How best handle producer/artist relationship?

[rcook349]

First know that I'm an amateur. But I've agreed to "engineer/produce" an album for my friend's band. I like their sound and songs but think I can "produce" them better than what I'm hearing right now.

But we're having disagreements... tone of the electric guitar, song order on the album, me thinking the guitar solo should be cut in half on a song, that the instrumental intro should be dropped from another.

Where is the line? We're not pros with legal contracts or anything, but I want to begin to establish myself locally. I'd like, therefore, the overall production to be as good as "I" can make it.

I feel like maybe they just want me to "engineer" their album, but I don't want to do it unless I have some "producer" control.

How does one walk this line?

Thanks,
Ron

[Kryst]

Why don't you compromise? They're the main artists, if it weren't for them, who would you be recording in the first place?

Here's a compromising idea. Ask them if it would be alright if you make two mixes of some (or all) songs, like the one with the instrumental intro. Tell them you'll leave the intro for them, but for a mix you'd like to show off to represent your production, you'd like to make a second mix that cuts it.
Ask if you can cut the guitar solo in half for the purpose of representing your part of the work, but for their mix, you'll allow them to keep it.

You're doing it for free, I assume. And you don't have them on contract. That could equal nothing but fighting and problems. You want one thing, they want another, and no one is really bound to do anything at all. This is why I'd suggest the above compromisation. This way, they get their free album exactly as they want to hear it, and you get a different copy sounding the way you want.

In my musical side versus my production side, I must admit, it's sad to see people limiting the artists... I know that's sometimes how it works, though.


Oh, and it may all work better if you forget the "as good as "I" can make it" deal. You're not the only one making anything of it. By the sounds of it, these guys have recorded before, even if it was poorer quality than you can offer. Don't let arrogance (for lack of a better word) push bands away from you. There's no "I" in "team" And again, if it weren't for them, you wouldn't be recording that sound you liked in the beginning.

[rcook349]

Good comments, thanks. Here's one example of a problem, though, that your suggestions might not cover:

Let's say the guitarist is stuck in the 80's and he demands so much distortion on his guitar that it sounds like someone pressed a key on a synthesizer. A producer is supposed to bring fresh ears/perspective to the project. I'm trying to get him to record it "dry" so we can play with f/x in the mix (i.e. we can add tons of distortion for his copy and I can do what I think sounds better for my mix as you say).

But he wants to record it "wet" and, therefore, I won't have any control over it in the mix.

What should I do?

For future projects with other artists, let's say I want it to be less buddy-buddy and more pro. And I want to protect my role as producer. Do I do that through a contract?

If Mutt Lang tells an artist to play something one way and the artist disagrees, what do they do? I'm no Mutt Lang (obviously) and I would guess he gets what he wants or he walks away (and people give him what he wants because his reputation calls for it). But maybe there are contractual things?

Thanks.

[TheNoize]

I have a different way of seeing this (sorry Kryst)

"limiting the artist"? Most of the time, the artist is dumb. They have no education on what sounds better, translates better, has better commercial acceptance. If they didn't want commercial success they wouldn't be getting a producer in the 1st place. Production is not just mixing, and mixing is not just moving volume faders. It's about adjusting songwriting techniques, adding arrangements and what not.

The musician has to realise that they need to listen to the producer because he will know better. If he doesn't , he's a bad producer.

Take for example Linkin Park's Meteora. Don Gilmore did arrangements, he decided when to record the songs, decided when they were ready or when they still needed improvements (even in the lyrics!), and wrapped everything together to send to Andy Wallace. Probably without Don as a general maestro of the whole project, Meteora would be a total crap, because musicians have the ideas and skills until a certain degree, but a band needs guidance. Always.

My advice would be to try to explain why your opinion is worth more than the artists opinion. If they don't understand that, they are condemned to failure: just do what they want and never use that work for your reel, because odds are it's gonna sound like crap. If you have artsy musicians trying to fight the tyrany of songwriting common sense, their work will always be crap. And you can't educate someone by force. Only if they want to learn.

PS: just in case you guys think I'm just a fascist producer: I'm not a producer I'm an artist that acquired some production knowledge (like all musicians should). So I'm not here just preaching my side of the story. I have painful experience on this.

[Gary B]

Although this will not fully eliminate conflicts - try this. Whenever I wear the producer "hat" the band must decide who in the band will represent their interests. I will take all comments into account, but the final decisions are worked out exclusively between the band representative and myself. You may be surprised how quickly the representative will tend to follow your advice - or at least advocate for your position. It also forces the band members to begin thinking more about the final product as opposed to just their individual contributions. Please let us know what happens if you try this -- thanks

[rcook349]

I will and I really appreciate all the comments. Thanks you guys.

