not logged in
| re: Jim influences as producer | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 08:46 am UTC 06/24/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Jim influences as producer - Bright_Eyes 10:41 pm UTC 06/23/07 |
You are clearly in a learning phase, and so am I, but what I have already learned I'd like to exchange with you to see what you think. > > > So, the question I still wonder > > about, having thought I'd find my answer already, is why > > do you suddenly ask about what Jim's influences in > > production are, and how he came by them? > > This summer I might be on the lookout for older music that > I haven't heard before. When I like the general sound of a > particular producer, I tend to like a lot of their other > work too. The thread is to help me get ideas for what to > try listening to. It is an unusual quest to concentrate on producers. Usually one likes an artist or a writer, but you take it one step deeper and think of the production. But in the paragraphs that follow I don't think you've answered my questions. > > > And also, I > > wonder, being as you are a listener, how you have > > developed knowledge of the difference between the song and > > the production? > > I've listened to a lot of pop music, and I sometimes hear > different recordings of the same song. This gives me some > idea of what the producer brought to the table, vs. the > writer alone. Different recordings of the same song is a good way to experiment with variations, but the variations could be any number of factors. The arrangement, as you have mentioned, could be different, the key could be different, and clearly the voice would be different. Some of a producer's work is to put these things together and influence their sound in terms of the more technical areas. A producer is like a director, but he is also like an engineer. Some of the work might be out of the realm of arrangement and in the realm of the actual recording science. Sound effects that don't sound like sound effects, edits, spacings, smoothings, fillings, things that maybe we would not notice but would notice if not done. Jim Cypherd worked on a song by Sparks that just blows my mind when I listen to it, so much that I have listened to it more than a hundred times in one sitting just to hear it over and over again. One must use headphones for the proper effect of the stereo separation. He got credit only as an engineer, but his influence is very clear on the song and I know he is very good friends with the Mael brothers who have also been produced by Rundgren in the past. Jim may have met Rundgren through his friendship with the Mael brothers who comprise the nucleus of Sparks. Some Sparks albums have Steinmanesque titles, and you could imagine knowing what I know that those were not coincidences. The song is called "Change" and the album (not altogether a Steinmanesque title if you think of his statement "an exorcism you can dance to" "Music You Can Dance To" otherwise known with no actual reason, Sparks Greatest Hits. Check it out on itunes, use headphones, and hear an example of excellent production work. I've thought of the song "Change" as having had lyrically some interesting parallels to songs performed by Meat Loaf, such as Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad, with snow replaced by rain, a before and after presentation in story, and the commentary, about "whether love really exists or not" I feel relates to the lines to that effect of talking all night. I just love the lyrics to this song, which also seems to have as light a parallel to the song "Objects In The Rear View Mirror" which compares in metaphor to life being a highway. And, in contrast to the wordy titles, this is a one word, repeated title. But you must also be aware of two other parallels. The song begins with some background notes and spoken word, and the musical bridge contains one very crucial identical sound....I MEAN sound, to a sound in The Storm. There's all kinds of electronic bells and whistles. It is a joy to listen to. "Change, every dog is going to have his day change change change every loser's gonna have his way".....very UP. Showing what song production is all about, this to me is a text-book example. > > > And, responding to your personal > > statement, why would becoming a musician not be a > > possibility for you? > > I suppose anybody can be a musician at some level of > ability. I guess what I meant is that I'm not likely to do > anything notable or professional with music. The most notable thing about music is its ability to bring reward to anyone who loves it. > > So, you do play keyboards but don't consider yourself > > proficient in them? > > In school I did about 8 months of beginner-level keyboard > stuff, with a teacher critiquing once a week. Not sure how > to describe the level I achieved, but it's the sort of > stuff a lot of six year olds could probably surpass. I watched my cousins play piano daily, and one passed away before he grew into any considerable age, but the other who was termed a prodigy went on to obtain a doctorate in music as a pianist. Comparing myself to her I knew I could not be as good, but when I tried I found that my instructor was not motivated to teach me. That did not motivate me, and I also had small fingers which she criticized, and dyslexia, which no effort to overcome was made. Sometimes a teacher could make or break a student. I'm sure since you had that length of applied work, you could do a decent job of hammering out a tune. > > > And you know you would need to learn > > the music theory. > > Certainly more of it than I know right now. Ever notice how mathematical it is? > > > But why musical arrangement, as opposed > > to composing? Or just playing on existing arrangements? > > Composing music I've never tried. Same with playing on > existing arrangements. I think there would be the same > issue though. I'd need to have more > training-skill-knowledge to make progress. Just > speculation, cause I'm talking about how I think one would > do, things I don't know how to do. Wanting to learn is the first step to becoming good at something. I hope you are able to reach the levels you would like to. > > > Producing records isn't about musical arrangement per se, > > as I have learned, there is the arrangement and the > > production as two separate parts of the project. When you > > think of the recordings Jim has made, do you listen most > > to the arrangements or to the production....and what are > > you thinking of the production as being? > > I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line between them, > particularly when Steinman has been credited for both > roles. The qualities that seem to most make or break a > Steinman recording for me are things like the distinctive > piano sound and background vocal sound. I guess those I > would more associate with the term arrangement than with > production. This was a hard question for me to try to > answer. The basic rule of thumb is that when considering placement of one instrument relative to another instrument, that is the arrangement. When considering the background and the ambiance, such as presence or absence of noise, echo, the layers of voices, these would be more akin to production...but in the case of the voices would also be vocal arrangment, considering the voice as an instrument. > > When I tell somebody I liked or did not like the > production, I'm referring to all the choices that had to > be made other than deciding what the words are and > deciding what the notes are. The term covers all the sound > engineering, the coaching of the singers and musicians, > arrangement decisions, and too much other stuff to list. > This also was a hard question. > I think that is a very good assessment as to the overall "package" of a song. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Jim influences as producer - Bright_Eyes 10:41 pm UTC 06/23/07 |
| Next: | re: Jim influences as producer - Bright_Eyes 05:40 pm UTC 06/25/07 |
| Thread: |
|