Just for the sake of conversation, not for argument...
I always get a little uneasy when people start judging the
quality of something by its
popularity. I also get a similar feeling - and I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but bear with me - whenever I see the Beatles being used as the benchmark for such judgements, which happens virtually every time this kind of discussion ensues.
Don't misunderstand this very important point; I mean no disparigment of George Martin or the Beatles. I'm right with everybody else as far as considering Sgt. Pepper as one of the pivotal (and great) productions of the 20th century. That's not my point.
My point is more along the lines of the general tendancy by many to judge what is "good" by what has "worked" in the past, to almost the point of excluding any other metrics including - more to the point - objective, original, and personal analysis. Let me put it this way; it starts having the feeling of the television programming executive who wants to pick shows just like one that got the highest ratings last week, instead if viewing and judging programs by their intrinsic merit. Do we really need the US version of "Show Me The Money" as someone's idea creating another "Deal Or No Deal" and sprinkling it with the fairy dust of "Dancing With The Stars"?
And does anybody really think that the most widely successful or popular songs of the past 20 years are the touchstone of real *quality* in music and music production?
Now, as far as the George Martin reference, the pivotal part of that is not the comment on embellishing, it the part on "what were a batch of very interesting songs." Sgt. Pepper was not, IMHO, the huge success it was
because of Sir George's contribution. Rather, St. Pepper was a success because of the songs; it was Sir George's contribution that put it over the to and into the category of seminal. But without those songs, no amount of his countribution whould have had near that effect. If George Martin had done the Sgt. Pepper treatmet to the latest Cowsills album instead of the latest Beatles album, it would have never been the legend that Sgt. Pepper turned out to be. Sgt. Pepper is what it is because it teamed innovative production with great material; material that may not have been a legend in as amany dimensions, but would hav been a pivotal album filled with quality material nonetheless. Martin was the 5th Beatle, not the only Beatle.
Nor was his contribution what I would disparigingly consider "fairy dust". It was truely creative, innovative, and original production that became the 5th character on the album. To call what he did "fairy dust" would be like saying that Quentin Tarintino sprinkled fairly dust on the B heist flick to create "Resevoir Dogs." No, Martin did not sprinkle any fairy dust, he created a coherant, unique, and emotional composition. There's a huge difference.
Earlier when I said to keep it simple, I did not mean necessarily to keep it small and documentarian (though there's definitely something to be said for that when appropriate.) What I meant was to let the song and the arrangement carry the day. Some of my favorite stuff is very complicated arrangement-wise and track wise. For an example, see the band Poi Dog Pondering or some of the more recent Paul Simon or David Byrne equatorial stuff. I would absolutely LOVE to have an opportunity to mix and produce some of that; I could see no better and more fun challenge, or more rich opportunity to create something really special behind the glass than to work complex music and rhythms with a 20-piece+ band.
But I most certainly would not want to, IMHO, attempt a Phil Spector or George Martin, Cecil B. DeMille-ish superproduction out of any of that. Nor would I even get enamored with the idea of even fairy dust. There's already pleny to work with in the songs and arrangements themselves, and to try and over-produce it would be like adding too many water colors together; you end up with mud. OTOH, Martin with Pepper had a very simple 4-piece rock combo presenting a new dimension in song writing. he had both the rich material and the arrangement room to run with it on the production side.
So, it boils down IMHO to these salient points:
- Get the song and the arrangement right first. No amount of fairly dust can help if those are below par to begin with. And if they are above par, the fairy dust is not needed.
- Don't over-produce anything. Keep it raw and simple if/when the song and arrangement call for it; and for busy arrangements, work the arrangement, not the production.
- If you are in the position and have the objective and creative talent, and there is room in the song and arrangemet, go ahead and make a production to Martin-esque proportions. I am all for the producer/engineer as artist when called for. (And those can be the most fun to work
)
- But whichever way you go - sparse or lush, documentary or avant garde - don't just try and copy George Martin, Quentin Tarrentino, or even Howie Mandel. Go with what the song really says to you, however it may move you, and use that as a creative spark to build upon with absolutely no regard for what others have done before. There is a deficit of truely creative folks behind the glass thes days, and a surplus of lemmings trying to judge the quality of what they do by whether it recreates the right successful formula already beaten dead by someone else.
And for god's sake, stay away from the fairy dust otherwise; that's just trying to polish a turd.
Rant over.
G.