Re: Popular Music Production (If it's so easy)

[aliengroover]

I'd have to say, on every board I've been to, there is always the comment about how easy it is to make BSB, or Britney, or Babyface, Timbaland, or Neptunes-style tracks. How there's nothing to it. And as has been said a million times by half a million people: then let me see you do it. I'm not saying that you can't. And I'm not saying that it's rocket science. But what I am saying is that, "a simple plan", like the movie, is a lot more involved than it seems.

I know people that have tried to make tracks like (insert producer's name here), and they nowhere near approach the quality of that producer/act. And the others who say that they wouldn't lower themselves to do a song like that either aren't up to the challenge, or it's just not in them. And that's okay. But until you try to do it...don't say it's so easy.

Because I'm not an artist, just a producer who loves both good music and good production, I don't mind lowering myself to mimicking other's production. 80% of my clients come to me for my own "brand" of music production, but I do get asked to do demos that feature "so and so's" style. I can emulate some of them quite well, but the hardest is the old Cheiron/Max Martin sound.

Do I have a problem with the teeny bopper sound, as was asked below? I think older *NSync, BSB, Britney, and Christina SINGLES (or tracks intended to be) are pretty killer for the most part. Especially "Shape of My Heart" and "Stronger". But whole albums? I don't think so. And I think the rest of the "copycat" acts suck (they're all copycats, hence the quotations). I don't like it generally. Fact is, I don't like a lot of genres generally. But a few acts/songs in each gives me the feeling that "it's all good".

Peace

[strat0124]

Well that makes you an excellent practitioner of the tech...and I applaud your work ethic. The question is not about the ease of creating a silk purse out of a sow's ear, in fact I'd be lost as hogan's goat. The question is, should you? Working for a living is one thing, and I am like that with my work, but the artistry that these folks put out is transparently fake as hell. Not dumping, just my personal observation.

[Bonafide]

Hey Strat0124,

 

How do YOU know that the artisrty is transparent as hell? who are YOU?,But just another opinion.. Have you ANY idea the work that these performers put into thier Shows? Geez.. Your comment simply proves the question. Have you tried to dance and sing for hours on end while keeping your ass in shape through intense exercise and diet? Do you practice your vocal chops on a rigourous schedule.. I guess because someone has mass marketing power and mass finacial backing that they MUST be transparent and lacking in something.. They just MUST be.. right? I mean how could anyone actually have had to work to get to where they are at and still be successful while selling millions of CD's? As long as you are a 'struggling' artist or engineer your stuff must be deep and have soul.. How do you know how these artist feel about thier music and who are you to say what is fake or not.. You applaud work ethic but not if it sells records or doesn't fit with your idealism. Just an observation.

[RMS]

My guess is that the albums have huge teams of engineers that each do one specific task.

 

Since when does a dance routine choreographed by someone else bring any substance to music?

 

If these "artists" are practicing their chops all day, why do they always sound so over processed?

 

I choose to jsut ignore pop culture. Britney can sell all the cds she wants, so can any legitimate band. It really has nothing to do with my expression

[Guest]

Here are my sneaking suspicions:

 

Britney, Christina, The Back Street Boys, N'Sync, etc. can all sing just dandily. However, it's a boatload cheaper for the record company to pay for one half-decent take (or a few to comp as well) that gets autotuned and processed into perfection, rather than spend the money on having them work on one vocal line for hours on end.

 

For live shows, they absolutely, positively, must have perfection. This is different from art music people. It is entertainment. The show has to be flawless, and everything to make it be so is done. If this means autotune, they use it. If this means Karaoke, they use it. It is created around the idea of being a perfect, incredible, larger than life show. It is not even intended to show "soul" or "musicality" at all. It is pure, unbridled showmanship. I guarantee you that it will not stand up, musically, to the post rock guys down the street in their garage, but it's a heck of a lot more fun to listen to.

 

-Danny

 

------------------

Of all the things that I have lost, I miss my mind the most.

[strat0124]

Originally posted by Bonafide:

Hey Strat0124,

 

How do YOU know that the artisrty is transparent as hell? who are YOU?,But just another opinion.. Have you ANY idea the work that these performers put into thier Shows? Geez.. Your comment simply proves the question. Have you tried to dance and sing for hours on end while keeping your ass in shape through intense exercise and diet? Do you practice your vocal chops on a rigourous schedule.. I guess because someone has mass marketing power and mass finacial backing that they MUST be transparent and lacking in something.. They just MUST be.. right? I mean how could anyone actually have had to work to get to where they are at and still be successful while selling millions of CD's? As long as you are a 'struggling' artist or engineer your stuff must be deep and have soul.. How do you know how these artist feel about thier music and who are you to say what is fake or not.. You applaud work ethic but not if it sells records or doesn't fit with your idealism. Just an observation.

