Print

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

[jimmyjazz]

Thanks, Adam.  Although I have found the other posts on this thread quite fascinating, your reply touched on some of the issues I was hoping we'd be able to discuss.  If anyone feels compelled to expand on Adams thoughts, I would appreaciate it.

jim andrews
four/four records, LLC

[Bob Olhsson]

A record producer is the equivalent of a director rather than a movie producer. The title was probably inherited from broadcast production because many labels started out recording at radio stations or independent radio production studios.

I think Atlantic Records was the first to credit somebody as a producer. Some labels used the term "recording director" which is probably a bit more appropriate handle.

[sdevino]

djui5 wrote on Tue, 21 December 2004 15:31

sdevino wrote on Mon, 20 December 2004 12:58 In the realm of music production does't the producer ALWAYs have to be a musician? Steve No.....

Care to offer an example Randy?

[Johnny B]

Great stuff here.

I guess part of it depends on how you define the term "producer," for me, an equally important question would be not so much whether the "producer/director/conductor" can do the art of arranging, but whether they also possess the art of an engineer. Now I suppose there are people who have so much talent that they can do everything, whereas, I'm stuck with merely wishing I had any talent at all.

Ahh, but I think some "no-talent" people are smart enough to recognize their own weaknesses and make up for their own deficiency by surrounding themselves with people who really do have talent. Another way to look at this is that it's Johnny B's goofy full employment policy...hire a lot of people and help the economy. That'd be good for all the good folks here, correct?





 

[Curve Dominant]

Quote:

posted by jimmyjazz: I'd like to see some discussion about how those of you who work as producers approach a "blank canvas" in terms of instrumentation and arrangement.

Hmmm...is the canvas ever really "blank" from the start? Usually not.

Quote:

If you are faced with little more than a chord progression, lyrics, and a melody, do you have a "standard" approach towards shaping things into a recording which truly serves the song?

You touched on it yourself, right there. You essentially answered your own question.

With vocal works (which are the bread & butter of our industry so let's start from there), there is a lyric. The lyric is a story about something.

So that story, and the point of view from which it is told, should work quite well as a "blueprint" for the producer. One could concievably follow this blueprint to inform virtually every production decision, from the basic chord changes the song follows, to the type of instrumentation used, to how the master tracks are ultimately mixed.

A key to William Shakespeare's success was his mastery of the lyric informing the production of his plays, right down to the costume designers! Just one example: The reference in Hamlet to the hero's "inky cloak" telling you Hamlet should be wearing black. Shakespeare's lyrics were littered with "roadsigns" to the actors and directors telling them how his stories should be staged.

Find within the lyrics of the song a production guide, and follow it.

Quote:

...when we're trying to turn "just another song" into something that really grabs the listener.

See above, same response. Stories are what grab listeners. If there is a story in that lyric, there is a hit song lurking there also. Convey that story, and you have nailed the production gig.

Happy hunting!

[Thomas Lester]

Eric Vincent wrote on Thu, 23 December 2004 00:06

Stories are what grab listeners. If there is a story in that lyric, there is a hit song lurking there also. Convey that story, and you have nailed the production gig.!

Interesting...  if that's the norm, I may be the exception.  I'm always attracted to a song first by the music, then the hook, then last.... if I really like the song, I'll pay attention to the lyrics.  If the song doesn't sound interesting, musically, then it never makes it to the "story" in my mind.  

so...  do you think if theres a song out that's bad musically, but really tells a great story that it'll still be a hit?  The average multi-platinum POP song doesn't tell squat    

Now...  on the flip side...  I've done a lot of folk stuff, including the legendary "Michael Smith".  He is an AMAZING story teller... both in song and in real life.  His music is great, too, but if you get to his stories, it's amazing.  We all would sit (including the expensive session players) and listen to him tell stories of his younger years in coffee houses and such for HOURS after the days session would end.

I just don't get that in pop music....

