{"id":1851,"date":"2012-06-18T00:10:11","date_gmt":"2012-06-17T23:10:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/arpjournal.com\/?p=1851"},"modified":"2012-06-18T00:05:16","modified_gmt":"2012-06-17T23:05:16","slug":"the-record-producer-as-nexus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/the-record-producer-as-nexus\/","title":{"rendered":"The Record Producer As Nexus"},"content":{"rendered":"

1. Introduction<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In this paper I propose the concept of the record producer as a \u201cnexus\u201d between the creative inspiration of the artist, the technology of the recording studio, and the commercial aspirations of the record company. In much of the published discussion of the producer\u2019s role the term \u201cmediator\u201d is preferred, however, I argue that this term describes a technical process of transfer between media, such as from a performance to a recording as mediated by the microphones, the mixer and the recording medium. Tom Porcello says, \u201cbecause microphones do not \u2018hear\u2019 in the same way as ears, the sound engineer must \u2026 mediate between the interpretive and performance habits of the conductor and the musicians on one hand, and the acoustic properties of the microphones and the (psycho)acoustics of the ear on the other\u201d (2005). Fikentscher defines mediated music as \u201cmusical sounds being reproduced independent of the conditions of its initial production\u201d, and differentiates this from musical immediacy, or \u2018live\u2019 (2000: 15).\u00a0 Albin Zak III uses the term mediation talking about techniques of manipulation of sound through such practices as multi-band compression\u2014these are engineering techniques that are part of the producer\u2019s armoury, and have a significant effect on the outcome of the production (2001). However, the roles a producer performs are many and I list below the key functions, but the essential role I argue is creative and involves choices \u2013 from the choice of microphone and \u201cmediation\u201d techniques to performance evaluation, mix balance and time and resource allocation. This is not simply \u201cmediation\u201d but an act of creative interaction with all the factors affecting the resulting production. The art of record production is practiced through the function of a nexus.<\/p>\n

The term \u2018nexus\u2019 is used here according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1983) definition: a bond or link; a means of connection; and, as a causal noun, the<\/em> necessary connection between cause and effect <\/em>[my emphasis]. The record producer acts as a means of connection between the artist, the technology and the commercial interest. However, the connection is not a wholly transparent one\u2014the personality and skills of the producer will shape and tone the outcome, as a colour transparency affects the light passing through it. Whether by directing the timbres and textural qualities of the recording through engineering processes; by structuring and arranging these qualities through musical direction; or simply by inspiring, enthusing, facilitating, the producer is engaged to direct the process and shapes the outcome by his or her presence. It can be argued that a producer is not necessary in this process, but the act of recording is not a passive fait accompli<\/em>. Choices are made at many stages in the process: what studio to record in, which engineer, which microphone and where to place it? All of these decisions affect the character of the outcome. Critical to the outcome is the selection of performance. From the backing track to instrumental solos and embellishments, to particular lines of the vocal, each detail requires a process of critical evaluation<\/em>. Whenever this function of critical arbiter is performed the role of the producer is inherent.<\/p>\n

Sometimes it is the engineer or the artists themselves who take on this role. In a sense the record producer can be understood as simply a function<\/em>, a hat of office, but the role also requires engaging with the commercial interests. As well as linking the musical idea and the recording technology, a producer must address the expectations of the record company\u2014the third factor in this process. The record company underwrites the enterprise and, more significantly, delivers the outcome to market. The reason the processes described above are even taking place is because someone in the record company (usually the A&R person) thinks that the idea\u2014the song performed by that artist\u2014has qualities that can appeal to a wider audience. The producer is also addressing those aspirations, whose expectations impinge on choices made in the creative process. The role is specific, and palpable. By positioning this role as a nexus, this work aims to provide a clarification of the record producer\u2019s function.<\/p>\n

There are three fields of interface that encompass that role: the artist, including the song as creative object and its performance; the engineer, as agent of technological mediation in the realisation of the creative object as sonic artifact; and the business, usually the record company, as financial facilitator, encompassing contractual arrangements and the extent to which marketing and promotional concerns impinge on function. Record companies place financial constraints that are a major influence on the choice of studio and other budgetary considerations, such as travel, accommodation and time. There is also a clear and explicit expectation that the producer will present an outcome that will satisfy commercial aspirations, and this constitutes a form of pressure that affects some of the creative decisions a producer makes.<\/p>\n

