Jump to content

To You, is Production Content?


Magpel

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Probably a bit too early the morning to articlate a question like this...

 

Is "production" an integral part of the content of a work of music, or is it something separate? People of our ilk will often say we like the way an album sounds, but the music leaves us cold. Or vice versa. What does this imply?

 

Is there a parallel for that in any other art? Take literature. Is there any way to separate content from presentation in a novel? Only if you're a sucker for sexy covers and nice bindings... How about a painting?

 

The closest analog would be in theater, I guess, in which "the play" is the genuine content, the "production" a derivation of that.

 

Just so my bias is known: I don't consider production and sound quality to be integral parts of the content of a piece of music. I often make a conscious effort to "hear past" production treatment to what the "real" content is. The 'real" content to me is not just "the song" anymore than the script of The Cherry Orchard is the "real" work of art. The real content is the song, the feel, the performance, the arrangement, even the timbres (which now veers dangerously close to "production')

 

But to people who regard music as pure aural experience, production is everything--it IS the tangible artifact, the thing that's making waves in the environment.

 

Ugh. Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Magpel


Is there a parallel for that in any other art? Take literature. Is there any way to separate content from presentation in a novel? Only if you're a sucker for sexy covers and nice bindings...

 

 

I think you could have a book from a great writer, with great prose, but a {censored}ty story. Is that the same?

 

I do think some styles of music and soem albums do exist in a place where the production (the sound) is a critical part of the album.

 

Master Of Puppets wouldn't be the same if it didn't sound the way it does.

 

The Chronic wouldn't be the same.

 

Dark Side Of The Moon

 

Jimi

 

The list goes on and on. I think the music of the above examples is great stuff on it's own, but the sound of the albums is part of the art, ya know?

 

I like to think in cases like these, the art of engineering and the art of music combine to make a higher art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think that in the field of audio engineering and production you have artists. Guys that go beyond just documenting and into creating.

 

Think of engineers that "have a sound". Some of my favorite engineers have a sound.

 

Terry Date and Scott Burns are both producer/engineers of the heavy music scene that have a sound. More so than that, they help take a band and it's music to a higher level than they would achieve alone.

 

I think it could be said that plenty of engineer/producers are artists in their own right.

 

So yeah, I do think production/engineering is an art form. And since a lot of albums do reach the level of audio crack (it sound so good), I would say that yes, production can be content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Magpel

Is there any way to separate content from presentation in a novel?

 

 

Sure. As stated in the thread about The Celestine Prophecy, the story is really great, but the author isn't so great a writer. I would say that's like having good content but poor presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Production is an integral part of a recording -- just as an orchestra's abilities are an integral part of the performance.

 

But, by the same token, the song/composition exists apart from that.

 

(And, of course, these days, the elements of the recording/production may well get rearranged by someone else down the road.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's sort of like this:

 

A recording with crappy songs and crappy production is just crap.

 

A recording with crappy songs and great production is just (commercial) crap.

 

A recording with great songs and crappy production can be extremely popular (c.f the Velvet Underground)

 

A recording with great songs and great production is a master piece of music, whether or not it's commercially successful.

 

 

So it's really about the songs... but the production can really help those songs sound better - if they're any good in the first place.

But even with out fancy production those songs still hold their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

To me, production is about being responsible for completing the album as close to the agreed upon vision as possible. It's not always about the drum sound or the ear candy. It can be about finding the right drummer for a very niche type of singer. Looking for the correct atmosphere to put the artist at ease. Helping pick or write songs... or not...

 

...or putting all the icing and fairy dust on a project so people say "I like the production on that album".

 

So a producer is a hired hand that is responsible for "whatever" needs to be done to realize a specific vision. You certainly can't separate that from an album you love... or hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by UstadKhanAli

I would agree with the above post.


Another example might be someone with really great technique and realism painting something that is (at least to viewer) not interesting. For me, that might be a bowl of fruit or a lighthouse.

 

 

Ahhh, but how about a lighthouse made out of a bowl of fruit?

 

I agree...however, there is also that aspect of production that really doesn't have anything to do with engineering... "We're going to do this middle section acapella, then bring in the string quartet and horns, and overdub a Gospel choir with sitar accompaniment".

 

That's often the stuff that, for me, anyways, makes music interesting.

 

For instance...listen to "Abbey Road". Then listen to some of the "Get Back" (Let It Be) session bootlegs where you could hear them coming up with ideas for the songs that ended up on Abbey Road (some of which is also available on the "Anthology" discs). Listen to, for instance, the slow, ploddy "She Came In Through The Bathroom Window"...sans backups that's on "Anthology"...and then listen to the Abbey Road version. The chords, melody, and words are the same, but it's as if they're completely different songs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...