-Tom

[Curve Dominant]

Quote:

posted by Thomas Lester: so... do you think if theres a song out that's bad musically, but really tells a great story that it'll still be a hit? The average multi-platinum POP song doesn't tell squat   Now... on the flip side... I've done a lot of folk stuff, including the legendary "Michael Smith". He is an AMAZING story teller... both in song and in real life. His music is great, too, but if you get to his stories, it's amazing. We all would sit (including the expensive session players) and listen to him tell stories of his younger years in coffee houses and such for HOURS after the days session would end. I just don't get that in pop music....

Thomas,

Sonic snobbery gets a pass in these parts.

Literary snobbery does not.

Your failure to recognize the art in a modern work of art, is your failure, and yours alone.

It's unbecoming for us to be the old geezers telling our clients what should resonate with them, and what shouldn't.

That is precisely what is so totally wrong with the music industry today.

Music becomes "POP" when you do your part in making it popular.

Or not.

That is, essentially, your choice in life:

You make it happen, or you do not make it happen.

Production.

[saxist]

Eric Vincent wrote on Thu, 23 December 2004 22:01

Your failure to recognize the art in a modern work of art, is your failure, and yours alone. It's unbecoming for us to be the old geezers telling our clients what should resonate with them, and what shouldn't.

Do you not see an inconsistency in these two statements?  It seems to me that you're falling into the same trap for which you're berating Thomas.

I very much agree that artistic value is determined by each individual, for themselves, but a person is equally capable of determining that some particular piece of "art" is worthless to him or her.


At any rate, I think the essence of instrumentation & arrangement is finding the instrumental/vocal/"non-musical" timbres that support and shape the song best.  Whether one goes back to the Rimsky-Korsakov treatise -- and I'm amazed that a certain Brit hasn't already posted a reference to that tome here -- or looks to the work of Quincy Jones or Trevor Horn, I think arranging is about timbre more than anything else.  However, in the quest for new and unusual timbres (or for old and traditional ones, as the case may be) I think it's important to keep another compositional necessity in the forefront of your mind: contrast.  I agree with the earlier poster about the mendacity of one-dimensional music.  I love the music of Steve Reich, including the early, one-dimensional stuff, but it's a very rare composer/songwriter who can make that sort of thing work.  I find a lot of rap (and some pop) very boring, on those grounds.  Even if the sounds are intriguing, a 4-bar loop repeated ad nauseam for 2:30... 3:00... 5:00(!) is simply boring.

I don't care whether you call it a second theme, episode, bridge, break down, break strain, or Groove #2a -- get some contrast in there somewhere!

Eric H.

[Curve Dominant]

Quote:

posted by Saxist: a person is equally capable of determining that some particular piece of "art" is worthless to him or her.

Quite.

Problem:

You are no longer an audio engineer.

You are an art critic.

Try doing both simultaneously, and you will do neither well.

Make a career choice, and stick with it.

[saxist]

Eric Vincent wrote on Thu, 23 December 2004 23:31

Quote: posted by Saxist: a person is equally capable of determining that some particular piece of "art" is worthless to him or her. Quite. Problem: You are no longer an audio engineer. You are an art critic. Try doing both simultaneously, and you will do neither well. Make a career choice, and stick with it.

Whoa.  If we're speaking realistically, I'm not an art critic at all and I'm only an audio engineer for about 1/3 of my time (and less than that of my income, these days), professionally speaking.  

If we're speaking hypothetically (as in "if you go that route, then you are no longer an audio engineer") then I sort of agree, but the context for this discussion is the role of the producer, and I think it is entirely within the role of the producer to make decisions based upon his or her notions of what is or is not artistically valid, as long as those notions are relative to the project at hand, as opposed to trying to make the project at hand fit some sort of pre-conceived notion of good vs. bad art.

For that matter, I think similar decisions are within the scope of the engineer, especially inasmuch as the engineer's decisions influence the shape of the music (which is to say, a lot).  If I choose to write a mute, I'm [1] changing the arrangement and [2] basing that change on my own artistic notions of what is and is not good.

