every single one of us (unless you're, like, a hundred and twelve years old)--has had our tastes and our methods of expression shaped positively, negatively, and irrevocably by corporately produced records, corporately edited manuscripts, corporately curated shows, and corporately controlled internet access, so for any of us to sit here and say that all that matters is the raw and uncut reeks of, if not outright denial, then of a memory that is--like Mr. Shaw--too short.
...
In a side note: My cousin has a friend who looks just like Maria Callas. Minus the fierceness, though. Which I guess means she doesn't really look like Maria Callas. Hmmm.
First off, a belated Happy Birthday. If I'da known, I'da baked a cake. For serious. I got a flourless chocolate jernt that's pretty decent.
My position is that the art is the thing. That's why people show up.
I'd say you're half-right. Art is in fact the thing, but I'm sure you don't really believe that people show up just because the art exists--just because they, at the precise moment of creation, sense some disturbance in The Force and follow the vibrations to some unheated club or some place with white walls and red dots. People show up because the art exists and because they, you know, know about it--because somebody put the record out, because somebody published the book, because somebody hung the show. And the awful truth is that said somebodies may or may not have given a shit about the art. But even so, until art is perceived--often necessitating the assistance of many such somebodies--the circuit is not complete. "A bell is a cup until it is struck," yunno? Before art is the thing, it is only the potential[/b] thing.
First off, hello. I miss the "do the james" aspect of this forum.
I thought I made it clear that my point was not to let artists dwell in isolation. Obviously people want to sell it, and people want to experience it, so there needs to be an effort made to get it out. My point then is the difference between how a corporate board room and an independent label choose to do this.
The idea being of the art being the thing and everything else being subservient does not mean there is nothing else.
If I were to simplify it to absurdity, the majors would come up with something to sell and then try to find some kind of art to stick in it, while the indies find the art and try to help the artist sell it.
I mean, I really hope I have you wrong here, because 1) you don't seem to be giving much consideration to the fact that music that "suits the audiece's taste" and "gets that hit" and "sells" is also the music that "the people" (who you seem to be sneering at, or at least excluding yourself from) get to actually "hear," and 2) the kind of art you seem to be arguing for--unassailably pure, completely untouched by interlopers throughout the whole of its conception, execution, distribution, and perception--sounds elitist, hermetic, and sterile.
I am not arguing for "completely untouched." How about asking before we stick our hand up their skirts?
Moreover, all of us on here--every single one of us (unless you're, like, a hundred and twelve years old)--has had our tastes and our methods of expression shaped positively, negatively, and irrevocably by corporately produced records, corporately edited manuscripts, corporately curated shows, and corporately controlled internet access, so for any of us to sit here and say that all that matters is the raw and uncut reeks of, if not outright denial, then of a memory that is--like Mr. Shaw--too short.
As I grow older I realize how cliche and dated some of my favorite artist's "big" records sound. Sure, that shit was bonkers in '82, but now, when I compare it with their four or five "pre-big time" works, I feel sympathy for them. They all say as much when they show up on Where Are They Now.
I remember when books used to be published by authors who had little chance of selling millions. The books were published anyway, because the corporately controlled board goons knew that, over time, the millions would come. Now, if you're not gonna land on Oprah's list within a month, they don't want to fuck with you, at all.
I am not arguing for a world free of commercials. A world with no other access to art than happening upon it in the instant that it exists. My complaint is with the underlying culture of the recording industry, and that comes from producers and engineers assuming control of the creative aspects (rather than just the technical aspects) and then trumpeting their achievements. They claim a kind of authorship over the records they work on, and expect to do so always.
yes but by removing the tradional producer from the equation how far can the band "go"??
look at george martin and the beatles for example
The band can "go" as far as they want. This line of thought is still assuming that what the band creates is not enough.
And why does everyone use this utterly unique band as an example in every situation, as thought the Beatles were the sole decider of how bands' careers ought to progress?
The Beatles were essentially producing their own records, except in name, from Revolver on. I think everyone involved has said as much. If you prefer their earlier, more standard material, then you have a pretty good case for letting producers tell bands what to do and how to do it. If you prefer their later material, then you're making my case for me.
The idea being of the art being the thing and everything else being subservient does not mean there is nothing else.
I understand that, but I guess I'm interested in art that, win or lose, fights for its place in its culture, much more so than art that comes from all other factors being subservient to it. All this reads as though you'd prefer the seas to part for art. I want art that can swim.
How about asking before we stick our hand up their skirts?
I feel sympathy for them.
My complaint is with the underlying culture of the recording industry, and that comes from producers and engineers assuming control of the creative aspects
Again, I'm at odds with this Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Tool. This seems not very far from the kind of devaluation you're railing against.
This has always eluded me, however I'm assuming that there is some historic reason unless I have misunderstood the meaning of producer.
From what I know, the "Producer" is responsible for coordinating the band and directing their "sound". This may or may not include writing songs, playing instruments, or other things of the sort.
However, in rap, it seems that all one has to do is make a beat and they get a producer credit. There are some beat-makers that take on the producer role as it is intended to be used (like Dr. Dre, Pete Rock, DJ Premier). But for the most part if you submit a beat, you get a "producer" credit.
I always thought this was just because they "produced" the beat. So how come they don't just get a "beat" credit, rather than a producer credit?
Does my confusion make sense? I know a lot of people in the industry post on here, maybe you can give me some historical perspective
the answer lies within your confusion. if the beat maker did not do the beat there would be no song. therefore no production or product to sell. peace, stein. . .
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.
By the same token, isn't "sampling" and its subsequent recontextualization a similar exercise of violence against the original artist? When you sample drums and put 808s beneath the kicks--by your understanding of art here--isn't that basically a way of saying the drums are "weak" or "faulty"?
And, furthermore, isn't even just for an audience member to proclaim that they don't like a song a similar act of violence?
Are we supposed to enjoy everything that is put out BECAUSE it's exactly as the artist wanted it to be?
I mean, it seems pretty clear that what you are most worried about is a sense of corporate violence done against an individual's personal vision, but a very similar sort of violence occurs at so many levels it seems kind've ridiculous to me to hate so vigorously on the violence "producers" committ... especially when so often, that violence is what potentially makes a record beautiful.
Wouldn't producers like Stepney and Axelrod who have a very defined sound be considered artists in their own right?
You bring in someone like Stepney to produce a Ramsey Lewis record or a Minnie record and you get the artist, plus "that sound" the producer brings. Same thing with the Mizell Brothers. They become such a prominent part of the finished product that they themselves become equally as important as the artist they're producing.
I can see both sides to this, and Bam, you raised a very interesting point about producers getting more in the way of the artist than assisting. It really depends on the situation I think. But I had never really looked at it that way before. The only time I consider myself a "producer" in the classic sense of the word, is when I'm working with an MC. I'll give suggestions or have them re-do lines if they're not really up to par or can be better. I know that's subjective, but the MC needs to trust the "producer" etc. etc.... and we end up right back where we started in this convo about who really knows what's best for the artist and/or song.
I don't see any harm in saying "hey, you sound kind of flat, maybe try putting more energy into it" or "what if you space out the words right here?" to see what works in the best interest for the song.
Also, it's kind of presumptuous to say the producer and artist don't have some kind of open dialog about how each one feels about what the other is doing. I'm sure many times over it wasn't a case of "do it this way" but more "how about we try it like this?". Giving the artist an idea for a different approach, but not making it an absolute.
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.
By the same token, isn't "sampling" and its subsequent recontextualization a similar exercise of violence[/b] against the original artist? When you sample drums and put 808s beneath the kicks--by your understanding of art here--isn't that basically a way of saying the drums are "weak" or "faulty"?
And, furthermore, isn't even just for an audience member to proclaim that they don't like a song a similar act of violence[/b]?
Are we supposed to enjoy everything that is put out BECAUSE it's exactly as the artist wanted it to be?
I mean, it seems pretty clear that what you are most worried about is a sense of corporate violence[/b] done against an individual's personal vision, but a very similar sort of violence[/b] occurs at so many levels it seems kind've ridiculous to me to hate so vigorously on the violence[/b] "producers" committ... especially when so often, that violence[/b] is what potentially makes a record beautiful.
-e
Isn't using the word "violence" in this case a bit extreme?
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.
By the same token, isn't "sampling" and its subsequent recontextualization a similar exercise of violence[/b] against the original artist? When you sample drums and put 808s beneath the kicks--by your understanding of art here--isn't that basically a way of saying the drums are "weak" or "faulty"?
And, furthermore, isn't even just for an audience member to proclaim that they don't like a song a similar act of violence[/b]?
Are we supposed to enjoy everything that is put out BECAUSE it's exactly as the artist wanted it to be?
I mean, it seems pretty clear that what you are most worried about is a sense of corporate violence[/b] done against an individual's personal vision, but a very similar sort of violence[/b] occurs at so many levels it seems kind've ridiculous to me to hate so vigorously on the violence[/b] "producers" committ... especially when so often, that violence[/b] is what potentially makes a record beautiful.
-e
Isn't using the word "violence" in this case a bit extreme?
Yeah, I think that's safe to say. However in the case of this thread - no not at all. As in "this thread has been violently beaten beyond all recognition and we should all be ashamed of ourselves."
