Members Dancebass Posted November 24, 2009 Members Share Posted November 24, 2009 I don't care much for producers. I understand that sometimes they can make a huge difference for people but, for the most part I see them as babysitters for the label. Seems like they are there to candyass your music and try to squelch innovation and force creativity into a tiny little candy coated box. Cool, I get it, some artists are scatter {censored}ed big time and need direction. Under those circumstances I can fully appreciate the partnership. One of the things that pisses me off about them the most is how often they get credit for failures. I've seen it 100 times. Some band/artist comes out with a debut and gets some great traction with a killer record. Part of the reason they catch on is because they bring something fresh to the table and people love it. Then the label sticks them with some big name ass-hat for the follow up record and it SUCKS!!! The record is big stinking pile of {censored}, but because the previous one was so well received the follow-up sells like crazy out of the gate. Usually outselling the original "good" record by a decent amount. Then ass-hat is hailed as a "great producer" even though the band could have put out ANYTHING and it would have been big. Six months down the road the band loses all momentum due to the crap record and disappears forever. Ass-Hat producer is still hailed as brilliant (with sales charts to back it up)and moves on to destroy the next career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 24, 2009 Members Share Posted November 24, 2009 I've always had a huge amount of respect for producers like Brian Eno, Daniel Lanois, Dave Friedmann and Quincy Jones I would love it if someone like John Frusciante or even Peter Gabriel wanted to produce my record. Seems like they are there to candyass your music and try to squelch innovation and force creativity into a tiny little candy coated box. But this scenario is also very possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dancebass Posted November 24, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 24, 2009 I can totally get behind the guys that have proven themselves to be successful songwriters in their own careers prior to getting into the producer role. That is a lot easier to support. Rick Ocasek from the cars has been really active in this role lately and personally I think his output {censored}ing kicks ass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 24, 2009 Members Share Posted November 24, 2009 I will say, the producer-artist relationship is largely contingent upon genre. For instance, in rap it works to a rapper's advantage to have several producers or beatmakers on one record or at least one super talented production team or individual ie Sa-Ra, 9th Wonder, or my personal favorite, Dr Dre. In addition, depending upon what the artist hopes to accomplish they may need a producer for that added direction and guidance. In the smaller stages and phases of one's music career, the engineer is usually the individual who is overlooked. They sit in on all the sessions, have to do tons of editing work and are often asked for a second opinion. But nobody looks at the liner notes of a Rick Rubin produced record and says, "Steve so and so did a badass job engineering this album!!" I feel one major downfall of home/DIY recording is that it puts talented engineers out of a job. It's okay to do a few "ep" releases as fodder material and DIY, but I feel a real album should be done in the studio with a proper engineer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted November 24, 2009 Members Share Posted November 24, 2009 I feel one major downfall of home/DIY recording is that it puts talented engineers out of a job. It's okay to do a few "ep" releases as fodder material and DIY, but I feel a real album should be done in the studio with a proper engineer. I totally agree, the last thing bands should DIY is recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 24, 2009 Members Share Posted November 24, 2009 I totally agree, the last thing bands should DIY is recording. I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I think it's a very smart strategy to record your own little demos and pass them out for free at shows. But those would be just little 3,4 song eps to build up some hype and give people something at a show. But when you record an album, thats the real deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeuceyBaby Posted November 25, 2009 Members Share Posted November 25, 2009 yeah a demo is alright for a project studio but for an official cut you need to get it done right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevilRaysFan Posted November 25, 2009 Members Share Posted November 25, 2009 yeah a demo is alright for a project studio but for an official cut you need to get it done right That still depends on the "target audience" as well as the skill of the artist as a producer.....For example, industrial bands on major labels are usually always self-produced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeuceyBaby Posted November 25, 2009 Members Share Posted November 25, 2009 would you say in most cases a band thats tracking itself isnt fully focused on music tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevilRaysFan Posted November 25, 2009 Members Share Posted November 25, 2009 would you say in most cases a band thats tracking itself isnt fully focused on music tho thats a good point........... on the other hand, there are people that hold equal weight with playing skills and production as part of their MO (for example: Jeff Lynne or Tom Scholz) .... I do agree with you that, for the most part, a major label focused on getting a new unknown act on the charts is rarely going to hand over the keys to the studio unless that artist proves beforehand that he/she has the skill and aptitude to do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ForgetMeNacht Posted November 25, 2009 Members Share Posted November 25, 2009 Producers to me is someone that functions as a the shadow member of the band. He's someone to bounce an idea off of but isn't controlling the band or an over priced