But Chris, I think it's fair to say also that - for some bands, at least - a recording is not a live gig. A recording by it's nature is something that exists to last a long time; a live performance exists purely in the moment.

Again, how one chooses to preserve any given performance of a band can (and, I would suggest, should) vary from band to band, even sometimes song to song...but then, that's what this whole topic is about, innit....

But, what if it's just as good, but different. If it's pretty much exactly the same, then (short of some jumping around) can't you just listen to the record at home.

Also, if they're any good, recordings may be around indefinitley. Bands break up and musicians die.

-n

Yes, that's one thing that hasn't really been mentioned properly - the producer's role as psychologist/babysitter. Jim O'Rourke says the biggest part of his job is actually getting to know and understand the artist, and to translate what can sometimes seem like very vague ideas into something on tape that the artist likes.

And sometimes the only way to get a record done is to stop the 4 guys in the band fighting for a few days. A trusted producer can help with this.

From the Martin Hannett biography website, I thought it was interesting, I'm posting it all over the place:

"It wasn't until the end of '78 that the band finally returned to the studio to record two new songs for an upcoming Factory Records sampler.   In the intervening months, they'd acquired both a manager in the form of Rob Gretton, and been introduced to the mercurial talents of Tony Wilson.   It was him who suggested that the group enter the studio with a producer called Martin Zero (who later became Hannett).   It was to be one of the most important steps they ever took.

"Martin didn't give a f- about making a pop record," enthuses Bernard.   "All he wanted to do was experiment.   His attitude was that you get a load of drugs, lock the door of the studio and you stay in there all night and you see what you've got the next morning.   And you keep doing that until it's done.   That's how all our records were made.   We were on speed, Martin was into smack."

The band had never met anyone like it before.   Peter Hook, in particular, took a while to get acclimatised.

"Bernard and I were very down to earth," he recalls, "and he was, like, from another planet.   He was just this really weird hippy who never talked any sense at all.   At least, I never knew what he was talking about anyway.

"Still, you had a rapport with him.   He used to say to Rob, 'Get these two thick stupid c-s out of my way'.   In the studio, we'd sit on the left, he'd sit on the right and if we said anything like, 'I think the guitars are a bit quiet, Martin,' he'd scream, 'Oh my God!   Why don't you just f- off, you stupid retards.'   It was alright at first, but gradually he started to get weirder and weirder."

Acting like a post-punk Phil Spector, Hannett would try his hardest to ignore the wishes of the band whenever possible, which meant most of the time the recording studio was the scene of epic battles for control.   Invariably, Hannett won.

It's impossible to underestimate the contribution he made to Joy Division's music.   He was certainly overwhelmingly responsible for fashioning the sound that six months later would manifest itself as the band's debut album and first masterpiece, 'Unknown Pleasures' - as far as Sumner and Hook were concerned it was designed as a raw rock record.

In fact, it emerged as a deeply claustrophobic experience shrouded in Hannett's echoing, hyper-urban production.   Packaged in graphic designer Peter Saville's evocative black and white sleeve, it was an album of immense gravitas that contained a frequently harrowing, virtually unmatchable emotional impact.

Curtis' poignant and alienated lyrics combined with the nasal harshness of his voice to create an atmosphere at times bordering on unmitigated despair.   Understandably, the album received gushing reviews, and Joy Division's reputation was cemented. "

http://freespace.virgin.net/anna.b/hannett/frame.htm

I have some thoughts on this. I'll try and be consise because I have not read all of the posts on this thread and may be repeating a point already made. The primary difference:

Engineers will point it out when a song is hurt by a certain part, but will not offer an opinion about what should be done to make it better.

Producers make suggestions about the music itself, and give their opinion about what they think would be best for your song.

I guess its entirely up to a band to decide if the music needs a more clear direction than they can create without an arbitrary advisor. If your band tends to disagree a lot in the studio, you'd probably be better off with an outside voice in the booth. If your band is sharing a brain, then no one is going to overrule the majority anyway (though the label may decide otherwise for the bands who have already proven themselves willing whores). Personally, I think if a band has trouble figuring out what is best for a given song then they are definately not going to use their time in the studio efficiently. They will end up forcing tracks and forcing vocals, and will end up with a recording they will eventually grow tired of hearing. A producer may increase their efficiency, and even repair some clangers by editing, but if it is becase the talent falls into this category than the producer is little more than a turd buffer for a band of assholes.

