Production values

Interesting...for me, the production of music is the last thing I consider. I have a live Charlie Parker CD where the production is pretty bad, but it may be the best Bird I've ever heard. Of course I want the medium to sound good, but overall, music first. And, same with tunings...I really enjoy the study and use of different tunings...but, gimme some killer music, and we'll worry about the tuning later...best...Hstick

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Neil,

You're quite correct in pointing out this distinction between *fidelity* and
expressive/virtuostic music making.

I guess my overall point was that I doubt someone the caliber of Parker
would consider a completely time and velocity quantized version of
"Ornithology" very 'artistic'.

So by 'production', I mean all the elements that go together to create the
final sonic experience.

Some people consider fidelity and recorded engineering less important.
Although I can certainly have moving musical experiences without it, I
certainly do prefer it, given a choice.
And I think these days, it behooves musicians to study at least some aspects
of it.

AKJ

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Neil Haverstick <microstick@...>wrote:

>
> Interesting...for me, the production of music is the last thing I
> consider. I have a live Charlie Parker CD where the production is pretty
> bad, but it may be the best Bird I've ever heard. Of course I want the
> medium to sound good, but overall, music first. And, same with tunings...I
> really enjoy the study and use of different tunings...but, gimme some killer
> music, and we'll worry about the tuning later...best...Hstick
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Aaron,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
> Some people consider fidelity and recorded engineering less important.
> Although I can certainly have moving musical experiences without it, I
> certainly do prefer it, given a choice.
> And I think these days, it behooves musicians to study at least some aspects
> of it.

This is the crux of it.

Any of us that creates music wants to present it in the best light. Even in the era of simply scores and parts, performed by live musicians with acoustic instruments, composers - given the opportunity - would want to have input into how the piece sounds, be it balance, tempo, dynamics, instrumental color.

I don't think any of the good musicians reading this list argues *against* putting effort into the final realization, whether it would be supervising rehearsals of an upcoming performance, or worrying over good recording and production details so that the final artifact is as representative of their creation, and pleasing (or assaulting!) to the ear.

I know that is certainly *my* focus.

All we can hope for is that people listen to The Music, the stuff that is wrapped up inside a performance or production. When I listen to pieces put forth on these lists, my intention is to hear what the composer/performer is trying to say, and if some aspect of the presentation is lacking, I set that aside as something that can be improved upon, but not as something that devalues the actual music itself. If I don't do this, I'm simply paying attention to surfaces, and not the creative nature of the work itself.

I'll step back now. Here's to making wonderful music, in any form you choose, to the best of your abilities...

Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:

> I guess my overall point was that I doubt someone the
> caliber of Parker would consider a completely time and
> velocity quantized version of "Ornithology" very
> 'artistic'.

But if someone the caliber of Wagner posted a time and
velocity quantized GM version of "Das Rheingold" I'd hope
somebody else would take the time to clean it up, and ask
for the next installment. You can't expect everybody to be
good at everything. That's the point as I see it.

Graham

I tend to think that these discussions turn into wankfests, but here's
my two cents anyway.

Great productions are great. Production values around here are often
not that high, because high production values cost money, and/or
require staying on top of the bleeding edge of technology. But now
we're arguing about how much production "matters."

"Matters?" Matters to whom?

There are two types of musicians: those who shut something off as soon
as they hear one foul note, or hear a shitty production, or hear
something in general they don't like - think about that - vs. those
who, on the other extreme, actually enjoy digging through
underproduced recordings to find musical gold. You have the people who
shut Nirvana off the first time they hear Kurt Cobain's weird-ass
voice, and then you have the people who will listen to the often
poorly recorded, sloppy drumming, time all over the place, etc tracks
on an album like Incesticide because "Big Long Now" uses some really
interesting chords in the chorus, and it just so happens that it's
because Kurt uses a borrowed chord there from Locrian mode and that
creates an interesting musical sound. Sweet!

So which matters? I don't know, what type of listener are you
pandering to? Are you trying to reach the most amount of people with
your hip experimental music, as D'Angelo did in the 90's with Voodoo
by making sure to polish it all up with a shiny and chronologically
relevant production (and/or shoot a semi-nude video for the ladies,
lol), or are you trying to reach a certain target audience that might
have a bit more imagination when it comes to picturing how your piece
would sound with a $500,000 production and an orchestra on it?

If you played me Brad Mehldau's version of Martha My Dear, but
quantized the whole thing and removed all of the dynamics, I'd be
transcribing the hell out of it anyway.

