Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Total Members Voted: 0

[Ron Steele]

Quote:

Once the Beatles hit, Martin had his pick of bands to work with and chose Gerry and the Pacemakers, Cilla Black, Billy J. Kramer, and of course Jimmy Shand (the UK's "King of Polka"). Gerry and the Pacemakers I've heard of, but the rest... So whatever it is you like about those Beatles records, it ain't coming from Martin.

You forgot to add Jeff Beck and these others to your list of nobodies George Martin produced.

http://www.music.com/person/george_martin/1/

And I would bet there are some really good ones missing from that list.

What a shame, that is George ruining the careers and lives of so many. Obviously he had them brainwashed, because they kept coming back for his imposing and abusive production style.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with his affiliation with the Beatles. Again, another example of a talentless producer riding on the coat tails of so many successful artists.

Who would have thought?

[RedRawSore]

Adam P wrote on Tue, 20 December 2005 23:38

This question is like asking who's better between Bill Belichek and Peyton Manning.

Oh c'mon, as a Clevelander you should already know that Belicheck sucks!    Sheeeessh

Diminishing skills my ass. . .

[Colin Frangos]

Ron Steele wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 16:42

You forgot to add Jeff Beck and these others to your list of nobodies George Martin produced. http://www.music.com/person/george_martin/1/ And I would bet there are some really good ones missing from that list.

He did one Jeff Beck album. He also did 3 or 4 Celine Dion albums. And?

My argument still stands: what's good in those records was brought in by the band - be it Jeff Beck, Celine, or Jimmy Shand. Whatever Martin may have brought, it wasn't definitive, and comparing him to the Ramones is absurd.

Quote:

What a shame, that is George ruining the careers and lives of so many. Obviously he had them brainwashed, because they kept coming back for his imposing and abusive production style. I'm sure it had nothing to do with his affiliation with the Beatles. Again, another example of a talentless producer riding on the coat tails of so many successful artists.

Nowhere did I say he ruined anybody's career, or that he is talentless. And I'm sure having his name associated with Gerry and the Pacemakers is probably the only reason they've sold any records.

It seems like you're being argumentative for no other reason than the fact that this is the internet and that kind of behavior is mostly tolerated here.

Good luck with that.

[Ron Steele]

Quote:

It seems like you're being argumentative for no other reason than the fact that this is the internet and that kind of behavior is mostly tolerated here. Good luck with that.

Thanks for your insight.

Really, any comparisons where art and music are concerned, are absurd.

I don't really think the Ramones or George Martin are less important then the other at all. It's all about what the end listener thinks. It's all about personal tastes and dislikes. 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 , or even more to the point, Wang Chung and the minutemen.

Same goes for weather or not a producer with external ideas are relevant or not.

So why insist on projecting these opinion and views. Let people learn for themselves.
It is a complete disservice to new artists to thrust such hard core views upon them while they are still in the shallow end of the pool. It's baseless when it comes from a limited perspective compared to everything else that exists for them to learn from and experience.

There is more then one way to create.

I hope you can understand that.

[electrical]

Ron Steele wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 21:05

So why insist on projecting these opinion and views. Let people learn for themselves.

Why? Because "learning for yourself" is slow, and can be painful, expensive and sometimes tragic. Much better to let people know that the conventional wisdom of the day is often wrong, when viewed in a long-term or historical context, and provide them with examples to prove the point. Learning from one's mistakes is necessary, but learning from other people's mistakes is even better.

Quote:

It is a complete disservice to new artists to thrust such hard core views upon them while they are still in the shallow end of the pool. It's baseless when it comes from a limited perspective compared to everything else that exists for them to learn from and experience.

I have been making records for a long-ass time. I've made a lot of them. I've probably made more records than anyone reading this. That's a lot of experience. I have been involved with a half-dozen record labels as a band member, and made records under the direction of hundreds more. I've made records that sold in the millions, and those that sold in the dozens. That's not what I'd call "a limited perspective."

For me to pretend I haven't learned anything in that time, or drawn any conclusions, after having seen situations come up again and again would be intellectually dishonest. If I can save another guy like myself money, time, anguish and frustration, I'm obliged to do it. If I see a notion that I find repellant being accepted throughout an industry, I'm obliged to mention it.

Quote:

There is more then one way to create. I hope you can understand that.

Yes, and there is a way to be involved that pays respect to the creative people who are the driving force behind all of this: The bands. They do all the hard work, they make all the music, they pay all the bills. We should respect them above all other considerations.

[TotalSonic]

There simply aren't any absolutes in life though.  There are many approaches to things.

I'd like to give an example of a piece of art which happens to have moved me a ton, where the producer dictated things that the artist was unhappy with.
The artist is Van Morrison.  I'm not really a Van Morrison fan by any means but this album just hits me hard - in fact it's probably the only one of his that I ever listen to on my own free will.  It's a hippy-dippy thing called "Astral Weeks."  The producer, Lewis Merenstein, contracted Eric Dolpy's bass player Richard Davis to play on it, along with all of the other musicians on the session, along with a string and horn arranger- all of whom Van had never met prior to the recording sessions.  Van Morrison has gone on record that he wasn't happy with the production on that record.  F what Van thinks - Richard is playing the best bass lines I've ever heard - the whole vibe that the band and arrangements provide on that record is to my ear fantastic.  I'm supremely glad for my own sake that something was made that was different from the artists original vision.  If it was just Van singing and playing acoustic guitar - which was what he brought in to those sessions - it just wouldn't be as amazing of a record to me.  Obviously OMMV.