Most bands could not afford a decent producer out of pocket. You need a label, and with a label comes the big split (which we've all read about in Steve's famed trouble w/music essay.) Producers also collect royalties and consider that justified by their 'intellectual contributions' to the overall sound. An engineers contribution (when working with the band only) is deciding which equipment will capture the sound that the band hopes to create to the best of their ability (mics, room, etc..). No royalties here, just service at a rate. Again I find the latter favorable. Any band that's worth its salt doesn't want to be told what to do musically (and if they'd compromise their art for money than it is no longer art IMO). That's why we write, right?

Finally, I realize that an engineer will nearly always be present producer or no producer. The problem with the producer/engineer dynamic is two extra opinions instead of one. The relationship is really in no way democratic either. Though he/she may be open to suggestions, ultimately if the producer says jump, the engineer jumps. This relationship could turn the end result to shit as easily as it can improve things. Would you trust anyone but yourself to have the final say in how to capture the sound, or how to present it?

Not me.

For me, two heads are better than one... if you are hiring a producer you would expect that they would know something about music/songwriting and could offer some educated suggestions.
But as soon as they start forcing their point it's time to say down you goes dicknose.

Hmmm personally I'd like to know that I wrote all the songs on my own recordings and took onboard sugesstions rather than have a producer write the whole thing.. i guess its just a pride thing... but I do agree that having a fresh pair of ears can give a different perspective on your 'sound', which in turn can be developed.

I consider myself a producer, and that's what I get hired for doing. The role of a producer is a lot more ephemeral than a lot of folks in this thread are making it out to be...it's the term itself that has negative connotations. A producer doesn't have to take royalties; there really aren't any "haves" at all. Each producer has a different style and approach...some of which relies more on the engineer and assistants than others.

Personally, I'm definitely a "musician's producer." I get a feel for the band or musician and determine what they are hoping to accomplish with the recording...sonically and otherwise. I try to get the best sense I can of what they want to achieve, and I work with them to make it happen. If a band needs help with the songwriting, I can do that. If they have a pretty good sense of what they need, then I put my effort into making everything run smoothly for them. For me, the most important thing is that the band is happy with the recording that comes out of the sessions. If they aren't, then I haven't done my job right. I tend to be very hands-on when it comes to getting sounds, and I work closely with the engineer to accomplish this, while still letting the engineer have autonomy. Basically, it's all a big collaborative effort, and I like to be a "fifth member" as someone mentioned earlier in the thread. But a member that is largely unseen, just guiding things along.

But that's just me. There are definitely many producers who have the whole bullshit holier-than-thou schtick going on...the ones who come into a session for a couple hours every other day or so to offer some "advice" and then bugger off. These are the guys that give the profession of producing a bad name, because not all producers are like that.

Obviously I feel that a producer is an important part of the recording process. It's just a question of semantics that makes the term itself so disagreeable with some people (Steve Albini included).

Just my $.02

e_shaun wrote:Obviously I feel that a producer is an important part of the recording process. It's just a question of semantics that makes the term itself so disagreeable with some people (Steve Albini included).

I have a postulate: When person A suggests that he knows why person B thinks, says or does X, then A is talking out his ass, his own opinions on X notwithstanding.

And a corrollary: Semantics has nothing to do with why I dislike the whole idea of an outside producer imposing his tastes on a band. I know, because I'm the one who is having these thoughts. anyone else is guessing.

I'm not saying producers are evil, bad people or anything else. I just dislike the whole idea of a band hiring someone else to direct the aesthetics of their record. It just seems creepy to me, in the same impossible-to-articulate way that boob jobs just seem silly to me, I think record production decisions should be made by the band.

Ideas, suggestions, procedures -- they can come from anywhere. Having a special class of professionals that just does that part of the process (and generally forces the issue) seems excessive and creepy.

It's not semantics. It's the asshole of it.