-Mike

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> All we can hope for is that people listen to The Music, the stuff that is wrapped up inside a performance or production. When I listen to pieces put forth on these lists, my intention is to hear what the composer/performer is trying to say, and if some aspect of the presentation is lacking, I set that aside as something that can be improved upon, but not as something that devalues the actual music itself. If I don't do this, I'm simply paying attention to surfaces, and not the creative nature of the work itself.
>
> I'll step back now. Here's to making wonderful music, in any form you choose, to the best of your abilities...

I don't even know who D'Angelo is. I'm not talking about 'production values'
as in 'I have an LA agent who works with Britany Spears' etc...

I'm decidely an un-commercial musician myself, so I wouldn't really
recognize a large majority of the pop or dance names someone like Michael
Sheiman would list as being really well 'produced'. I'm really just talking
about (if one can) taking the time to learn how to do things like, I dunno,
care about balance and mix, expression, timbres that don't sound like 1999
SoundBlaster strings, etc.

This doesn't require gobs of cash, contrary to popular opinion. It does
require time and effort, though. I've heard people do amazing sounding work
with homespun or free open-source software and ancient beatup laptops....

I don't see the controversy, but I'm not really into arguing about this
anymore.

AKJ

P.S. (O.T.) you lose me with the whole punk-rock thing. I never could stand
that stuff. It's not music to me as much as attitude, and it never turned me
on, even remotely. So when people go on and on about the Ramones, etc., my
eyes just completely glaze over. I'm a prog-rock kinda guy, and punkers
hated prog rock. I'm just returning the favor.

P.P.S. Meldau is great, and I think you have a point re:certain great music
just popping out beyond the immediate surface. I'd be curious how well a
completely lifeless recording of him would turn me on at all.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

> I tend to think that these discussions turn into wankfests, but here's
> my two cents anyway.
>
> Great productions are great. Production values around here are often
> not that high, because high production values cost money, and/or
> require staying on top of the bleeding edge of technology. But now
> we're arguing about how much production "matters."
>
> "Matters?" Matters to whom?
>
> There are two types of musicians: those who shut something off as soon
> as they hear one foul note, or hear a shitty production, or hear
> something in general they don't like - think about that - vs. those
> who, on the other extreme, actually enjoy digging through
> underproduced recordings to find musical gold. You have the people who
> shut Nirvana off the first time they hear Kurt Cobain's weird-ass
> voice, and then you have the people who will listen to the often
> poorly recorded, sloppy drumming, time all over the place, etc tracks
> on an album like Incesticide because "Big Long Now" uses some really
> interesting chords in the chorus, and it just so happens that it's
> because Kurt uses a borrowed chord there from Locrian mode and that
> creates an interesting musical sound. Sweet!
>
> So which matters? I don't know, what type of listener are you
> pandering to? Are you trying to reach the most amount of people with
> your hip experimental music, as D'Angelo did in the 90's with Voodoo
> by making sure to polish it all up with a shiny and chronologically
> relevant production (and/or shoot a semi-nude video for the ladies,
> lol), or are you trying to reach a certain target audience that might
> have a bit more imagination when it comes to picturing how your piece
> would sound with a $500,000 production and an orchestra on it?
>
> If you played me Brad Mehldau's version of Martha My Dear, but
> quantized the whole thing and removed all of the dynamics, I'd be
> transcribing the hell out of it anyway.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
> >
> > All we can hope for is that people listen to The Music, the stuff that is
> wrapped up inside a performance or production. When I listen to pieces put
> forth on these lists, my intention is to hear what the composer/performer is
> trying to say, and if some aspect of the presentation is lacking, I set that
> aside as something that can be improved upon, but not as something that
> devalues the actual music itself. If I don't do this, I'm simply paying
> attention to surfaces, and not the creative nature of the work itself.
> >
> > I'll step back now. Here's to making wonderful music, in any form you
> choose, to the best of your abilities...
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@...> wrote:
>
> I don't see the controversy, but I'm not really into arguing about this
> anymore.

There is no controversy. Some people hate music unless it's polished
over with a great production. Others, like me, will listen to a song
that consists of 4 minutes of filler for the 1 awesome minute at the
end. It's just a preference. That's all I'm saying.

-Mike

>"I'm really just talking

about (if one can) taking the time to learn how to do things like, I dunno,

care about balance and mix, expression, timbres that don't sound like 1999

SoundBlaster strings, etc."

    Well, the original thread concerned, in part, production in the Untwelve competition.  And I'm pretty sure just about everyone in that competition put forth the effort and knew about production.  If anything I think it was a case of the opposite; that the production quality/work far exceeded the actual compositional work...and my point was to say "good music can exist even when the production is not stellar".