 

Bonafide...if you're telling me Brittney can sing...I'd say you are either an A&R guy or someone devoted to this genre. You must get off on insults, because what I posted didn't address anything but the music, and if you were totally objective you would come clean. And to say "who are you"? I can say the same about you, but I won't. I don't have to prove myself to you but I won't let you pigeonhole my personality like that. You have no clue.....if you would like to email me in a civil manner, that's cool. But that's not to say I won't give you respect....I don't have to agree with your post, but I don't attack because of my disagreement. It's representative of my maturity....please show the same.....just an observation.

[Bonafide]

Hey Strat0124,

 

No flame intended. My post was no different than yours, only I did respond. Unlike the people and artist who are so quickly slammed on this board, who CANT respond or defend thier art. Maturity? That is subjective to you and your beliefs. I personally give ALL music credit and any human who works to make themselves a better person or a success deserves respect in my opinion. Sorry if my post hurt your feelings or bruised your ego, it was not intended.

 

Civil? I don't find it very civil to sit behind a comforatble computer screen and talk about how someone's music is fake and transparent when you REALLY HAVE NO IDEA what goes on in thier head or soul.

 

If your opinion is valid, then it certainly mine is as well.

 

Cheers.

[RMS]

most of the pretty face bands don't write any of their music or lyrics. Quite a few have been "bred" to be visually appealing popstars from early mouseketeer ages.

 

I hope those qualifications allow us to not give two shits what may be going on in their head. Their existence is shallow. I think I'll go listen to some soinc youth to clear my head

[Guest]

The whole of pop music, alternative music, electronica, classical music, dance music that's involved in utilizing the recording studio is involved in creating illusion packages. The recording studio, with its EQ's, compression, cut and paste, is integral to that illusion package, no matter what the genre. The idea is to make a great sounding recording. So what if multiple takes are made! So what if pitch correction is used! Does the recording sound good? That's what's important. If it's not to your taste, so what. You want to be a critic?

 

Punk music sounds like polka music with a fast tempo and an inclination to whine. Electronica, Trance and D&B sounds like a relience on twisting knobs instead of an adventure into composing and playing heartfelt music. Country, a pathetic nostalgia. Most jazz, a propensity to show off and play it safe by repeating worn out licks to worn out rhythms. But what sounds sappy to me, like Nirvana, might just turn you on. What sounds monotonous to me, like Chemical Brothers, you might think is interesting.

 

I'm not going to get too excited because your tastes don't conform to mine. If you like NSync or Creed, good for you. I'm pleased for you. I'm pleased for all the people who like Britney and NSync and Aerosmith and Roni Prize and Delbert McClinton, John Cage and the Commitments and the O'Jays and Bananrama and Yo Yo Ma and Kathy Berberian. And I'm pleased for all those artists finding their audience.

 

I don't care if it takes one hundred takes and auto tune; if it sounds good out of the speakers, to somebody, then what was aimed for was accomplished. My congratulations!

 

Truth is - there's nothing wrong with creating illusions. Making illusion is a bonafide, sacred occupation. Making the illusion so that is seemless is an art in itself. We love magicians. Why not love the illusions our studios produce, be they film or sound.

 

My take. I thought Milli Vanilli put out good dance music till they were found out. After the discovery that they were fakes I liked them better. I thought the producer deserved genius accolades for foistering the best illusion in pop music. Nowadays, Milli Vanilli acts are taken for granted. Wonderful. Props to the illusionists. The difference between Milli Vanilli and any studio act is just a matter of degree.

 

Those of you who think you're so much better than these popular acts are fooling yourself. They are so much more successful than you are because they make a product that an audience identifies with. They have an audience that responds to what they do. When you get your audience, then you might have a right to snear.

 

Crybabies!

 

All you complaining whiners have an assignment - read Tonio Kroger by Thomas Mann and write a one page essay on how you think Britney Spears is relevant to the Mann short story.

Joe

[-]

My common sense is telling me I should not post anything on this thread, as it's already quite contentious, but I'll stick my neck out anyway...

 

I think the reason why many people on this board do not like Brittney/N'Sync/etc. is because they have been exposed to a wide variety of music -- a wider variety of music than what the target audience for teenybopper music listens to. Let me say this in a different way: We're not the target audience -- of course we can't stand it! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Many of us know of the creative ways in which music affects us, moves us, and makes us feel good. In order for most of us to learn our instruments, how to write songs, etc., we've necessarily had to study at the feet of the masters (Beatles, Hendrix, Motown, fill-in-the-blank-with-your-own-influence, etc.). We're required to look at music on a deeper level if we want to improve. I think most of us on the board look at our work as "artistic", whatever that means.

