If you could work with a big-time producer, who would it be and why?

[miroslav]

.... I think different producers take such varied approaches you just don't know what to expect. I'd be much more interested in the engineers.

Yes...that's true about producers, they are all different in their approaches, but then, it's equally true about engineers....and in most cases, engineers expect someone (you or a producer) to guide them where you want to go.

For me, most of the producers that I like, have also been engineers, and many are also musicians too, so their perspectives when wearing the producers hat are usually based in both creative and technical experience.

IMO, anyone with serious experience in pro studio productions is always going to bring some knowledge to the table that can only benefit you, even if overall, you may not be in total agreement with their vision for your music.
Sometimes, getting taken out of your comfort zone is when really good stuff happens....otherwise, you just stay with what you know, and as good as it may sound, it becomes almost a cookie-cutter result of what you did the last time.

 

[grimtraveller]

Sometimes, getting taken out of your comfort zone is when really good stuff happens....otherwise, you just stay with what you know

I think that it's often the opposite. One's comfort zone is sometimes the springboard to go to all kinds of places. It occurred to me some years ago that in general, people don't like change.......unless they've initiated it.
The term "comfort zone" is almost always employed negatively {certainly in music/recording}, as though it is synonymous with creative brain death or boring old fartitude or total unadventurousness.
But it doesn't have to be. Why should making music have to be uncomfortable to the maker of the music ? Some people make their best music when they're in their comfort zone. You could argue that even those that push the envelope, no matter how 'out there' they may go, only push to where they are comfortable or become so. And while it's true that many stay with what they know, is that really a bad thing ?
There's no guarantee that being taken out of one's comfort zone will produce anything outstanding or better than what you were doing before.

 

[BroKen_H]

It occurred to me some years ago that in general, people don't like change.......unless they've initiated it.

Goes with one of my all-time favorite observations. People only hear what they want to hear. If you tell people what they want to hear, they want to listen. If you tell people something that makes them uncomfortable, they want to argue. If you tell them they are wrong, they want to shut you down. In a medium as intuitive and varied as music (or the flavor of food, or a piece of artwork) it is easy to find people who agree with you: but it's easier still to find people who disagree. Sometimes what we need is an honesty with ourselves to say, "I'm not the world's greatest ???, maybe what he's telling me about ??? would help me."

The other side of that same statement is when you say something and they take it completely in the wrong direction. You're left wondering, "How in the world did they get THAT out of my statement/question?" It's because they heard what THEY wanted to hear.
Ah, the joys of language and communication.

 

[BrentDomann]

Maybe he meant Phil Ramone..........though Phil is dead, and it would be hard working with him in that condition.

Maybe Phil and Rick made the sexy time.

 

[miroslav]

I think that it's often the opposite. One's comfort zone is sometimes the springboard to go to all kinds of places. It occurred to me some years ago that in general, people don't like change.......unless they've initiated it.
The term "comfort zone" is almost always employed negatively {certainly in music/recording}, as though it is synonymous with creative brain death or boring old fartitude or total unadventurousness.
But it doesn't have to be. Why should making music have to be uncomfortable to the maker of the music ? Some people make their best music when they're in their comfort zone. You could argue that even those that push the envelope, no matter how 'out there' they may go, only push to where they are comfortable or become so. And while it's true that many stay with what they know, is that really a bad thing ?
There's no guarantee that being taken out of one's comfort zone will produce anything outstanding or better than what you were doing before.

Well....very often, artists/bands will hire a producer that they know has a different mindset than they do, or someone who has worked with other styles of music, etc.....because they want to move their productions to a different place....and that usually means stepping out of their comfort zone.

Nothing wrong in being comfortable and not changing stuff, we often like that.....but when you try something different it often leads to new ideas, fresh creativity, and a different flavor.

It isn't about being forced....it's about desiring and welcoming some change and new perspectives.....but that's up to each person to choose or not. There's this misconception that producers always/only force you do do something you are going to hate with your music.

 

[grimtraveller]

There's this misconception that producers always/only force you do do something you are going to hate with your music.

Not from me, brudda !
I think that often, those that choose to do their own recordings at home are among that number that are pretty single minded in what they want to do music wise. I'll always accommodate suggestions where I think they're going to make the song stronger, but I retain the power of veto ! It gets used a lot !!

 

[grimtraveller]

I think you could say that Alan Parsons realy defined the role of the producer as a major creative force....

For me, most of the producers that I like, have also been engineers, and many are also musicians too, so their perspectives when wearing the producers hat are usually based in both creative and technical experience.

I would say that Phil Spector and Berry Gordy were the first of those producers that were more of the creative than technical forces. They were really ensconced in the music and the records were often more about them or their brainchild/vision. Sometimes the actual artists were kind of interchangeable and while not irrelevant, less important.
I have to say, some producers have been responsible for some great records that would never have been the memorable artifacts they are were it not for them. For example, Pink Floyd's debut album, "The piper at the gates of dawn" has attained legendary status and to a large extent, most of Syd Barrett's mythical status derives from his songs on it. But it was the producer Norman Smith who really steered the Floyd into recording songs that were accessible, rather than the free form stuff they did live.
Giorgio Gomelsky moreorless created the Blossom Toes psych classic "We are ever so clean" album. The band wrote the songs for it as pretty standard R&B/pop but this was 1967 ! Having already lost the Stones and the Yardbirds, he was determined to make his mark with his own label and band and after the Blossies had recorded the tracks, he got in the orchestras and woodwinds to spark up the songs into something else. Listening to the bonus tracks shows the difference the producer made ¬> the bonus tracks {without the additions} are pretty drab but the producer had a creative vision and though some of the band didn't like it, it was a better album for it.
Norman Whitfield wrote some great stuff at Motown and as a producer, he really made his mark with the Temptations. He certainly moved them into that psychedelic soul phase and in their funkadelic phase, both with production and the songs he and Barrett Strong were writing, it's arguable whether the Temptations would have been successful or even gone in that direction without him.
There are many examples of that kind of producer {among the varying types} and I suspect that they will always be in some kind of demand.
However, the home recording move and it's accessibility to all and sundry with an interest kind of tells me that the producer as we've known {and been confused by} them are going to become a lesser species in the times ahead because as people have been getting their feet wet in their studios, the production mystique has diminished.

 

[miroslav]

I would say that Phil Spector and Berry Gordy were the first of those producers that were more of the creative than technical forces.

Sure...they were very involved, but it was on a per-song production basis, and mostly aimimed at generating single hits.
The thing about Parsons was the "project" approach and whole album concept. George Martin did it with the Beatles, though for the most part, it was with the same cast of characters....unlike the APP stuff.
Anyway, from a more modern Rock production perspective, I see Parsons at the forefront.

 

[thesoundtek]

I'm curious. What about their history or recording techniques draws your attention?

There are so many great producers/engineers that have already been mentioned but as far as one "being the man" I would cast my vote for Eddie Kramer. Just look at his history and the artists he's worked with...Beatles, Stones Hendrix, Kiss ..legends...that says it all. I take nothing away from the others listed here but if I could work with and learn him I could die a happy man!