Oh, and some footnotes I'd like to add for what it's worth:
1. How did beat-makers gain the title of producer? Because it sounds better, that's why... Duh! I mean, you can't even use "beat-maker" in the past tense! Was this actually a serious question? Let's move on...
2. Even with consideration to the most extreme (also see; "violent") case of major label manipulation, you simply can not assume that any or ALL changes, whether musically or sonically, were made against the artist's will. Suggestions are made and from there actions are either taken or not taken.
3. A good producer is not always a good engineer. Saying that you want to hear an artist's music untouched is like saying you want to see your favorite basketball team play a season without a coach.
It's a nice idea but definitely
4. Don't confuse the difference between Painter A giving Painter B advice on technique verses Painter A telling Painter B what color to choose from his palette. One is a technical issue and could be highly beneficial to the artist's translation of his vision to his audience while the other is an intrusion ON the translation of his vision to his audience.
5. A true artist should welcome suggestions from his peers with the hopes of bettering his own education and understanding for what it is he's trying to achieve. When someone offers to lend helpful advice, listen to it, analyze it, experiment with it, and choose to take it or leave it. Wanting an artist to reject all outside input on their art, whether sonically or musically, will only stunt the growth of them as an artist.
There is a lot of reading into what I'm trying to say versus reading what I am actually saying. I'll address you all together since I'd make them same points over and over if I reply to every response individually.
on the otherhand i LOATHE the rise of the boutique engineer even more than i dislike the idea of a producer. the trend in underground music for way too long has been to "capture the way the band sounds in the room". and while this is probably a great way to do one album it's also pumping out some remarkably BORING records... everybody is so concerned with HONESTY, ACCURACY, STAYING TRUE TO OUR SOUND... and they all want to work without producers and intstead focus on hiring big wig engineers ala Albini / weston / mcentire etc etc
"Big Wig" hardly describes a guy who answers his own phone and does what you pay him to do.
You've expressed all you LOATHE several times over, even so far as to denounce anything that bears resemblance to "melancholy."
Not to mention, when presented with a list of hundreds of bands recorded by these "big wigs" that you so tirelessly LOATHE, you stated that you've heard not a one. Why then do you profess to know anything about records you've never heard by bands you are completely unfamiliar with? You'll understand then when I quit considering your opinion.
By the same token, isn't "sampling" and its subsequent recontextualization a similar exercise of violence against the original artist? When you sample drums and put 808s beneath the kicks--by your understanding of art here--isn't that basically a way of saying the drums are "weak" or "faulty"?
Violence? And no, it's not the same.
And, furthermore, isn't even just for an audience member to proclaim that they don't like a song a similar act of violence?
Are we supposed to enjoy everything that is put out BECAUSE it's exactly as the artist wanted it to be?
No, again. I'd like to decide whether I like a band's record, not whether I like the "vibe" or "continuity" some dude with a ponytail spilled all over the band's record.
If I don't like the record, I can feel free to stand up and tell them I think it sucks.
I mean, it seems pretty clear that what you are most worried about is a sense of corporate violence done against an individual's personal vision, but a very similar sort of violence occurs at so many levels it seems kind've ridiculous to me to hate so vigorously on the violence "producers" committ... especially when so often, that violence is what potentially makes a record beautiful.
-e
What I am "most worried about" is that all major label recordings are being put through the same process of mediocrity in an effort to make them appeal to everyone. I've described clearly how this process works (which I guess is "hating vigorously," even though I've yet to work up a sweat). You should do the same as your "very similar sort of" violence is too vague for me to understand.
"Hello" back at you. I miss...uh, most things.
Again, I'm at odds with this Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Tool. This seems not very far from the kind of devaluation you're railing against.
I wonder if your list of "most things" matches mine?
I don't see my argument as one anywhere near Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Tool. I contend the producer is a product of the major label paradigm. A stoog working on behalf of the label's interests, which have nothing to do with the interests of the band. The balance of power is so askew that the band has little or no chance of surviving intact (as history proves).
These bands I am thinking of aren't prancing around in tinfoil suits scared of being exposured to the harmful rays of major label influence. They are working hard, and even the heavyweights get fucked. I don't see pronouncing my allegiance with the underdog as a statement of tooldom. Is it coincidence that producers are only needed on major label releases?
This grotesque hubris that producers display, that they understand the band's music better than they themselves do is on a par with that new-age lifecoaching crap. "No, no, no, you don't understand your own life -- you're merely experiencing it. I understand it better because I am looking in from the outside. Because I say so. Here, let me show you how to fuck your wife..."
It would be great if everyone responding to this thread with answers like "producers are there for guidance" would consider what he would do if he asked a another professional for a quote on a job and was given the same answers offered in this thread:
"Hey, mechanic, what are you going to do to my car?" "Who can say -- It's different every time. Could be anything. Whatever it takes, I guess. Maybe I'll throw another motor in, just to try out. I know a good motor guy..."
"Hey, housepainter, what paint are you going to use on my house, and what color, and how long will it take?" "I don't know. I guess we'll try anything and everything and see what works best. Got any ideas? I'm open to everything. But I make the final decisions -- my name is going to be on this."
"Hello doctor. What does that device you're holding do?" "I don't really know. I leave all that to the technical guys. But I like to try it out on everyone, just to see... I kind twist the knobs randomly until the patient says he feels better."
Who would hire and pay these people? How is this a profession? It doesn't even know what it does. And if it is a profession, why is it only required on major label releases?
You bring in someone like Stepney to produce a Ramsey Lewis record or a Minnie record and you get the artist, plus "that sound" the producer brings. Same thing with the Mizell Brothers. They become such a prominent part of the finished product that they themselves become equally as important as the artist they're producing.
My point exactly. What happens when you don't want "that sound?"
Isn't it presumptuous to assume you can put "your sound" on every record you produce?
Let's say you "get big." The DJ Day Japanese single turns into a deal with a major. You spend 9 months writing songs. You show up at the studio, and I am there to "produce you." You know, cause the label you signed with wants to make sure you have "objectivity." I am there "for prespective." "An outside set of ears," if you will. All your songs are finished, you just need to record and mix. I suggest we "beef up" a few parts. You know, get "the vibe" right. I've done this a bunch, trust me. I call in one of my "go to" guys. He and I think a guitar solo would work well. You, not so much. "Listen Day, how many major records is your name on?" I got points on this bitch, anyway, and I know what the kids like these days. Your scratches are cute, but this ain't some mixtape. That DMC chirp shit is out. We're gonna use a pitched up voice as the chorus instead. "It just works better." Why don't you sit down and enjoy your sandwich while I redo this track.
There, another Bambouche Production???.
3. A good producer is not always a good engineer.
Producers generally know nothing about engineering.
Ask Rick Rubin if he knows which way diodes should be wired across regulators. Ask Bob Rock how to test a capstan driven by a phase lock loop circuit. Ask Kanye West to look at an oscilloscpoe and identify azimuth on a tape machine. Hell, just ask him to change the scope to Lissajous. Ask Rick R
ock how to test filament voltage on a microphone. Ask, go ahead, I'll wait here.
You see? These are just some of the many duties an engineer performs. Producers, on the other hand, do stuff like suggest, "Let's beef it up a bit fellas!"
I wonder if you've ever been in a recording studio?
Saying that you want to hear an artist's music untouched is like saying you want to see your favorite basketball team play a season without a coach.
No, really, it's not. I think you lost some of the subtleties of this debate.
4. Don't confuse the difference between Painter A giving Painter B advice on technique verses Painter A telling Painter B what color to choose from his palette. One is a technical issue and could be highly beneficial to the artist's translation of his vision to his audience while the other is an intrusion ON the translation of his vision to his audience.
This analogy doesn't work either, as you are describing two people of equal footing. For example, Painter B can't say to Painter A, "If you don't use seafrost plum then your chickenshit painting won't make it to the gallery wall."
You can see the difference, right?
5. A true artist should welcome suggestions from his peers with the hopes of bettering his own education and understanding for what it is he's trying to achieve. When someone offers to lend helpful advice, listen to it, analyze it, experiment with it, and choose to take it or leave it. Wanting an artist to reject all outside input on their art, whether sonically or musically, will only stunt the growth of them as an artist.
You're still confusing the difference between a "peer" and a corporation exercising ultimate control.
By the same token, isn't "sampling" and its subsequent recontextualization a similar exercise of violence against the original artist? When you sample drums and put 808s beneath the kicks--by your understanding of art here--isn't that basically a way of saying the drums are "weak" or "faulty"?
Violence? And no, it's not the same.
Yes, "violence." It was a melodramatic short-hand of describing what you imply producers do to an artist's oh-so-sacred "original vision." You say they "degrade" the product in some way, presumably not just by saying "this needs more of this or that" but by actually manipulating the sound in some way that moves the sound away from the original artist's vision. Frankly, I'm surprised you question the use of the word "violence" in this context, but I'm not hear to argue my word choice.
Instead, at this point I'd like to humbly ask you to explain to me how "sampling" and the subsequent manipulation of sound is not the same as what a "producer" actually does?
