Print

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

[John Ivan]

I think it's really cool! Love it.!  The second track is amazing to me. See, why can't they rotate THAT on radio?? I wish I could go out and buy this record right now.

[J.J. Blair]

It sounds cool, but I totally see why Sony hates it.  No radio program director in his right mind, oustide of NPR, would ever put these tunes in the playlist.  On a personal note, I much prefer Andy Slater's production.  I just really can't stand the calliope and carnival thing that Jon keeps doing over and over and over.  OK!  We get it already!  You're 'ecclectic weird guy'!  It is so "check out how cute and clever I am", and is totally incongruous with the meaning of the song.  Most importantly, Fiona rocks and she's angry, neurotic chick.  That's part of what made her first record work so well.  Here's a 16 year old girl who sells her weariness better than most 30 year olds.  Slater got that and he made that the focal point and built the album around that.  There's none of that here.  "Better Version of Me" has the anger in the lyrics and her singing, and the music doesn't have it at all.  It sounds like somebody cut off Fiona's balls and has her singing on the soundtrack to Eternal Sunshine....  Her attitude and vocal seems like an afterthought.  I like the new version that I heard much better.

[j.hall]

i guess it still doesn't add up for me.  i just don't see why she'd hire the guy for a third time if she knew it would be a struggle and might turn out bad.....

i have to totally disagree about making music that's mass consumable simply because it's year 2005 and we have skip buttons.....

some of the most brilliant writers, producers, mixers, engineers, artists in the music biz are the ones that simply can not make a record that is "mass consumable"  it's just not the way they hear music and it's not the way they function

it's whole pysch debate of the fine line between genius and insanity.....

neither of those two classifications exist in what any psychologist would consider a "normal", fits into society well, type personality.

arguing the merits of making records for the mass market's consumption in this particular forum, to this forum's readership, is like telling a group of vampires that the sun is cool and something they ought to "take in"

[jimmyjazz]

Hmmm . . . I liked those tunes.  A lot.  I don't see them as being "NPR-only".  In fact, that's the kind of thinking that is stunting radio these days.

There is a highly successful commercial FM station here in Austin that would definitely not stretch its own boundaries playing either tune.  If you give the public more than they "ask for", sometimes the public surprises you.

[Fibes]

I'm a bit split on the subject.

Both those tunes have a big Brion stamp but on BVOM I'm hearing intervals from the first record just a lot more of them. My assistant said he gets it and that it sounded like where she wanted to go but couldn't early on.

I'd listen to both. Choosing art over art gets too tiresome when you spend weeks sorting through bullshit to find the art.

[J.J. Blair]

j. hall, this is only the second time he produced her.  And as to why Fiona does what she does, you would have to know her to understand that.

Bottom line with radio: Clear Channel (who I hate) is not going to play this.  That's who gets your records sold, not some station in Austin.

And as far as the "next button" goes, you're right.  It doesn't matter IF you aren't spending hundreds of thousands of dollars making a record.  But if you are going to spend that much money making a record, and then the label is going to spend a million dollars marketing and promoting the thing (all of which is recoupable), you have to take these things into account, IMO.  If, as a producer, you are making art for art's sake, then don't waste the artist's money.  Jon isn't the one paying for Abbey Road string sessions.  Fiona is.  A good producer would be interested in the concept of making sure that the artist gets back the money that the producer decided to spend for them. Otherwise, as I said, it's selfish and self indulgent.  

This is a business.  When you make major label records, that is the bottom line.  They are giving you money that they want to make back, plus some more.  If you don't want to worry about that kind of thing, then spend your own money and make indie records.   That's what I have done in that situation.  I didn't want to be accountable to an A&R guy, so I watched the budget and paid for it myself.  But if somebody id hiring me to make a record that is going to sell, I think it is absolutely possible to find a happy medium between art and commerce.  I think Jon's failure with all his productions is to acknowledge that responsibility.  If you think Nirvana wasn't concerned with selling records when they made Nevermind, even though nobody else was doing what they were doing, then you are naive.  

[NelsonL]

J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 17 August 2005 06:44

If you think Nirvana wasn't concerned with selling records when they made Nevermind, even though nobody else was doing what they were doing, then you are naive.

I'm sure they were concerned with selling records all the way back to Bleach, which was made for about $600. Nobody wants to tank-- whatever the scope of their undertaking.

For me, the biggest problem with the JB productions, is that Fiona is still singing on them. Much like Sting, something about her music gives me this slightly nauseous feeling. I know that sounds cheeky, but it's true. Tres L.A. in a very bad way (take that JJ!) I kid, I kid.

That being said, the whole concept of "guilty pleasures" is really lame (which I think J. was kind of hinting at.)

If you like it, enjoy it-- who cares what label it's on.

[j.hall]

J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 17 August 2005 08:44

Bottom line with radio: Clear Channel (who I hate) is not going to play this.  That's who gets your records sold, not some station in Austin.

well, entercom and clear channel seemed to have no problem playing the crap out of modest mouse, which easily one of the weirdest things i've heard broadcast in my life time, at least on corporate radio.

and gee, look how that blew up.  one of the quirkier indie rock bands of current day just broke into the mainstream through clear channel and entercom.......

Quote:

It doesn't matter IF you aren't spending hundreds of thousands of dollars making a record.  But if you are going to spend that much money making a record, and then the label is going to spend a million dollars marketing and promoting the thing (all of which is recoupable), you have to take these things into account, IMO.  If, as a producer, you are making art for art's sake, then don't waste the artist's money.  Jon isn't the one paying for Abbey Road string sessions.  Fiona is.  A good producer would be interested in the concept of making sure that the artist gets back the money that the producer decided to spend for them. Otherwise, as I said, it's selfish and self indulgent.

oh yeah, cause spending that much money on any record EVER isn't self indulgent and selfish.  gimme a break man.  you can't possible point the finger at jon brion alone.  major label producers in general are to blame for wasting GOBS of money and seemingly justifying it as an "artistic decision".......

