Jump to content

Your Ad Could Be Here

How You Produce Your Music


Recommended Posts

Hey

 

I was giving some feedback to Mahesh on his current production (in the member only Mix Critique board) and it reminded me about discussing the topic of how members approach production and to ask if they are missing a trick here.

 

To my mind, the easiest form of production is creatively fairly lazy. In essence it is when the production process is almost entirely focused on balancing the instruments and basic support of the melody via harmony and rhythm, so that each member of a band (or typical band set up)plays in their typical style. Creatively there are no real ideas there. I think of this as minimalist genre or as a literal interpretation.

 

Going beyond the minimalist genre approach is to view production as transformative as the songwriting process. Where production can interpret the song, add creative ideas that add or develop a concept for the song, or a concept for the band/brand or album. Such production is more challenging for the band. It tends to be less about showcasing of instruments because it focuses almost entirely on the needs of each song, or at least each song within the confines of the current band and their approach to music.

 

This second approach really splits into 2.

 

  1. Where the production is a slave to the brand aesthetic. The concept is band/brand driven. It’s really an evolution of the minimalist genre based production, but at least a concept is being applied.
  2. Where the production is primarily a slave to a song concept. This production can be relatively literal to completely off the wall. The real difference is that the needs of this recording of the song drive the production with the artist aesthetic or album aesthetic coming a close second.

 

If you look at a band like the Foo Fighters, most of their music is more about the first approach. Led Zeppelin were more about the minimalist/literal approach too, though both evolved towards a brand aesthetic approach where showcasing instrumentation was still an important feature. Both bands have elements that stepped into the brand anesthetic approach, but overall, whatever arrangement, it was more about bringing the instruments together, in a balanced way, and leaving room for solos. Very traditional hard rock. In truth, they probably use experimentation and concept, but they do so within a heavily restrained way.

 

Compare that with Pink Floyd, or Radio Head. Both bands were initially much more minimalist approach, but both evolved a consistent approach where the 2nd method of production became the driving force.

 

In modern times producers like Mark Ronson do apply a song concept, but it is still a slave to an overall style, commercialism and the band aesthetic. When Ronson’s and Salaam Remi’s tracks were added to Amy Winehouse’s album Back To Black, the songs were very genre driven, capturing a very specific brand aesthetic.

 

Meanwhile a producer like Finneas O’Connell produces music where the production is far more of a slave to the song followed by the band aesthetic. The only instrumentalist really being showcased is the singer, usually Billie Eillish. The result is much more lush productions, more creativity on show, more depth of emotion, more breadth of emotion too. Much more variety. Much stronger conceptually.

 

How do you view your approach to production? If you don’t give it much thought, take a minute and have a think about it. In your journey as a music producer, do you have a direction of travel, an intended destination?

 

Cheers

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Noob
6 hours ago, john said:

Hey

 

I was giving some feedback to Mahesh on his current production (in the member only Mix Critique board) and it reminded me about discussing the topic of how members approach production and to ask if they are missing a trick here.

 

To my mind, the easiest form of production is creatively fairly lazy. In essence it is when the production process is almost entirely focused on balancing the instruments and basic support of the melody via harmony and rhythm, so that each member of a band (or typical band set up)plays in their typical style. Creatively there are no real ideas there. I think of this as minimalist genre or as a literal interpretation.

 

Going beyond the minimalist genre approach is to view production as transformative as the songwriting process. Where production can interpret the song, add creative ideas that add or develop a concept for the song, or a concept for the band/brand or album. Such production is more challenging for the band. It tends to be less about showcasing of instruments because it focuses almost entirely on the needs of each song, or at least each song within the confines of the current band and their approach to music.

 

This second approach really splits into 2.

 

  1. Where the production is a slave to the brand aesthetic. The concept is band/brand driven. It’s really an evolution of the minimalist genre based production, but at least a concept is being applied.
  2. Where the production is primarily a slave to a song concept. This production can be relatively literal to completely off the wall. The real difference is that the needs of this recording of the song drive the production with the artist aesthetic or album aesthetic coming a close second.

 

If you look at a band like the Foo Fighters, most of their music is more about the first approach. Led Zeppelin were more about the minimalist/literal approach too, though both evolved towards a brand aesthetic approach where showcasing instrumentation was still an important feature. Both bands have elements that stepped into the brand anesthetic approach, but overall, whatever arrangement, it was more about bringing the instruments together, in a balanced way, and leaving room for solos. Very traditional hard rock. In truth, they probably use experimentation and concept, but they do so within a heavily restrained way.

 

Compare that with Pink Floyd, or Radio Head. Both bands were initially much more minimalist approach, but both evolved a consistent approach where the 2nd method of production became the driving force.

 

In modern times producers like Mark Ronson do apply a song concept, but it is still a slave to an overall style, commercialism and the band aesthetic. When Ronson’s and Salaam Remi’s tracks were added to Amy Winehouse’s album Back To Black, the songs were very genre driven, capturing a very specific brand aesthetic.

