What does a record producer actually DO?

[Eric Iverson]

Right now I'm translating a recording contract at work, and it speaks of the "producer" of the recording.

I remember once reading something to the effect that a producers job really consisted of "making sure that the artists don't get too stoned to perform, and don't drive the sound engineer up the walls all the time," the point being that we shouldn't glorify them too much.

But I've never been involved in a recording project (just a couple studio dates over the years) that had a real, bona fide PRODUCER.

If any of you have been, or acted in that role yourself, please tell me what it entails, in your experience.

[desertbluesman]

Simple Definition of producer

 

Someone who is in charge of making and usually providing the money for a play, movie, record, etc.

 

I am a producer because I own a studio set up (A simple computer with recording hardware and software). I sit down and start a recording project, I record and assemble the tracks, I mix and master the project and play on it. From nothing I produced a recording....... Producer! And the producer owns all or a big part of the profits of the recorded project.

 

It also means something like "coach" in the studio helping the musicians and arrangers bring their talents to a recorded product.

[Larryz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_producer <---here's what Wiki has to say about record producers...don't forget to read the fine print LOL!

[SEHpicker]

I would add that the person putting up the cash is usually called the Executive Producer.

[Eric Iverson]

Thanks, guys.

I have also read that sometimes bands hire a producer to give them another opinion on the overall project, since sometimes we musicians don't see the big picture, and "can't see the forest for the trees."

Hear the forest for the birds?? LOL

[Scott Fraser]

I've produced & co-produced a lot of records. The definition changes with the person fulfilling the role. With some producers it just means assuring quality control. With others it means being responsible for choosing songs, & closely overseeing the recording. With others, it means acting as arranger. Basically it can mean anything within the range of just making sure the record gets finished, all the way to imposing the producers specific aesthetic upon the artists. In record making the producer is never the money person, as in the film industry. The record producer is more closely related to the director of the film, though not always that hands on.

[Caevan O’Shite]

I've produced & co-produced a lot of records. The definition changes with the person fulfilling the role. With some producers it just means assuring quality control. With others it means being responsible for choosing songs, & closely overseeing the recording. With others, it means acting as arranger. Basically it can mean anything within the range of just making sure the record gets finished, all the way to imposing the producers specific aesthetic upon the artists. In record making the producer is never the money person, as in the film industry. The record producer is more closely related to the director of the film, though not always that hands on.

 

http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/Heh+you+figured+it+out+my+hats+off+to+you+_e7638c8aac758f45e5f60eb77b264195.jpg

__ Sir George Martin, Eddie Kramer...

[p90jr]

I've produced & co-produced a lot of records. The definition changes with the person fulfilling the role. With some producers it just means assuring quality control. With others it means being responsible for choosing songs, & closely overseeing the recording. With others, it means acting as arranger. Basically it can mean anything within the range of just making sure the record gets finished, all the way to imposing the producers specific aesthetic upon the artists. In record making the producer is never the money person, as in the film industry. The record producer is more closely related to the director of the film, though not always that hands on.

 

I was checking to see if anyone had made the film director analogy.

 

I am confused when people ask what a Producer does... we've all read a story or two about George Martin or Ken Scott or Holland-Dozier-Holland or Glyn Johns or Andy Johns or Ken Callait or somebody by now, right? Or am I the only one getting those free subscriptions to the wonderful Tape Op magazine (subscriptions are totally free, in exchange for generic demographic information about yourself that lets them attract recording industry advertising). Sound on Sound has great articles about the recording and production of classic tracks, too, and you can get a free account to read them.

 

An old joke I remember: "A record producer is a person who fires your drummer."

[p90jr]

Novelists and film directors depend on editors to focus their work and maximize its impact. Maybe that's a good analogy, too...

[Scott Fraser]

Novelists and film directors depend on editors to focus their work and maximize its impact. Maybe that's a good analogy, too...

 

That's the recording engineer.

[desertbluesman]

In record making the producer is never the money person, as in the film industry.

 

Sometimes it is the money person, meaning the producer owns the studio, and his time, both of those things are money. I produced my niece in many a recording, using my equipment and time. I agree if you are using a big record company studio, then the producer could be described as a director, But a lot of today's music is made in home studio's so in that sense the producer is the money man.