I will reiterate my example: say I sample a drum break, re-program it slightly, put 808s underneath the kicks, and that's it. That's the end of my beat. The whole song is 3 minutes of a sampled, re-programmed break, with 808 kicks backing up the kicks. How is that any different from a "producer" in a studio suggesting to the artist that they need to beef up the drums and play a different pattern? Is it just that when I make my beat, I'm attaching my name to it while the artists are compromising themselves and their creation by allowing this third-party corporate "producer" suggest to them what they should do with their name attached to it? Is it just the name-attachment that bothers you? Furthermore, to quote you, "how is that not insulting? To take someone's life work and smear your taste all over it." Certainly, there are more complicated examples of beat-making where it'd be hard to simply accuse it of "smearing [one's] taste all over it," but a lot of succesful beats are very simply recontextualizations and edits that you'd be hard-pressed to argue are "original creations" themselves. Some beats are really just exercises of "smearing [one's] taste."
But isn't this just a simple case of hating the player and not the game? The music industry as a whole is fucked up and exploitive, why so much hate for the "producer"? Or perhaps I'm misreading your focus on the "producer" here. After all, you do seem aware that dude's just a symptom of the larger exploitive inequalities, not the reason for them. Sure, in most cases, the "producers" at these labels encourage this exploitation process and are simply put in place to manipulate the music so it achieves certain aesthetic (i.e. sell-able) goals. I don't think many of us would argue against that. I think all we are arguing is that while most "producers" are simply corporate employees lackies put in place to standardize artistic output to generate sales from a certain demographic, there are the rare cases of "producers" who contribute greatly to a recording, right? I do realize that you're not arguing "producers" have never contributed and that your point is simply that you'd rather hear the artist's original vision through-and-through, but in the grand scheme of things, we'd probably all want this. But, so what? That's simply not how the music industry works right now. Again, I don't think any of us would argue that the current way the music industry operates is how it should operate or that its current structure encourages artists to take risks and make records they really want to make. But, instead of bemoaning the rather obvious fact that most producers compromise an artist's "original vision," we are trying to call attention to the producers who have helped make some products we love lovable, and we respect the aristry involved with that.
I think the "producers" in Bambouche's posts are really more like A&Rs.
Bam - I have been in a recording studio, quite a few of them actually, and I rarely see this played out the way you describe it. Then again, I rarely see such a cut-and-dried situation as an artist with 10 songs that they are 100% on and that all they need to do with are record and mix. I have seen (mostly) artists who either don't write, are not good writers (this is not a relative thing - either you've got it or you don't), or are good writers but are not confident in all of their material. The latter case is the most interesting, because sometimes the producer disagrees with the artist and thinks songs that the artist isn't confident in are really good - that belief instills confidence in the artist and brings about a great performance. Sometimes the artist loves one song that everyone else hates and can't see the forest for the trees. The producer doesn't fly in and out of the studio for five minutes every week to check up though - they're sitting there through every take, every tune-up, every splice, every punch-in. The A&R breezes in, listens for five minutes while punching furiously into a sidekick, and runs off to do lunch. The folks sitting in there every day sweating it out - those are peers. They're all working towards the same end, to make a great record. Maybe in your world all artists want their tunes to come out untouched, but in mine many artists want direction, critique, and assistance in achieving the sound in their head.
Maybe I'm partial because I've been in the producer's role before, given a fuck about the artist and the final product (from a musical, not commercial, perspective) and I know too many mofos who are the same way to agree with what you're saying. But I just don't see it like that - and I've been around the block a few times.
Bob Rock started out as an engineer for Bruce Fairburn (...)
Jus' sayin'...
I'll admit my ignorance on The Rock's illustrious career. I was thinking of examples of chodes and the vision of him in his leather pants prancing around Metallica's documentary just jumped out. Forgive me, The Rock, perhaps you do know how to calibrate a tape machine (even though I saw no evidence of it in the four hours of footage).
Without further hesitation, I present: The Rock -- Engineer slash Producer.
From The Rock bio (I couldn't make this shit up):
Rock began as a guitarist and co-founder of the Payola$. He wanted to be a rock star, but that dream took him into a new realm of possibility: beginning as an assistant at Little Mountain studios in Vancouver, he eventually became Canada's most sought after engineer and producer.
Bob Rock redefined the sounds for many bands, making many outrageous fringe bands become more "mainstream"; this included bands like Metallica and M??tley Cr??e. For this reason he is occasionally criticised. He has also worked with Bon Jovi, Cher, The Cult, David Lee Roth, Skid Row, Veruca Salt, Our Lady Peace, Metallica, and Simple Plan. His trademark is a big, forceful sound that still retains commercial appeal.
A quick re-cap:[/b]
Payola$
wanted to be a rock star, but
redefined the sounds for many bands
making many outrageous fringe bands become more "mainstream"
Bon Jovi, Cher, David Lee Roth, Skid Row
His trademark
a big, forceful sound that still retains commercial appeal
Bob makes my argument for me. (Nice sweater.)
(check Bon Jovi liner notes, for example). What would lead you to believe I have any Bon Jovi liner notes at my disposal? I'll just take your word for it.
Yes, "violence." It was a melodramatic short-hand of describing what you imply producers do to an artist's oh-so-sacred "original vision." My posts on the matter contained neither melodrama nor implication. They were written in plain English. The implication is on you. "Oh-so-sacred" is a disservice to the people who spend their life creating, don't you think?
You say they "degrade" the product in some way, presumably not just by saying "this needs more of this or that" but by actually manipulating the sound in some way that moves the sound away from the original artist's vision. Check The Rock's bio above. Nevermind, I'll just quote it again, this time in bold, because it's fucking priceless: His trademark is a big, forceful sound that still retains commercial appeal[/b].
Whether you "say" it or "manipulate" it, The Rock will take your sound and turn it into his.
Instead, at this point I'd like to humbly ask you to explain to me how "sampling" and the subsequent manipulation of sound is not the same as what a "producer" actually does? The difference, to simplify it to absurdity, lies in influence. We'll use "influence" because that sounds better than control.
say I sample a drum break, re-program it slightly, put 808s underneath the kicks, and that's it. That's the end of my beat. The whole song is 3 minutes of a sampled, re-programmed break, with 808 kicks backing up the kicks. How is that any different from a "producer" in a studio suggesting to the artist that they need to beef up the drums and play a different pattern? Your beat is your own creation (albeit lackluster). This is your art, if you will. You're not getting in the magical time ship and going back to the recording date of the record and wielding your power of the purse strings to insist that an 808 be added to someone else's record. You're doing it to yourself.
A better analogy would be: You sample a drum-break, re-program it slightly, put 808s underneath the kicks, and that's it. Then the person releasing your song comes in and erases the break, replacing it with a spicy southern drum machine beat with sixteenth note hi-hats. You see the difference?
Is it just the name-attachment that bothers you? Furthermore, to quote you, "how is that not insulting? To take someone's life work and smear your taste all over it." Certainly, there are more complicated examples of beat-making where it'd be hard to simply accuse it of "smearing [one's] taste all over it," but a lot of succesful beats are very simply recontextualizations and edits that you'd be hard-pressed to argue are "original creations" themselves. Some beats are really just exercises of "smearing [one's] taste." Define "success?"
But isn't this just a simple case of hating the player and not the game? The music industry as a whole is fucked up and exploitive, why so much hate for the "producer"? I refer you to the title of this thread: How did beat-makers gain the title of Producer?
After all, you do seem aware that dude's just a symptom of the larger exploitive inequalities, not the reason for them. Sure, in most cases, the "producers" at these labels encourage this exploitation process and are simply put in place to manipulate the music so it achieves certain aesthetic (i.e. sell-able) goals. I don't think many of us would argue against that. Yet many of you are? If I am wrong, please explain to me what you're arguing for, exactly?
I think all we are arguing is that while most "producers" are simply corporate employees lackies put in place to standardize artistic output to generate sales from a certain demographic, there are the rare cases of "producers" who contribute greatly to a recording, right? Rare. Yes. What about the hundreds of thousands of other albums that have been "standardized?"
I do realize that you're not arguing "producers" have never contributed and that your point is simply that you'd rather hear the artist's original vision through-and-through, but in the grand scheme of things, we'd probably all want this. But, so what? Right! Why even bother? I've been trekking all over this island to see this so-called "original vision." But, so what?
I ran uptown to see the Schiele exhibit, then downtown to see the Sanditz show, now I'm supposed to go to Harlem to see some fucking postcards by Hank Willis Thomas. Why even bother? They sell postcards at Duane Read. And I can see art in Starbucks, which is right in my building.
So what? "In the grand scheme of things" is the kind of talk that closed down 2nd Ave Deli. "In the grand scheme of things" we'd all listen to Hootie & the Blowfish. And, "in the grand scheme of things," if we, in fact, do all want this, then why not demand it?
That's simply not how the music industry works right now. Right now? The industry doesn't work that way, period. That's why it's called an "industry." But there are industrious labels, bands, and artist working that way right now. Thousands and thousands of them. Working without contract. No producers. No points. No managers. No road crew. No Bob Rock in leather pants prancing around trying to get a "big, forceful sound."
It's been going on for decades. And most of the groundbreaking music starts there. Then "the industry" finds a way to get it into Starbucks.
The "inidustry" is obviously failing (suing grandmothers who download their songs, going bankrupt, keeping bands in contractual lockdown), yet the independent labels are thriving (decades of longevity, bands that stay on their roster, financial success, equitable relationships, and freedom).