N'est ce pas?
EH

[PP]

[saxist]

I thought the R-K reference might bring you out.

Have a good time in London,
EH

[lucey]

Eric Vincent wrote on Fri, 24 December 2004 00:31

Quote: posted by Saxist: a person is equally capable of determining that some particular piece of "art" is worthless to him or her. Quite. Problem: You are no longer an audio engineer. You are an art critic.

Yet this thread is not about "audio engineering", it's about producing ... and producing involves a fair amount of criticism. In fact, critical thinking and real listening are the whole deal.

The artist is producing themselves to some extent, and the producer is producing the artist to some extent.


The difference between music production/direction and art/music critics is the emotional alignment and intention.  A music producer is aligned with the artist and the critic is promoting themselves.  The intention of a critic is the differentiate themselves form the pack, the producer fills a role in supporting the work.

So there is no polarity with artist/producer as there is with artist/critic.

Our intention informs our responses, not the category of our action.

Quote:

Try doing both simultaneously, and you will do neither well. Make a career choice, and stick with it.

Tough words, yet are you choosing to be an engineer or an engineers critic?



To look at the original question .... music direction/production is all about being INFORMED by music via our relationship to the work already in the equation.  If you listen to a piece and hear nothing but your own thoughts, you need to consider another job, or at least pass on this opportunity.

Music informs us, if we're available to it.  And if we're really good we will take the original seed of a vision and clarify it ... amplify it for the listener.

If in the extreme, all we have is a song, the commercial intentions are as much a part of the 'composition' as anything.  If it's an artist we're arranging, their intention is ours to resonate with, or not.


Otherwise the act of producing/directing is a bunch of bright ideas piled on top.




What is the aim ... the intention ... and how do we see it through?

[sdevino]

IMO the producer is responsible to the part that hires him or her to deliver a product that meets the criteria of the hiring party. It could include budget, deadline, and artistic judgement as well as familiarity with the target market.

From an artistic standpoint when I am hired as producer I try my best to serve the creation of the artist as #1. So when approaching arrangement decisions my first concerns are:

1. What is needed help the artisitc goals.
2. What part of the song is carrying the most essential elements of its character at any given point in the song.
3. Does any existing track or part unintentionally mask or interfere with the part conveying the essential charactor.
4. What is needed to enhance the song
5. What is needed to make the song appropriate to its genre
6. What opportunities are there to make the song unique.

None of this is done in any kind of systematic way. I listen to the song, I listen to the artist talk about his or her song, and I listen to what comes into my head that would meet the above criteria.

Every song is different. Every solution is different.
Sometimes (most times) choices are constrained by time and budget (budget also constrains talent). SO just like doing a mix, production decisions need to be weighed against the overall goals and means of the project.

Good producers are visonary, artistic, and practical all at the same time. This leaves out a large part of the creative population.

Steve

[djui5]

sdevino wrote on Wed, 22 December 2004 21:12

djui5 wrote on Tue, 21 December 2004 15:31 sdevino wrote on Mon, 20 December 2004 12:58 In the realm of music production does't the producer ALWAYs have to be a musician? Steve No..... Care to offer an example Randy?

Steve,
I believe that a producer who is a musician has an advantage, but this dosen't necessarily have to be so.
A producer can do a lot of things and never play a single note of an instrument.
You don't have to be a musician to understand note changes, song structure, melodies, emotional content, etc etc etc.
A producer could be merely a "session referee".
Say for instance...you have a band who's preparing to do an album. The songs are allready written, either by the band or by external songwriters. The producer could very easily work with the artists on things like pulling a better performance out of them. Session management issues like time deligation, monetary deligation, mood management, etc etc. Said Producer could also work with the artists on developing allready written songs into more powerfull "hits". Said Producer must have a first hand knowledge of what makes a "hit" and how it's achieved...but does not necessarialy have to play instruments.
A Producer who plays instruments will have an edge as I stated before...but I do not feel that every producer has to know how to play instruments.