 

[Scott Fraser]

In record making the producer is never the money person, as in the film industry.

 

Sometimes it is the money person, meaning the producer owns the studio, and his time, both of those things are money. I produced my niece in many a recording, using my equipment and time. I agree if you are using a big record company studio, then the producer could be described as a director, But a lot of today's music is made in home studio's so in that sense the producer is the money man.

 

I don't really agree. In the film world, the producers are investors who put up the capital to make the movie, & hire the director to take care of artistic matters. They don't involve themselves in artistic issues other than their choice of director, & interfering with the director if they fear their investment is endangered by the director's artistic choices. If one hires a record producer & uses that producer's studio, the studio use is part of his fee, but the money people are the record label who are footing the bill. What you are doing in producing your niece is spec work, in that you hope to recoup some fees if the project sells. And it would sell to an entity acting in the same capacity as a film producer, i.e. a record label, or perhaps an artists' management firm.

[harvey]

George Martin's book "Summer of Love: the making of Sgt Pepper" is a wonderful read detailing his role in that album.

[skipclone 1]

The Nashville producer Jim Dickinson had a great story about that-from the old days mind you. He had been a session player, and in one session a guy walked in, right in the middle of them recording, and everyone dropped what they were doing and went over to say hi to him. Well Jim thought, they aren`t kicking this guy out on his face? then they all went outside-to where he had his midnight blue Jaguar XKE parked.

After he left Jim asked, who IS that guy? oh, he`s a big record producer here in town.

That was when he decided to become a producer.

So sure enough, the question came up-what does a producer do?

Jim said, `Turn the good parts up, turn the bad parts down`.

 

[d halfnote]

skipping over the previous responses (in interest of time / I'll read 'em later) ...

Producers can / might do almost anything in terms of bringing a recording to fruition.

That could include financial support : arranging the music; arranging other musicians to perform; tweaking the engineering of the recording; etc.

In short the term "producer" is malleable, as is the payment that might be extended to or expected by them.

 

I would suggest that you get some legal advice to define any contract terms specifically & NEVER sign anything you don't have a good grasp on.

[desertbluesman]

In record making the producer is never the money person, as in the film industry.

 

Sometimes it is the money person, meaning the producer owns the studio, and his time, both of those things are money. I produced my niece in many a recording, using my equipment and time. I agree if you are using a big record company studio, then the producer could be described as a director, But a lot of today's music is made in home studio's so in that sense the producer is the money man.

 

I don't really agree. In the film world, the producers are investors who put up the capital to make the movie, & hire the director to take care of artistic matters. They don't involve themselves in artistic issues other than their choice of director, & interfering with the director if they fear their investment is endangered by the director's artistic choices. If one hires a record producer & uses that producer's studio, the studio use is part of his fee, but the money people are the record label who are footing the bill. What you are doing in producing your niece is spec work, in that you hope to recoup some fees if the project sells. And it would sell to an entity acting in the same capacity as a film producer, i.e. a record label, or perhaps an artists' management firm.

 

 

I disagree with you also.

 

And the owner of a home studio is not footing the bill with his investment?

 

Some home studios cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is not money invested? There are a lot of record producers who work at home because they don't need an "old style record company owned recording studio" anymore. Especially if there is no outside the studio investor paying for the sessions.

 

Recording production is so simple once you know how to do it, and have the proper equipment to accomplish it.

 

I produced my niece because she is a good singer songwriter, and the monetary results are hers if any accrue.

 

I have thousands invested in my recording computer and related hardware and software. So in that sense I am the money man, and so is the owner of any sized recording production facility. It does not make any difference where the money went, for equipment and facility, or to other people to do the work as in films.

 

Money spent is the same wherever it went. So any studio owner is the executive producer, as well as production director if he directs the sessions.

 

I have a lot of friends in the music scene in The LA area, and believe me the money invested in non record company owned studios is just as big as the company studios. I listen to their stories when I visit and it is all insider music scene, and insider music business scene stuff.

[p90jr]

If a person owns a camera and Nagra, are they a movie producer?

[Sharkman]

I've been talking about co-producing a song or two with a friend of mine. I prefer the term co-produce, because I don't want him to think I'm some kind of boss. What I want to do is help him record a song so that it sounds good from beginning to end, and might make him some money. I'm not getting into the marketing and distribution part, although some producers do just that.