 

Meanwhile a producer like Finneas O’Connell produces music where the production is far more of a slave to the song followed by the band aesthetic. The only instrumentalist really being showcased is the singer, usually Billie Eillish. The result is much more lush productions, more creativity on show, more depth of emotion, more breadth of emotion too. Much more variety. Much stronger conceptually.

 

How do you view your approach to production? If you don’t give it much thought, take a minute and have a think about it. In your journey as a music producer, do you have a direction of travel, an intended destination?

 

Cheers

 

John

"Production" in the last 2 or 3 decades has a different definition than like, in the '70s.
Now, it all about making it slick, with added sounds/fx and perfect mixing.
In the 70's all the focus was on the performance of the musician and the perfect take on the 16 tracks available on the tapedeck.
Because musicians had to play better back then, we still enjoy that records, 50 years later, while music from this day and age and recorded with the computer, is just for the moment, and goes up in smoke afterwards...

When i am mixing something everytime you hit a knob on a vst, the sound might get slicker, but a bit of soul leaves the recording, haha

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be perfectly honest I'm not exactly sure how I would define my production style, or which 'category' it fits in. But yeah I'll give it a go. Maybe you could help me fill that void @john 👍

 

To make a long story short, my general approach to production is through complete customization of whatever the overarching narrative requires, as well as fitting in separate customization for the multilayered narratives that exist within the story, for the sake of keeping everything intact.

 

To simplify this concept:

The main narrative serves as the 'anchor', while the other narratives within serve as an extension/evolution/continuation of it. Some elements are designed to remain constant, setting certain 'tones' that will always represent the main narrative/theme, while other elements are focused on differentiating between the albums.

 

The same principle also applies to whichever genre, mix between genres, or 'shape' that the narrative takes. To put that in perspective, while there are specific genres that I lean towards, depending on the narrative, each album might focus on something different. "Shifting attention", as it were. This shift in approach could occur musically but also lyric wise, in some cases. There are many other delivery mechanisms i use, but that's a story for another time.

 

So lets move on to the music side of things.

 

Music production wise.. its a nightmare lol. You see, since I don't like using presets, I spend an ungodly amount of time engineering sound and fine tuning everything I can from the ground up. Instruments, amps, plugs, effects, augmentation, synthesis (etc etc), all custom made to fit the narrative's that represent each album. Creatively the pay off is fantastic but make no mistake: This approach is not for everyone. If its not necessary for you, I wouldn't recommend going down this route.

 

There's a lot more too it, but this is my approach to music production in a nutshell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, VoiceEx said:

To be perfectly honest I'm not exactly sure how I would define my production style, or which 'category' it fits in. But yeah I'll give it a go. Maybe you could help me fill that void @john 👍

 

To make a long story short, my general approach to production is through complete customization of whatever the overarching narrative requires, as well as fitting in separate customization for the multilayered narratives that exist within the story, for the sake of keeping everything intact.

 

To simplify this concept:

The main narrative serves as the 'anchor', while the other narratives within serve as an extension/evolution/continuation of it. Some elements are designed to remain constant, setting certain 'tones' that will always represent the main narrative/theme, while other elements are focused on differentiating between the albums.

 

The same principle also applies to whichever genre, mix between genres, or 'shape' that the narrative takes. To put that in perspective, while there are specific genres that I lean towards, depending on the narrative, each album might focus on something different. "Shifting attention", as it were. This shift in approach could occur musically but also lyric wise, in some cases. There are many other delivery mechanisms i use, but that's a story for another time.

 

So lets move on to the music side of things.

 

Music production wise.. its a nightmare lol. You see, since I don't like using presets, I spend an ungodly amount of time engineering sound and fine tuning everything I can from the ground up. Instruments, amps, plugs, effects, augmentation, synthesis (etc etc), all custom made to fit the narrative's that represent each album. Creatively the pay off is fantastic but make no mistake: This approach is not for everyone. If its not necessary for you, I wouldn't recommend going down this route.

 

There's a lot more too it, but this is my approach to music production in a nutshell.

 

I’d say this is pretty well similar to the song centric approach but blended with a larger narrative aesthetic where you pull in more character or broader story motifs. The narrative of the work drives the music production choices.

 

When it progresses on to video you can have a literal approach or you can also have an emotional or interpretative approach where the video can follow a fresh narrative that in some way parallels the original narrative, with similar emotions and transitions. I would guess in video you would be very literal, understandably, sticking to your overarching narratives.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, john said:

I’d say this is pretty well similar to the song centric approach but blended with a larger narrative aesthetic where you pull in more character or broader story motifs. The narrative of the work drives the music production choices.

 

Yeah that's a brilliant way to put it. So.. 2.1? 😅

 

8 hours ago, john said:

When it progresses on to video you can have a literal approach or you can also have an emotional or interpretative approach where the video can follow a fresh narrative that in some way parallels the original narrative, with similar emotions and transitions. I would guess in video you would be very literal, understandably, sticking to your overarching narratives.

