I've been thinking a lot about 'production' lately as opposed to straight engineering. I always thought that it was crap to influence a band's / artist's recording and that all I ever wanted to do was capture the sound as acurately as possible.... but nowadays, I'm thinking that production is an important part of recording. If done well, of course. I'm talking about having a bottle of whiskey handy (or else hiding all the booze). Or suggesting things like a piano part or a doubled vocal. Things that would definiltely be out of line for an 'engineer'. Of course it would be a disaster in the wrong situation, but like-wise, the right recording environment can inspire some incredible performances that otherwise would have been simply an artist playing a song. Maybe I'm just getting old?
-n
" Production" vs. " Engineering"
2The Jesus Lizard are a unique band. Their singer, David Yow, by mere technicality can not sing. Fortunately, because some old ponytail 'producer' didn't call in a tylenol commercial singer to be the vocalist on TJL albums, we have one of the greatest bands of all time.
Point: Maybe to you, a piano part would go good there, but you were not there for the inception of the band, nor do you know why they didn't choose a piano part there. Maybe they're allergic to pianos.
a 'producers' opinion is just as good as any random person's opinion off the street. You may think this band needs a cello in this one part, but the dude down the street thinks the song stinks and thinks you should scream your lungs out. who's right?
Chris
Point: Maybe to you, a piano part would go good there, but you were not there for the inception of the band, nor do you know why they didn't choose a piano part there. Maybe they're allergic to pianos.
a 'producers' opinion is just as good as any random person's opinion off the street. You may think this band needs a cello in this one part, but the dude down the street thinks the song stinks and thinks you should scream your lungs out. who's right?
Chris
Chris Hardings
More implosion lest I need, no wait, karowack need imposter
Band>
A Strange Film - Rence or Ramos (ignore)
More implosion lest I need, no wait, karowack need imposter
Band>
A Strange Film - Rence or Ramos (ignore)
" Production" vs. " Engineering"
3See that's exactly what I was expecting. Here's my point. There was a time when there weren't engineers that knew how to engineer punk and hardcore bands. Those pony-tailed dudes would slap a mile of reverb all over the snare and thought that every guitar should sound like Jimmy Page's. We are fortunate because now punk/alt rock/indie rock/math bands can go into the studio with an engineer that actually listens to that kind of music and knows what will serve the band. So I do beleive that we're at a point where 'production' can take that next step.
As far as the Jesus Lizard, they made great records when their freind Steve recorded them.... and then they made some real shit without Steve, their freind, guy that they were comfortable around and trusted.
What if someone who wasn't 'technically' a great singer needed help or encouragement to relax and sound like themselves? All I'm talking about is a fresh pair of ears and a relaxing environment.
Saying a 'producers' opinion is just as good as a random person off the street's is like saying that a random person off the street knows just as much about mic placement as a studio engineer.
My point is that I don't think 'production' shoud be a dirty word anymore.
-n
As far as the Jesus Lizard, they made great records when their freind Steve recorded them.... and then they made some real shit without Steve, their freind, guy that they were comfortable around and trusted.
What if someone who wasn't 'technically' a great singer needed help or encouragement to relax and sound like themselves? All I'm talking about is a fresh pair of ears and a relaxing environment.
Saying a 'producers' opinion is just as good as a random person off the street's is like saying that a random person off the street knows just as much about mic placement as a studio engineer.
My point is that I don't think 'production' shoud be a dirty word anymore.