Quote:

This is a business.  When you make major label records, that is the bottom line.  They are giving you money that they want to make back, plus some more.

yeah, money they want back off the artists tiny little percentage, while they seem to have no problem with giving a producer 600k (of the artists tiny little percentage) to make a record with.......don't lecture me on how the biz works, don't get me wrong, there's plenty i don't know......but i've got the whole art vs. business thing down.

Quote:

If you think Nirvana wasn't concerned with selling records when they made Nevermind, even though nobody else was doing what they were doing, then you are naive.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[CCC]

It's interesting music.

Nothing much wrong with interesting music.

It probably can't be understood, packaged, or marketed by the severely mentally deficient individuals we know as record label people.

I guess that's a problem.

Maybe she should get surgically altered, sign on to do a reality show, tongue-kiss Madonna at an awards show, marry and divorce someone in a weekend, or become a Scientologist.

Then the world could regard her with the appropriate amount of fascination. And there would be something to hang a marketing and publicity campaign off of.

As it stands now, it's just interesting music. Simply being good, interesting, or different is absolutely irrelevant in a world dominated by people with MBAs. If you can't do anything, if you can't understand anything, if you can't think for yourself, and if you have absolutely no testicular fortitude whatsoever, go to business school, then get a job marketing something. I know of what I speak. I got a degree in marketing before I went to music school. And I'm sorry. It takes years to get over that kind of head injury. It takes serious trepanning to bleed all that muck out of your skull.

Thanks for posting the tunes - they're really interesting.

[floodstage]

 

John Sorensen wrote on Wed, 17 August 2005 15:19

........ Maybe she should get surgically altered, sign on to do a reality show, tongue-kiss Madonna at an awards show, marry and divorce someone in a weekend, or become a Scientologist.

Are you in marketing?

Sounds like you understand the job pretty well!  

[TheViking]

LOL!!!

Yeah...   definately.

I find it kinda hard to believe that any artist would sit back and allow a producer to 'ruin her'.   I'm kinda with J on this one.   The Brion tracks have a brilliance to them - it's the way the vocals are treated and the way the songs are presented that are so refreshing to listen to.   The fact that it's not commercialized pop bullshit is probably the charm of it that draws me into wanting to hear more of it.

Just my two cents.

Kevin

[J.J. Blair]

Like I said, unless you know Fiona or about her, I wouldn't make any assumption about what she would or wouldn't choose to do.

And J, I'm not saying that Jon is the only guy who wastes artists' money.  However, in every album he has produced, he has failed to have a hit record that makes the money back.  Michael Beinhorn can overspend, and he is not anywhere as genius as Jon, but his track record is better.  

Like I said, artistic integrity is all well and great when it's your own money and your own career.  Also, to me, this doesn't sound fresh and exciting.  It's different from what's on the radio, for sure.  But it's the same calliope and carnival thing that Jon seems stuck in.  It's just my personal taste taht I like the Slater production more.

I just had a good friend of Jon's here an hour ago, and Jon came up in vonversation.  And I mentioned that I think it's a shame that Jon refuses to rock anymore.  The guy used to rock so hard.  Now it's like he's trying to be Raymond Scott meets Pet Sounds, and that is all he does, over and over and over.  He's so much more diverse than that, but it's like he's trying to make a point of making this is trademark sound.  The unfortunate thing is that he's doing it at his artists' expense, because for a number of albums with different artists now, nobody's getting it, aside from a handful of people.

It's a shame, because he is capable of so much more than even this, and he should have many hit records, but he doesn't.  My point is, it's not only OK to be successful, you should try to be successful when somebody hires you.  It doesn't have to be commercialized pop bullshit in order to be successful.  

[jimmyjazz]

J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 17 August 2005 09:44

Bottom line with radio: Clear Channel (who I hate) is not going to play this.  That's who gets your records sold, not some station in Austin.

Well, in my opinion, if a producer automatically buys the argument that his job is to deliver a sure-fire commercial hit, then he is nothing more than another ClearChannel foot soldier.  Who is the producer working for, anyway?  The artist, or the label?

If artists (and ostensibly their producers) don't push back and try to help expand the status quo, then artists (and ostensibly their producers) really shouldn't complain about anything.

By the way, that "station in Austin" is probably responsible for 10K - 20K units sold of whatever indie release is tops on its rotation each year.  We're talking about the #50 market or so in America.  Do the math.

[j.hall]

J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 17 August 2005 17:46

Like I said, artistic integrity is all well and great when it's your own money and your own career.  Also, to me, this doesn't sound fresh and exciting.  It's different from what's on the radio, for sure.  But it's the same calliope and carnival thing that Jon seems stuck in.  It's just my personal taste taht I like the Slater production more.

oh i don't disagree with that at all.  i have yet to form my opinion of the new version of this album as i have yet to hear more then one track.......

also, i'm not trying to claim i know what fiona is thinking or what she wants.  i think it's odd that she worked with him again knowing that it's her money she'll have to recoup, and knowing he'd be a wild card.

then again, i guess that's your point.

like usual J.J.  i always like disagreeing with you cause it stays professional and respectful.  

[lord]

j.hall wrote on Thu, 18 August 2005 08:53

like usual J.J.  i always like disagreeing with you cause it stays professional and respectful.

Except for that part where you called us vampires!