Put at its simplest, the producer\u2019s task is to produce a satisfactory outcome<\/em>. The definition of a satisfactory outcome varies considerably according to the aims and aspirations of all the involved parties. These aims can be simply to achieve a commercially viable result, or, at the other end of the spectrum, an artistically satisfactory finished article. The ideal outcome will satisfy both aspirations: commercial and<\/em> critical success. The ways these outcomes are achieved vary widely from producer to producer. For this reason a consideration of the role as nexus is the most universally satisfactory approach.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the best-known attempt at explaining the role of producer is found in Richard Burgess\u2019 informative and entertaining book, The Art of Music Production1<\/sup><\/em>(2002). Burgess presents four different categories of producer: The All-Singing -All-Dancing-King-of-the-Heap; The Faithful Sidekick; The Collaborator; and Merlin the Magician. Although whimsical, these descriptions go some way towards an understanding of the varied and, at times, wildly different modus operandi<\/em> of record producers. The limitations of Burgess\u2019 categories are that they both overlap and under-represent: where does the engineer, for example, fit in this scenario? The Collaborator, perhaps, or Faithful Sidekick, as Burgess proposes? That would depend on the particular individual and the relationship. Perhaps his most satisfying definition occurs in the introduction: \u201cI\u2019ve always considered the record producer\u2019s role to be like that of a blank square in Scrabble\u2026the producer needs to become (or be able to supply) whatever is necessary to make a successful record\u201d (2002:v).<\/p>\n

Other attempts at definition tend to consist of quotes from various producers explaining their approach. Burgess (2002: 81-82) quotes Bruce Fairbairn2<\/sup>:\u00a0\u201cI like to be perceived as someone who facilitates the creative process\u201d; and Andy Jackson3<\/sup>, who describes the producer as \u201cacting as a therapist in some way\u2026helping the artist to zero in on what they really want to do, rather than what they imagine they want to do\u201d (ibid: 52). The roles described here\u2014facilitator and therapist\u2014can certainly be required sometimes, though not in all cases. George Martin is quoted by Burgess (ibid: v) saying: \u201cA record producer is responsible for the sound \u2018shape\u2019 of what comes out\u2026he\u2019s the designer\u2026 he stages the show and presents it to the world. It\u2019s his taste that makes it what it is\u2014good or bad\u201d. This role can best be described as creative director and sound designer. Martin elsewhere (1979: 76) talks of the producer\u2019s \u201cpalette of musical colours\u201d, and \u201cpainting pictures in sound\u201d (Larry 1999: 60), though his principle skill was in arrangement. Geoff Emerick (in Massey 2000: 84), George Martin\u2019s engineer and later a producer in his own right, uses the visual metaphor too, saying, \u201cI\u2019ve always described the job as painting a picture with sound; I think of microphones as lenses\u201d. Arif Mardin4<\/sup> also adopts the film metaphor, saying, \u201cFor me, a record is almost like a minifilm\u2014you have to evoke imagery\u201d (ibid: 39). The use of visual imagery to describe sound occurs in many accounts by producers, which may seem to be an oxymoron, but I too have found it helpful to form a mental image of the finished work before the production is completed. By this process ideas for the sound character of a particular instrument arise and can inform choices. Visualisation is a well-known method in many areas of creative endeavour and is clearly a common device in record production, supporting the case for record production as an art.<\/p>\n

Another theme found in many producers\u2019 accounts is that of an almost mystical or spiritual mediator. Sam Phillips5<\/sup> believed his \u201cgreatest contribution\u2026was to open up an area of freedom within the artist himself, to help him to express what he<\/em> believed his message to be\u201d (in Guralnick 1989: 330). Jim Dickinson6<\/sup> speaks of the music\u2019s \u201csoul\u2026that\u2019s what you\u2019re trying to capture\u201d (in Clark: 1992).<\/p>\n

From these observations, and my own experience, the various roles a producer undertakes can be listed as follows:<\/p>\n