-n
" Production" vs. " Engineering"
4Here's a few thoughts I've had on the subject:
First off; originally a producer was part of A&R at a record company. When the company decided that a certain type of "product" was to be made part of the "catalog", the producer would be responsible for developing a "project" to meet the requirements for the "product". It was then the producer's job, when told to do a "male vocal swing record with orchestra" to put the project together. This meant finding a male vocalist, an arranger (and/or) conductor, material (songs), and put together an orchestra, and set up the recording dates/times and book the studio (often in house). So say you're a producer at Capitol Records circa 1960. You call up Bobby Darin's agent (he's under contract to Capitol) and say you wanna' do an album. You also get Billy May or Richard Weiss to arrange and conduct - tell them you want to do "I left my heart in San Fransisco", "Call Me Irresponsible", "More", and a few new tunes "in the Darin style" - so they can do the arrangements and conduct. Then you, along with the conductor for the session, put together a studio orchestra from a musicians pool, and book the studio dates. Then you make sure the sessions go smoothly, everything sounds as it "should", and comes in on budget. That's the job of a producer. Except it probably doesn't happen like that much any more.
Nowdays a band might want a producer to get them the "product" they think their music should be when it hits the shelves. This would seem to imply that a band doesn't think they're quite what they should be on tape. It seems to smack of a lack of aesthetic wholeness or cohesion on the part of the band as to what they should be making themselves out to be; that a recording need present them as more than they are on stage or in rehearsal.
A band that lacks such vision probably should not have such "enhancement". A dry turd on stage should be a dry turd on tape.
A band with solid aesthetic vision should be able to produce that vision on their own. An engineer worth paying (i.e. a professional) and that has effective repore with said group, should be adept at effectively interpereting that vision and making it reality.
First off; originally a producer was part of A&R at a record company. When the company decided that a certain type of "product" was to be made part of the "catalog", the producer would be responsible for developing a "project" to meet the requirements for the "product". It was then the producer's job, when told to do a "male vocal swing record with orchestra" to put the project together. This meant finding a male vocalist, an arranger (and/or) conductor, material (songs), and put together an orchestra, and set up the recording dates/times and book the studio (often in house). So say you're a producer at Capitol Records circa 1960. You call up Bobby Darin's agent (he's under contract to Capitol) and say you wanna' do an album. You also get Billy May or Richard Weiss to arrange and conduct - tell them you want to do "I left my heart in San Fransisco", "Call Me Irresponsible", "More", and a few new tunes "in the Darin style" - so they can do the arrangements and conduct. Then you, along with the conductor for the session, put together a studio orchestra from a musicians pool, and book the studio dates. Then you make sure the sessions go smoothly, everything sounds as it "should", and comes in on budget. That's the job of a producer. Except it probably doesn't happen like that much any more.
Nowdays a band might want a producer to get them the "product" they think their music should be when it hits the shelves. This would seem to imply that a band doesn't think they're quite what they should be on tape. It seems to smack of a lack of aesthetic wholeness or cohesion on the part of the band as to what they should be making themselves out to be; that a recording need present them as more than they are on stage or in rehearsal.
A band that lacks such vision probably should not have such "enhancement". A dry turd on stage should be a dry turd on tape.
A band with solid aesthetic vision should be able to produce that vision on their own. An engineer worth paying (i.e. a professional) and that has effective repore with said group, should be adept at effectively interpereting that vision and making it reality.
" Production" vs. " Engineering"
5i had a great experience with an engineer who didn't mind offering his opinion about stuff. one band, he pointed out that he was feeling a kind of emptiness at a transitional point in the song, and that he thought it might sound good with feedback at that point. this is something i had never considered. it sounded like a good idea. we tried it. i like how it worked out. we kept it in the song. and when it was time to mix the song, he made it sound like he thought it should sound, which was almost entirely like i wanted it to sound. then i said "let's change this here, make this one guitar a little more present" or "that note on the bass is too loud, drop it down just for that 3/4 second" etc. and between the two of us, i'm happy with what happened. if he had just been a straight "engineer", and not suggested the feedback, the song would not have turned out as well as it did. so i think he tread that line perfectly.