Why not argue for the model that works?
Again, I don't think any of us would argue that the current way the music industry operates is how it should operate or that its current structure encourages artists to take risks and make records they really want to make. But, instead of bemoaning the rather obvious fact that most producers compromise an artist's "original vision," we are trying to call attention to the producers who have helped make some products we love lovable, and we respect the aristry involved with that. It's nice that you're calling attention to the -- as you claimed yourself -- rare examples of this obviously broken industry. For the fuck of it, let's see if we can see the good in every failed idea. Segregation? ADATs? Arming the mujahideen? Giving the Indians smallpox? The Segue? Dumping the mentally ill out of institutions and onto the streets? The mini-disc?
"Calling attention" to (which I would define as "bemoaning") the rare instance when a failed system actually worked seems useless. Like telling the Indian who died from our smallpox that "in the grand scheme of things," at least he was warm. Telling Zvi "in the grand scheme of things" there will always be a place to get a sandwich. Telling people who recorded on ADATs that their master tapes may be stored on a format that used metal particle tape, which is chemically unstable, and no longer readable, but "in the grand scheme of things" they got to put a record out.
You can see how this looks like arguing for the sake of argument, right? So, again, I ask, (after we've a
lready agreed that they only exist in the mainstream, they are largely failures, and we can't really define their job even though they make money (sometimes more than the band) on ever record they "work" on) what are the benefits of a producer?
I think you are overestimating exactly what these people do to "help make" the "products [you] love" more "lovable." A job nobody can define. (Try to not use the words "vibe," "feel," "big picture," or "objectivity" in your response.) If you loved these artist's products so much to begin with, why are you bemoaning the influence exercised by an industry that's batting average is so disgraceful?
That's like asking someone to make your girlfriend more fuckable for you.
After all, you do seem aware that dude's just a symptom of the larger exploitive inequalities, not the reason for them. Sure, in most cases, the "producers" at these labels encourage this exploitation process and are simply put in place to manipulate the music so it achieves certain aesthetic (i.e. sell-able) goals. I don't think many of us would argue against that.
Yet many of you are? If I am wrong, please explain to me what you're arguing for, exactly?
I think the gist of it is this: just because a "producer" is paid to put his imprint on the sound, this doesn't necessarily-and-at-all-times mean the "product" is either better or worse. There is[/b] the very real possibility that the product might be "better" because of a producer. If an artist puts himself in a position where his sound is going to be "compromised," what the hell do I care? That's his decision. As you say, there ARE independent routes and outlets. Certainly, you're much less likely to sell a billion albums with these, but I find it hard to believe that you would make the argument that that even matters.
As listeners, all we can realistically be concerned with is what we're consuming. If it sounds good to me, I'm not terribly concerned with how it got there whether it be because Thom Yorke finally achieved his "original vision" on OK Computer, or becuase Nigel Godrich got it there. All I know--and all I'm ever likely to know--is that I fucking love how the album sounds. That is no way akin to saying "Well at least the indians were warm when they got them smallpox blankets." Perhaps you can make the argument that artists should do more to preserve the integrity of their own "original vision" whether that means release an album independently or make sure to acquire record deals that don't demand they work with in-house producers, but me saying "There are some producers out there who make works that I like" is not comparable to acts of genocide.
By the way, interesting that you question my use of the word "violence" and than make the comparison to genocide, no?
There ARE outlets for artists to release albums with their "original vision," right? Anyone can record their shit on their $2,000 home studio and then post their songs on myspace. We are simply sticking up for the rare producers who make products we like--not in an effort to justify the existence of the industry through these exceptions, but to applaud the very real aritstry involved with these individual's productions. That's in no way parallels congratulating an indian for being warm eventhough he's about to die.
I'm just going to clarify, I never suggested "beat-maker" as an alternate title (of course producer sounds better and as a verb fits the description), I just used the term to describe what they do in the context of this post. If I had used producer, when comparing that act to traditional production, then it would have been a very confusing read.
I wonder if your list of "most things" matches mine?
I suspect that our Venn diagram would be more dark than light, yeah.
These bands I am thinking of aren't prancing around in tinfoil suits scared of being exposured to the harmful rays of major label influence.
Exactly. Corporate fuckery is part of the deal that popular culture is always ready to make???a widely known part, at that???and, much like smoking, while there may once have been people who could say with a straight face that they didn???t know about the harmful potential, those people are all gone. It???s a faustian bargain that--though it may pain you, me, and everyone we know--gets entered into knowingly and willingly by many people as smart or smarter than we. Your implication that bands need to be saved from this paradigm, that they do not understand this balance of power and its threat to their chances of surviving intact, that they do not understand that they could very well ???get fucked,??? is reductive as hell, making your protagonists seem less like sentient humans and more like pawns in a game--a game that they do not even realize that they are playing!!!! This may not be your intention, but it smells an awful lot like
I've had no dealings with major labels
but
I understand it better because I am looking in from the outside.
And that kind of patronizing attitude toward the artist is especially puzzling, considering that???since you yourself have remained outside of the major-label system???I can only assume that your opinions have been formed by received information. This would seem to mean that you hold artists in high enough esteem to take them at their word, but not enough to believe that they might know what they???re doing. And I wouldn't find this as off-putting if you were framing it personally--"I've gotten fucked over by producers, and I think that..."--rather than pitching it as some crusade on behalf of the innocent.
(And while those examples are neat, I don???t really believe that you really believe that producing music is really analogous to anything as quantifiable as fixing a car or painting a house, and unless you habitually fuck your girl in front of paid strangers in a facility which you've gone to voluntarily, I also question the applicability of that one [though I certainly can't question the shock value--oh my!])
I have little use for the idea that if the opportunities for doing wrong are taken away then people will necessarily do right, and I do not believe that removing the potential for corruption necessarily leads to more truth???it just leads to a different kind of false. I think the mindset that says otherwise???that says that destroying the machine will allow for a more transcendent product--belittles free will and the human capacity for improvisation, and results in all kinds of shitty, indulgent, insular art.
Art???s ultimately all about taste, though, and I respect yours a great deal, and there???s enough people at this party anyway, and dudes I don't know is crowding the chip bowl, so right now I???m just gonna kinda slip out. (page me)
You see? These are just some of the many duties an engineer performs. Producers, on the other hand, do stuff like suggest, "Let's beef it up a bit fellas!"
I wonder if you've ever been in a recording studio?
Wait - you mean, people can actually go in a recording studio? Wow, I gotta look into this...
Saying that you want to hear an artist's music untouched is like saying you want to see your favorite basketball team play a season without a coach.
No, really, it's not. I think you lost some of the subtleties of this debate.
No, I don't believe I have. The producer, the engineer, even the A&R to some extent - all of these people work to refine the artist's music to varying degrees just as a coach refines his players' movements.
4. Don't confuse the difference between Painter A giving Painter B advice on technique verses Painter A telling Painter B what color to choose from his palette. One is a technical issue and could be highly beneficial to the artist's translation of his vision to his audience while the other is an intrusion ON the translation of his vision to his audience.
This analogy doesn't work either, as you are describing two people of equal footing. For example, Painter B can't say to Painter A, "If you don't use seafrost plum then your chickenshit painting won't make it to the gallery wall."
You can see the difference, right?
Yes, I can. Do you see the difference between reading what I typed versus pressuming the unsaid and attacking me on it? Where did I state that Painter A and Painter B were of the same calibre or on "equal footing?" Btw, love your selective reading skils. Very nicely done. Your comment about not using seafrost plum in that "chickenshit painting" is completely redundant. As I already said previously, I disagree with someone telling a painter which colors to choose as that pertains to the artist's vision. However, someone giving a painter advice on technique which may make him a better artist is another story altogether and should be welcomed with open arms.
You're still confusing the difference between a "peer" and a corporation exercising ultimate control.
I wasn't speaking in regards to "a corporation excercising ultimate control" I was speaking in regards to those that may alter or refine the artist's music during the recording process - such as a producer or engineer - and in those two fields they would be considered the artist's peers.
I think the gist of it is this: just because a "producer" is paid to put his imprint on the sound, this doesn't necessarily-and-at-all-times mean the "product" is either better or worse.
Yet producers claim to know how to make records better?
If an artist puts himself in a position where his sound is going to be "compromised," what the hell do I care?
That's a shame. You cold-hearted gangsta, you!
By the way, interesting that you question my use of the word "violence" and than make the comparison to genocide, no?
Not really, no. I used your method of taking something I said literally (the role of producer is presumptuous) and implied something much more extreme ("VIOLENCE!").
My refusal to use graemlins probably left you no choice but to think I wasn't being just a tiny bit playful. :winkwink:
'Nough said.
Indeed.
I'd like to make it clear that I am not in the least bit mad. While I disagree with your position (it was your Engineer, co-engineer and mixer all refer to the person "mixing" a record and Btw, enhancing weak beats, tightening shit up and adding nuances to songs is an engineer's job post from way back on page one that lead me to believe you were talking out your ass), I am not disagreeable with you personally. I'm sure you're a nice guy. Unlike some of my brethren on this site, should we happen to disagree on something, you won't catch me threatening to hit you in the head with a baseball bat, calling you a "fag," making fun of you personally, wishing you dead, or posting pictures of you that I found somewhere else on the internet after hours of scouring. That's really not my style.
