R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30   Go Down

Author Topic: when an artist needs a producer  (Read 57067 times)

J.J. Blair

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12809
when an artist needs a producer
« on: July 12, 2008, 10:19:41 PM »

While we are having this philosophical discussion in another thread, I thought I'd dig up some stuff from the archives.  I have some huge examples of stepping in, and helping artists reach something that they are much happier with, that they could never have achieved on their own, but I'll just post only one for now.  

Now, it seems some people seem to think we are maybe doing a band a disservice with these intrusions.  I dunno.  The artists have always been very grateful for my contribution.  (And yes, I consider what I did worthy of back end.)

I guess the question for somebody like Steve or Ryan is: If you were given these tracks, and told it's 95% done, would you have just trying to EQ and compress stuff to sound better, or would you have bee honest with the band, thrown 95% of it away, and rebuilt it into something listenable?

before

after

Oh, and this is a situation where it was me, the producer, who got fucked, not the artist.  
Logged
studio info

They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.

"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham

Todd Loomis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
  • Real Full Name: Todd Loomis
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2008, 10:45:35 PM »

WOW!  Ok...  thanks for posting this JJ.  This is probably one of the most eye-opening experiences I've had in a while...  More musicians need to see this thread!

J.J. Blair

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12809
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2008, 11:01:04 PM »

Thanks, Todd.  You know, maybe what a producer brings to the table is not always the right fit.  But the fact of the matter is that some of us do bring something to the table, and it make a big difference.  Sometimes, the artist has an idea, and the producer helps them translate it.  Sometimes the artist has no idea, or just doesn't know what sucks and what works, and you need to fill that gap.  But the producer can be a huge difference maker: Sometimes good and sometimes bad.  

But it's like directors.  Look what happens when George Lucas writes and directs his own movies: We get Jar Jar Binks.  When he doesn't?  We get Empire Strikes Back.  

OK, I digress, but you get the point.  
Logged
studio info

They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.

"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2008, 10:10:05 AM »

It's almost funny. Especially since my preference was established 15 seconds into the song.

Speaking of getting screwed, someone asked me on "the other thread" to list producers or labels that got screwed by the artist.

So we can put JJ at the top for this one. Smile I was thinking the classic was Neil Young when he put out that bizzarro stuff to end his contract with his label.
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

J.J. Blair

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12809
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2008, 11:50:45 AM »

IIRC, Elvis Costello was threatening to do a record called "Elvis Whistles Nazi Golf Tunes" to fulfill his last record in a contract, unless they released him.  The Stones did "Cocksucker Blues" with similar sentiment.  

In my case, it was the manager who screwed me.  Never got a freaking penny that was scheduled to get paid to me, so after doing four mixes, I stuck the masters in my safe and told them to piss off, until they found the money they agreed to pay me.  Well, as you can tell, I still own the masters.
Logged
studio info

They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.

"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham

RSettee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6796
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2008, 12:58:24 PM »

Sorry to hear that you got screwed, JJ--I don't like it when artists or anyone else gets shafted.

The 2nd version is much better. I really enjoyed that. In that case, i'm unsure--did the artist ask for production, or just an engineer? See, this point may not have been clear enough in my other statements, if an artist is disciplined and creative enough, they can get away with a good engineer and/ or mixing engineer to bring out elements that are already there. But if they're asking for a producer to "sell them records", that is an entirely different story. I dunno. I've never been in that point, I usually record live work or don't try to ask bands to change things, because bands haven't really been that apt to try things. Usually it's "we just want a basic recording". And then i'm thinking that it brings in some messy problems with who's owed what, and who takes credit for what. I've never been anyone of high repute, i'm just some dude making a record.

Bob Pollard did plenty great as a songwriter early on in his four track stuff--he just needed better quality of recording, not necessarily suggestions to his songs or things like that. They didn't sell millions of albums, but they connected with audiences (so much so that a version of "Propeller" with the kindergarten artwork, went for $6 grand....).
Logged

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2008, 01:19:19 PM »

J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 11:50

IIRC, Elvis Costello was threatening to do a record called "Elvis Whistles Nazi Golf Tunes" to fulfill his last record in a contract, unless they released him.  The Stones did "Cocksucker Blues" with similar sentiment.  



two points:

Elvis stole that idea (probably in an 'homage' manner) from former Punch editor Alan Coren.
Coren said that he had determined that the most successful books in Britain were about Fishing, Cats and the Third Reich. So he decided that the way to make his book, a collection of his Punch columns, do well was to call it Fishing For Cats, but as this conjured up images of dangling mice on a string in a barrel, he opted for the NEXT most popular topic, and called his book Golfing For Cats which had a bright red cover with a swastika on it; thereby covering all bases.


index.php/fa/9466/0/


second, I recorded the Stones doing Cocksucker Blues (and another version with a singer in NY) for The Oz Trials record and play.


Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2008, 01:24:31 PM »

J.J. Blair wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 22:19

... I have some huge examples of stepping in, and helping artists reach something that they are much happier with, that they could never have achieved on their own,..



lost in the Indier-Than-Thou propaganda is that very idea:
that the artiste hires a producer in order to make a record he is HAPPIER with and that could not be achieved on his own.
Not only, or usually, to "have a hit" or because of external pressure.


Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

kats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1694
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2008, 01:28:23 PM »

He should have called it Catfishing on the Russian Front.
Logged
Tony K.
http://empirerecording.ca

Entertainment is a bore, communication is where it's at! - Brian Jones 1967

zmix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2828
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2008, 01:34:54 PM »

Which was also surmised by WRH:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_-qF6CbJo2vY/RmQTXuXBLnI/AAAAAAAAAYw/hib49IDKW5E/s400/Lampoon82.jpg

..ad nauseum...


PS:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_-qF6CbJo2vY/RmqJm2zu35I/AAAAAAAAAZ8/qJOCmAltR58/s400/hilton1.jpg

PPS: Sorry for the digresion, JJ....

zmix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2828
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2008, 01:39:48 PM »

wwittman wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 13:24

lost in the Indier-Than-Thou propaganda is that very idea:
that the artiste hires a producer in order to make a record he is HAPPIER with and that could not be achieved on his own.
Not only, or usually, to "have a hit" or because of external pressure.



Precisely.. the label (or backer as the case may be these days) is usually the one who cares *primarily* about commercial success.

As said below:

"I don't think there is any point in having a producer if the producer doesn't make a hit record... artists can make flop records themselves." - Trevor Horn

J.J. Blair

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12809
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2008, 01:50:32 PM »

RSettee wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 09:58

The 2nd version is much better. I really enjoyed that. In that case, i'm unsure--did the artist ask for production, or just an engineer? See, this point may not have been clear enough in my other statements, if an artist is disciplined and creative enough, they can get away with a good engineer and/ or mixing engineer to bring out elements that are already there. But if they're asking for a producer to "sell them records", that is an entirely different story. I dunno. I've never been in that point, I usually record live work or don't try to ask bands to change things, because bands haven't really been that apt to try things. Usually it's "we just want a basic recording". And then i'm thinking that it brings in some messy problems with who's owed what, and who takes credit for what. I've never been anyone of high repute, i'm just some dude making a record.


Well, if this is the case, you seem to have some pretty lofty and far reaching opinions on a side of producing that you now admit to knowing very little about.  

As my friend David Palmer (formerly of William's favorite band) says: "Eventually, your experience catches up with your opinion."

As I said, I have no qualms about considering my contribution as intellectual property, and asking for points.  Your hero, Steve, probably would have let the song just suck, and not asked for points (rightly so).

So, while the two of you tell us about ethics, and how producers are parasitic and lazy, tell me in this case, what's lazy and what's ethical.  Is it my ethical responsibility to tell somebody who doesn't know how badly their material sucks that it does?  Is it my ethical responsibility as a producer to say, "Hey, nobody is going to want to listen to this crap"?

And if they disagree, and think it's awesome as it is, then they can go work with you or Steve, because I don't wan to put my name on a record that is awful.  I just took my name off a record recently, because the band insisted on sucking, and I didn't want to be associated with a train wreck.  And on this particular track you heard, the only way I would have agreed to be involved with it is if the artist let me do my thing to it.  I'm interested in quality, not quantity.  I want to produce records that I actually want to listen to.  

And I refuse to be accused of being lazy by people who don't want to get their hands dirty, and contribute anything creative to the recording.  I could care less if they make twenty or thirty more records in a year than I do.  If you two think that all a producer contributes is suggesting harmonies or a tambourine in the chorus, then that shows what little creativity or interest in making a great record you guys have.  
Logged
studio info

They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.

"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham

danickstr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3641
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2008, 01:59:19 PM »

J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 13:50

RSettee wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 09:58

The 2nd version is much better. I really enjoyed that. In that case, i'm unsure--did the artist ask for production, or just an engineer? See, this point may not have been clear enough in my other statements, if an artist is disciplined and creative enough, they can get away with a good engineer and/ or mixing engineer to bring out elements that are already there. But if they're asking for a producer to "sell them records", that is an entirely different story. I dunno. I've never been in that point, I usually record live work or don't try to ask bands to change things, because bands haven't really been that apt to try things. Usually it's "we just want a basic recording". And then i'm thinking that it brings in some messy problems with who's owed what, and who takes credit for what. I've never been anyone of high repute, i'm just some dude making a record.


Well, if this is the case, you seem to have some pretty lofty and far reaching opinions on a side of producing that you now admit to knowing very little about.  

As my friend David Palmer (formerly of William's favorite band) says: "Eventually, your experience catches up with your opinion."

As I said, I have no qualms about considering my contribution as intellectual property, and asking for points.  Your hero, Steve, probably would have let the song just suck, and not asked for points (rightly so).

So, while the two of you tell us about ethics, and how producers are parasitic and lazy, tell me in this case, what's lazy and what's ethical.  Is it my ethical responsibility to tell somebody who doesn't know how badly their material sucks that it does?  Is it my ethical responsibility as a producer to say, "Hey, nobody is going to want to listen to this crap"?

And if they disagree, and think it's awesome as it is, then they can go work with you or Steve, because I don't wan to put my name on a record that is awful.  I just took my name off a record recently, because the band insisted on sucking, and I didn't want to be associated with a train wreck.  And on this particular track you heard, the only way I would have agreed to be involved with it is if the artist let me do my thing to it.  I'm interested in quality, not quantity.  I want to produce records that I actually want to listen to.  

And I refuse to be accused of being lazy by people who don't want to get their hands dirty, and contribute anything creative to the recording.  I could care less if they make twenty or thirty more records in a year than I do.  If you two think that all a producer contributes is suggesting harmonies or a tambourine in the chorus, then that shows what little creativity or interest in making a great record you guys have.  


+1 with a bullet.  Cool
Logged
Nick Dellos - MCPE  

Food for thought for the future:              http://http://www.kurzweilai.net/" target="_blank">http://www.kurzweilai.net/www.physorg.com

RSettee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6796
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2008, 03:52:55 PM »

J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 12:50


Well, if this is the case, you seem to have some pretty lofty and far reaching opinions on a side of producing that you now admit to knowing very little about.  

As my friend David Palmer (formerly of William's favorite band) says: "Eventually, your experience catches up with your opinion."


JJ, i'm just a guy who likes great sound. I don't care about selling records. This is where I and many others differ--if I was in this to make a living, I would have gave up a long time ago. If I thought that way, I never would have dumped 4 grand into my latest album, nor nice artwork, nor the big mastering job to cd and vinyl, nor my own time. It has to be about the art first, or everything else is certainly doomed. I don't consider record sales to be an arbiter of what's qualified, who qualifies it or whatever. I know records that have sold millions, and I like neither the art nor the production.

But i'm qualified to state my opinion on what I like, in which I continue to do here. Plenty more people are more "technically qualified", all I care about is the art. Without artists making art, everything else would be a moot point anyways. Half my record collection is filled with bands who never "made it" and/or were probably seen as a record label liability....they just made some great albums, I think. If I didn't listen to those bands or that art, I would have thought that music was morally bankrupt a long time ago after trends came and gone every month.

Quote:

As I said, I have no qualms about considering my contribution as intellectual property, and asking for points.  Your hero, Steve, probably would have let the song just suck, and not asked for points (rightly so).


Who's to say that the artist never would have sold copies, anyways? You're forgetting that for the majority of artists, the tradition has been to sell records, live. Not the other way around. A band has always sold infinitely more due to a great performance, than due to radio play. Live music has almost always been a loss leader to sell releases and merchandise. It's not like the majority of artists have ever been lucky enough to have a radio hit in which for people to come out to a live show for. It's--if you take the average of bands since the industry started--been the tradition to do what you do live, and then sell records from that. I can't think of ONE case where I liked the band and didn't buy something---if the cd's good, great! But the release is secondary to the live show in my eyes. If the cd wasn't as good, it doesn't make me NOT want to see the band live if they already proved that they had the goods.

We have to remember that it used to be about just capturing a performance, and then somewhere around the time of multitracking and stereo, production became emphasized. And that's cool, I love well produced albums. But not every big budget production i've liked, either. I don't want anyone to say that production created a band that was better than they actually were, live. Because they still had to replicate that live, and either they did or didn't.

Case in point: at the Mark Knopfler show on Friday, I saw an opening singer, Jesca Hoop. LOVED the live show, just her and an acoustic guitar, great voice, great songs, but above all, she connected artistically and emotionally with me, after the first song. I saw TONS of people buying the cds, because she made an emotional impact. I bought the cd too, and it wasn't quite there....sure it had Steward Copeland on track two and some fancy Auto Tune here and there, but I wanted the acoustic singer/ songwriter thing. Live, she was amazing. Not so much so on cd, because producers and other people got ahold of her to add more fancy things to her performance than just her, her voice and the aforementioned songs and acoustic guitar. That's just my take, but I can't see people that started out loving the cd and THEN checking out the live show being extremely satisfied. Or at the very least, they'd be unprepared for it.

But that was why I bought the cd. Had I heard the cd first, I would have not been as fired up about seeing her. Yet another case where getting more away from the live show did an inservice to the performer. I wasn't getting the live thing. The cd is nice and everything, but live, she didn't have a bunch of herselves harmonizing to herself.....and it did wonders on a ground level--honest, true.

Quote:

Is it my ethical responsibility to tell somebody who doesn't know how badly their material sucks that it does?  Is it my ethical responsibility as a producer to say, "Hey, nobody is going to want to listen to this crap"?


In alot of cases, I think that, as I say, bands can benefit from production. But when you say "nobody is going to want to listen to this crap", it's an opinion, and those bands still have to trust you to spend more money on the recording. The opinions about the Beatles in 1961/1962 were that they weren't worth signing. I don't put a helluva lot of stock in someone else's opinion, rather than what moves me. What moves me is the best arbiter of quality control that I have....and that's still an opinion in itself. And what I like doesn't usually tend to sell alot of records.

But I know that you know that I have a great appreciation for talent. Jason Falkner never sold many records, yet he even had Nigel Godrich production. I'm still in line with artistry, not records sold, because even Jason in that case (as you know, someone who does his own records), couldn't get a Nigel Godrich produced album to sell much better than his own productions. But you know, I thought that album was great, from the songs, to the production. I never put a helluva lot of faith in the mass record buying populace, because if I did, the MC5 would be huge.

Me predicting what will sell is the biggest crapshoot of all. If it were up to me, money would be left out of it, but I can't solely advise that either, because it still takes time and money to get recordings to sound good.

Quote:

And if they disagree, and think it's awesome as it is, then they can go work with you or Steve, because I don't wan to put my name on a record that is awful.  I just took my name off a record recently, because the band insisted on sucking, and I didn't want to be associated with a train wreck.  And on this particular track you heard, the only way I would have agreed to be involved with it is if the artist let me do my thing to it.


Steve never insulted you, personally. Maybe you took offense to it, but he never named you by name. There are exceptions in each category--some good with the bad and some bad with the good-- and if you think you are right, that's what matters. You have to do what moves you to be what you want to be. That pertains to all of us. We don't make records--or we shouldn't--for someone else. We should make them because we believe in them. There has to be some sort of emotional content at stake.

As i've stated, have there been times where I think that the band could have benefitted from a producer, along with Steve engineering? Certainly. But the factors vary so much on a whole bunch of things that--and I don't think that this has been addressed enough--that you often don't know what you really need, until the end of the recording....more slow songs, more energetic songs, etc. Sometimes the albums don't flow that well, whereas, individually, the songs are all great. There's been tons of times on major labels where bands have remixed things or had to re-record things or whatever. Early pressings of AC/DC's "Powerage" didn't have "Rock n' Roll Damnation", which was added because the record company didn't hear a "hit" on the record. That's still a damn great album with or without "Rock n' Roll Damnation", but sometimes even producers (in that case, George Young) or labels get to the end and then realize that even with big budget guys, that things need more of this or more of that. At that point, you can't fault a guy like George Young, who had been doing that for years and years by that point.

Quote:

If you two think that all a producer contributes is suggesting harmonies or a tambourine in the chorus, then that shows what little creativity or interest in making a great record you guys have.  


I think that he was being extreme. There are cases where there's been producers that have really not done a whole lot on a record--if anything--but took credit for it when it was the band's production and them doing things. In that case, I think the "tambourine" comment would stick....or it should stick. There's been plenty of guys that have overvalued their contributions on records. If all some dude did was suggest a tambourine track and collected points, I don't consider that producing....maybe others would disagree, but I personally don't consider that producing.

Now I think that we're probably getting into the "semantics" of producing. In one book that I read, they suggested "making the band angry to get a more angry performance out of them" was a great production tactic. I'd tend to disagree---that just makes you look like a jerk--but everyone has different definitions of what exactly "producing" is.
Logged

CWHumphrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 914
Re: when an artist needs a producer
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2008, 10:56:39 PM »

What about when the band (or solo artist) wants to step beyond their normal boundaries.

Case in point, rock acts and real strings.  Somebody is going to have to put together string arrangements.

Cheers,
Logged
Carter William Humphrey

"Indeed...oh three named one!" -Terry Manning
"Or you can just have Carter do the recording, because he's Humphrey."-J.J. Blair
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 21 queries.