Production Quality, What's The Big Deal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GoldFalcon
  • Start date Start date
If your mind is so made up why the f@ck did you ask the question?

I'm out, this is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Because, as I said in my first post, I was curious to find out why production value was important to you, not why I was wrong for not placing a lot of value on it. I assumed that a community of recording enthusiasts and audio engineers would be willing to discuss the merits of their hobby/profession and discuss why it is their hobyy/profession without taking such an abstract subject so personally, at least in your case I was wrong.

So far I have seen that most users of this board are of the opinion that the sound is the song, thus the sound quality is hugely important. It is my contention that what the song has to say is the song and that is not affected by sound quality, it is affected by the quality of the lyrics, the conviction of the artist, and the melody in relation to the lyrics.

I appreciate differing views, and thank those who responded in a thoughtful manner.

*Edit*
I believe Glen got closer to the matter with his explanation of my position and is likely correct. I do tend to see songs as poetry and the music as simply the vehicle to pass that on. I am aware that my style of music is not the most popular which, again, is why I posted here.
 
Last edited:
GoldFalcon said:
So far I have seen that most users of this board are of the opinion that the sound is the song, thus the sound quality is hugely important. It is my contention that what the song has to say is the song and that is not affected by sound quality, it is affected by the quality of the lyrics, the conviction of the artist, and the melody in relation to the lyrics.
Click to expand...
Well, first of all keep in mind that this *is* a board for folks interested in sound engineering. You might as well go to a brewmasters board and ask them why they don't think the pizza is more important than the beer. :)

I can only speak for myself here, but I think it's a mistake for audio engineers to minimalize the lyrical content of a song. Not only can the "mood" of the lyrics be a determining factor in the mood applied to the rest of the mix, but often it can make the difference between an average and an exceptional mix if the engineer "mixes around" certian words or phrases that carry the weight or at least provide a hook for the song. And to go back to one of your examples, while the melodies of many of Dylan's tunes are very memorable, let's face facts; they are what they are because of the lyrics. The same can be said for a Tom Waits or even a Lyle Lovett.

But I think it can also be an equal mistake for a musical poet to minimalize the emotional effect that proper engineering and audio quality can add to a performance. To an engineer with real natural chops, the enginnering production in itself is a performance no less than the performances of the musicians, vocalists or even songwriters. That added performance is designed to enhance the emotional impact of the song, not bury it or gloss it over.

Frasierhutch brings up an excellent point that I think most of us can agree with; that very few of us care much for "over production". Though the definition of "over production" in this context seems quite subjective. If you (Goldie) are positing that striving for quality, accuracy and/or nuance in the sound of the recording is "over-producing", you'll probably find very little agreement among the engineering community.

I agree with you that music is all about the emotion. But I disagree with the idea that the qualities of the recording and even the production are not an important facet of the emotion of the recording - at least not to many of the actual listeners out there; the reasons being what I stated in my previous post.

G.

P.S. frasierhutch: Bring it on! :D
 
I think you're confusing "well-produced" with "over-produced" just a little bit. "Good production" doesn't mean you have to utilize every track and effect that your computer(or otherwise) can squeeze out. Good production is simply a wellrecorded song.
Some people approch their live show and their studio work differently. Some bands don't mind putting stuff to tape that they could never reproduce live. They can afford to have a few epics with more tracks then you can count, they may never play that song live anyways. They have plenty of other songs to fill their live shows.
Some bands track live, with no overdubs. That's fine too. It doesn't have to be complicated to be a good production.
Going into the studio doesn't automatically mean they will overproduce you(unless of course you ask them to). Tell them you want a live, intimate recording of you and your guitar with absolutely no overdubs or effects. They'll spend some time finding the right signal chain for the situation, and you'll play straight through your set.

I think you'd be presently suprised :)
 
GoldFalcon said:
Because, as I said in my first post, I was curious to find out why production value was important to you, not why I was wrong for not placing a lot of value on it. I assumed that a community of recording enthusiasts and audio engineers would be willing to discuss the merits of their hobby/profession and discuss why it is their hobyy/profession without taking such an abstract subject so personally, at least in your case I was wrong.
Click to expand...

Simple enough answer:

1.) Well, as an engineer, my **ONLY** input into an artist's work is through the production. That's how we engineers express ourselves (at least in our day to day work with other people--many of us are musicians too).

2.) I like cool sounds. I admit it. Heck, I'm a huge synthesizer and sound design geek too. I just like *SOUND*... especially the sound of a too-loud, in-yo-face guitar, deep clanky bass, and big, fat reverberating drums.

3.) I like to show off what I can do. Given the difficulty in recording and producing an album it is great to put something together that, on the merit of the sound alone, is impressive. Plus, to make sounds nobody else figured out yet, and so forth.
 
