R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Total Members Voted: 0


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Who was more influential?  (Read 9203 times)

RKrizman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #30 on: December 23, 2005, 02:33:41 am »

electrical wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 23:14

 For every example like this one (which I would argue is marginal, as Van Morrison has been responsible for much greatness in other settings), there are probably hundreds or thousands of examples -- I know I know of many myself -- where a band have had to put-up with production decisions that they felt weakened their records. How horrible a situation is that? You are obliged to let someone else fuck with your art, and then you have to go out in the world, carrying that record around on your back, taking ultimate responsibility for it, paying for everything about it, and not being proud of it.



Well that presumes that if some meddling producer hadn't interfered then the product would have been great or authentic or something.  Maybe it would have just sucked worse.  Maybe the biggest sin the producer commited was the inability to successfully polish a turd.

There's a huge portion of the world that thinks that most punk music is just nihilistic immature blather.

Not that I listen to show tunes or anything.

-R
Logged

electrical

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 674
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #31 on: December 23, 2005, 02:43:42 am »

RKrizman wrote on Fri, 23 December 2005 02:33


There's a huge portion of the world that thinks that most punk music is just nihilistic immature blather.

Certainly there are people who don't like punk music, and I can't blame anyone for his tastes, but it is a mistake to think that the respectful approach is only suitable for punk music. I work on music you (or anyone) might call punk only a tiny minority of the time, and I don't think that only punks deserve to be treated with deference and respect.
Logged
best,

steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electrical dot com
www.electrical.com

electrical

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 674
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #32 on: December 23, 2005, 02:54:16 am »

RKrizman wrote on Fri, 23 December 2005 02:33


Well that presumes that if some meddling producer hadn't interfered then the product would have been great or authentic or something.  Maybe it would have just sucked worse.  Maybe the biggest sin the producer commited was the inability to successfully polish a turd.

This presumes that there is some objective standard of "goodness," a position I reject. It doesn't matter if anyone but the band likes their record. Whether you or I like it is utterly unimportant. If nobody in the world likes the record, but the band are happy with it, it is a success.

I would like to avoid a kind of failure different from the one you are identifying. I want to avoid making records that don't represent the band and their music the way they want to be represented.
Logged
best,

steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electrical dot com
www.electrical.com

RKrizman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #33 on: December 23, 2005, 03:07:29 am »

electrical wrote on Fri, 23 December 2005 02:54

 Whether you or I like it is utterly unimportant. If nobody in the world likes the record, but the band are happy with it, it is a success.



I dunno.  If nobody wants to listen to the recording does the band really feel like they've succeeded?

-R
Logged

RMoore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4584
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #34 on: December 23, 2005, 05:16:39 am »

I used to play in a band that seemed to cause mental breakdowns in engineers so that it became a revolving door,
Because the band had lots of 'production' in the form of fx etc they liked to have the same person doing the live gigs as the albums, perhaps to drive the AE's crazy with neverending torment,
So with the fellow that had melted down just prior to me joining the outfit, the story was said band was playing one night in Italy when they noticed the sound was rather nasty and suddenly  their engineer was to be seen with his arms crossed, beer in hand and smile on his face watching the gig from up front,
After the gig they asked him what he was trying to prove and he said 'this is how you REALLY sound!' ,
He'd just pushed up the faders on the desk at random and gone to watch the show,
Logged
People's Republic of Ryan

http://www.myspace.com/twilightcircus
 http://www.youtube.com/user/Ryonik
 
By the end of today, another day is gone forever. You will never get it back.
We must never let up for a second. Work harder at every single thing - Terry Manning

 You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take - Wayne Gretzky

BQ

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #35 on: December 23, 2005, 09:30:27 am »

Ron Steele wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005

  While there are some people that could have a broad appreciation for many different genres and artists, one would have to think it highly unlikely that you wound find somebody who has a positive view of both the Ramones and George Martin

You're kidding, right?