 

I plan on doing things like "Lets turn this part up. Lets bring this one down a little bit. The tempo is slowed down too much in this part. Lets clean that sound up a bit. You were playing off the beat here." We'll see if this project ever happens. It will be fun if it does.

[Danzilla]

I've always thought the general chores of a producer were to bring the best out of the artist & their songs. Whether that incorporates arranging, hiring external musicians & engineers, making suggestions to change the song (or determining which songs are good enough to go on the album), and keeping the artist on task to a certain deadline, to even mixing it themselves can vary from situation to situation.

 

What I don't like is when a producer comes in and makes it "their" album. Some producers have their own sonic fingerprints that they get all over the album, so that 5 albums by 5 different artists all sound the same. Or when they play more instruments on project than the band is playing.

 

But that's just me.

[Scott Fraser]

If a person owns a camera and Nagra, are they a movie producer?

 

That person is a film maker.

[Scott Fraser]

I've always thought the general chores of a producer were to bring the best out of the artist & their songs. Whether that incorporates arranging, hiring external musicians & engineers, making suggestions to change the song (or determining which songs are good enough to go on the album), and keeping the artist on task to a certain deadline, to even mixing it themselves can vary from situation to situation.

 

That's a pretty clear description of the general set of possibilities. Sometimes the job of the producer is just to stay out of the way of the artist. Sometimes the job is to mold the raw material provided by the artist into a finished product.

 

What I don't like is when a producer comes in and makes it "their" album. Some producers have their own sonic fingerprints that they get all over the album, so that 5 albums by 5 different artists all sound the same. Or when they play more instruments on project than the band is playing.

But that's just me.

 

Some producers can do that & something wonderful results. Brian Eno is an example. He says from the get go that if you're bringing him into the process it's because you want him to fundamentally change what you're doing.

[Scott Fraser]

I disagree with you also.

And the owner of a home studio is not footing the bill with his investment?

 

No, no more so than any commercial studio. That investment is an investment in the owner's business, not an investment in the artist's possible success.

 

Some home studios cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is not money invested? There are a lot of record producers who work at home because they don't need an "old style record company owned recording studio" anymore. Especially if there is no outside the studio investor paying for the sessions.

 

For the most part, the "old style record company owned recording studio" hasn't existed since the early 70s. Almost all commercial studios are independent private businesses, separate from labels. Those record labels still owning studios, Capital in Hollywood, EMI in London, etc. run them as independent businesses now, i.e. available for booking with non-label artists. Studios are service providers, not extensions of the record labels.

 

Recording production is so simple once you know how to do it, and have the proper equipment to accomplish it.

 

As a friend of mine who does film & video location sound puts it "It's simple until it isn't. Then you need the pro." When something doesn't go as planned, it's no longer simple. I had a composer ask me for a price quote to do a simple straight to 2 track recording in my studio. I gave him an hourly rate, which he felt was high for something "so simple". He says "You charge $ X an hour for stereo recording?!!" And I said "No, I charge $ X an hour for the last 400 albums I did, (which will insure you don't have any problems with your project.)"

 

I have thousands invested in my recording computer and related hardware and software. So in that sense I am the money man, and so is the owner of any sized recording production facility. It does not make any difference where the money went, for equipment and facility, or to other people to do the work as in films.

Money spent is the same wherever it went. So any studio owner is the executive producer, as well as production director if he directs the sessions.

 

I'm not an accountant nor an MBA but I think there's a very fundamental difference between the movie money man, the producer, & the studio owner. I have spent my money building a studio & filling it with tools for use in crafting music productions. My investment is in the tools I need to do my job. It is not an investment in the artist's prospects. If a movie doesn't do well the movie producer loses his investment. If a musician doesn't make it, I still have my tools. My investment is not endangered by the musician's failure to sell records. That to me indicates a completely different business model is in play, & in that way a movie producer is completely different than a record producer.

 

I have a lot of friends in the music scene in The LA area, and believe me the money invested in non record company owned studios is just as big as the company studios. I listen to their stories when I visit and it is all insider music scene, and insider music business scene stuff.

