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 12176 times)

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #45 on: December 24, 2005, 04:55:17 AM »

gretz wrote:

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

it can greatly affect the "feel" of the track in the mix which is, imo, a production choice
Logged

kraster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #46 on: December 24, 2005, 07:54:17 AM »

maxim wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 09:55

gretz wrote:

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

it can greatly affect the "feel" of the track in the mix which is, imo, a production choice




I see your point. I think that every decision made by an engineer recording a band will effect the sound. But, I think it's more of a question of intent. If mic selection is more of a utilitarian choice than an aesthetic choice then it's more pragmatic than artistic.

The sound that an engineer perceives in a room will vary from person to person. And that assessment will be an abstraction of the original band sound. But, subjectivity aside, I think that bands choosing an engineer will be familiar with the sound of the studio and the engineer. Under Steve Albini's mode of operation, the band can request alterations to the sound if it falls short of the bands perception of their sound.

I don't think any engineer can be 100% objective in their interpretation of a bands sound. But if the intent is to capture the sound with as little coloration as possible then it won't be that far off the mark.

Best regards,

Karl
Logged

Bob Olhsson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #47 on: December 24, 2005, 10:02:57 AM »

A major difference between an engineer and a producer is that a producer is responsible for protecting the investment of whoever is fronting the money for the project. The producer should also be bringing substantially more production experience to the table than anyone else on the team. The only place I think you can really learn producing is from other successful producers. Great producers INSPIRE great performances from both the performers and the recording engineer. It's exactly the role a director takes in a play or a film.

Unfortunately as recording engineers' pay has slid over the years, there are many barely qualified posers calling themselves a "producer." It's unfortunate that so many recording engineers have given producers such a bad name.

Ronny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #48 on: December 24, 2005, 10:58:24 AM »



There have been many great recordings made by people that wear both the producer and the engineers hats. Tommy Dowd was one example.
Logged
------Ronny Morris - Digitak Mastering------
---------http://digitakmastering.com---------
----------Powered By Experience-------------
-------------Driven To Perfection---------------

gretz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #49 on: December 24, 2005, 01:16:00 PM »

at the end of the day I think this debate can't be held in a proper manner unless everyone  universally agrees on the strict definition of "producer" and "engineer"

It's similar to the old debate if you write your drum part on a song are you a credited writer on the song? No. Drum parts don't count. (i'm a drummer myself). Even though your choice of beat can affect the song it doesn't make you a composer.

Same thing with guitar solos. That doesn't automatically give you a composition credit. Sure, you wrote the solo... but you're not gonna get songwriter royalties.

That's what I mean when I say microphone placement/choice or compressor choice doesn't make you a producer, it makes you a recording engineer

Logged

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #50 on: December 24, 2005, 01:45:49 PM »

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 10:02

A major difference between an engineer and a producer is that a producer is responsible for protecting the investment of whoever is fronting the money for the project. The producer should also be bringing substantially more production experience to the table than anyone else on the team. The only place I think you can really learn producing is from other successful producers. Great producers INSPIRE great performances from both the performers and the recording engineer. It's exactly the role a director takes in a play or a film.

Unfortunately as recording engineers' pay has slid over the years, there are many barely qualified posers calling themselves a "producer." It's unfortunate that so many recording engineers have given producers such a bad name.



I agree with this for the most part. I'm a Musician who started engineering and then I was a "producer" for some stuff..  and will be again .I didn't feel to bad about it though. At least we were making music with our hands.

My position is, when it comes to pop music these days, ANY half way decent musician can out produce most every {Eh-hem....}.Modern R&B producer I've heard .. The use of drum machines has totally destroyed the music IMHO. So,, I'll take take a real music guy off the street and call him producer before I'll let any of these "Machine" people near anything I've done.. Nearly the entire R&B catalogue from the last Five years is just garbage,front to back. There are some gems but not many.