I do still wonder if professional producers have contracts saying its their way or the highway.

You always hear about bands wanting creative control over their recordings so they self-produce (usually after a producer has helped make them famous). I'm guessing the producer gets the power contractually somehow. No way someone tells Mutt Lang, "I liked your last album for that band but the guitar was way lost in the mix.. man you must suck."

Ron

[cherryrecording]

But he wants to record it "wet" and, therefore, I won't have any control over it in the mix.

This is where a direct box comes in handy. Give him his "wet" track, but you keep a clean one to process however you please. More often than not, the band will like your sound better. Same thing goes for electric bass.

[Captain_Pants]

I agree with the post above that says its your job to make it sound good. The band is being stubborn. Its one thing if you want to remove the guitar altogether and add in some honky tonk piano, but in this case, i think you have fair interests in the songs.

The problem with band members is everything is taken as an insult, and thats understandable, but also something they will have to learn to deal with.

No offense at all, but the stuff you hear on the radio is the engineer and producer, its not the band.

Sounds to me like they are more interested in someone recording them and spitting out a quick CD-R, than having someone produce them.

Besides, theres no harm in seeing what you can get away with. I recorded this punk band years and years ago that wanted everything 'dirty'. They dont know that afterhours, i was cutting and splicing and pasting loops of drum fills, guitar sections, even some vocal parts. It may not be the most professional thing in the world to do, but when something sounds good, and the band members listen to final playback and say: "Wow, we really did good on that track!", all you have to do is cross your fingers under the desk and say: "Yes, you guys did great".

[NickH]

I feel quite relaxed about my opinions as producer, As far as I am concerned, I am there to make the record the band & then secondly the label want to hear, but I primarily work towards the bands creation, unless I have been given a very strict brief from the label. And only step in hard if something is going to hurt them artistically or financially in a big way.

If I have an opinion about something in the song writing or arrangement that I would like the band to change because I feel it would improve the record, I put the case as best I can, usually do two versions as a demonstration, and if the band still don’t come round, I usually feel that if I can’t convince them with a demonstration, it can’t have been that good an idea in the first place…

If it is something major, like they have the same winy riff for 7 minutes, or the riff is a little too ‘familiar’ I will pass the buck to the label for approval.

I feel strongly that artist should have there own basic source sounds when possible, but I do come down hard if I know something’s not going to work, but I try to advise & work with the artist to get a better sound & make them think the new sound is their idea if possible.

If the artist is being extremely stubborn, I let them know that it’s fine for them to have that sound, but it won’t go out with my name on it, and will have to be credited to ‘Alan Smithy’… when they lookup “Alan Smithy” and the significance of same, they usually come round by the following morning… If not, no drama, your reputation is not going to be hurt, just Alan’s & he can take it



N
P.S. As someone has already said, just split the guitar signal & DI one of the signals, record both & give them both versions to choose from when it comes to mix time & everyone has cooled down…

[L.Ninio]

Good comments, thanks. Here's one example of a problem, though, that your suggestions might not cover:

Let's say the guitarist is stuck in the 80's and he demands so much distortion on his guitar that it sounds like someone pressed a key on a synthesizer. A producer is supposed to bring fresh ears/perspective to the project. I'm trying to get him to record it "dry" so we can play with f/x in the mix (i.e. we can add tons of distortion for his copy and I can do what I think sounds better for my mix as you say).

But he wants to record it "wet" and, therefore, I won't have any control over it in the mix.

What should I do?

For future projects with other artists, let's say I want it to be less buddy-buddy and more pro. And I want to protect my role as producer. Do I do that through a contract?

If Mutt Lang tells an artist to play something one way and the artist disagrees, what do they do? I'm no Mutt Lang (obviously) and I would guess he gets what he wants or he walks away (and people give him what he wants because his reputation calls for it). But maybe there are contractual things?

Thanks.

They don't respect you. Full stop. Beat them with a stick or throw a few pot plants at them like Ross Robinson did with Slipknot and you'll get their attention.

What are you bringing to the sessions "music wise?" Money? Technical ability? Writing/arranging skills? Good music theory background? Budget and organisation skills? Able to source different equipment, amps, guitars, keyboards, etc. Brings free beer? None of the above? What's your sound? What do you specialise in? Again, what are you bringing to these sessions? Apart from the free beer, (ignore that one) a producer really needs to have his [bleep] together and specialise in at least one of those areas and have good knowledge in pretty much all of them. I think you need to ask why you're there and reinforce that fact to the band, because I think even they don't know why you're there. Harsh? Maybe, but it seems they're just using you to get a free recording. Get your points, take a publishing cut or just charge them up front some good money and they'll respect you.