Having said that I do agree with SA that the band should be the ultimate arbiter of how their art is presented - that is of course unless they themselves wish to collaborate with others.  But to think in absolute terms regarding anything in terms of how to make great art is simply being closed minded to other possible ways in working.  

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Tidewater]

Oh yes. I see other people's failure, then I don't have to wait, I know exactly how to fail, instantly.

I do believe failing for yourself is important, but backing up your failure potential with the footwork of others is a tremendous leap forward. It may take 100 times as long to reach a conclusion, without prior stipulations to what failure can be..

Just like flying, just like everything anyone would want to do, and be good at.. you try to build on the explorations of the greats before you, and that means recreating their failures for yourself, if only to learn where your envelope is.

Good stuff, sir.

Oh, and Ramones... although I'd never listen to them, not once, on purpose, for any length of time, for life, money, nor power.


M

[electrical]

TotalSonic wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 22:43

I'm supremely glad for my own sake that something was made that was different from the artists original vision.

I'm not saying that producer-as-concertmaster never works. 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.

That is the cardinal sin of record-making: To make a record the band doesn't like on their dime. Does this not happen every day? We all know of cases like this, do we not? Why is it difficult to adopt a mentality where this, the ultimate tragedy, does not transpire?

I'll admit that some rare thing may be lost. Some incredibly rare thing. But the benefits to the great, vast majority of bands, who just want to let people hear them, would be enormous. I think I've seen the appreciation of this from bands in person.

[Ron Steele]

Quote:

For me to pretend I haven't learned anything in that time, or drawn any conclusions, after having seen situations come up again and again would be intellectually dishonest. If I can save another guy like myself money, time, anguish and frustration, I'm obliged to do it. If I see a notion that I find repellant being accepted throughout an industry, I'm obliged to mention it. Yes, and there is a way to be involved that pays respect to the creative people who are the driving force behind all of this: The bands. They do all the hard work, they make all the music, they pay all the bills. We should respect them above all other considerations.[

Well  this is where it starts to appear as slightly hypocritical. Your whole trip is about leaving the band pure, but here you are saying you are obligated to tell the band  about the big bad wolf and all the bad things that will happen if they go out and play in his neighborhood.

By doing this, it may look like you are "imposing" your experience and perspective on them, which is the same thing. And by doing so it creates suspicions and a bad attitude they will have toward something they have never experienced, or have no idea about other then what you tell them.

How is that showing respect for the band and it's future endevors?

The funny thing is, I agree it is a great thing to share experience's, but people are going to do what they want anyways because of human nature and the need to find their own way. Mostly becuase of arrogance or sheer curiosity.

[Ron Steele]

Quote:

That is the cardinal sin of record-making: To make a record the band doesn't like on their dime. Does this not happen every day? We all know of cases like this, do we not? Why is it difficult to adopt a mentality where this, the ultimate tragedy, does not transpire?

If they went to the man and signed up for the "well screw you sooner and later program" their pussy's for whining about it after the fact. It's like complaining to a bookie that it wasn't fair that you lost, so you shouldn't have to pay what is owed. Only in this case, they really don't have to payback anything unless they stick with the program.

If it is really their dime, your cardinal rule just seems more like plain common sense to me.

SO I guess it has come down to who's dime it is.

So now my question to you would be, why shouldn't your cardinal rule work two ways?

[gretz]

There's nothing "imposing" about telling the band "You are in control of YOUR music"

I think steve's point is that it should be obvious, but too many people in younger bands are just under the impression that you HAVE to have a producer because the label TELLS them they need one ( 9 times out of 10 it's a guy who was a third tier member of a band that was never that big in the first place and this guy as a producer really doesn't have a track record either).

I have a feeling that the people that are getting so up in arms about this on this board probably have deep rooted dreams of being a "producer" and don't want bands to start taking control of their work because THEY'LL be out of a job.

[TotalSonic]

electrical wrote on Fri, 23 December 2005 04:14

That is the cardinal sin of record-making: To make a record the band doesn't like on their dime. Does this not happen every day? We all know of cases like this, do we not? Why is it difficult to adopt a mentality where this, the ultimate tragedy, does not transpire? I'll admit that some rare thing may be lost. Some incredibly rare thing. But the benefits to the great, vast majority of bands, who just want to let people hear them, would be enormous. I think I've seen the appreciation of this from bands in person.

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

[electrical]

Ron Steele wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 23:46

If they went to the man and signed up for the "well screw you sooner and later program" their pussy's for whining about it after the fact.

Part of our disagreement is that you think I should keep my mouth shut about the potential pitfalls of such an arrangement. I think that is committing a sin of omission.

Quote:

If it is really their dime, your cardinal rule just seems more like plain common sense to me.

Yes, me too. It is their dime, ultimately. And their career. And their reputation. And most importantly, their creative enterprise. They have the right to have it be theirs.

Quote:

SO I guess it has come down to who's dime it is.

Only if the dime is all that matters to you. I think it is more than that, though the dime matters as well.

Quote:

So now my question to you would be, why shouldn't your cardinal rule work two ways?

You've lost me there.

[gretz]

My counterpoint to WHO'S dime is it is this:

The label shouldn't sign a band in the first place if they don't like what they do.
What makes some label guy think he knows any more about music than the guy playing the stuff.

[Ron Steele]

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?