engineer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Giorgi Posted November 25, 2009 Members Share Posted November 25, 2009 I've always had a huge amount of respect for producers like Brian Eno, Daniel Lanois, Dave Friedmann and Quincy Jones I would love it if someone like John Frusciante or even Peter Gabriel wanted to produce my record. But this scenario is also very possible. I'm a fan of the scientists dude that got featured on History Channel's "Universe". Is it you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scafeets Posted November 25, 2009 Members Share Posted November 25, 2009 I don't care much for producers. I understand that sometimes they can make a huge difference for people but, for the most part I see them as babysitters for the label. Seems like they are there to candyass your music and try to squelch innovation and force creativity into a tiny little candy coated box. Cool, I get it, some artists are scatter {censored}ed big time and need direction. Under those circumstances I can fully appreciate the partnership. One of the things that pisses me off about them the most is how often they get credit for failures. I've seen it 100 times. Some band/artist comes out with a debut and gets some great traction with a killer record. Part of the reason they catch on is because they bring something fresh to the table and people love it. Then the label sticks them with some big name ass-hat for the follow up record and it SUCKS!!! The record is big stinking pile of {censored}, but because the previous one was so well received the follow-up sells like crazy out of the gate. Usually outselling the original "good" record by a decent amount. Then ass-hat is hailed as a "great producer" even though the band could have put out ANYTHING and it would have been big. Six months down the road the band loses all momentum due to the crap record and disappears forever. Ass-Hat producer is still hailed as brilliant (with sales charts to back it up)and moves on to destroy the next career. I get what you're saying, I think: There are a lot of hack producers out there coasting on their reputations. But let's acknowledge that a great many producers add significant value to the process. Thanks to a whole generation of songwriters and musicians growing up with easy access to studio gear, today's players are much more likely to be prepared for the studio environment. Different recording projects require different skills in a producer. The superstar engineer-turned-producer (Nichols, Ramone, Parsons) probably isn’t as important any more for most projects. However, a lot of groups can and do benefit from a fresh set of ears on the other side of the glass – telling them when they have a good song, take, arrangement, etc. And some bands actively seek out a producer who will make them more accessible/commercial. You may not appreciate your favorite band being “watered down” by a big-name producer. But, most groups will trade freshness, edge and street cred to jump from 25,000 units to 3 million. The other common phenomenon for new bands is the sophomore jinx: Where a songwriter or band spends the first 23 years of their life crafting a CD’s worth of tunes, only to get pressured into writing the next dozen in a year. Then, big-name producer has to turn the lemons into lemonade and the buying pubic whines that there’s only two good tracks .(thus justifying the download ripoff syndrome. But that’s another story.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 25, 2009 Members Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'm a fan of the scientists dude that got featured on History Channel's "Universe". Is it you? Nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ronan Murphy Posted November 26, 2009 Members Share Posted November 26, 2009 Of course there is also the common scenario of an artist that has great success working with great producers and then gets enough clout to produce themselves and put out complete junk without an outside perspective to help them focus and develop their creative ideas. Of course I am a producer, so I am biased about the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted November 26, 2009 Members Share Posted November 26, 2009 Of course there is also the common scenario of an artist that has great success working with great producers and then gets enough clout to produce themselves and put out complete junk without an outside perspective to help them focus and develop their creative ideas.Of course I am a producer, so I am biased about the issue. You must be talking about the Mars Volta lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Synonym Music Posted November 27, 2009 Members Share Posted November 27, 2009 Of course there is also the common scenario of an artist that has great success working with great producers and then gets enough clout to produce themselves and put out complete junk without an outside perspective to help them focus and develop their creative ideas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RickGoetz Posted November 27, 2009 Members Share Posted November 27, 2009 I think a good producer is worth his or her weight in gold. Some are hype and BS and don't last but there are people out there who consistently add something amazing to the recording process. My experience is that if a label likes the demos of a group enough they will give the guy who did the demos a budget and let him go to town. If they like the songs and the live show and think the recording is crap they pair the band with someone who has been around the block... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kramerguy Posted November 30, 2009 Members Share Posted November 30, 2009 I disagree with the OP. A "good" producer isn't someone who wants to force his or her vision onto the recording, so much as someone who can look at the band from an outside perspective and see the silver lining, strengths, and exploit the best possible recordings based on the bands strengths. One stellar example would be Terry Brown, the guy who produced Rush's first 10 albums. Since his departure in 1983, they've never sounded the same (still great, but very different direction) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vermoulian Posted December 1, 2009 Members Share Posted December 1, 2009 Producers get less respect than they deserve because often people look at what the producer appears to do and think, "I could do that." Any given session could involve a producer simply doing things like "We need more of this (e.g., cowbell)" or "Let's try adding that" or "Let's do another take", and it's easy to think, why is this joker getting a pile of money and a piece of the record. It's easy to lose sight of the bigger perspective. The producer's job is to take the material provided (songs, performances) and turn them into the best possible product, i.e., recorded music. Presumably, a producer has established that he or she has good ears and taste (from the perspective of whoever is hiring him/her), and what he or she ends up producing will be marketable (if that's the goal). A group of good performers with good songs working in an established genre will just about produce themselves. Having a good engineer also makes it look easy. Engineers also get less respect than they deserve because everybody thinks they can do it themselves . . . but then why do so many recorded-in-their-basement demos sound like recorded-in-their-basement demos rather than real records? It's not the location or the gear, 90% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members I was The Funk Posted December 1, 2009 Members Share Posted December 1, 2009 As a producer (however amature I may be), I have to disagree with the OP post and overall premise. The producer is not there to make a super slick commercial sounding crappy record for the label. The producer is there to get a record done and make the best record possible. The main job of the producer is to maintain the overall vision of the record, because artists tend to drift a lot. That means we say "thats a good take" when its a good take for the overall vision. It means we also collaborate with the artists to clarify their vision, tell them "that lyric could be better" arrange for the recording process/schedule, make sure that the band or artist does not set foot in a studio until they are ready and a number of other things. We set the tone of the work, mix or supervise the mix (again following the vision of the artist), and deal with things like getting the mastering done and such. A lot of times we play with the artists and try to inspire different ways of thinking about things. which makes for a better record. Most times when a band's second record sucks its because they spent years refining songs for the first record and they either don't have the songs or they don't have the time to refine them for the second due to label pressure. If it sucks it sucks because th songs suck and there wasn't time to make them not suck. Not because the recording was too well made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fernabulax Posted December 1, 2009 Members Share Posted December 1, 2009 If you don't get a producer then who the hell do you think's going to kiss your butt and tell you how wonderful you are, much less supply the band with decent drugs? Cheesh! Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nijyo Posted December 2, 2009 Members Share Posted December 2, 2009 I don't care much for producers. I understand that sometimes they can make a huge difference for people but, for the most part I see them as babysitters for the label. Seems like they are there to candyass your music and try to squelch innovation and force creativity into a tiny little candy coated box. Cool, I get it, some artists are scatter {censored}ed big time and need direction. Under those circumstances I can fully appreciate the partnership. One of the things that pisses me off about them the most is how often they get credit for failures. I've seen it 100 times. Some band/artist comes out with a debut and gets some great traction with a killer record. Part of the reason they catch on is because they bring something fresh to the table and people love it. Then the label sticks them with some big name ass-hat for the follow up record and it SUCKS!!! The record is big stinking pile of {censored}, but because the previous one was so well received the follow-up sells like crazy out of the gate. Usually outselling the original "good" record by a decent amount. Then ass-hat is hailed as a "great producer" even though the band could have put out ANYTHING and it would have been big. Six months down the road the band loses all momentum due to the crap record and disappears forever. Ass-Hat producer is still hailed as brilliant (with sales charts to back it up)and moves on to destroy the next career. I think Bob Rock was instrumental in destroying the Metallica I loved, but he's a very good producer (St Anger aside ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted December 2, 2009 Members Share Posted December 2, 2009 Most times when a band's second record sucks its because they spent years refining songs for the first record and they either don't have the songs or they don't have the time to refine them for the second due to label pressure. If it sucks it sucks because th songs suck and there wasn't time to make them not suck. Not because the recording was too well made. This is true, but now we're slowly transitioning into an age where many artists who would have already released three or four DIY eps do not want to sign with labels. So the concept of the awesome debut album is changing because by the time some of these acts actually do sign, they're on their fourth or fifth project and have a very well developed sound. This can mean a lot of things for their second "major" album, it may not suck and suffer from the notorious sophomore slump because the artist already has a set routine that they've followed for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dancebass Posted December 2, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 2, 2009 I think Bob Rock was instrumental in destroying the Metallica I loved, but he's a very good producer (St Anger aside ) The Metallica that I loved died in a bus accident. Bob Rock IS a {censored}ing tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.