The whole game has changed as completely as anything can ever change. For better and/or for worse. It's changed so much that my last concern is finding a real producer who knows his stuff. Just finding great young soul and R&B writers and players who don't lean on machines as a writing tool is hard enough.  It really is partly,, over, Done.. Very sad..


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

 

Bob Olhsson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #51 on: December 24, 2005, 03:59:51 PM »

Unfortunately drum machines and MIDI have spawned a couple generations of really talented and successful songwriters who don't know how to let go of their concepts and allow singers and musicians to carry their productions up to the next level.

Larrchild

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3972
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #52 on: December 24, 2005, 04:24:19 PM »

Im tryna envision a Holland-Dozier-Holland tune being built on a bitbox and I keep laughing at what that would sound like.
Logged
Larry Janus
http://2ubes.net

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #53 on: December 24, 2005, 08:07:46 PM »

i'm sure they'd have no problem with the bitbox (cute name for a computer, btw), it's the beatbox that kills it, imo

nowadays, it seems the producer is the guy who can program the said beatbox

i agree that the producer serves the same role as the director and the the producer in the movie business combined

the engineer's equivalent is the cinematographer, and a good one will certainly has an affect on the final look of the film, and the best ones are sought out for just that quality

however, when sven nysquist has a go at directing, the result, albeit still better than most, is still short of the best in the world, unlike his cinematographic attempts
Logged

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #54 on: December 25, 2005, 12:12:44 AM »

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 15:59

Unfortunately drum machines and MIDI have spawned a couple generations of really talented and successful songwriters who don't know how to let go of their concepts and allow singers and musicians to carry their productions up to the next level.



I don't think I've seen this stated so well before. As one of the sig's around here says, "thanks Mr. Obvious"  

Yeah Bob. What you have said here really hits home with me. I live in Lansing MI. And know a lot of great Detroit cat's. SO MANY young Amazing talent lean so heavily on the box that when they try to put bands together, they haven't gained the people skills to "let the band arrange" or even let the drummer lay it down for them with wood drums.!! Man, I used to front a Blues R&B/SOUL thing that played "The Soup Kitchen" Remember that place? It's gone now. Back then, {really, not that long ago} Detroit was still built on band's. You HAD TO go prove it with a band to get over.

Things have changed so much.. I wish one of us could teach a course at one of these Recording School's and call it....." Why we should all write and arrange with an instrument in our hands and use a band"

One of the things I still love about soul music is the vocal arranging. We have not quite killed that yet. But we might still.

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

 

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #55 on: December 25, 2005, 09:59:30 AM »

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 15:59

Unfortunately drum machines and MIDI have spawned a couple generations of really talented and successful songwriters who don't know how to let go of their concepts and allow singers and musicians to carry their productions up to the next level.



Once again, Bob Olhsson has hit the nail on the head. Songwriters should also take courses from arrangers who work with acoustic bands that play real instruments.

BK
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #56 on: December 25, 2005, 12:14:44 PM »

I agree. The art side of properly capturing the 'real' instruments as well. I finished a full production just in time for the holidays..one where you exersize all of the skills. As engineers, it is nice to keep on top of all of the facets from ground up. I try to do at least a few of them "all the way" per year. 67 channels and everything acoustic.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #57 on: December 25, 2005, 06:17:34 PM »

bob o wrote:

"Unfortunately drum machines and MIDI have spawned a couple generations of really talented and successful songwriters who don't know how to let go of their concepts"

isn't that the job of the producer?

from what i've seen, it's the producers who latched on to the idea of the infernal drum machines

a bit like modern architecture, the bauhaus simplicity became a money-saving eyesore
Logged

Bob Olhsson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #58 on: December 25, 2005, 07:21:28 PM »

In the case of drum machines, we're generally talking about cost and not about style.

Bubblepuppy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Re: Who was more influential?
« Reply #59 on: January 03, 2006, 11:34:05 PM »

The consumer..........
Logged
"Trust Your Ears Not The Gear"
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 33 queries.