Nearly every musician I know has a positive view both of the Ramones, and the Beatles records produced by George Martin. Most of the recording engineers do as well.

I don't know every musician in the world mind you, but I know a lot of them in different parts of the world, most of whom are making and selling records.

    -Brendan
Logged

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #36 on: December 23, 2005, 11:02:20 am »

This really isn't so complicated for me,,I guess.. I have done both things. Both have given what I think are fine results. More importantly, every time I have {Eh-hemm} "produced" for a song writer,They have told me they could not have done the record without me.. It has been suggested to me in the past that these folks don't,,, " deserve" to make records.. I say this is a bunch of Horse shit.. They can write and sing. I can make sounds and arrange a band and know who to call for the tunes to be "played" in a way that I think the writer will find pleasing.. This is a good thing. Right/???


I have also recorded bands that wanted me to produce,,, had them walk in the door and blast through their tunes,,,, I say,,,,," Fuck man,, all I can do for you is engineer!! You sound killer just like this. Don't change a thing!!"

Now, I'm not going to take Production credit for telling the band how cool they sound. Some have insisted that I take co-producer title though.
Hey, none of this shit has sold big numbers so maybe my example means "nothing" but I think I have recorded stuff that sounds really cool and came from the hearts of great writers. If some guy at a huge Label wanted to roll some of this shit out and make some hit's, he could. Period.

I'm saying that either "hard" argument for or against bands wanting and or needing help is total bull shit. The exception is, there are people who are out to get their name as producer on as many recordings as they can,regardless of what they think of the music. They just want Credit...... Steve has mentioned this whole credit thing before. None of this should be a moral struggle. If you do a bunch of work that shapes something, take credit, if you don't,,, don't.


Funny, non of this seems hard to me at all.

Ivan.........
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

Ron Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #37 on: December 23, 2005, 12:45:04 pm »

Logged
 "I have had PLENTY of my posts torched on other boards. It kind of goes with the territory of pushing the envelope. Their house, their rules. Why can't everyone GET this?"

Ron Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #38 on: December 23, 2005, 01:30:28 pm »

"No, we're not anti anything. Actually, we wanted to keep rock'n'roll alive from the beginning. Rock'n'roll didn't exist anymore, and we wanted to bring it back. We were probably the only band that wanted to keep it going and that's why it's taken us so long. Because the establishment that didn't want us to exist used every effort to repress our music and, later on, the music of The Sex Pistols. They didn't want their empire shaken; everybody was very comfortable up there."

http://www.artistwd.com/joyzine/music/ramones/joey.php

They just wanted to keep rock alive.

and:

http://www.onewaymagazine.com/feature_14-23.html

" Johnny Ramone notes that he felt Tommy was a great producer for the band and much better than production legend, Phil Spector, who worked with the band on the End of the Century LP."

http://www.onewaymagazine.com/feature_14-23.html

"The Local: Who is producing your next record?

Joey: Our original drummer Tommy Erdelyi and one of our original producers Ed Stasium. You know - put the old spirit back in. Not that we lost it, but it's sort of a reunion. Also, '84 makes it ten years, so it'll be like a real reunion."



Interesting. These guys did have a very simple goal and vision that was
huge and influential to many. And they achieved this with "the man"involved.

Also, before you just take Steve's word as the gospel of how it should be, you should take a look at this to hear another side of the story, and decide if these folks were just meddling wankers riding on the coat tails of many important and influential artists, or an important factor in the creation of how we all make and record music today.
Logged
 "I have had PLENTY of my posts torched on other boards. It kind of goes with the territory of pushing the envelope. Their house, their rules. Why can't everyone GET this?"

Colin Frangos

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #39 on: December 23, 2005, 03:31:48 pm »

ivan40 wrote on Fri, 23 December 2005 08:02


I'm saying that either "hard" argument for or against bands wanting and or needing help is total bull shit. The exception is, there are people who are out to get their name as producer on as many recordings as they can,regardless of what they think of the music. They just want Credit...... Steve has mentioned this whole credit thing before. None of this should be a moral struggle. If you do a bunch of work that shapes something, take credit, if you don't,,, don't.


