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.