   Far as good production...well, Mr Oizo's "Flat Beat" had great production (far as loudness and clarity)...and it's about the worst song I've ever heard regardless of that.  Meanwhile a rock group called Edgewater's first album had mediocre production, but I consider it much more emotional than their newer, better "produced" tunes.  Same goes with Metallica's early albums vs. their later ones.

>"This doesn't require gobs of cash, contrary to popular opinion. It does require time and effort, though."
  You say that...and then, in actual competition, a huge majority of the winners had accumulated tons of studio equipment.  Yes it can be done without gobs of cash...but, in general, that's incredibly hard to do even when you know what you are doing.  Can you realistically expect someone to make a single guitar sample sound like a real guitar...even if they know a ton about audio processing or mock a real orchestra using only synthesized sounds?...you can inch your way closer...but you can still hear a difference.

--- On Thu, 2/17/11, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:

From: Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Production values
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 12:27 PM

I don't even know who D'Angelo is. I'm not talking about 'production values'

as in 'I have an LA agent who works with Britany Spears' etc...

I'm decidely an un-commercial musician myself, so I wouldn't really

recognize a large majority of the pop or dance names someone like Michael

Sheiman would list as being really well 'produced'. I'm really just talking

about (if one can) taking the time to learn how to do things like, I dunno,

care about balance and mix, expression, timbres that don't sound like 1999

SoundBlaster strings, etc.

This doesn't require gobs of cash, contrary to popular opinion. It does

require time and effort, though. I've heard people do amazing sounding work

with homespun or free open-source software and ancient beatup laptops....

I don't see the controversy, but I'm not really into arguing about this

anymore.

AKJ

P.S. (O.T.) you lose me with the whole punk-rock thing. I never could stand

that stuff. It's not music to me as much as attitude, and it never turned me

on, even remotely. So when people go on and on about the Ramones, etc., my

eyes just completely glaze over. I'm a prog-rock kinda guy, and punkers

hated prog rock. I'm just returning the favor.

P.P.S. Meldau is great, and I think you have a point re:certain great music

just popping out beyond the immediate surface. I'd be curious how well a

completely lifeless recording of him would turn me on at all.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

> I tend to think that these discussions turn into wankfests, but here's

> my two cents anyway.

>

> Great productions are great. Production values around here are often

> not that high, because high production values cost money, and/or

> require staying on top of the bleeding edge of technology. But now

> we're arguing about how much production "matters."

>

> "Matters?" Matters to whom?

>

> There are two types of musicians: those who shut something off as soon

> as they hear one foul note, or hear a shitty production, or hear

> something in general they don't like - think about that - vs. those

> who, on the other extreme, actually enjoy digging through

> underproduced recordings to find musical gold. You have the people who

> shut Nirvana off the first time they hear Kurt Cobain's weird-ass

> voice, and then you have the people who will listen to the often

> poorly recorded, sloppy drumming, time all over the place, etc tracks

> on an album like Incesticide because "Big Long Now" uses some really

> interesting chords in the chorus, and it just so happens that it's

> because Kurt uses a borrowed chord there from Locrian mode and that

> creates an interesting musical sound. Sweet!

>

> So which matters? I don't know, what type of listener are you

> pandering to? Are you trying to reach the most amount of people with

> your hip experimental music, as D'Angelo did in the 90's with Voodoo

> by making sure to polish it all up with a shiny and chronologically

> relevant production (and/or shoot a semi-nude video for the ladies,

> lol), or are you trying to reach a certain target audience that might

> have a bit more imagination when it comes to picturing how your piece

> would sound with a $500,000 production and an orchestra on it?

>

> If you played me Brad Mehldau's version of Martha My Dear, but

> quantized the whole thing and removed all of the dynamics, I'd be

> transcribing the hell out of it anyway.

>

> -Mike

>

>

> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

> >

> > All we can hope for is that people listen to The Music, the stuff that is

> wrapped up inside a performance or production. When I listen to pieces put

> forth on these lists, my intention is to hear what the composer/performer is

> trying to say, and if some aspect of the presentation is lacking, I set that

> aside as something that can be improved upon, but not as something that

> devalues the actual music itself. If I don't do this, I'm simply paying

> attention to surfaces, and not the creative nature of the work itself.

> >

> > I'll step back now. Here's to making wonderful music, in any form you

> choose, to the best of your abilities...

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

--

Aaron Krister Johnson

http://www.akjmusic.com

http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]