GoldFalcon said:
So far I have seen that most users of this board are of the opinion that the sound is the song, thus the sound quality is hugely important. It is my contention that what the song has to say is the song and that is not affected by sound quality, it is affected by the quality of the lyrics, the conviction of the artist, and the melody in relation to the lyrics.
Click to expand...

Where the hell did you get that bs? I don't recall ANYONE here stating that the sound was what is important. What I heard people saying is that they try to capture the material as accurately as possible.

And you consistently confuse your definitions of production. Which do you have a beef with? Highly produced music, as oppposed to raw? Or good recording quality?They are not the same thing. I would argue that if your recording fromn your audigy instruduces 'hiss and all, chunky, muddy sound and all", then you have actually artifically added that as a production value.

Wheras I would rather capture the performance as best I can and let the music stand out, without introducing anything on my end.

In the end, I'm with Cloneboy here, you're not here to discuss. I'm outta here too. too. Please don't lump me in your silly overgeneralizations.
 
Why is this such an upsetting topic? I didn't come here to argue, I came searching for persuasion and opinions on why I ought to be persuaded. My complaint is with over production, and the unrealistic expectations lavish production places on live musicians when trying to get gigs. I also concede that I am mystified by preoccupation with any level of production, over or otherwise, because some of my favorite albums contain all sorts of audio anomollies that a sound engineer would immediately want to edit out (TV's Kids playing, cars driving by, barking dogs, horrible levels, etc...) and not only do I not mind them, I enjoy them.

I frankly did not expect the level of hostility I have encountered in persuing what I thought was largely a philosophical topic. I mean to bait no one, to argue with no one. As I stated early on, I am resigned to the fact that if I want to play paying gigs I need a studio quality produced demo. If I want to get good gigs not on the coffeehouse circuit I need a studio demo with a backing band and lots of whizbang.

I came here in an effort to understand that, and why people who don't think like me think like they do. I'm sorry this seems to distress some of you.

As to the recording, that's me. Granted it received treatment (graciously) by dr21 to prove a point (well made, I might add) but it isn't too far from my original mp3 that I posted in this thread. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm soliciting opinion on a very simple question: "Why should a guy like me who doesn't care about production quality, care about production quality?"

I wasn't aware that it was this forum's custom for a user to ask a question then kindly shut up so he can be spoon fed the answer in the most efficient manner possible. If I have beliefs I post them, If I have questions I ask them, if I feel I should challenge a statement I do.

That said, thanks to some of the other users in this thread I feel as though I might have a better understanding on why people who value quality production do so (I still think it is Math related somehow).
 
GoldFalcon said:
That said, thanks to some of the other users in this thread I feel as though I might have a better understanding on why people who value quality production do so (I still think it is Math related somehow).
Click to expand...

Arg. No, it is a musical thing, just cause you can't grasp it.....
 
why production value is important to me..

i heard this song one time.. something along the lines of "i've got to break free" by queen.

after that i realized writing songs is only half the art we hear on recordings.

the other half of the art is in the recording.

i'm not a big queen fan.. but i LOVE the way a lot of their stuff sounds.

so i listen to it anyways. i listen to a lot of queen. so the fact that some stuff hits my player more than others based purely on the fact that i think the sounds on that particular CD are pleasing to my ears should say something about production.

but i strictly listen to music for the sound.. good lyrics? so what. if i'm not embarrased by what the dude is singing about then i don't really care what he's saying.

i love brian eno as much as i love the sun. but not for his lyrics.
a lot of people agree.. and in an industry based on sound waves, it is foolish to say the sound is not important.. even if it isn't to you.. it IS to 99% of the rest of us.


but then again.. i'm biased.
i've hated poetry all my life. it bores me to tears.
 
For me, a good recording is like good hand writting on a term paper. No matter how good your idea, if it's written on the back of a napkin in crayon it's like you didn't place much importance on it, why should anyone else. But I do agree that a good tune is a good tune but still....
 
In my opinion, this is an extremely subjective argument. I think there are very shotty recordings that are completely irrelevant in the face of the music. I think there are very shotty recordings that hinder the shit out of the music. I think there are really technically good recordings that accentuate the music, and there are really technically good recordings that ruin the music. I'm a geek for the recording world like most of us are, but I also think that a lot of those in the recording industry are in a high state of denial about their level of ultimate importance, and I think too few of those same people lack the ability to listen to music with a non-professionial ear, because the overwhelming majority of those who will hear the music don't hear with the same mindset. I enjoy and will continute to enjoy Guided by Voices "Alien Lanes" lp every much as I enjoy Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. I think the first Ramones record would have sounded completely stupid if it would have been recorded like a Steely Dan record. I think some music deserves and benefits from "courageous grit", and I think that some music deserves and benefits from a high degree of knowledge and skilled execution. Does the farty production of Black Sabbath's Master of Reality LP make it any less good?
 