And james,
I wonder if your list of "most things" matches mine?
I suspect that our Venn diagram would be more dark than light, yeah.
DARKNESS! IMPRISONING ME! ALL THAT I SEE! ABSOLUTE HORROR!
There's much I'd still like to discuss with you, but as you said,
(...)there???s enough people at this party anyway, and dudes I don't know is crowding the chip bowl, so right now I???m just gonna kinda slip out. (page me)
I'll meet you by the BBQed weenies. -->
This has turned into more of a dick-jousting than I care to take part in. My original post raised the question: 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?"
Since everyone has taken issue with every other thing I've said and failed to provide their opinion on this matter, I'll just assume that you all agree with the latter so I can save myself from having to click on this thread again.
(it was your Engineer, co-engineer and mixer all refer to the person "mixing" a record and Btw, enhancing weak beats, tightening shit up and adding nuances to songs is an engineer's job post from way back on page one that lead me to believe you were talking out your ass)
This is funny...
Bam, I've been producing and going into the studio for over ten years now and this is the first post I've ever mentioned it in, so I'm definitely not trying to throw any weight around here (not that I have much to throw around). I don't know everything, nor would I ever claim to. However, I do know the roles of studio personnel and the duties their titles entail. Apparently, you don't.
Since I'm talking out of my ass, why don't you prove your point and disprove mine? Because as of now, you seem to be making a lot of claims without any factual evidence to back them up.
I'm sure you're a nice guy.
Ass-kissing is very unbecoming of you, "G." And yes, I am a nice guy, and I usually enjoy being credited as such, but in this instance, I could give a fuck if you think I'm an asshole. I'm not here to win your approval. You ain't shit to me, plain and simple.
Ass-kissing is very unbecoming of you, "G." And yes, I am a nice guy, and I usually enjoy being credited as such, but in this instance, I could give a fuck if you think I'm an asshole. I'm not here to win your approval. You ain't shit to me, plain and simple.
Ass-kissing is very unbecoming of you, "G." And yes, I am a nice guy, and I usually enjoy being credited as such, but in this instance, I could give a fuck if you think I'm an asshole. I'm not here to win your approval. You ain't shit to me, plain and simple.
This is a very, very bad look for you.
PR is not my strong point. I tend to be a bit short-fused.
Comments
this is one wild thread
i hear what you're saying Bam ... i too come from a major label distrusting background
a large part of me is comletely anti major lables / anti lawyers / anti contracts etc etc
i think there's alot to be said for artist run and co operative labels.. and there would be little to no underground punk / riot grrl / emo / straight edge scene without those models.
on the otherhand i LOATHE the rise of the boutique engineer even more than i dislike the idea of a producer.
the trend in underground music for way too long has been to "capture the way the band sounds in the room".
and while this is probably a great way to do one album it's also pumping out some remarkably BORING records...
everybody is so concerned with HONESTY, ACCURACY, STAYING TRUE TO OUR SOUND... and they all want to work without producers and intstead focus on hiring big wig engineers ala Albini / weston / mcentire etc etc
i mentioned my disliking of albini many times in the past...I know loads of dudes who've recorded with him and they all love him to death, but conversly the records they returned with were all super freaking dull.
this one buddy of mine was quoted in a local rag one time regarding how much he loved albini.. he had been recording a take .. finished up and went into the control room to ask steve if the take was good only to find steve on the phone / reading a magazine... and the answer "as long as you're cool with it i don't care"
to me this is YES man behavior at its worst. You can at least form an OPINION on a project you're involved in. Im not saying producers should completely fuck with the project either but the notion of a SECOND OPINION never hurt anyone.
underground rock is being run into the ground by far to many labels releasing records by their buddies bands recorded by their buddies with no thought towards whether or not the final product does anything other "than sound like the band".
i think hip hop has been plagued by the same problem of lack of producers reigning i nthe final product... too many compilations of beats picked by the artist = lp
Dubious, I would argue that the underground engineers you mentioned aren't setting out to "capture the way the band sounds in the room," but starting with the way the band sounds in the room, then letting the band decide where to go from there.
This approach may not work for kids who want to be told what to do or for people who expect to create something and then have someone else shit all over it.
If you find those records boring, it's because the band decided to release a boring record. I'd still prefer to listen to a "remarkably boring" record and decide if I like it or not over listening to something that a committee of people spent twelve months frankensteining into middle-of-the-road passable-to-everyone shit.
yes but by removing the tradional producer from the equation how far can the band "go"??
look at george martin and the beatles for example
he booked session musicians at the bands request, and even wrote scores for the arrangments, often based on the hummed melodies of the songwriters. hell he even played on a couple tracks when the band wasnt in the studio and then presented the results after the fact (OH MY GOD!!!!)
when they had an idea for a sound they wanted he called the electrical engineers in and they built the box.. first DI boxes used... hacked into the leslies to run guitars / vocals through etc etc
i dont think a band has any of these options when they choose to run with just an engineer.
especially engineers who have a very very specific set of gear they're willing to use and very set in stone philosophies regarding the engineers art form.
it reminds me of a return to the early brittish rock days where the band had NO say in the sound they just showed up and the engineers set all the levels and mixed the record the same way no matter who was in the session.
it wasn't until dudes like Jimmy Page / the beatles started aggressively pushing for changes in the engineering that more options became available.. and a guy like page was only able to do that because he was credited as the PRODUCER on the session. (im thinkng specifically of the john mayall sessions that Page produced.. he spoke at length about how the engineers refused to record a marshall amp at full volume in the room for fear of it damaging the equipment)
inventing shit like backwards reverb is the realm of the PRODUCER to take the recording session to the NEXT LEVEL
namely the vibe
would you want a london calling without Guy Stevens??
i believe that record is called Sandinista...
but what exaclty did guy stevens do in the sessions other than show up wasted and pour beer on the piano to "get that sound"???
little to nothing.. but the vibe and atmosphere he created are part and parcel to that great peace of art.
the same band left to their own devices = triple record
i appreciate the concept of sandinista in its "lets put EVERYTHING we recorded out" vibe but its also unlistenable in its entirety.
i doubt very highly that dudes like Jimmy Miller, Viscounti, Jim Dickenson etc could be described as industry stooges who were only interested in fucking wit the artists.
yet for some reason the Stones sounded better with Jimmy Miller.. and a Big Star without Dickenson seems impausible.
or trex / bowie without Tony V.
I'd say you're half-right. Art is in fact the thing, but I'm sure you don't really believe that people show up just because the art exists--just because they, at the precise moment of creation, sense some disturbance in The Force and follow the vibrations to some unheated club or some place with white walls and red dots. People show up because the art exists and because they, you know, know about it--because somebody put the record out, because somebody published the book, because somebody hung the show. And the awful truth is that said somebodies may or may not have given a shit about the art. But even so, until art is perceived--often necessitating the assistance of many such somebodies--the circuit is not complete. "A bell is a cup until it is struck," yunno? Before art is the thing, it is only the potential[/b] thing.
I mean, I really hope I have you wrong here, because 1) you don't seem to be giving much consideration to the fact that music that "suits the audiece's taste" and "gets that hit" and "sells" is also the music that "the people" (who you seem to be sneering at, or at least excluding yourself from) get to actually "hear," and 2) the kind of art you seem to be arguing for--unassailably pure, completely untouched by interlopers throughout the whole of its conception, execution, distribution, and perception--sounds elitist, hermetic, and sterile. Above all, it sounds pretty fucking fragile: hothouse-bred artists wilting in the hands of manipulative producers and devious lawyers and disinterested somebodies and all the other barbarians at the gate, producing art that can only survive through withdrawal from a heathen popular culture. And I'm perplexed, because you really don't strike me as being That Guy; you seem to appreciate art that knows how to scrap, so I don't quite get this strident artist-as-pawn tack you're taking.
Moreover, all of us on here--every single one of us (unless you're, like, a hundred and twelve years old)--has had our tastes and our methods of expression shaped positively, negatively, and irrevocably by corporately produced records, corporately edited manuscripts, corporately curated shows, and corporately controlled internet access, so for any of us to sit here and say that all that matters is the raw and uncut reeks of, if not outright denial, then of a memory that is--like Mr. Shaw--too short.
...
In a side note: My cousin has a friend who looks just like Maria Callas. Minus the fierceness, though. Which I guess means she doesn't really look like Maria Callas. Hmmm.
First off, hello. I miss the "do the james" aspect of this forum.
I thought I made it clear that my point was not to let artists dwell in isolation. Obviously people want to sell it, and people want to experience it, so there needs to be an effort made to get it out. My point then is the difference between how a corporate board room and an independent label choose to do this.
The idea being of the art being the thing and everything else being subservient does not mean there is nothing else.
If I were to simplify it to absurdity, the majors would come up with something to sell and then try to find some kind of art to stick in it, while the indies find the art and try to help the artist sell it.
I am not arguing for "completely untouched." How about asking before we stick our hand up their skirts?
As I grow older I realize how cliche and dated some of my favorite artist's "big" records sound. Sure, that shit was bonkers in '82, but now, when I compare it with their four or five "pre-big time" works, I feel sympathy for them. They all say as much when they show up on Where Are They Now.
