Britney Spears' production has got me wondering...

[James Steele]

You know, I'm going to weigh in and I understand and support where FMiguelez is coming from. I think the question is just about production and I can generally separate that from the music itself and admire the skill that's involved in producing a highly-polished impressive production. For example, I may not like rap and hip-hop, but I know some of those cats are wicked good with a PT rig and they can do things I can't do. The fact that I might not *want* to do them is beside the point. And actually most techniques can be applied to other genres.

Yes, a large part of artist success belongs to the producers who can take the raw materials and put them together into something great and add their own genius to the mix. From what I understand, Madonna owes a lot of her continuing "hipness" to the fact that she keeps an ear to the ground as to who the cool, underground talent is and co-ops them into her albums. She can buy her street cred.

So I have as much admiration for the guy or gal who sits behind the DAW for long hours after the big name talent is whisked off to a photo shoot for a magzine cover, as I do for said big name talent. Years ago I got to watch one of round table discussions at NAMM and one of the producers was bemoaning the fact that the "stars" these days are so busy with their schedules (selling clothing, jewelry, perfume, appearances, interviews, etc) that they don't get much of their time when recording. They are often forced to do the best they can with the performances they get. He contrasted that to the movie business. For example, if Tom Cruise is making a movie, for the duration of the shoot, he's there in the trailer available for the director and if a scene needs to be re-shot, or if the director wants multiple takes, he gets them. Apparently, not the same with some of the big name talent in the age of DAWs when so many things can be fixed.

But back to the point, I can listen to Britney Spears and admire the production value and the catchiness and intelligence behind the arrangement of her songs. There's some smart people working on those albums and I admire what they're doing.

Finally, yes, you can't "polish a turd," but on the other hand it is possible to "dull a gem" and not present a song in its best light. I've attended those industry seminars and it was always a bit of urban lore to say that "production doesn't matter" an that so-and-so sold a song with a badly recorded cassette of just vocal and guitar. I'm sure that happens. But I've watched these same industry types that claim production doesn't matter, be swayed by the quality of the recording. By no means am I saying good production will save a bad song... but bad production can be an annoyance and distraction to someone who may give you 10 seconds to draw them in before moving on. There's also less tolerance for poor production these days given the quality of the tools that are within reach of most people. Granted the skill to use them effectively is the hard part.

In my own music, I've started out with what I feel is a good song, and during the recording process discovered the need for changes in arrangement and instrumentation and added elements and really POLISHED what was "good" to the point that friends who heard the "demo" will say "Wow! It was just okay before... but what did you do?" Well, what I did was polish it, record it as well as I could, and throughout the process really disect a song and add the right spice... and it becomes a whole new animal.

[FMiguelez]

But back to the point, I can listen to Britney Spears and admire the production value and the catchiness and intelligence behind the arrangement of her songs. There's some smart people working on those albums and I admire what they're doing.

Exactly. She got some serios tallent working with her in that album. I can appreciate the level of skill at the various stages of the production.
I had to actually DRAG my assistant to my chair so he would forget his bias and just listen to it for what it is. Now he loves it. But liking it or not liking it is kind of beside the point. Wether someone likes it or not does not negate that there is a lot of great production value, skill and tallent here. I can see myself learning a lot about this and then apply it to my own music and my own style.


Tripi:

Thanks for the BT tip, man. I'm diggin' it

I didn't know he did the soundtrack for Stealth. So this guy can not only make some great electronic music, but also actually compose orchestral music, uh? I LOVE the marriage of the 2, using traditional instruments to the best of their potential, combined with the raw and full power of electronic stuff. Like what Don Davis and Juno Reactor did together. I totally LOVED that.

[Shooshie]

James, along the same lines as what you are saying: you cannot expect people to see your dream. What you play for them is what they hear. If you say "well... I need to add this or that to it, it's not really finished, but you can see where I'm going," then you've made the mistake of believing that someone can see your dream. They can't. They can NOT see where you are going. Only you can see that. And it takes sophisticated processing equipment to get there, nowadays. The production is part of the song these days, and there's no two ways about that. You can play Willie Nelson and sit on a stool with a single mic and record your cowboy song with one take on one track, but the guy who does it with more sophisticated production techniques will sound better. Period. I don't buy into this junk about not needing good equipment if you have a good song. The ones you hear about are the exceptions, not the rule.

Shooshie

[FMiguelez]

That's fantastic -- I am so happy for her . . . I would love to see him perform!

She has great taste in music, and I think in boyfriends too!

Sometimes she'd DEFINITELY disagree with the latter

She loved the concert, particularly the way he reached out to the audience, like being old friends. She even cried

So you seem to like some spanish-sung music, uh? She has all those albums you mentioned. Am I crazy, or I remember correctly that you have someone in your family (brother-in-law??) that is from Central-south America??

[FMiguelez]

You can play Willie Nelson and sit on a stool with a single mic and record your cowboy song with one take on one track, but the guy who does it with more sophisticated production techniques will sound better. Period. I don't buy into this junk about not needing good equipment if you have a good song. The ones you hear about are the exceptions, not the rule.

Agreed. A great song with bad equipment/production value would not do the song any justice at all. It would reach only a small part of it's potential, and It would lack SO MUCH. The contrary is not as brutal. I'm sure a great producer can make even a bad song sound good, at least reasonably good. At least the production part of it. Hey, just turn on the radio... there's a lot of the latter going on... At least down here

Ok, before someone rubs it on my face, the latter would probably be Britney for some of you, huh? . Dtobocman?

[larryf]

I really appreciate this thread. I've been thinking the same thing as FM, for years. There's production stuff going on in some pop music (and hip hop) that is just mind-blowingly creative, even if one doesn't like the genre, which I definitely don't. When I heard Madonna's "Hung Up", it had a similar impact on me as some of the recent Britney Spears tracks. I thought holy cr*p, that is masterpiece even though it's not my thing. I must've listened to it a dozen times trying to figure out what is going on in that piece, and finally realized I was never going to pick out the delay or compressor trick, because there isn't a trick or a bag of tricks - it's a total professional sheen that would take a lifetime to grasp, and might not actually be graspable. Some of the songs and singing on modern Madonna/Britney type music are so incredibly mediocre and boring compared to the total production and what the engineers squeeze out of it. It's both an inspiration and a demotivator at the same time. Like, there's so much to learn, and yet it can't really be learned, and yet it's worth trying, but the trying isn't going to yield today's commercial sound, and so on.

On the other hand, I just downloaded Zep's Mothership album on iTunes for $15. Four guys, great songwriting, great musicianship, bunch of stompboxes and other primitive analog tools...best music I've listened to in a decade or more. Good songwriting still counts.

[Shooshie]

IOn the other hand, I just downloaded Zep's Mothership album on iTunes for $15. Four guys, great songwriting, great musicianship, bunch of stompboxes and other primitive analog tools...best music I've listened to in a decade or more. Good songwriting still counts.

Yep. I'll always love the original Beatles mixes. But I must say that they sound thin and ragged these days. I just remember that was what I loved at the time, and it all falls in place.

Then there's Chicago. I loved that in high school. Now it sounds compressed out the bejezuz... I remember nearly having a fight with the drummer in our band, because he wouldn't play "tight" like Danny Seraphine in Chicago. I was in high school, and I didn't know that Danny's sound came from the weight of 10,000 tons of compression on those high hats and kicks. It was new then, and sounded so good. Joey... if you're out there, I apologize. I was young and stupid.

Shooshie

[robstudio]

Hi all, I haven't heard Britney's track (I guess I'll have to now, thanks FM...) Larry good mention on Madonna... William Orbit / Frozen album did some wild stuff... I've been heavily into Radiohead recently... they took some flack for their electronica on Kid A / Amnesiac .... I personally love both albums.... anyone with a recommendation or 2 along those lines, darker, scary electro??? Thanks!
Regards, Rob

[FMiguelez]

Hi all, I haven't heard Britney's track (I guess I'll have to now, thanks FM...)

Sorry about that, Rob
Nah, you'll probably enjoy it. Just listen to it for what it is, and not for what it's not. Really, I never really paid attention to this kind of music, but the production/creativity of these tracks kind of blew me away. There's just so much stuff going on, so many effects, so many techniques that I have NO idea how they achieved them.

I think these producers/arrangers are to this kind of music what amazing orchestrators are to symphonic music. Totally unrealated, but I'm talking about skill and creativity level. It's like their sound pallete is not called voicings, or instrument blending, or harmony, but more like creative use of compressors, delays, filters, and who knows what else.

I thought holy cr*p, that is masterpiece even though it's not my thing.

That was exactly my first impression as well
Except that NOW I want to make it part of my thing. Also I'm diggin' BT's stuff (thanks Tripi )

[FMiguelez]

I must've listened to it a dozen times trying to figure out what is going on in that piece, and finally realized I was never going to pick out the delay or compressor trick, because there isn't a trick or a bag of tricks - it's a total professional sheen that would take a lifetime to grasp, and might not actually be graspable. Some of the songs and singing on modern Madonna/Britney type music are so incredibly mediocre and boring compared to the total production and what the engineers squeeze out of it. It's both an inspiration and a demotivator at the same time. Like, there's so much to learn, and yet it can't really be learned, and yet it's worth trying, but the trying isn't going to yield today's commercial sound, and so on.

I couldn't agree with you more, man. I think what makes this songs SONGS is the production. Take the "Operator" song. Take every production value out of it, and what do you have left? I childish phrase, hummable at best. Now put it all back together, and now it sounds like something interesting.
By the way, the last part of that song got my attention by that "da da da" sound. I thought it came out of the JV 2080, but it's like it's been layerd with Britney's voice somehow.. What I appreciated the most is that they actually feature that sound in the song, where as I always used it only as a temporary hold playing the melody of a song to be IMMEDIATELY replaced by the singer. I just used it to show the singer the melody, and never thought much of it. Acutally I always made me long for the singer to replace it, an now I hear it in a track in a very creative way. I don't necesarily LIKE it, but the concept was cool...
Or maybe they just sampled her and twisted her voice into that??

Man, I would LOVE to have a chat with one of these producers.