same engineer, different project, i was acting as a studio drummer (lol) for a friend's project. one of the songs had a break in it that was like an *exact* copy of a fugazi song. the bass player pointed that out in practice. the songwriter said something to the effect of "no, it's no big deal, i like it. besides, everybody does it", something like that. it was his dime, and we were just studio musicians (lol) so, we let it slide. when we went to the studio and recorded, after a couple takes of the song (and it took like 10) that same engineer came in and kinda paused everything for a moment. he said something to the effect of "guys, that's a fugazi song. you can't come into inner ear and record a fugazi song. not here" something like that. i think if the singer stood his ground and said something like "doude, i wrote that riff 18 years ago" or something like that, the engineer may have been coerced into going along with it, under duress, as the bassist and i were doing. but the songwriter took it to heart, and over the course of the next couple minutes, we worked out a different chord progression for that part of the song. and it came out great. and it was owed entirely to the engineer's lack of fear in taking on a more "producer" type role.
so i'd have to say there's a definite place for offering up good suggestions as to what might work where, especially if you've got great sensibility. some people are gifted with great taste and sensibility.
the key difference, in the way i understand the role of a "producer" is that an engineer can make producer-like *suggestions*, whereas a producer can say "no, it's going to be like this". i don't think an engineer should ever say "no, you must add a piano part here" or anything like that. unless he's got the luxury of telling a client to hit the road, because he's decided that he doesn't approve of the artistic merit of what *they* do, and doesn't want his name attached to *their* product unless they make it comply with his wishes. that's the way i perceive the difference between an engineer who's not afraid to share good advice, and a producer who says how things ARE going to be.
same engineer, different project, i was acting as a studio drummer (lol) for a friend's project. one of the songs had a break in it that was like an *exact* copy of a fugazi song. the bass player pointed that out in practice. the songwriter said something to the effect of "no, it's no big deal, i like it. besides, everybody does it", something like that. it was his dime, and we were just studio musicians (lol) so, we let it slide. when we went to the studio and recorded, after a couple takes of the song (and it took like 10) that same engineer came in and kinda paused everything for a moment. he said something to the effect of "guys, that's a fugazi song. you can't come into inner ear and record a fugazi song. not here" something like that. i think if the singer stood his ground and said something like "doude, i wrote that riff 18 years ago" or something like that, the engineer may have been coerced into going along with it, under duress, as the bassist and i were doing. but the songwriter took it to heart, and over the course of the next couple minutes, we worked out a different chord progression for that part of the song. and it came out great. and it was owed entirely to the engineer's lack of fear in taking on a more "producer" type role.
so i'd have to say there's a definite place for offering up good suggestions as to what might work where, especially if you've got great sensibility. some people are gifted with great taste and sensibility.
the key difference, in the way i understand the role of a "producer" is that an engineer can make producer-like *suggestions*, whereas a producer can say "no, it's going to be like this". i don't think an engineer should ever say "no, you must add a piano part here" or anything like that. unless he's got the luxury of telling a client to hit the road, because he's decided that he doesn't approve of the artistic merit of what *they* do, and doesn't want his name attached to *their* product unless they make it comply with his wishes. that's the way i perceive the difference between an engineer who's not afraid to share good advice, and a producer who says how things ARE going to be.
" Production" vs. " Engineering"
6I think it's key, and telling in a way that all these scenarios involve 'bands'.
-n
-n
" Production" vs. " Engineering"
7This is a very interesting argument. It seems equal parts semantics, aesthetics and control.
A producer, as I understand it, is similar to geigninni's description above: someone brought in for the express purpose of making the band sound like something that they are not otherwise. This could be the example of a singer with a certain orchestra with a certain arrangement (a grouping that would not normally happen without the interference of the producer), Columbia jazz in the '60s (splicing together a coherent take from many as if it was one performance) or modern radio (auto-tuning vocals, pro-tooling the heck out of everything).
An engineer, on the other hand, is someone who's responsibility is to capture the sound the musicians are making as accurately (or faithfully) as possible. Sometimes they work together, sometimes they are the same person, sometimes they disagree and one takes the project over from the other. George Martin was the producer, Glynis Johns (sp?) was the engineer. George worked out the string arrangements, the Abbey Road technicians in white coats make them sound so good.