The problem with your example is that nobody here has argued the "hard" argument one way or the other. People are just inferring that everyone else is taking an extreme position.
Logged

Ron Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #40 on: December 23, 2005, 06:14:44 pm »

Quote:

People are just inferring that everyone else is taking an extreme position.



I don't think any position is the correct one. There are many different ways to do things, and it all depends on the circumstances and requirements of a situation.

Saying it should only be this way or that way is wrong, in that it closes the door to having different experiences and the opportunities.

Give room to learn and grow from different things. Don't let your own bad experiences decide for someone else, as there is alot to discover in the world of music and recording. What's bad for you may be good for another.

Kinda like apples and oranges.
Logged
 "I have had PLENTY of my posts torched on other boards. It kind of goes with the territory of pushing the envelope. Their house, their rules. Why can't everyone GET this?"

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #41 on: December 23, 2005, 06:47:01 pm »

electrical wrote on Fri, 23 December 2005 02:54

 I want to avoid making records that don't represent the band and their music the way they want to be represented.


I would agree with that.

And many bands feel that a good producer choice HELPS them realise that vision more effectively.

Certainly George Martin helped The Beatles realise theirs.
Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

lucey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #42 on: December 23, 2005, 11:33:53 pm »

Ron Steele wrote on Fri, 23 December 2005 00:49

Quote:

You've lost me there.


If a label puts up their dime, why shouldn't they have an influence where their investment is concerned?


If only it was their dime.  Most label situations are more of a no risk loan ... all the power and no risk.

Although I see your point in that any band that signs up to work with a producer has asked for it.
Logged
Brian Lucey
Magic Garden Mastering

"the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecology" - unknown

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #43 on: December 24, 2005, 01:14:52 am »

the problem i have with steve a's approach is that it's akin to saying: there's no point going to restaurants, because all you get is a quarterpounder and french fries

i get the idea that one should be careful what restaurant to eat at, but, as an artist, i'm pretty happy to admit that there are people out there with more talent and experience in production than i

and i'm sure (from word of mouth and the results) that some would have enough empathy to my vision to produce a work which is greater than the sum

as it happens, i never have, and, probably, never will, and, further more, i've endeavoured to acquire engineering skills myself, for they are, after all, definable (which is, perhaps, steve a's point)

however, i do think that as soon as you choose a microphone, you are making production decisions, and wishing to be the best producer i can be, i would think it essential to be, at least, familiar with the tools of trade



steve b wrote:

"Interestingly enough, for myself personally, the introduction of affordable multitrack digital audio workstations (I got the first version of SAW for my own home studio back in 1994) is exactly what liberated me most from what you are describing above. I began to work on my own dime, at my own pace, without anyone censoring my ideas, with an amount of fidelity that was acceptable enough to communicate the songs ideas, and often even better than what I had been getting at a lot of studios that I couldn't afford to go to except on rare occasions. This continues to this day.

Best regards,
Steve Berson"

ditto (replace "SAW" with "deck")

oh yeah, i listen to george martin's and phil spector's work more often than tommy ramone's, but i'm happy to accept that all have been influential on me in one way or another

... everybody, minutemen tonight...
Logged

gretz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #44 on: December 24, 2005, 01:48:25 am »

but isn't "microphone choice" an engineering decision and not a production decision?

The point being that "producing" entails arrangement decisions and when the take is "the one" and whether or not to put a string section on the track... things like that

That shouldn't be taken on by anyone other than the musicians playing unless the band feels they should...

i think that's the whole point of the argument.

I'm sure there are MANY producer/artist combos that have made good work... in fact I can think of a bunch... when it's forced on the will of the artist is when it ventures into questionable territory
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up