Samc wrote on Wed, 02 February 2005 05:35 |
Do you automatically decide/assume that your idea(s) will be better than the band's idea(s)? "Better than" for who/what?....... Do you really mean more to your liking?....... Who decide if your idea of "better than" is in fact "better than" the band's original idea?........
I also ask this because I concluded from your statements that the finished product is not necessarily what the band/artist would have played live, and this therefore answers the question, (or at least gives one reason) why a band's live performance is oftentimes considered different or "better than" their records by their audience.
|
I never assume my idea or any idea is better. I am the first to admit my idea sucks.
It's simple, IMO. The best idea will win out and stand on it's own merrits.
Do I force a band or artist to do something if they don't like it. Of course not.
They're the ones that will have to get up and perform a sonh night after night.
The advantage for a producer is, he hasn't listened to a song one way for the last month, and can catch something that can elevate a song to a new level. And that is my goal.
If a band wants to record their songs as they are, they shouldn't
waste money paying a producer. But hire a good engineer. Don't give up producers points to someone who is just engineering.
There's lots of different ways to do records. And I am the first to turn down working with a band if they don't want any input. Because I can't do that.
And I find that these days a bands performance is far from beign better tha the album.
Also, in most cases if you were to take an "un-fixed" live recording from alot of bands, they woudln't stand up when released as a live record without major work.