 

Teenybopper music ignores all that and is what it is -- unabashedly a product (artistic qualities optional), meant for consuming and disposing. There's nothing wrong with disposable music... I happen to like quite a bit of "disposable" stuff myself, but...

 

If disposable music is not even that good on its own terms, it pisses off everyone else who works hard at studying "the masters". Craig mentioned on a thread once that the fashion industry and the music industry overlap at times... I have a feeling most of us on this board are more about the music side of things. The teenybopper artists tend to be more about the fashion side. That's where the conflict is, I think.

 

What makes it worse is that it's difficult to escape -- turn on the TV and you'll hear the music on commercials... Kind of like rubbing salt in the wound. As one friend remarked to me, "What are they trying to do to us?!?!?" http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif You can call it jealousy, call it whatever you want... Heck, call us crybabies, I don't care... Bottom line is that the music doesn't move us, because we know what good mindless pop music can be and this ain't it! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

With that said, the original poster mentioned Babyface, and I have to say that I *do* like him. There are a lot of songs he's written which definitely hold up outside of a nice production and with time will be considered "classic"... He's probably the closest thing we have to Smokey Robinson today (even though we still have Smokey Robinson http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif ). If all the other teenybopper writers/musicians(?) had at least the same degree of craft as Babyface (and perhaps things like more live musicians -- not quantized sequences), you might find more respect towards teenybopper music amongst those who play musical instruments... But that's not the way the economics of the music biz work, and I think we'll be hearing AutoTuned quantized half-baked songs for some time to come.

 

 

 

 

This message has been edited by popmusic on 06-30-2001 at 11:20 PM

[gtrmac]

Although a lot if time and effort is spent on the production details for commercial releases I have some criticism of the lack of originality and the the "music as commodity" attitude which is behind this music. If you have a sufficient budget you could copy any of these productions. All they did was hire the right people. How hard is that after all.

 

------------------

Mac Bowne

G-Clef Acoustics Ltd.

Osaka, Japan

My Music: www.javamusic.com/freedomland

[mr. rob]

Well,

Heres my take

 

Theres good pop music, and bad pop music.

I like_good_pop music. I dont think the teeny pop is good pop music for the most part. Listen to a compilation like "warp routine" or "clicks and cuts" and then try and tell me Britneys producers have skills. As far as Im concerned the Teen Pop doesnt even exist. As they say if you dont like it turn the station.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by aliengroover:

How there's nothing to it. And as has been said a million times by half a million people: then let me see you do it.

 

It has nothing to do with whether it's easy or not. It has to do with the motivation, and what the end result is and appeals to.

 

------------------

New and Improved Music Soon: http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[KBP]

god, babyface puts out the most BORING music. Is that what art is to alot of you? Babyface is one of the main culprits to canned sounding music. More emotion goes through me listening to an Eminem album than most of the crap you artisteers talk about all together.

[-]

Originally posted by KBP:

god, babyface puts out the most BORING music. Is that what art is to alot of you? Babyface is one of the main culprits to canned sounding music. More emotion goes through me listening to an Eminem album than most of the crap you artisteers talk about all together.

 

When I said I liked Babyface, I didn't say anything about art. He's a craftsman, and a very good one at that. At the very least, he's one of the few mainstream pop songwriters who still cares about melody. To me, the melody is *still* the most important element of any song... It's the reason high school marching bands still play "Louie, Louie" instead of N'Sync songs...

 

I don't own any of Babyface's albums or any of the albums he's produced, but I have listened to enough of his stuff to at least respect what he's done, even if it's not what I aspire to do with my own music.

 

No, I'm not emotionally moved by his music, but not everything has to be emotionally moving to be interesting. I can appreciate something which has a well-written melody, lyrics which don't insult my intelligence, a good vocal performance, and a technically interesting production. Most of the teenybopper stuff has an interesting production and nothing else.

 

 

 

This message has been edited by popmusic on 07-01-2001 at 09:37 AM

[Guest]

I like BabyFace's music, songwriting and production chops a lot.

 

If you got some kind of emotional connection with Eminem, good that you find a release. Personally I find eminem boring instead of offensive. Pretentious and trite in that he focuses on trying to shock. Eminem is packaged entertainment targeted to the children of the bourgeoisie. He is lacking in originality but is successful with critics who suffer from the same kind of pretentious emotional shallowness.

 

Each to his own I guess.

 

Joe

[the stranger]

They are so much more successful than you are because they make a

product that an audience identifies with. They have an audience that responds to

what they do.

 

This isn't difficult when they have been brainwashed into submission since birth.