GoldFalcon said:
I am resigned to the fact that if I want to play paying gigs I need a studio quality produced demo.
Click to expand...
Just as an actor is resigned to the fact that to get an audition for a part they have to have a professional head shot and not just the picture from their driver's license. I see nothing mysterious about that.

GoldFalcon said:
If I want to get good gigs not on the coffeehouse circuit I need a studio demo with a backing band and lots of whizbang.
Click to expand...
That, on the other hand, does not sound "correct" to me. Yes, the bookers want to hear an at least somewhat professional grade recording for three reasons:

First, because it indicates some seriouness and dedication on your part; rightly or wrongly they see that at least in part as a reflection of your level of professionalism. They don't want to hire somebody unreliable or amateurish; an amateurish-sounding demo might give them cause to pause.

Second, they listen to a lot of demo tapes and discs, often being forced to do it in their cars on the way to or from something they consider far more important. Your demo has to do two things; it has to positively stand out from the crowd, and it has to hold their interest past the first eight bars of the first song (you'd be amazed at how many demo listens don't make it that far.) An amateur or noisy recording is not going to help your cause here; philosopical arguments are meaningless to the booker.

Third, like it or not, to many human beings a good-sounding recording subconsciously makes the music sound better, for reasons earlier discussed. While you may be immune from that fact in the way you're wired up, most others aren't. Learn to accept that less-than-perfect aspect of life and your bookings will come much easier.

But as to the booker wanting to hear a lavish studio production with a lot of extra bells and whistles and whatnot, that's true only if that is what they will be getting on stage. Trust me, they don't want to hear a production on the demo that is a vastly different production and arrangement from what they will be getting live. If you're trying to gt a coffehouse gig of you, your guitar, a stool and a microphone, the booker is *not* going to want to hear what you sound like with a 5-piece studio band behind you. Conversely, if he hears that, that's what he'll be expecting on-stage. If you are going to coffee houses and the like that tell you otherwise, you are either going to the wrong coffee houses or (I'm sorry to say) they are perhaps brushing you off.

GoldFalcon said:
(I still think it is Math related somehow).
Click to expand...
As I said in my very first post; if you have to ask, you just won't get it. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying that to state a realistic point.

For some it may be the math, sure. But for the most part the math-centric engineers are in the great minority, BTW (as Cloneboy said, many of us are musicians as well). And I'd submit that the math-centric or technical ones are the ones that produce the least emotional-sounding recordings. Example: Moby.

But - and this is the part that you can't seem to quite wrap your head around - for most of us, sound brings emotion just as well as words do. Sound not only conveys information, it conveys mood. It has colors the same way sight does. The shape and color of the sound evokes feeling in most folks the way that the colors and textures of a detailed color print does. The content of the print remains extremely important to most of us, of course, but - Ansel Adams and "noir" aside - most of us think that a world of only black and white photos is missing half the big picture.

G.
 
Last edited:
As a pro engineer myself, I just want to second everything Glen has said - he's described the points excellently!
 
This question could easily be applied to movies just as well.


I happen to like a really stripped-down movie. I'm tired of the animation, big-Hollywood special FX, the fact that every character looks like a model, etc. etc.

At the same time, though, I want to be entertained. And if the film is so poorly shot and edited, or if the acting is so bad, that it distracts from the story line / plot, then I might not enjoy the film.

But I also realize that there is a large segment of people who want to see that stuff. So the answer to your question would be to simply decide who it is you want to appeal to, and don't worry about the other guys. If your goal is to appeal to those who don't care about production value, then you should simply accept that those who DO care about production value might not particularly care for your stuff.
 
my 2 cents...

production norms vary from genre to genre, artist to artist, and appreciation of them varies from listener to listener, so i don't believe there is any "correct" way to produce music. i think all we can do is try our best to make it sound like we feel it shold sound. this may involve one mic or dozens of edits and plug ins. how can there be a best way when no two people are identical?

if music were totally math related, computers would be the best musicmakers, mixers, masterers, etc. if it were totally art related, then there would be no science of creating instruments, processors, blah blah blah. it's a compromise on both sides, and it won't be the same for any two people.

regarding "over"-production, there are sample libraries that record fret noise, release sounds, multiple levels of velocity, all in an effort to make the sounds as realistic as possible. now is this "over"-producing because ridiculous amounts of attention have been paid to the sound? but at the same time, the ultimate goal is not to sound "perfect", it's to sound realistic. the same can be said for "low-fi" effects on sampling, which reduces the fidelity and may even go as far as adding record click and scratch noises to make the digitally sampled loop sound like it's from a record. again, the extra production is for the final sound, which is ironically made to sound less "perfect". so putting more into the production just gets you to an end result that you're aiming for. it's not necessarily to use every insert on your console.

what's been referred to as "over" production is just technology permeating the industry. i'm willing to bet that if the same technology were available decades ago, we'd be seeing autotuned vocals that much earlier. people will exploit what they have at their disposal, at least for the sake of novelty. then it catches on and becomes a signature style, which may or may not stick around.

as far as needing to have a super-produced demo to get gigs, well, i imagine that most places booking don't care about the art (except for those on the coffee house circuit you mentioned). they care about whether they'll fill the place with customers. they need to cater to the crowd, which is not necessarily listening for purity or emotion, but perhaps for entertainment. i bet if you do get a gig with a low-fi production demo and wind up filling the audience, they'll surely ask for you back, regardless of how many overdubs are or aren't on your demo. to me, it just sounds like the music you're making isn't mainstream, so it may be an uphill battle just because of economics and normal curves.

good luck,
marcus
 
Ok I'm just going back to the original question of why it's important to me,

Though I beleive that your song with a little sweetening is fine, it's because of a type of music that lends it's self to the "in the kitchen" type of sound, Like all of the old swamp blues and folk type of music, it just wouldn't sound the same or have the same feeling as what poeple are used to for that type of music, anyways, why I care about production value:

The take of the performance can never be duplicated exactly, so I want the best base sound captured as possible.

And Thats just about covers it for me, the rest is just icing on the cake.
 
GoldFalcon,

I don;t think anyone is intending to be hostile. Your question is simply shocking and it DOES mean something. To draw a parallel here, a recording musician not careing about production is just like a protitute not caring about her appearance. Isn't it just the coochie that matters? A nasty hooker that hasn't bathed in 2 weeks will feel the same as a young fresh 18 year old. hehe. :eek: That's poor taste. I know. I'm sorry.

Production quality is important to me because the actual sound itself is just as important as the quality of the song writing. If you have a very effective emotional song, it will make a greater impact on the listener if every single little detail of sound comes through perfectly clear and just right. The emotion of a song can be and is amplified by things like mic placement, tasteful application of reverb, chorus, and delay, and even things as simple as having new strings on your guitar. EVERY detail of EVERY sound is part of the song and carries it's share of the entire songs communicative quality. All of it. Not just the songwriting and singing.

Great song writing is the foundation. The house is all the details, including production.

If your fans are asking "When are you going to fix your songs" it is clear that you are not getting your point across as effectively as you would like. It would be wise, IMO, to examine the details of your material more closely and ask yourself often: "what am I trying to achieve with this part, and how can I do it better?" And "What will make this feel FINISHED?"

It seems to me that many people are afraid that the production process will sterilize their music and suck the soul and feeling out of it. What I think those people are not getting is that production itself it just as much of an art as music. I also suspect thay may people do not really comprehend the difference between how their songs sound in their head and how they sound recorded to other people. The goal of production is to make those two things as close to the same as possible.

All of this is, of course, my opinion.

Good luck. :D
 
it seems odd to me you feel that you are required to my a recording of yourself that does not hold with your aesthic in an attempt to get gigs or people to listen to your work. ive worked in live venues often and ive never heard a booker say... man id give this guy a show if only he had some bass on his recording. booking as single acoustic act is difficult and you get lumped into a niche. often clubs which book bands usually will not be able to find you a slot.



if your recording captures the sound you put forth than it does its job. some people use recording as an art medium in itself and layering can be rewarding
 
I have come to admit , if not a defeat, at least avery serious setback to my opinion. I was at a client's house poking around in some things he's had for a very long time when I saw a headstock all covered in dust. I could just make out a familiar "GRE...." I wiped off some of the dirt and sure enough it spelled "GRETSCH". I was ecstatic. I pulled it out from behind the various shotguns and baseball bats to find that it was an archtop acoustic, still not bad. My client said he didn't know anything about it, it sat in his garage and was his granddad's old guitar (my client is in his 60's). I said:

"These are very valuable guitars, not as valuable if you had an acoustic/electric but one this old (pre 1935) is still worth at least a thousand bucks. And besides they sound gorgeous, not the acoustic's so much, but nothing sounds like a Gretsch acoustic/electric. I love the way these guitars sound.

Doh! Done in by my own words.

*Edit* Visual Aid Added:
normal_gretschHead.jpg

"All was going swimmingly until GoldFalcon realized sound does matter"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top