[Billyrock]

Excellent topic and questions..... i think Brittany's record sound brilliant (not withsatnding stylistic prejucdices). Her songs are sonic masterpieces...."Slave" for instance.. there is alot to be learned by studying and analyzing the techniques used to make these records sound so good. I want to know how to use them to make my recordings better too.
please tell me how to sidechain basss to kick so when i mix my band's latest track i can make the low end as clear and virile.
great post
thanx
billyrock

[MegaDPuser]

on a practcal level, all this "Production IS the music" trend has me thnking of large ramifications for natve processing. Today, most of us track an instrument, record, then add effects and processing later fter raising buffers and so on. That methodology ain't going to fly in a world where the engineerinig itself is the song, tune, and hook. Future producers will need to apply 1/2 dozen CPU-draining effects to every track and be able to record against those process-soaked tracks. No computer tody has the capacity to complete a full piece using that method. Listen to the Britney track and try to imagine layng down vocals, melody, harmony, arrangement in an absense of all the engineering that will come later. It won't work that way any more. Tracking will itself be wrapped into the production proceses, with full effects, mixesd. This implies much, much stronger native systems than exist today. Put simply, anybody who wants to make a Britney-level piece, in terms of the engeineering and production, would need a computer that today probably doesn't exist. I beoieve this is truly the future, as the market for five dudes standing in a basement with a few mikes and hamming into a recorder is zero.. Today it's all about production and engineering, and that entails a different level of computing power.

[FMiguelez]

...Today it's all about production and engineering, and that entails a different level of computing power.

Great points. And also, it will entail mastery of these techniques, a whole new skill set (at least to me).

I wanna be there

Now, your post has got me thinking... How do you think these Britney producers think of the whole song-writing process? I doubt they sit in a room strumming a guitar. I would guess they somehow incorporate and embedd these sounds right into the composition/arranging stages, right? It's as if they envision and dream up the finished product from the beginning, and they just work towards that sound they already have in their heads.

I'd serioulsy doubt they have just regular tracks and then say, " Ok, now let's start messing with these sounds to see what we come up with".

It's like the Master Composers/Orchestrators. They just hear the whole thing in their minds (well, most of them). But they probably hear these processed sounds in their heads and just let them flow. Surely they don't need to worry about how to produce them afterwards. Obviously, they can tweak!!!

[FMiguelez]

.

Furthermore, you're right MegaDPuser. Take ALL the production away from these Britney tracks. What do you have left???? From the stand point of pure song-writing, I don't hear anything astoundingly brilliant.
Can you sing the melody for that song "Give me, Give me"???? Well, of course you can, but what I mean is that with out the whole arrangement/production, it is little more than a few repetitive notes. So it's almost as if the song-writing IS the production, like they are mixed and interwined together, and you can't separate one from the other any more than separating a brilliantly written more traditional melody.

To them, it seems, orchestrating is really comming up with these new sounds. That is their musical pallette, instead of more traditional instruments.

What do you think?

[Shooshie]

.

Furthermore, you're right MegaDPuser. Take ALL the production away from these Britney tracks. What do you have left???? From the stand point of pure song-writing, I don't hear anything astoundingly brilliant.
Can you sing the melody for that song "Give me, Give me"???? Well, of course you can, but what I mean is that with out the whole arrangement/production, it is little more than a few repetitive notes. So it's almost as if the song-writing IS the production, like they are mixed and interwined together, and you can't separate one from the other any more than separating a brilliantly written more traditional melody.

To them, it seems, orchestrating is really comming up with these new sounds. That is their musical pallette, instead of more traditional instruments.

What do you think?

The thing that impressed me the most about "Gimme, Gimme" aside from Britney's total bomb with it in that Las Vegas MTV thing (which was simultaneously a huge ad for the new -- mostly empty -- condos that have gone up there), was that Britney's part reminded me of a human being inside a giant walking machine -- the tiny soul of a huge mechanical device that renders that soul practically to complete insignificance. She didn't matter. They could have put MY voice in there, and the song would not change one bit. Nor would most people have noticed. So, you're right; the song is not written in a traditional sense. So, I'm wondering, how WAS it written? Who conceived of it? Did Britney provide the words "gimme, gimme" and let the producers design this monster musical mash around them? Did someone come up with a set of effects, to be named "Gimme.Effects" and then provided Britney with a printout of some words that fit inside the song?" Or did it evolve gradually? Did some Simon-Cowell-producer-type keep returning to the scene of the crime saying things like "boys, that still sucks big time. You're going to have to pump it up, animate it, compress it, dodge (sidechain) it, limit it, and provide some magical something to it, or nobody will ever buy it." Did it grow in layers? (that's my suspicion) Or did someone actually masterfully conceive of the finished product before a note was ever rendered to 1's and 0's?

The only way I can personally conceive of such a production is by simply returning to the beginning again and again, adding new layers of stuff each time, until it finally wouldn't hold any more; every inch of the available sonic space being completely filled up.

I disagree that it's more than our little computers can handle. I think it's just artfully created, and if we were looking over the shoulder of the engineer, we'd go "DOH! I coulda dunnit on my Mac!"

Shooshie