 

There's still much I haven't explained about the narrative. Some of its visual aspects would be tricky to release. But as a whole you're absolutely right. Video is a natural progression. In fact, if I were to combine all the content the albums are based on, there would be enough to make an actual film or short mini series. I'm not kidding lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VoiceEx said:

In fact, if I were to combine all the content the albums are based on, there would be enough to make an actual film or short mini series. I'm not kidding lol.

 

Sounds like a great ambition!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, john said:

Sounds like a great ambition!

 

Hypothetically, yes. However, such an ambition comes at a price, and there is also such a thing as being too ambitious. Even if I were to put the financial aspects aside, let alone, the enormous amount of work involved, between all the things I'm already doing, producing a film or mini series alongside everything else, would completely take over my life for at least 5-10 years. Possibly even more. Which is the last thing I need.

 

Its like saying: When someone dedicates their entire lives to building an empire, how much time do they have left to enjoy it? Do they even get to enjoy it at all, or has maintaining the empire become what defines their existence?

 

I'm no emperor man. Besides. Only fools step up that hamster wheel when they don't need too.

Edited by VoiceEx
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experiences from the past put me in a band mindset, even though I work 100% in the box these days. I used to record classical groups as an engineer and did absolute minimal processing. I also played in bands with traditional set ups. I'm trying to write more electronic but I am finding it hard to adapt. So basically I'm a #1 but I want to be a #2.2. 

 

I find that writing and producing 100% in the box also blurs the line between tracking and mixing. It's basically just all producing now and I mix as I write. I'm often only a few instruments in before I add a mastering chain, typically Ozone. 

 

Am I missing anything?  Yes, I'm a long way from where I'd like to be. I don't feel as though it's so much learning techniques though - it's more developing my own style and learning a vocabulary for a style I haven't really absorbed myself in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Editors

Hey John,

 

Great topic! My production approach has definitely evolved over time. In the past, I used to write songs in a more traditional way—just me, my vocals, and a guitar. The production would always revolve around that one-plus-one performance of the voice and the primary instrument. It was all about preserving the raw essence of the song, which was created from that intimate connection between the vocal and guitar.

 

But during the pandemic, I experimented with something new. I started working on these small musical projects I called “tiny tunes,” where I’d take small sounds and build a song from them. This opened me up to a different way of using a DAW and sparked ideas around using different sound layers in creative ways within arrangement.

 

Now, while working on my current EP, I think my approach has become a mix of both. I still start with the core of the song, but as I build on it, I add a lot of sounds and instruments I think would work well. I intentionally tend to over-develop the track at first to explore the kind of sounds that can work and then go through the process of stripping things away. It’s a bit like sculpting the arrangement—cutting things down until the essential parts remain, while also making sure the song has enough variety to keep it interesting.

 

So, it’s a blend of my older, simpler approach and the more complex layering and arranging I’ve been experimenting with over the last few years. That’s where I’m at now!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2024 at 2:47 PM, MisterB said:

Yes, I'm a long way from where I'd like to be. I don't feel as though it's so much learning techniques though - it's more developing my own style and learning a vocabulary for a style I haven't really absorbed myself in.

 

For me, the earliest steps along this journey are to be able to articulate it and keep articulating it. Tools and results do help, of course, but everything revolves around your brain. It digests tool features and results from experiments and actual mixes. It decides where you are going. So, you should articulate and keep articulating your ideas, and how they change through time. That way, I think you end up with better direction and clarity of purpose. That encourages you to make better, faster decisions.

 

This does not mean you should not take advantage of luck, good fortune or happenstance. When something unexpectedly brilliant happens, why would you not take advantage of that? Sometimes even though the resulting changes  to your future works are huge!

 

Learning vocabulary also works best when you regularly articulate… even in purely musical or technical terms. Of course that also provides an opportunity to get feedback, discuss concepts and carry people along with you as cheerleaders/fans or fellow enthusiasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I supposed I would define "production" as how the recording of a song sounds, which in turn is comprised of both the mix and the arrangement, and I think, for my own work at least, I pretty much approach mixing and arranging together as inexorably intertwined with each other.   Upon reflection, I also think I'm of that mindset that the mix and arrangement serves the song.  But at the same time, for me "the song" is in large part determined by how the mix and arrangement sound to me.  So much so that titles and lyrics for many of my songs are initially directly inspired by something in the sound of a mix/arrangement I'm working on.   So . . . I'm not sure how my "approach" to production is best classified.  What I am sure of though is that I don't just want my songs to sound "good."  I also want something in how they sound to leave me thinking - "that's cool."  If my recording of a song can do both for me, then I'm essentially satisfied . . . at least until I might decide later that I'm not.  :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Your Ad Could Be Here



  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $1,040
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By continuing to use our site you indicate acceptance of our Terms Of Service: Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy: Privacy Policy, our Community Guidelines: Guidelines and our use of Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.