Highly produced vs. minimally produced.

Straight, or Produced??

  • Straight recording, little production. More like a good photograph.

  • Highly produced. Arguably more like a painting.

Results are only viewable after voting.
sunvalleylaw

sunvalleylaw

Yep.
The Soundbreaking series made me think about more highly produced music (I will admit I learned some things during the episode on production) vs. less produced.

Less produced being for the purposes of this conversation as recording well a live or studio performance by a band with good mix and balance, much like a very good and deep photograph. (Soundbreaking said that last part).

More highly produced can include, but is not limited to, any of: a whole lot of multi-tracking, sound effects, changes in speed of the recorded sound, added synthesized instruments, etc. They are often hard to reproduce live. More like a painting of sound was how Soundbreaking put it.

An easy example might me the early 60's Beatles on one hand, and Sgt. Pepper on the other hand.

Which do you prefer? You have to pick one.

Which one, if you are flipping through the channels are you going to leave on? The well recorded live or studio performance? Or the more highly produced music? You can give your reasoning for your choice.

I, though I like both, and enjoy some crazy production, am much more likely to pick the well recorded performance with little production. Be it a rock band, or a late 50's to early 60's jazz group, I want to hear the live stuff more often. I tend to feel the emotion more that way. Not that I never feel emotion through a produced piece. But it seems to click with me less.
 
Whatever fits.

I love tons of music from each end of the spectrum to everything in-between.

But most of what I listen to is "live in the studio".
 
Flamencology said:
Whatever fits.

I love tons of music from one end of the spectrum to everything in-between.

But most of what I listen to is "live in the studio".
Click to expand...
Of course that is the ultimate answer to your choice, and somewhat is similar to mine, but you have to pick one. It is an artificial poll thing. I take it from what you mostly listen to, that you pick minimally produced.
 
apples.....oranges. each band requires different things.

queen.....rush....yes......produced thru the roof.

james gang....mountain.....free.....practically recorded live.

different things.
 
My aesthetic preference is for music to sound like a band in a room, and I listen to a lot of live recordings for this reason. I don't mind if you add overdubs or effects to studio recordings, but the core vibe has to be of a band playing the songs. Like Who's Next or Moving Pictures- both heavily produced albums for their day, but in the end they sound like bands playing music, not something spit out of a computer.
 
mongooz said:
apples.....oranges. each band requires different things.

queen.....rush....yes......produced thru the roof.

james gang....mountain.....free.....practically recorded live.

different things.
Click to expand...
yah, yah. But it is a simple question. You have to pick one. We just did this in November, and I hope we pick better this time. :wink:
 
well i can not make a decision

i love Boston.....probably the most 'produced' band in rock history.

i also love SRV.....plugs in and goes....that's it.
 
I bet most albums from the 70's on are a lot more produced than people know, or in many cases - the artist would lead you to believe.
 
Honestly, I don't care if the content (songs, performances, ideas) is good/interesting. I like stuff in both camps.

I hate shitty/dumb/cheesy stuff.
 
If by over produced, you mean compressed until it sound like dog shit, despite costing a zillion dollars to record, I'll take the minimal route. I can listen to a good bootleg, or just a band recorded in a single room all at once & enjoy it. I do love the "painting" approach though, when it's done well. Sometimes all it takes to make something that can't be pulled off live, into something that can, is a change to the arrangement- instrumentation & structure.

An example of something like that off the top of my head would be Jeff Becks "Blast from the East". When those harmonies kick in, it sounds so great. He can't create that live, exactly in that arrangement, but all he'd have to do to make it doable is use a looper, & add one harmony at a time. Other times it may be better to change the instrumentation itself during composition, then find the right players when needed.

In fact, Jeff Beck kind of exists in both camps, for the past 20 years or so, anyways. Basically very direct, improvised. Fingers->strings->amp->record. Then someone like tony Hymas may take that & splatter it into something great that becomes a kind of hybrid of the two approaches. Although in "Blast from the East" , JB probably just thought it would sound interesting if he harmonized that part until there's 3 Jeff Becks playing. Perhaps it was a nod to Les Paul? Just an idea I thought of right now.:confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top