I remember when books used to be published by authors who had little chance of selling millions. The books were published anyway, because the corporately controlled board goons knew that, over time, the millions would come. Now, if you're not gonna land on Oprah's list within a month, they don't want to fuck with you, at all.
I am not arguing for a world free of commercials. A world with no other access to art than happening upon it in the instant that it exists. My complaint is with the underlying culture of the recording industry, and that comes from producers and engineers assuming control of the creative aspects (rather than just the technical aspects) and then trumpeting their achievements. They claim a kind of authorship over the records they work on, and expect to do so always.
The band can "go" as far as they want. This line of thought is still assuming that what the band creates is not enough.
And why does everyone use this utterly unique band as an example in every situation, as thought the Beatles were the sole decider of how bands' careers ought to progress?
The Beatles were essentially producing their own records, except in name, from Revolver on. I think everyone involved has said as much. If you prefer their earlier, more standard material, then you have a pretty good case for letting producers tell bands what to do and how to do it. If you prefer their later material, then you're making my case for me.
I understand that, but I guess I'm interested in art that, win or lose, fights for its place in its culture, much more so than art that comes from all other factors being subservient to it. All this reads as though you'd prefer the seas to part for art. I want art that can swim.
Again, I'm at odds with this Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Tool. This seems not very far from the kind of devaluation you're railing against.
check please
By the same token, isn't "sampling" and its subsequent recontextualization a similar exercise of violence against the original artist? When you sample drums and put 808s beneath the kicks--by your understanding of art here--isn't that basically a way of saying the drums are "weak" or "faulty"?
And, furthermore, isn't even just for an audience member to proclaim that they don't like a song a similar act of violence?
Are we supposed to enjoy everything that is put out BECAUSE it's exactly as the artist wanted it to be?
I mean, it seems pretty clear that what you are most worried about is a sense of corporate violence done against an individual's personal vision, but a very similar sort of violence occurs at so many levels it seems kind've ridiculous to me to hate so vigorously on the violence "producers" committ... especially when so often, that violence is what potentially makes a record beautiful.
-e
You bring in someone like Stepney to produce a Ramsey Lewis record or a Minnie record and you get the artist, plus "that sound" the producer brings. Same thing with the Mizell Brothers. They become such a prominent part of the finished product that they themselves become equally as important as the artist they're producing.
I can see both sides to this, and Bam, you raised a very interesting point about producers getting more in the way of the artist than assisting. It really depends on the situation I think. But I had never really looked at it that way before. The only time I consider myself a "producer" in the classic sense of the word, is when I'm working with an MC. I'll give suggestions or have them re-do lines if they're not really up to par or can be better. I know that's subjective, but the MC needs to trust the "producer" etc. etc.... and we end up right back where we started in this convo about who really knows what's best for the artist and/or song.
I don't see any harm in saying "hey, you sound kind of flat, maybe try putting more energy into it" or "what if you space out the words right here?" to see what works in the best interest for the song.
Also, it's kind of presumptuous to say the producer and artist don't have some kind of open dialog about how each one feels about what the other is doing. I'm sure many times over it wasn't a case of "do it this way" but more "how about we try it like this?". Giving the artist an idea for a different approach, but not making it an absolute.
Isn't using the word "violence" in this case a bit extreme?
Yeah, I think that's safe to say. However in the case of this thread - no not at all. As in "this thread has been violently beaten beyond all recognition and we should all be ashamed of ourselves."
Oh, and some footnotes I'd like to add for what it's worth:
1. How did beat-makers gain the title of producer? Because it sounds better, that's why... Duh! I mean, you can't even use "beat-maker" in the past tense! Was this actually a serious question? Let's move on...
2. Even with consideration to the most extreme (also see; "violent") case of major label manipulation, you simply can not assume that any or ALL changes, whether musically or sonically, were made against the artist's will. Suggestions are made and from there actions are either taken or not taken.
3. A good producer is not always a good engineer. Saying that you want to hear an artist's music untouched is like saying you want to see your favorite basketball team play a season without a coach.
It's a nice idea but definitely
4. Don't confuse the difference between Painter A giving Painter B advice on technique verses Painter A telling Painter B what color to choose from his palette. One is a technical issue and could be highly beneficial to the artist's translation of his vision to his audience while the other is an intrusion ON the translation of his vision to his audience.
5. A true artist should welcome suggestions from his peers with the hopes of bettering his own education and understanding for what it is he's trying to achieve. When someone offers to lend helpful advice, listen to it, analyze it, experiment with it, and choose to take it or leave it. Wanting an artist to reject all outside input on their art, whether sonically or musically, will only stunt the growth of them as an artist.
'Nough said.
"Big Wig" hardly describes a guy who answers his own phone and does what you pay him to do.
You've expressed all you LOATHE several times over, even so far as to denounce anything that bears resemblance to "melancholy."
Not to mention, when presented with a list of hundreds of bands recorded by these "big wigs" that you so tirelessly LOATHE, you stated that you've heard not a one. Why then do you profess to know anything about records you've never heard by bands you are completely unfamiliar with? You'll understand then when I quit considering your opinion.
Violence? And no, it's not the same.
No, again. I'd like to decide whether I like a band's record, not whether I like the "vibe" or "continuity" some dude with a ponytail spilled all over the band's record.
If I don't like the record, I can feel free to stand up and tell them I think it sucks.
What I am "most worried about" is that all major label recordings are being put through the same process of mediocrity in an effort to make them appeal to everyone. I've described clearly how this process works (which I guess is "hating vigorously," even though I've yet to work up a sweat). You should do the same as your "very similar sort of" violence is too vague for me to understand.
I wonder if your list of "most things" matches mine?
I don't see my argument as one anywhere near Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Tool. I contend the producer is a product of the major label paradigm. A stoog working on behalf of the label's interests, which have nothing to do with the interests of the band. The balance of power is so askew that the band has little or no chance of surviving intact (as history proves).
These bands I am thinking of aren't prancing around in tinfoil suits scared of being exposured to the harmful rays of major label influence. They are working hard, and even the heavyweights get fucked. I don't see pronouncing my allegiance with the underdog as a statement of tooldom. Is it coincidence that producers are only needed on major label releases?
This grotesque hubris that producers display, that they understand the band's music better than they themselves do is on a par with that new-age lifecoaching crap. "No, no, no, you don't understand your own life -- you're merely experiencing it. I understand it better because I am looking in from the outside. Because I say so. Here, let me show you how to fuck your wife..."
It would be great if everyone responding to this thread with answers like "producers are there for guidance" would consider what he would do if he asked a another professional for a quote on a job and was given the same answers offered in this thread:
"Hey, mechanic, what are you going to do to my car?"
"Who can say -- It's different every time. Could be anything. Whatever it takes, I guess. Maybe I'll throw another motor in, just to try out. I know a good motor guy..."
"Hey, housepainter, what paint are you going to use on my house, and what color, and how long will it take?"
"I don't know. I guess we'll try anything and everything and see what works best. Got any ideas? I'm open to everything. But I make the final decisions -- my name is going to be on this."
"Hello doctor. What does that device you're holding do?"
"I don't really know. I leave all that to the technical guys. But I like to try it out on everyone, just to see... I kind twist the knobs randomly until the patient says he feels better."
Who would hire and pay these people? How is this a profession? It doesn't even know what it does. And if it is a profession, why is it only required on major label releases?
My point exactly. What happens when you don't want "that sound?"
Isn't it presumptuous to assume you can put "your sound" on every record you produce?
Let's say you "get big." The DJ Day Japanese single turns into a deal with a major. You spend 9 months writing songs. You show up at the studio, and I am there to "produce you." You know, cause the label you signed with wants to make sure you have "objectivity." I am there "for prespective." "An outside set of ears," if you will. All your songs are finished, you just need to record and mix. I suggest we "beef up" a few parts. You know, get "the vibe" right. I've done this a bunch, trust me. I call in one of my "go to" guys. He and I think a guitar solo would work well. You, not so much. "Listen Day, how many major records is your name on?" I got points on this bitch, anyway, and I know what the kids like these days. Your scratches are cute, but this ain't some mixtape. That DMC chirp shit is out. We're gonna use a pitched up voice as the chorus instead. "It just works better." Why don't you sit down and enjoy your sandwich while I redo this track.
There, another Bambouche Production???.
Producers generally know nothing about engineering.
Ask Rick Rubin if he knows which way diodes should be wired across regulators. Ask Bob Rock how to test a capstan driven by a phase lock loop circuit. Ask Kanye West to look at an oscilloscpoe and identify azimuth on a tape machine. Hell, just ask him to change the scope to Lissajous. Ask Rick R ock how to test filament voltage on a microphone. Ask, go ahead, I'll wait here.
You see? These are just some of the many duties an engineer performs. Producers, on the other hand, do stuff like suggest, "Let's beef it up a bit fellas!"
I wonder if you've ever been in a recording studio?
No, really, it's not. I think you lost some of the subtleties of this debate.
This analogy doesn't work either, as you are describing two people of equal footing. For example, Painter B can't say to Painter A, "If you don't use seafrost plum then your chickenshit painting won't make it to the gallery wall."
You can see the difference, right?
You're still confusing the difference between a "peer" and a corporation exercising ultimate control.
Indeed.
James, can you PM me that recipe?
Jus' sayin'...
Yes, "violence." It was a melodramatic short-hand of describing what you imply producers do to an artist's oh-so-sacred "original vision." You say they "degrade" the product in some way, presumably not just by saying "this needs more of this or that" but by actually manipulating the sound in some way that moves the sound away from the original artist's vision. Frankly, I'm surprised you question the use of the word "violence" in this context, but I'm not hear to argue my word choice.
Instead, at this point I'd like to humbly ask you to explain to me how "sampling" and the subsequent manipulation of sound is not the same as what a "producer" actually does?
I will reiterate my example: say I sample a drum break, re-program it slightly, put 808s underneath the kicks, and that's it. That's the end of my beat. The whole song is 3 minutes of a sampled, re-programmed break, with 808 kicks backing up the kicks. How is that any different from a "producer" in a studio suggesting to the artist that they need to beef up the drums and play a different pattern? Is it just that when I make my beat, I'm attaching my name to it while the artists are compromising themselves and their creation by allowing this third-party corporate "producer" suggest to them what they should do with their name attached to it? Is it just the name-attachment that bothers you? Furthermore, to quote you, "how is that not insulting? To take someone's life work and smear your taste all over it." Certainly, there are more complicated examples of beat-making where it'd be hard to simply accuse it of "smearing [one's] taste all over it," but a lot of succesful beats are very simply recontextualizations and edits that you'd be hard-pressed to argue are "original creations" themselves. Some beats are really just exercises of "smearing [one's] taste."
But isn't this just a simple case of hating the player and not the game? The music industry as a whole is fucked up and exploitive, why so much hate for the "producer"? Or perhaps I'm misreading your focus on the "producer" here. After all, you do seem aware that dude's just a symptom of the larger exploitive inequalities, not the reason for them. Sure, in most cases, the "producers" at these labels encourage this exploitation process and are simply put in place to manipulate the music so it achieves certain aesthetic (i.e. sell-able) goals. I don't think many of us would argue against that. I think all we are arguing is that while most "producers" are simply corporate
employeeslackies put in place to standardize artistic output to generate sales from a certain demographic, there are the rare cases of "producers" who contribute greatly to a recording, right? I do realize that you're not arguing "producers" have never contributed and that your point is simply that you'd rather hear the artist's original vision through-and-through, but in the grand scheme of things, we'd probably all want this. But, so what? That's simply not how the music industry works right now. Again, I don't think any of us would argue that the current way the music industry operates is how it should operate or that its current structure encourages artists to take risks and make records they really want to make. But, instead of bemoaning the rather obvious fact that most producers compromise an artist's "original vision," we are trying to call attention to the producers who have helped make some products we love lovable, and we respect the aristry involved with that.-e
Bam - I have been in a recording studio, quite a few of them actually, and I rarely see this played out the way you describe it. Then again, I rarely see such a cut-and-dried situation as an artist with 10 songs that they are 100% on and that all they need to do with are record and mix. I have seen (mostly) artists who either don't write, are not good writers (this is not a relative thing - either you've got it or you don't), or are good writers but are not confident in all of their material. The latter case is the most interesting, because sometimes the producer disagrees with the artist and thinks songs that the artist isn't confident in are really good - that belief instills confidence in the artist and brings about a great performance. Sometimes the artist loves one song that everyone else hates and can't see the forest for the trees. The producer doesn't fly in and out of the studio for five minutes every week to check up though - they're sitting there through every take, every tune-up, every splice, every punch-in. The A&R breezes in, listens for five minutes while punching furiously into a sidekick, and runs off to do lunch. The folks sitting in there every day sweating it out - those are peers. They're all working towards the same end, to make a great record. Maybe in your world all artists want their tunes to come out untouched, but in mine many artists want direction, critique, and assistance in achieving the sound in their head.
Maybe I'm partial because I've been in the producer's role before, given a fuck about the artist and the final product (from a musical, not commercial, perspective) and I know too many mofos who are the same way to agree with what you're saying. But I just don't see it like that - and I've been around the block a few times.
I'll admit my ignorance on The Rock's illustrious career. I was thinking of examples of chodes and the vision of him in his leather pants prancing around Metallica's documentary just jumped out. Forgive me, The Rock, perhaps you do know how to calibrate a tape machine (even though I saw no evidence of it in the four hours of footage).
Without further hesitation, I present: The Rock -- Engineer slash Producer.
From The Rock bio (I couldn't make this shit up):
Rock began as a guitarist and co-founder of the Payola$. He wanted to be a rock star, but that dream took him into a new realm of possibility: beginning as an assistant at Little Mountain studios in Vancouver, he eventually became Canada's most sought after engineer and producer.
Bob Rock redefined the sounds for many bands, making many outrageous fringe bands become more "mainstream"; this included bands like Metallica and M??tley Cr??e. For this reason he is occasionally criticised. He has also worked with Bon Jovi, Cher, The Cult, David Lee Roth, Skid Row, Veruca Salt, Our Lady Peace, Metallica, and Simple Plan. His trademark is a big, forceful sound that still retains commercial appeal.
A quick re-cap:[/b]
Payola$ wanted to be a rock star, but redefined the sounds for many bands making many outrageous fringe bands become more "mainstream" Bon Jovi, Cher, David Lee Roth, Skid Row His trademark a big, forceful sound that still retains commercial appeal
Bob makes my argument for me. (Nice sweater.)
(check Bon Jovi liner notes, for example).
What would lead you to believe I have any Bon Jovi liner notes at my disposal? I'll just take your word for it.
Yes, "violence." It was a melodramatic short-hand of describing what you imply producers do to an artist's oh-so-sacred "original vision."
My posts on the matter contained neither melodrama nor implication. They were written in plain English. The implication is on you. "Oh-so-sacred" is a disservice to the people who spend their life creating, don't you think?
You say they "degrade" the product in some way, presumably not just by saying "this needs more of this or that" but by actually manipulating the sound in some way that moves the sound away from the original artist's vision.
Check The Rock's bio above. Nevermind, I'll just quote it again, this time in bold, because it's fucking priceless: His trademark is a big, forceful sound that still retains commercial appeal[/b].
Whether you "say" it or "manipulate" it, The Rock will take your sound and turn it into his.
Instead, at this point I'd like to humbly ask you to explain to me how "sampling" and the subsequent manipulation of sound is not the same as what a "producer" actually does?
The difference, to simplify it to absurdity, lies in influence. We'll use "influence" because that sounds better than control.
say I sample a drum break, re-program it slightly, put 808s underneath the kicks, and that's it. That's the end of my beat. The whole song is 3 minutes of a sampled, re-programmed break, with 808 kicks backing up the kicks. How is that any different from a "producer" in a studio suggesting to the artist that they need to beef up the drums and play a different pattern?
Your beat is your own creation (albeit lackluster). This is your art, if you will. You're not getting in the magical time ship and going back to the recording date of the record and wielding your power of the purse strings to insist that an 808 be added to someone else's record. You're doing it to yourself.
A better analogy would be: You sample a drum-break, re-program it slightly, put 808s underneath the kicks, and that's it. Then the person releasing your song comes in and erases the break, replacing it with a spicy southern drum machine beat with sixteenth note hi-hats. You see the difference?
Is it just the name-attachment that bothers you? Furthermore, to quote you, "how is that not insulting? To take someone's life work and smear your taste all over it." Certainly, there are more complicated examples of beat-making where it'd be hard to simply accuse it of "smearing [one's] taste all over it," but a lot of succesful beats are very simply recontextualizations and edits that you'd be hard-pressed to argue are "original creations" themselves. Some beats are really just exercises of "smearing [one's] taste."
Define "success?"
But isn't this just a simple case of hating the player and not the game? The music industry as a whole is fucked up and exploitive, why so much hate for the "producer"?
I refer you to the title of this thread: How did beat-makers gain the title of Producer?
After all, you do seem aware that dude's just a symptom of the larger exploitive inequalities, not the reason for them. Sure, in most cases, the "producers" at these labels encourage this exploitation process and are simply put in place to manipulate the music so it achieves certain aesthetic (i.e. sell-able) goals. I don't think many of us would argue against that.
Yet many of you are? If I am wrong, please explain to me what you're arguing for, exactly?
I think all we are arguing is that while most "producers" are simply corporate
employeeslackies put in place to standardize artistic output to generate sales from a certain demographic, there are the rare cases of "producers" who contribute greatly to a recording, right?Rare. Yes. What about the hundreds of thousands of other albums that have been "standardized?"
I do realize that you're not arguing "producers" have never contributed and that your point is simply that you'd rather hear the artist's original vision through-and-through, but in the grand scheme of things, we'd probably all want this. But, so what?
Right! Why even bother? I've been trekking all over this island to see this so-called "original vision." But, so what?
I ran uptown to see the Schiele exhibit, then downtown to see the Sanditz show, now I'm supposed to go to Harlem to see some fucking postcards by Hank Willis Thomas. Why even bother? They sell postcards at Duane Read. And I can see art in Starbucks, which is right in my building.
So what? "In the grand scheme of things" is the kind of talk that closed down 2nd Ave Deli. "In the grand scheme of things" we'd all listen to Hootie & the Blowfish. And, "in the grand scheme of things," if we, in fact, do all want this, then why not demand it?
That's simply not how the music industry works right now.
Right now? The industry doesn't work that way, period. That's why it's called an "industry." But there are industrious labels, bands, and artist working that way right now. Thousands and thousands of them. Working without contract. No producers. No points. No managers. No road crew. No Bob Rock in leather pants prancing around trying to get a "big, forceful sound."
It's been going on for decades. And most of the groundbreaking music starts there. Then "the industry" finds a way to get it into Starbucks.
The "inidustry" is obviously failing (suing grandmothers who download their songs, going bankrupt, keeping bands in contractual lockdown), yet the independent labels are thriving (decades of longevity, bands that stay on their roster, financial success, equitable relationships, and freedom).
Why not argue for the model that works?
Again, I don't think any of us would argue that the current way the music industry operates is how it should operate or that its current structure encourages artists to take risks and make records they really want to make. But, instead of bemoaning the rather obvious fact that most producers compromise an artist's "original vision," we are trying to call attention to the producers who have helped make some products we love lovable, and we respect the aristry involved with that.
It's nice that you're calling attention to the -- as you claimed yourself -- rare examples of this obviously broken industry. For the fuck of it, let's see if we can see the good in every failed idea. Segregation? ADATs? Arming the mujahideen? Giving the Indians smallpox? The Segue? Dumping the mentally ill out of institutions and onto the streets? The mini-disc?
"Calling attention" to (which I would define as "bemoaning") the rare instance when a failed system actually worked seems useless. Like telling the Indian who died from our smallpox that "in the grand scheme of things," at least he was warm. Telling Zvi "in the grand scheme of things" there will always be a place to get a sandwich. Telling people who recorded on ADATs that their master tapes may be stored on a format that used metal particle tape, which is chemically unstable, and no longer readable, but "in the grand scheme of things" they got to put a record out.
You can see how this looks like arguing for the sake of argument, right? So, again, I ask, (after we've a lready agreed that they only exist in the mainstream, they are largely failures, and we can't really define their job even though they make money (sometimes more than the band) on ever record they "work" on) what are the benefits of a producer?
I think you are overestimating exactly what these people do to "help make" the "products [you] love" more "lovable." A job nobody can define. (Try to not use the words "vibe," "feel," "big picture," or "objectivity" in your response.) If you loved these
artist'sproducts so much to begin with, why are you bemoaning the influence exercised by an industry that's batting average is so disgraceful?That's like asking someone to make your girlfriend more fuckable for you.
(It might just work, but why would you do it?)
I think the gist of it is this: just because a "producer" is paid to put his imprint on the sound, this doesn't necessarily-and-at-all-times mean the "product" is either better or worse. There is[/b] the very real possibility that the product might be "better" because of a producer. If an artist puts himself in a position where his sound is going to be "compromised," what the hell do I care? That's his decision. As you say, there ARE independent routes and outlets. Certainly, you're much less likely to sell a billion albums with these, but I find it hard to believe that you would make the argument that that even matters.
As listeners, all we can realistically be concerned with is what we're consuming. If it sounds good to me, I'm not terribly concerned with how it got there whether it be because Thom Yorke finally achieved his "original vision" on OK Computer, or becuase Nigel Godrich got it there. All I know--and all I'm ever likely to know--is that I fucking love how the album sounds. That is no way akin to saying "Well at least the indians were warm when they got them smallpox blankets." Perhaps you can make the argument that artists should do more to preserve the integrity of their own "original vision" whether that means release an album independently or make sure to acquire record deals that don't demand they work with in-house producers, but me saying "There are some producers out there who make works that I like" is not comparable to acts of genocide.
By the way, interesting that you question my use of the word "violence" and than make the comparison to genocide, no?
There ARE outlets for artists to release albums with their "original vision," right? Anyone can record their shit on their $2,000 home studio and then post their songs on myspace. We are simply sticking up for the rare producers who make products we like--not in an effort to justify the existence of the industry through these exceptions, but to applaud the very real aritstry involved with these individual's productions. That's in no way parallels congratulating an indian for being warm eventhough he's about to die.
-e
I suspect that our Venn diagram would be more dark than light, yeah.
Exactly. Corporate fuckery is part of the deal that popular culture is always ready to make???a widely known part, at that???and, much like smoking, while there may once have been people who could say with a straight face that they didn???t know about the harmful potential, those people are all gone. It???s a faustian bargain that--though it may pain you, me, and everyone we know--gets entered into knowingly and willingly by many people as smart or smarter than we. Your implication that bands need to be saved from this paradigm, that they do not understand this balance of power and its threat to their chances of surviving intact, that they do not understand that they could very well ???get fucked,??? is reductive as hell, making your protagonists seem less like sentient humans and more like pawns in a game--a game that they do not even realize that they are playing!!!! This may not be your intention, but it smells an awful lot like
but
And that kind of patronizing attitude toward the artist is especially puzzling, considering that???since you yourself have remained outside of the major-label system???I can only assume that your opinions have been formed by received information. This would seem to mean that you hold artists in high enough esteem to take them at their word, but not enough to believe that they might know what they???re doing. And I wouldn't find this as off-putting if you were framing it personally--"I've gotten fucked over by producers, and I think that..."--rather than pitching it as some crusade on behalf of the innocent.
(And while those examples are neat, I don???t really believe that you really believe that producing music is really analogous to anything as quantifiable as fixing a car or painting a house, and unless you habitually fuck your girl in front of paid strangers in a facility which you've gone to voluntarily, I also question the applicability of that one [though I certainly can't question the shock value--oh my!])
I have little use for the idea that if the opportunities for doing wrong are taken away then people will necessarily do right, and I do not believe that removing the potential for corruption necessarily leads to more truth???it just leads to a different kind of false. I think the mindset that says otherwise???that says that destroying the machine will allow for a more transcendent product--belittles free will and the human capacity for improvisation, and results in all kinds of shitty, indulgent, insular art.
Art???s ultimately all about taste, though, and I respect yours a great deal, and there???s enough people at this party anyway, and dudes I don't know is crowding the chip bowl, so right now I???m just gonna kinda slip out. (page me)
Wait - you mean, people can actually go in a recording studio? Wow, I gotta look into this...
No, I don't believe I have. The producer, the engineer, even the A&R to some extent - all of these people work to refine the artist's music to varying degrees just as a coach refines his players' movements.
Yes, I can. Do you see the difference between reading what I typed versus pressuming the unsaid and attacking me on it? Where did I state that Painter A and Painter B were of the same calibre or on "equal footing?" Btw, love your selective reading skils. Very nicely done. Your comment about not using seafrost plum in that "chickenshit painting" is completely redundant. As I already said previously, I disagree with someone telling a painter which colors to choose as that pertains to the artist's vision. However, someone giving a painter advice on technique which may make him a better artist is another story altogether and should be welcomed with open arms.
I wasn't speaking in regards to "a corporation excercising ultimate control" I was speaking in regards to those that may alter or refine the artist's music during the recording process - such as a producer or engineer - and in those two fields they would be considered the artist's peers.
Yet producers claim to know how to make records better?
That's a shame. You cold-hearted gangsta, you!
Not really, no. I used your method of taking something I said literally (the role of producer is presumptuous) and implied something much more extreme ("VIOLENCE!").
My refusal to use graemlins probably left you no choice but to think I wasn't being just a tiny bit playful. :winkwink:
I'd like to make it clear that I am not in the least bit mad. While I disagree with your position (it was your Engineer, co-engineer and mixer all refer to the person "mixing" a record and Btw, enhancing weak beats, tightening shit up and adding nuances to songs is an engineer's job post from way back on page one that lead me to believe you were talking out your ass), I am not disagreeable with you personally. I'm sure you're a nice guy. Unlike some of my brethren on this site, should we happen to disagree on something, you won't catch me threatening to hit you in the head with a baseball bat, calling you a "fag," making fun of you personally, wishing you dead, or posting pictures of you that I found somewhere else on the internet after hours of scouring. That's really not my style.
And james,
DARKNESS! IMPRISONING ME! ALL THAT I SEE! ABSOLUTE HORROR!
There's much I'd still like to discuss with you, but as you said,
I'll meet you by the BBQed weenies. -->
This has turned into more of a dick-jousting than I care to take part in. My original post raised the question: 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?"
Since everyone has taken issue with every other thing I've said and failed to provide their opinion on this matter, I'll just assume that you all agree with the latter so I can save myself from having to click on this thread again.
This is funny...
Bam, I've been producing and going into the studio for over ten years now and this is the first post I've ever mentioned it in, so I'm definitely not trying to throw any weight around here (not that I have much to throw around). I don't know everything, nor would I ever claim to. However, I do know the roles of studio personnel and the duties their titles entail. Apparently, you don't.
Since I'm talking out of my ass, why don't you prove your point and disprove mine? Because as of now, you seem to be making a lot of claims without any factual evidence to back them up.
Ass-kissing is very unbecoming of you, "G." And yes, I am a nice guy, and I usually enjoy being credited as such, but in this instance, I could give a fuck if you think I'm an asshole. I'm not here to win your approval. You ain't shit to me, plain and simple.
This is a very, very bad look for you.
PR is not my strong point. I tend to be a bit short-fused.