However, the aesthetic of the engineer can certainly be imposed, if the band allows it. This gets into the nature of the relationship (and tmh's Fugazi story illustrates this well) between the artist and engineer. I don't agree that the engineer has the right to dismiss the band because he or she doesn't agree with the music in whatever way. The engineer simply records the band doing what they do and live with their name on the record. If they can't live with that, they should become the producer!
A producer, as I understand it, is similar to geigninni's description above: someone brought in for the express purpose of making the band sound like something that they are not otherwise. This could be the example of a singer with a certain orchestra with a certain arrangement (a grouping that would not normally happen without the interference of the producer), Columbia jazz in the '60s (splicing together a coherent take from many as if it was one performance) or modern radio (auto-tuning vocals, pro-tooling the heck out of everything).
An engineer, on the other hand, is someone who's responsibility is to capture the sound the musicians are making as accurately (or faithfully) as possible. Sometimes they work together, sometimes they are the same person, sometimes they disagree and one takes the project over from the other. George Martin was the producer, Glynis Johns (sp?) was the engineer. George worked out the string arrangements, the Abbey Road technicians in white coats make them sound so good.
However, the aesthetic of the engineer can certainly be imposed, if the band allows it. This gets into the nature of the relationship (and tmh's Fugazi story illustrates this well) between the artist and engineer. I don't agree that the engineer has the right to dismiss the band because he or she doesn't agree with the music in whatever way. The engineer simply records the band doing what they do and live with their name on the record. If they can't live with that, they should become the producer!
" Production" vs. " Engineering"
8Oh, and pointing out that the guitar is out of tune is not 'producing'. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the original post mentioned a relaxing atmosphere to coax better performances out of the talent. There's nothing about a comfy couch that says 'production'.
"Fix it in the mix" is a different story...
"Fix it in the mix" is a different story...
" Production" vs. " Engineering"
9'producing' or 'engineering' like anything else can be taken to an extreme
that detracts from what a band is attempting to accomplish. i would assume
that a band would choose an engineer based on something they've done
or friends in common.
most of the experiences that i've had in the studio are positive when the
person working the tape machine gives suggestions that contribute to the
band's overall goal or aesthetic. this assumes that you've chosen a person
that will give an opinion you respect or you've talked about what you're
attempting to capture.
i have been in sessions where the engineer didn't want to sway the opinion
of the band by giving his opinion and that is sometimes just as annoying
as being too forthright.
in the end, the band should decide, but i think it's sometimes helpful to
have input and be given some options.
best,
brian
that detracts from what a band is attempting to accomplish. i would assume
that a band would choose an engineer based on something they've done
or friends in common.
most of the experiences that i've had in the studio are positive when the
person working the tape machine gives suggestions that contribute to the
band's overall goal or aesthetic. this assumes that you've chosen a person
that will give an opinion you respect or you've talked about what you're
attempting to capture.
i have been in sessions where the engineer didn't want to sway the opinion
of the band by giving his opinion and that is sometimes just as annoying
as being too forthright.
in the end, the band should decide, but i think it's sometimes helpful to
have input and be given some options.
best,
brian
" Production" vs. " Engineering"
10I don't know where the hell the definitions of production are coming from. On the other hand I don't know how I arrived at the definition I have in my head. But "someone brought in for the express purpose of making the band sound like something that they are not otherwise. " sounds pretty laden with negative baggage.
A quick point; If you choose someone to 'produce' your recording, weather or not they are also 'engineering' it, you are expecting and or open to ideas and suggestions from that person. If you hire someone to 'engineer' your recording, while it may be welcome, you are not necessarily expecting suggestions or ideas. So it's kind of an important distinction.
-n
A quick point; If you choose someone to 'produce' your recording, weather or not they are also 'engineering' it, you are expecting and or open to ideas and suggestions from that person. If you hire someone to 'engineer' your recording, while it may be welcome, you are not necessarily expecting suggestions or ideas. So it's kind of an important distinction.
-n