 

I've been in the LA music scene for 40 years & have invested my six figures in a residential studio as well. It's a world I'm very familiar with, it's the air I breathe. I'm not trying to bust your chops, I'm just saying I feel the job descriptions of a movie producer (being the money investor) & the record producer (being the artistic adviser/collaborator/quality control expert) don't really correlate. Two different things, two different meanings of the same word.

[Eric Iverson]

Two different meanings of the same word?

Yes, words can be very slippery things.

Reminding me of when Louis Armstrong was asked to define jazz, and he said, "If you have to ask, you'll never know."

And John Mayall was asked to define blues, and he said, "I won't define blues. Blues is a coathanger."

As far as producer as artistic director, I remember one time I was recording some tunes with a friend, just for fun and to learn the tunes. This was about 30 years ago, and I was trying to come up with nice lead parts to the tunes the guy had written and was singing. He just had me play off the top of my head to the chord progression, and would say from time to time, "that bit there. Keep that part." And before long we came up with a decent solo. I could have just jammed it, of course, but that's not what this situation called for. So I guess my friend was the "producer" in fact if not in title, LOL.

[Larryz]

Many times the artist/actor/musician has been directed so often that they go in that direction themselves. A good example for a movie director is Clint Eastwood. A good example of self producing would be The Stones and The Beatles...for the rest of us (or at least for me), I would have to rely on someone if I ever get into the mix as a newbie...

 

I would pick a producer that has a good product and good reputation in the business. I would also want someone I could work with that would appreciate my input if I'm the lead guy...but, I doubt I will find myself in the studio anytime soon LOL!

[desertbluesman]

I began producing because the musicians I was jamming with did not want to or could not understand my ideas. Once I learned how to produce musical product by myself, I realized that I did not really need other musicians to do my original material.

 

Learning production was pretty simple for me truthfully. I learned by doing, and listening back to what I did. I would get it right on my DAW, I would export it on CD then go listen to it in my car or in the house or on a boom box. Once I used consumer gear to demo the stuff, I could adjust the frequencies on the DAW and redo the mix until I was satisfied on consumer gear. Now I have a boom box hooked to my DAW. so I can get it done with less car and house demo's.

 

I began digital recording in late 1999, and once I saw how simple it was compared to tape and analog gear. I went in whole hog, building my own desktop computers from parts, loading on the software, learning the software, and finding the right input preamps etc.

 

For me it was a labor of love from jump street on the analog gear in the mid 80's. And transitioning onto digital was a breeze.

[skipclone 1]

When I go into the studio-like, two days from now-I need to finish this message and practice-I try to have a clear idea of what I want. That includes all the instruments. I don`t have the chops to arrange a brass or string section but, one of my ex-bandmates teaches sax at a music school. One of my songs needs a sax solo. Before I contacted him I knew what I wanted. Am I a control freak-no. I am on a clock but, that`s not the only reason for my approach. I like to think-and play-like a composer as much as possible. It sounds like Brian Eno and I would be butting heads a lot.

One of the things I don`t like about acting is, that you do your part but you really don`t know how-or if-it`s going to fit in the final work unless you`re in charge of everything. Most actors aren`t.

 

Some older performers have commented, that since the old days when a label or studio owned facilities and often anything done in them, the quality of entertainment has declined. I think there`s some merit in that-now instead of having a producer, arranger, engineer, publicist etc.-everyone is thinking, why do I need to pay all those people? I can do it myself. In a few rare cases-Prince come s to mind-that is true. Most of the time it ends up being good ideas, badly handled. Or bad ideas that should never have been there but, the left ear said something and the rignt ear was like, that`s a great idea.

 

 

 

[d halfnote]

collect royalties ?

[desertbluesman]

collect royalties ?

 

Once I read that the Beatles money was spread out like the below. (I am not sure of this, but it sounded real at the time)

 

EMI 80%

Sir George Martin 15%

Beatles 5%

 

Probably the main reason they broke up the band, so they could earn a lot better as solo artists, which I bet they did.....

[ManInTheBox]

If you've got three takes of a particular performance, the producer is the one who decides which take, which parts of each take, or if another take should be done to make it to the final product.

[skipclone 1]

A producer can also decide which single has `hit` potential-Richard Marx said he was almost in tears over the decision to release `Don`t Mean Nothing` first, which in retrospect I can understand-the followup song was better.