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.
I'm confused here. AFAIK (and I know some producers with platinum records), "production" doesn't equal # of tracks, # of effects, or # of parts to an arrangement. Those would be choices in mixing and engineering as well as part of 'production.'

I know of some famous 'minimal' recordings that have seen so much post-production that I can barely think of them as related to the source material / original takes. And I know of some recordings that 'sound huge' where artists did basically just 'plug in and go,' capturing a very organic (but perhaps effects-laden and complex arrangement) performance.

Are we asking if we "like compression" or not? Cuz I think we argued over this in the late 90's.
Or "do we like simple song arrangements?"
Or 'we think Steve Albini was right?' (he's never right, btw)

Because even 'minimal' production is, in fact, a sequence of choices aimed at maximizing sonic impact, which is what production is.
 
Danhedonia said:
I'm confused here. AFAIK (and I know some producers with platinum records), "production" doesn't equal # of tracks, # of effects, or # of parts to an arrangement. Those would be choices in mixing and engineering as well as part of 'production.'

I know of some famous 'minimal' recordings that have seen so much post-production that I can barely think of them as related to the source material / original takes. And I know of some recordings that 'sound huge' where artists did basically just 'plug in and go,' capturing a very organic (but perhaps effects-laden and complex arrangement) performance.

Are we asking if we "like compression" or not? Cuz I think we argued over this in the late 90's.
Or "do we like simple song arrangements?"
Or 'we think Steve Albini was right?' (he's never right, btw)

Because even 'minimal' production is, in fact, a sequence of choices aimed at maximizing sonic impact, which is what production is.
Click to expand...

You're largely correct, of course.

We're using flawed language that we all kinda agree on to some extent for the sake of having debate and argument.

For me, it's about being as close to "live in the studio, in real-time, everyone in the same room, no effects from the sound booth."

That limits things to what kinds of mics are where to put them. And there are engineers who are absolutely brilliant at that, and who can capture the smallest details and who can capture some sense of space.

I understand that there are examples where that's illusory, due to some brilliant editing work - I'm thinking of Glenn Gould's solo piano recordings, or of Miles Davis's late-60s-to-mid-70s run.
 
What was the Foo Fighters album that came out a few years ago that they did entirely live in the studio in one take? That would be an example of minimal wouldn't it? Or was there a ton of post-performance production on it?
 
Jbird said:
What was the Foo Fighters album that came out a few years ago that they did entirely live in the studio in one take? That would be an example of minimal wouldn't it? Or was there a ton of post-performance production on it?
Click to expand...

Wasting Light?

It was supposedly done all analog in Grhol's garage. But one take it was not.
 
sonik said:
Wasting Light?

It was supposedly done all analog in Grhol's garage. But one take it was not.
Click to expand...
Ah, I thought it was done all in one take. My bad, if I'm incorrect on that. I thought they had a video up on youtube of the 'one take', and that performance was what was on the album?

Or am I mis-remembering?
 
Jbird said:
Ah, I thought it was done all in one take. My bad, if I'm incorrect on that. I thought they had a video up on youtube of the 'one take', and that performance was what was on the album?

Or am I mis-remembering?
Click to expand...

Radiohead live-streamed performances of In Rainbows and The King of Limbs and made them available as albums: From the Basement.
 
Jbird said:
Ah, I thought it was done all in one take. My bad, if I'm incorrect on that. I thought they had a video up on youtube of the 'one take', and that performance was what was on the album?

Or am I mis-remembering?
Click to expand...

I thought the vocals were overdubs. But it's possible some songs were 100% live takes.
 
So, before I answer the OP can we define "produced"?
When I say something is produced a certain way, I dont use it to refer to how many overdubs etc. there are. I consider that to be a part of the engineering aspect of the recording.
The production of it is all after the actual recording portion is complete. It is the the job of the producer to "produce" a polished radio ready final product via adding the required effects and mastering the recording....
So to me for example, something like Ted Nugent is minimally produced regardless of the number of tracks/overdubs used where Def Leppard is highly produced more so because each and every effect is polished to perfection.
Obviously "polished to perfection" is subject to interpretation but I think everyone gets what I mean.
 
Minimally produced in this context means recording and capturing very well essentially a live performance, whether in the studio or at a show. Akin to a good photograph.

Highly produced means adding effects, multiple tracks and etc as originally set forth in the original post so as to more paint a picture than capturing a good recording.

These definitions came more or less from the soundbreaking episode on production.
 
Last edited:
Gotcha....now that you mention it, I remember the thread on that program but I haven't watched it.
 
Last edited:
Jbird said:
What was the Foo Fighters album that came out a few years ago that they did entirely live in the studio in one take? That would be an example of minimal wouldn't it? Or was there a ton of post-performance production on it?
Click to expand...
I would add that in today's recording world, with of course some notable exceptions almost nobody records "in the same room" together anymore. So I would submit that in that reguard we would need to change the definition above that Flamencology had presented (#62)
 
Danhedonia said:
Or 'we think Steve Albini was right?' (he's never right, btw)
Click to expand...

Albini is often right, but not always. I read an interview with him in Musician magazine in 1993 or so that totally changed my world. I learned about ribbon mics, and alternatives to shoving an SM57 in the grill of an amp at a 45 degree angle. He was also right that digital mediums are temporary, and that any music you want to archive long term needed to either be recorded analog, or religiously backed up regularly. I have friends who wanted to digitally release their '90s catalogs, and couldn't use their ADAT and DA88 masters to remix anything, or the original mixdown DATs.

I don't agree with his hatred of compression or a lot of his aesthetic choices (how he continues to get work after Walking Into Clarksdale astounds me, but I think In Utero is easily the best sounding Nirvana record), but he has a lot of useful things to say.
 
Bless you, Beyer - Steve Albini is indeed very knowledgeable. I just loathe his personality, particularly the parts where he mistakes his opinions for holy facts. I agree with your opinions of his work, although I have a lot of familiarity with Nirvana and believe that Nevermind sounds amazing, and was perhaps mixed/mastered poorly. It sure was engineered phenomenally well.

I guess I like talking about this stuff because, to me, every single part of a recording involves decision-making, and that is how I see 'production.' As an example, Johnny Cash's "American Recordings" albums are often pretty sparse, with direct arrangements. But those are very produced, in their way, by Rick Rubin. Who has a reputation (earned or not, no idea) for not knowing his way around a mixing board.

We could look at the Beatles' early material, which had few takes and very straightforward arrangements, but was done at Abbey Road by guys who had tremendous training in engineering.

I love reflecting on the choices that went into creating albums - think of the Who's 70's catalog; what on earth prompted all of those synths? Whose idea was the violin on "Baba O'Riley?" And of course there's that YouTube footage of Entwhistle / Moon doing their takes, and the studio vibe seems so dark, lonely, dissipated and dreary. And yet - YET! - what performances.

For me, the studio is magic. A cathedral of music.

When I was fortunate enough to have proximity to those with talent, I was able to be present (in the room) for the takes of some of my most-favorite music, ever. I am childless, but my feelings about those moments are akin to how people describe being present at the birth of their children. Life has come forth to the universe - behold: new music.

I look at production as being like the father of that music, the musicians/performers the mother. Each has a role, which started at conception and continues forward through a continuum of choices, of dynamics, inputs.

*******************************
As a sepearate remark, I agree that however you define 'production,' Def Leppard surely had a lot of it. But strangely, I also saw them (a bunch, cough) prior to the years of ultra-processing and tapes, and they sounded great as a working live band.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top