Not to mention, this so called "product" they identify with has absolutely nothing to do with music. It is about what sells. What is every single mindless pop band selling (or represent) when stripped down to it's core?

Sex. Sex sells. Mindless pop is successful because it is made to appeal to young, raging hormones.

[strat0124]

Bonafide....I have to apologize as well, after I posted it, I was thinking about what I had said all night, and today as well. After surfing all morning (great place to think), , doctoring a few sandrash wounds, I have come to conclusion I have become my Dad....and I can't stand my kids music!!!! Ha Ha!!!!!! If you catch my drift. I am seriously way more fun than that post depicts. My sincere apologies to all offended.

Your Cosmic Cowboy in residence,

Gene

[Guest]

< What is every single mindless pop band selling (or represent) when

 

Exactly! Is that why you're so angry, you're not getting any? ;-)

 

Joe

[Master Zap]

I would just like to make a small correction.

 

Sex does *NOT* sell. Period. *SEXY* Sells.

 

SEX and SEXY is NOT the same thing. As a matter of fact, they are mutually exclusive.

 

/Z

[Guest]

Master Zap wrote:

"I would just like to make a small correction.

 

Sex does *NOT* sell. Period. *SEXY* Sells.

 

SEX and SEXY is NOT the same thing. As a matter of fact, they are mutually exclusive."

 

Master Zap I think you're a casualty of right wing style sex education. What an absurd statement you made.

 

Joe

[Steve LeBlanc]

Sex does *NOT* sell. Period. *SEXY* Sells.

 

SEX and SEXY is NOT the same thing. As a matter of fact, they are mutually

exclusive.

 

I wasn't going to post to this thread but DAMN ZAP...that's gotta be the wrongest (is that a word?) thing you've ever posted.

 

The Porn industry exists only because Women don't have to be Sexy to attract money...their faces can look like Monkey butt and they can have cellulite from Tits to Toe...they just have to be having sex and people will buy it.

 

This is true EVERYWHERE...I guess you've never left a Bar at closing time before http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif.

[KBP]

Funny stuff this sex subject is.

[Master Zap]

Okay let me rephrase that in more detail, because I am DEFEINITELY not wrong:

 

SEX DOES *NOT* SELL ANYTHING - EXCEPT SEX (= Porn)

 

SEXY, however, can be used to sell

- Music

- Cars

- Helicopters

- Travels

- e.t.c.

- e.t.c.

 

 

Thats what I meant. So in the context of trying to sell *MUSIC*, I stand by every word in my post above.

 

 

/Z

[Guest]

So then Dr. Destructo should have said "Sexy. Sexy sells." instead of "Sex." And I share in Dr. Destructo's semantic errors.

 

I want to know when Sexy or Sex became a discredit to art? Ostensibly, sex, or sexy and music have been conjoined since the beginning of time. Why make an objection in 2001?

 

Why complain about sexy?

 

Joe

[Master Zap]

Let me put it this way; I've seen people on mp3.com using "SEX" to sell (and now I mean "SEX", not "SEXY"), i.e. pictures of porn-ish models and music that are bland electronica (in one case it was the demo-songs to fruity-loops - that page was quickly pulled tho) with some female moans on top (probably sampled from a X-flick, but invariably the person claimed to "be" the girl and the song titles were stuff like "Hear me come soooo haaaaard".

 

It doesnt work. Ok, yes, she (or most quite certainly he) who did the page might get a few hits from the horniest of teenagers who just use it as an aid in "self love" http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif but to actually listen to? To buy the CD? No.

 

 

Whereas others have used "Sexy", i.e. a nice looking female singer, doing nothing worse than a suggestive smile. Definitely sortable under "Sexy" and not "Sex". This attracts attention, and the music is taken way more seriously than when markeded with "Sex" as per above. And if the music is good - you have a happy lisetener, that might even buy the CD.

 

 

What the former group of people thinks is that sex in itself sells. It doesnt, unless you are peddling porn - which in a way they are - but then you limit yourself to the target audience that want porn. (Also you limit your marketing abilities, Tower Records wont stock a CD with mammary glands dressed only in bodily fluids on the front).

 

Sexy, however, gets attraction, but is not vulgar in itself. Vulgar destroys credibility, whereas sexy can still maintain credibility. It's a fine line to thread, indeed.

 

 

A smart Swedish music marketer once said about a band that was rehearsing and a guy was shooting photos of: "Tell the girls to look 'innocently horny'". http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif And I think he nailed it right there... the ideal girl is the lust-hungry virgin that just discovered she wants a man 30 seconds before she laid eyes on YOU. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

 

/Z

[strat0124]

"She's my little T&A......"

[Steve LeBlanc]

OK, that makes more sense Zap http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif