Jimmy Iovine- What Makes a Great Record Producer

dav nagle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o_GxNnplnY&feature=related

Just watched all his you tube vids, very good watch.

judas101

"Timberland, Akon, Dr. Dre"

I think most would disagree with you and Mr. Interscope about what makes a great producer.

For me, the idea of creating something new and original is more important than mass appeal, and given the nature of your business I can understand how you'd appreciate the above producers. Aiming more for the "getting paid" end of the market as Mr. Iovine was referring to.

I'd consider Nigel Godrich among the finest producers around.
It's an interesting topic, hopefully ther'll be some more discussion about it.

dav nagle

judas101 wrote: »

"Timberland, Akon, Dr. Dre"

I think most would disagree with you and Mr. Interscope about what makes a great producer.

For me, the idea of creating something new and original is more important than mass appeal, and given the nature of your business I can understand how you'd appreciate the above producers. Aiming more for the "getting paid" end of the market as Mr. Iovine was referring to.

I'd consider Nigel Godrich among the finest producers around.
It's an interesting topic, hopefully ther'll be some more discussion about it.

Something original?? Like those people who use tin cans and paper bags to make beats? Florence and the machine are on my playlist right now but regardless of how good they are they are nothing new with their massive attack cover.

shayleon

I'm with Judas on this. This is about the daftest video I have seen in a long time. I think a good producer is someone who can imagine what it should sound, and know how to get there. He'll know it will sound best with a certain type of guitar and amp etc. That does not exclude experimentation though.

MilanPan!c

The role of producers is often overstated.

Many bands record demos that sound almost exactly like the finished products.

Yea, knowing how to make something sound closer to an artists intent is certainly helpful, but that's certainly a different job than taking raw talent and forcing them into a mold.


In other words, different roles for differnt jobs and different Pproaches for different artists.

Plus, at the end of the day, a producer often does what the person who signs his check wants.

Blisterman

Depends on the Genre really. In most hip hop, the producer is basically the main song writer, in that he composes everything except the raps.

fitz

Producer's job is simple: get the best version of the song out of the band at the time of the recording. That's it.

studiorat

Guess it's difference between a record producer and a projooce-ah!

word...

PaulBrewer

judas101 wrote: »

I'd consider Nigel Godrich among the finest producers around.
It's an interesting topic, hopefully ther'll be some more discussion about it.

I've spoken before about Nigel Godrich's 'From the Basement' series on Sky Arts.

It really is a big ole Steak Dinner compared to the McMusic we get forced fed in general media.

PaulBrewer

dav nagle wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o_GxNnplnY&feature=related

Just watched all his you tube vids, very good watch.

I agree with him.


One of the things I find confusing is that most Music Professionals I know don't listen to music , or at least new music.

Good Music, like all art, is constantly changing, in fact 'change' is one of the only things one can predict about music.

So if you're not actively consciously, or even subconsciously, 'aware' of changes happening (as they always will) you can't make work that impacts 'on popular culture' as Jimmy suggests.

If all your music references are old, you can't expect 'new' people to relate to it.

The opposite is probably also true - a 'new' person not using or aware of some old musical and/or technical techniques is also probably at a loss.

But that is also the case with bands - the New Bands Meteor list is a case in point. Mostly a load of old rehashed uninspired tosh that any 'real' band, in my opinion, would run away from (thought that is, of course, a very personal opinion).

One musical example was the 'Pea Soup' hi-hat pattern, stolen by recent indie kids from the Disco era. You know the one hat opening on the 'and' of a four four bar and closing on the beat ?
If you were an 'in tune' indie kid/producer you'd know it's been a staple cliche for the last few years - perhaps you mightn't play it to, however slightly, differentiate yourself from your peers ?


Dre, Timbaland, Jay Z and Mike Skinner ( a personal favourite) et al make records that people want to hear and use techniques that are new.

If you don't love New Music I don't believe you can make Good Music.

fitz

PaulBrewer wrote: »

If you don't love New Music I don't believe you can make Good Music.

Tbh Paul, I think that's complete rubbish.
Arctic Monkeys are a case in point. Clear influences from very old school sources and they've written stuff with a very current voice.

I think if you're not open to new ideas and listening to music that is new to you (no matter when it was produced), you're always going to be limiting the development of your own musical output.

But to say you can't make good music unless you love what's currently out there is just sensationalist pap.

jtsuited

dav nagle wrote: »

Florence and the machine are on my playlist right now but regardless of how good they are they are nothing new with their massive attack cover.

?????? massive attack cover?????

fitz

jtsuited wrote: »

?????? massive attack cover?????

Indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Got_the_Love

PaulBrewer

jtsuited wrote: »

?????? massive attack cover?????

Ah Dav !

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

Tbh Paul, I think that's complete rubbish.
Arctic Monkeys are a case in point. Clear influences from very old school sources and they've written stuff with a very current voice.

I think if you're not open to new ideas and listening to music that is new to you (no matter when it was produced), you're always going to be limiting the development of your own musical output.

But to say you can't make good music unless you love what's currently out there is just sensationalist pap.

Ah Fitz - my point exactly .

Artic Monkeys aren't a 'New Band' - 'Dancefloor' was 2005.

In pop music terms they're an OLD band.

fitz

But by your logic, back in 2005, they couldn't possibly have come out with the likes of 'Dancefloor' unless they were big fans of what was current in 2005.

Sorry dude, but that's nonsense.

Jimmy Iovine

Quit this "new music" and "old music" bullshit.

I'm right and you're wrong and that's the bottom line cause Jimmy Iovine said so.

Peace out haha

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

But by your logic, back in 2005, they couldn't possibly have come out with the likes of 'Dancefloor' unless they were big fans of what was current in 2005.

They were ! Them and Reverend and the Makers (and later Mongrel, a Reverend/ex Artic mix)

But that's not the point.

The point is if you're making music unaware of what is currently going on then the likelihood is that it will be culturally irrelevant.

I may well be pushing the envelope saying one must 'Love' New Music but really if you don't love it, you probably won't be listening to it.

If you're not listening to it you're toast, in my opinion.

fitz

PaulBrewer wrote: »

They were ! Them and Reverend and the Makers (and later Mongrel, a Reverend/ex Artic mix)

But that's not the point.

The point is if you're making music unaware of what is currently going on then the likelihood is that it will be culturally irrelevant.

I may well be pushing the envelope saying one must 'Love' New Music but really if you don't love it, you probably won't be listening to it.

If you're not listening to it you're toast, in my opinion.

Paul, they may have liked it, they may have been aware of it, but did it influence their output? If it did, I can't hear it.

A good tune is a good tune. Just because it's not currently fashionable doesn't make it culturally irrelevant. If you're trying to keep up with mainstream pop, then you might have a tangential point about whether your music will fit in with what's currently in vogue. But does not being in vogue mean it's not good music? The idea that you need to listen to new music to be able to write good music is one that you're just not gonna be able to sell to me tbh...

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

Paul, they may have liked it, they may have been aware of it, but did it influence their output? If it did, I can't hear it.

A good tune is a good tune. Just because it's not currently fashionable doesn't make it culturally irrelevant. If you're trying to keep up with mainstream pop, then you might have a tangential point about whether your music will fit in with what's currently in vogue. But does not being in vogue mean it's not good music? The idea that you need to listen to new music to be able to write good music is one that you're just not gonna be able to sell to me tbh...

There is, as always, room for opposing views.

I'm trying to simplify a point that is complex into a 'forum size' when it really deserves much more room. Let me try again!

'Being Aware' is a state necessary for Art to be relevant, in my opinion.
It's invariably a reaction to the current that makes the relevancy.

By the same token a knowledge or even feel for the past is also important and is often a starting point (the Artics are indeed an example of that)- so it's not New per se that makes it good.

Hence Lady Ga Ga, who I think has the Zeitgeist at the moment, has much in common with Jack White to my mind.
Both are in tune with the 'Now' - though on first glance, one could easily argue that Jack uses old to make new. (That Zeitgeist list may also contain many non chart contenders - Band of Horses, My Morning Jacket, Vampire Weekend, Broken Bells, Hot Chip, Yeasayer etc etc who are all Modern in the best sense of the word, so it's not chart fodder alone I refer to)

I remember reading that the Stones only made great music when their competition was strong - but being aware of that competition is a big part of that.

With the bands I like and understand, or even don't like but understand the thing they all have in common is modernity i.e. relevance to and a reflection of the period it was created in.

dav nagle

Whoever the real Jimmy Lovine will you please stand up and take off your mask, this is a forum of people that like a good argument so take what you may from that but at least we are not pussies.:D

My bad on the florence and the machine statement but come on I am rarely ever wrong (cough):o

Why cant I post something without the old any monkey could do it if all they had was a 'beats' machinez in their cage (lol).

You don't sell millions and millions of records without being a genius, some posters think that this is monkey work, the monkey wipes the pooh and the music is made. Secondly if you watched the interview he says 'music is a vocation' which if you really think about is pretty scary, the dedication and hours are countless, time and fatigue are no excuse, its do or die, what a legend.;)

I could go on and on about you monkey heads but I have another angry monkey to deal with :P

(All the symbols in this passage were purposely placed there to annoy people who don't like symbols on forums.)

ZV Yoda

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The point is if you're making music unaware of what is currently going on then the likelihood is that it will be culturally irrelevant.

If you're not listening to it you're toast, in my opinion.

PaulBrewer wrote: »

'Being Aware' is a state necessary for Art to be relevant, in my opinion.
It's invariably a reaction to the current that makes the relevancy.

By the same token a knowledge or even feel for the past is also important and is often a starting point (the Artics are indeed an example of that)- so it's not New per se that makes it good.

Hence Lady Ga Ga, who I think has the Zeitgeist at the moment, has much in common with Jack White to my mind.
Both are in tune with the 'Now' - though on first glance, one could easily argue that Jack uses old to make new. (That Zeitgeist list may also contain many non chart contenders - Band of Horses, My Morning Jacket, Vampire Weekend, Broken Bells, Hot Chip, Yeasayer etc etc who are all Modern in the best sense of the word, so it's not chart fodder alone I refer to)

I remember reading that the Stones only made great music when their competition was strong - but being aware of that competition is a big part of that.

With the bands I like and understand, or even don't like but understand the thing they all have in common is modernity i.e. relevance to and a reflection of the period it was created in.

Jeez Paul, you’re some windup merchant…"culturally irrelevant"... who cares? Good music is good music... If you only make music because you want to be relevant, then in my book it means you're doing it for the wrong reason. Relevant to who exactly? Maybe you're talking about making music purely for the purposes of the main stream "X-Factor Dancing On Pop Ice" crowd?... in which case, fair enough.

…. and needing to listen to “what’s hot”?... look at Oasis back in the 90s. They were a “new band” back then… but weren’t listening to any music from their peers... and while I’m not an Oasis fan, they were pretty "relevant" back then!

As for your comment about the hihat pattern... maybe the anoraks would notice, but you really think Joe/Josephine Public even know what a hihat is? I bet I could list you 5 songs from 5 different decades with exactly the same drum beat. Likewise songs with the same chord progression.

Maybe external competition improved the Stones, I don't know about that... but it's well documented that Lennon & McCartney were each other's biggest competition... for every Penny Lane, there was a Strawberry Fields... in my experience, most musicians may be inspired by playing with others, but the real competition always comes from within... i.e. always trying to write a better songs than the last one...

PaulBrewer

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Good music is good music... .

What makes it 'good' in your opinion ?

ZV Yoda

PaulBrewer wrote: »

What makes it 'good' in your opinion ?

Simple really... I want to hear and/or play it again and again. To me, it doesn't matter how new, old or relevant it is.

Even as a teenager, I never bought this concept of an artist or band "being relevant". Relevance is a relative term & has to be used in context... is Michael Buble relevant? He's not doing anything that Harry Connick Jnr or Frank Sinatra haven't already done. Still, if Mr Buble floats your boat, then who cares if he's not "relevant" to me?

PaulBrewer

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Simple really... I want to hear and/or play it again and again.

What if you want to have a more complex spiritual experience with your music ? To be in tune with how you feel in the bigger world ? ... and for music to reflect that ?

Is that not a reasonable and common enough way of looking at things ?

ZV Yoda

PaulBrewer wrote: »

What if you want to have a more complex spiritual experience with your music ? To be in tune with how you feel in the bigger world ? ... and for music to reflect that ?

Is that not a reasonable and common enough way of looking at things ?

Sure is... that proves my point really... if music ticks all of the boxes above (or whatever matter to any individual), then they’ll listen to it again & again. That's the ultimate yardstick for a person. Not relevance, newness, “kool”ness, technical excellence or any of that stuff.

PaulBrewer

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Sure is... that proves my point really... if music ticks all of the boxes above (or whatever matter to any individual), then they’ll listen to it again & again. That's the ultimate yardstick for a person. Not relevance, newness, “kool”ness, technical excellence or any of that stuff.

But that's what makes it relevant ! It's in-tune with a person (or groups of them) at a given time.

Rehashing 5 year old ideas, sounds, approaches like I hear many bands do is pointless and gets the attention it deserves i.e. None.

That is a hard lesson for the 'Meteorites'.

Good Music, to me, is more than 'I like the tune'.( Though I do have time for a bit of fluff too )

It resonates with the times it's made in. It pushes the boundaries, as all great art does.

If you're unaware where those boundaries are you're unlikely to be at the forefront.


Nothing about cool, technical etc.

ZV Yoda

PaulBrewer wrote: »

But that's what makes it relevant ! It's in-tune with a person (or groups of them) at a given time.

Rehashing 5 year old ideas, sounds, approaches like I hear many bands do is pointless and gets the attention it deserves i.e. None.

That is a hard lesson for the 'Meteroites'.

Good Music, to me, is more than 'I like the tune'.( Though I do have time for a bit of fluff too )

It resonates with the times it's made in. It pushes the boundaries, as all great art does.

If you're unaware where those boundaries are you're unlikely to be at the forefront.


Nothing about cool, technical etc.

Well agree to disagree so.... if you think "I like that tune" = "it's just a bit of fluff" then we're on different wavelengths. Some great art does push the boundaries, but it doesn't have to.

Different/original does not always equal "good" in my book!

fitz

I listen to a huge amount of new music, but chasing the zeitgeist isn't something I'm interested in doing. I soak up influence from everything I listen to, but do I think that's necessary to write a good song? Nope. Plenty of examples of acts who write a song which is totally overlooked at the time, and ten years later, the cycle of what's currently popular swings round again and suddenly it's huge. It's the songwriting people connect with, and just because it doesn't speak to the masses today, doesn't mean it won't tomorrow, and certainly doesn't mean it's not good.

jtsuited

jesus lads you're getting into an argument that has baffled mankind since the dawn of time ....namely the question of 'what makes good art?'

If ye come to any agreement at all twill be a first for our species. Let me know how ye get on.

fitz

jtsuited wrote: »

jesus lads you're getting into an argument that has baffled mankind since the dawn of time ....namely the question of 'what makes good art?'

If ye come to any agreement at all twill be a first for our species. Let me know how ye get on.

Post of the Thread.

dav nagle

shayleon wrote: »

I'm with Judas on this. This is about the daftest video I have seen in a long time. I think a good producer is someone who can imagine what it should sound, and know how to get there. He'll know it will sound best with a certain type of guitar and amp etc. That does not exclude experimentation though.

Daft? Come on man credit where credit is due.

PaulBrewer

jtsuited wrote: »

jesus lads you're getting into an argument that has baffled mankind since the dawn of time ....namely the question of 'what makes good art?'

If ye come to any agreement at all twill be a first for our species. Let me know how ye get on.

JT .... we cracked the Clocking one so why stop there !?

As I've repeatedly said - the above are my views. That's how I relate to music, that's what works for me.

Other views are equally valid.

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

I listen to a huge amount of new music, but chasing the zeitgeist isn't something I'm interested in doing. I soak up influence from everything I listen to, but do I think that's necessary to write a good song? Nope. Plenty of examples of acts who write a song which is totally overlooked at the time, and ten years later, the cycle of what's currently popular swings round again and suddenly it's huge. It's the songwriting people connect with, and just because it doesn't speak to the masses today, doesn't mean it won't tomorrow, and certainly doesn't mean it's not good.

It's not 'chasing' I mean - the artists who make the most impact culturally are in tune with it - maybe even despite themselves.

But I think that the Zeitgeist/ Right time,right place/Luck are the things that separate the Men from the Boys - the 'great' from the 'grand', the stuff that makes your heart jump. This isn't to be mixed up with 'fashion' or 'instant' or any of those X factor words.
It's something that's rare and special.

That's the stuff that has inspired me since I was a spotty 16 year old.

Mediocrity is the Norm by it's very definition but it's the search for the nuggets of gold in amongst the dirt that keeps me going.

PaulBrewer

shayleon wrote: »

I'm with Judas on this. This is about the daftest video I have seen in a long time. I think a good producer is someone who can imagine what it should sound, and know how to get there. He'll know it will sound best with a certain type of guitar and amp etc. That does not exclude experimentation though.

Shay , that, to me, is a very simplistic if not naive, view.

Production at the highest level is much more than that !

Aridstarling

Good argument lads, though you won't find an answer! I'm agreeing with Paul on it though, as far as it goes. Music, and art in general, is (to me) about pushing boundaries and reaching a different, higher emotional plane. Its about the one thing we have where doing so is accepted and welcomed by large portions of society.

There is a little more to it than, I like that tune, I'll play it again. There is no definite line between great and good, or indeed good or bad, but we can generally decide for ourselves without having to think too much about it. Its only when we try to decide for others that the problem arises!

cqd2

Meh, good music is good music..being current doesn't make anything any better..its just that you're hearing it now..Are you like this with fashion too paul?..
I just have this image of paul wearing skinny jeans, acting like some fag emo kid..disturbing..

And i'd be reluctant to put jack white in the same post, not to mind sentence as ladyga...He definetly wouldn't appreciate it..although he's probably a contrary bastard...anyone seen It might get loud?...White, Jimmy Page, and the Edge, or corner or whatever hes called, sitting around talking guitar and jamming..yeah, though white came across as a bit of a lunatic (shock), Page was a gentleman, and the edge should just learn how to play guitar...and anyway, how is White a part of the current zeitgeist?..they've been at it for years..de stijl rocked..

PaulBrewer

cqd2 wrote: »

I just have this image of paul wearing skinny jeans, acting like some fag emo kid..disturbing..

May days of skinny jeans are long gone

I think I've mentioned more than once that this has nothing to do with fashion.

I'm disappointed too that 'counter' arguments are focusing on the peripheral points as opposed to the core.


Perhaps I should finish writing that book called -

" Why your band is shyt and always will be'

with the tag line

' .... and why you'll never know'

P.S. That's not necessarily your band cqd2 !

cqd2

OK,keep it civil paul, but what exactly is it that you find so zeitgeisty about whatserface..ok, granted she's a few good tracks..but soundwise its nothing that goldfrapp or ladytron aren't doing for years...is it the mass marketing that appeals to you?

PaulBrewer

cqd2 wrote: »

OK,keep it civil paul, but what exactly is it that you find so zeitgeisty about whatserface..ok, granted she's a few good tracks..but soundwise its nothing that goldfrapp or ladytron aren't doing for years...is it the mass marketing that appeals to you?

CDQ, you're focusing on the wrong point.
The Ga is just an example I'm using to represent something more potent. Replace Ga with Sinatra, Berry, Beatles, Stones, Bowie etc etc even our own U2ers who float in and out of 'useful'.

Music isn't just 'good' or not 'good' - it's good for reasons.
It doesn't randomly happen - I've worked with quite a few very (and moderately) successful bands and hung with many more.

I believe there's more going on - the only artists I see who 'succeed' (in the non X-Factor sense i.e. make enduring art) are ones who are aware of 'other stuff' - and aim high with confidence.

It's the 'other stuff' that separates.

The Artics have been mentioned in this thread.
I recall the first time I saw them on TV.
It was clear as day to me they'd make it ....



That (dare I steal back the term?) X-factor is there - in common with all great artists I've admired and/or met.

PaulBrewer

Of course I could be wrong ...

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Of course I could be wrong ...

:rolleyes:

But we'll defend your right to be wrong.

fitz

Well, I for one will just keep doing what I'm doing, regardless of whether Paul or anyone else thinks its Meteoric sh*t. Any artist who changes what they're doing because someone elses value judgements is probably doing it for the wrong reasons anyway.

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

. Any artist who changes what they're doing because someone elses value judgements is probably doing it for the wrong reasons anyway.

Fitz - you actually have no idea, even vaguely, what I'm on about, do you? Jimmy Iovine does though.

The above is certainly not it.

fitz

Difference of approach or opinion does not imply miscomprehension or lack of understanding Paul, but I'm not surprised that you'd paint it that way, you do it fairly regularly.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that.

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

Difference of approach or opinion does not imply miscomprehension or lack of understanding Paul

No, but your previous post does.

I too, will leave it at that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0OYIALgHSc&feature=related

dav nagle

Amazing how we discussed little of what he said in any detail or theory. Everyone else has too much of an important opinion and the debate rages into nonsense. At the end of the day this man knows what he is doing regardless of the genre.

dav nagle

shayleon wrote: »

I think a good producer is someone who can imagine what it should sound, and know how to get there.

I am sure he knows how to get there with this list of credits.

Iovine began his career as a recording engineer in the mid-1970s, working with John Lennon and Bruce Springsteen. He went on to produce albums for U2, Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, Stevie Nicks, Simple Minds , Dire Straits and Patti Smith. Iovine co-founded Interscope Records in 1990. It went on to become Interscope-Geffen-A&M following Universal's acquisition of PolyGram when Iovine was named co-chairman; in 2001, he became chairman. He is credited with having given Eminem's demo tape to Dr. Dre who signed him to his Aftermath label

dav nagle

judas101 wrote: »

"Timberland, Akon, Dr. Dre"

I think most would disagree with you and Mr. Interscope about what makes a great producer.

Most would disagree? You haven't a breeze. His credits are truly impressive. He has worked with all types of amazing artists. Dire Straits are one of my favorite bands, amazing recordings!!!! There is room for all types of music on this forum. If you want to post blogs on producers that have done alternative go ahead put please don't say I am in the minority when you don't know anything about my personal taste/views in music and if you wouldn't mind looking at his record sales you might see that you already have some of his work in your collection.