Songs and Production

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

What draws you more into a track you enjoy? The song - the melody, words - or what's done to it - hooky noises, production tricks, disruptions? And where does the performance fit in?

This may seem like a really unsupportable binary but it's one which has a certain amount of traction in the word outside Poptimists and maybe even some within it.

For instance many reviews of the Britney album seem generally to be treating it as - for better or worse - a record which stands and falls on its production rather than the songs or performance (and are explicitly making that distinction). And the reason *I* like the Britney album I think is the way the production seems to be making war on the songs, never totally winning but never letting them get out unscathed either.

For another example of what I'm fumbling towards, look at the two latest Girls Aloud singles. "Call The Shots" and "Sexy! No No No..." seem to work in quite different ways - the former resting on its melody and 'songcraft', the latter on the impact of its production. (You may of course completely disagree).

I feel this entry is very clumsy - sorry - but I think there's a conversation worth having here!

Comments

[justfanoe.livejournal.com]

Obviously it varies from case to case, but it is the songs for me, in a vast majority of cases.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Good production doesn't necessarily mean weird production - I think during the Golden Age of R&B a lot of critics, especially, got this wrong. I'm not sure I really listen to songs by this particular binary: "good/weird production" and "catchy melody" are both part of the same "initial impact", while things like lyrics and the more subtle production tricks are part of the "later impact" which keeps me hooked into a song.

I'd probably go for production though - if the production is beneath a certain standard I find songs unlistenable, while great production can definitely support a non-song.

[catsgomiaow.livejournal.com]

The song/melody every time - although good production certainly doesn't hurt and can often add an extra depth or fascination to an already-good song. Production would never, EVER come first with me and it completely baffles me as to why everyone's banging on and on and ON about the *production* on the new Britney album (not that I've listened to it yet er sorry Kat). Hello people, are there any good TUNES on it? Or is she just reading from the phonebook in a monotone with some weird vocoder-thing going on?

This may be why I hate a lot of pop music - it's all about the production but it has no TUNE. Or it has ONE GREAT BIG SHINY SAMPLE and absolutely bog all else of note about it.

this is me doing a research proposal

[piratemoggy.livejournal.com]

There're a lot of truly ace songs that are done in AWFUL fashions by bad artists and so never make it for me. On the other hand, production cannot save a non-song (cf. most work by the Neptunes post-first NERD album) and there definitely needs to be some kind of artist factor to most things.

I think the Britney album has a very significant artist/performance appeal to it- it'd only be "alright" if it wasn't Britney and contextualised, I suspect. I also think the songs stand well as songs, with production being something that could've gone any direction and happened to pick a very good one, although not necessarily the only possible good one.

Has there been a thread about the Kylie album incidentally? I think it's brilliant. There's something that sounds a bit like 'Oh What A Night' at the end.

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

Sorry didn't see this post before my SnP one above!

As usual for me with Britney I'm only really interested in the presentation of the message rather than the message itself - tho you might argue the messages on Blackout are her most interesting or sophisticated yet. There's a prospect that after the initial thrill of the album's sound /prod values wears off I might pay more attention to what's beyond that but I don't know if there is really anything of much value there for me.

The actual songs being quite good in and of themselves is just a nice bonus!


In 'Call The Shots' there is one big thing that draws me in and that's the little split and repetition of the last word of the line in the chorus. It's a nice, simple but clever effect. That and the chorus reminding me a bit of Annie's 'Heartbeat'.

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm the opposite of Lex - offhand I can't think of a production so bad that it would totally ruin a really good song for me, whereas no matter how much you polish up Mariah or Celine (or Van Halen, for that matter), if the underlying song bores me, it bores me.

(Caveat: I guess I should note I'm mixing my terms a little bit - "production" in the first instance (e.g. Pavement) is very different from production in the second (which is more like "arrangement" in my mind).

I am definitely one of those people who thinks the ability of indie bands (or acoustic folky types or whoever) to "succesfully" recreate pop hits in their own style is kind of proof that the underlying song is absolutely fantastic.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

A better binary might be "performance" and "song (inc production)". Great production and great melodies are often dragged down by tired performances, while great performances are often unstoppable despite the song.

Other points/ideas

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

I think the 'song' people so far tend to listen to different genres beyond pop than the 'production' people.

So maybe pop is a particularly bad or good kind of music to ask this about - my hunch is that this kind of continuum is one way a lot of people on Poptimists vary. (I'm really not expressing myself well today).

Dismissive reviews often accuse records of undercooking the songs or overcooking the production - rarely the other way round (though overcooked, bitty songs and thin or generic production really turn me off records).

Bad production/songs balance - songs which sound straitjacketed by their own production, either scared to do anything elaborate, or scared to leave particular things out ("here's where the orchestral bit happens").

[jeff-worrell.livejournal.com]

Ha! I didn't see this before I started on my Bertrand Burgalat post. But I guess I've partly answered the questions in that post!

More thoughts (or more examples) later, when I've had a think.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Also I shd make clear that on the "production" side of the ledger I'm putting all kinds of individual hooks (Lumidee going "uh-ooh, uh-ooh"), riffs - anything where the appeal is repetition, and also performative techniques (like melisma, or someone's guitar tone).

So on "Sexy! No No No..." what makes me like it isn't the production per se, it's the hugely propulsive riff underpinning it. That riff is pretty much invariant, it doesn't develop into anything that might count as a song, so I'd count it on the non-song tally.

[awesomewells.livejournal.com]

Is there a difference between 'production' and 'arrangement' here?

HIS BARKING MATERIALS

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i think my long-ago (and never properly followed thru) proposal that the SHINY NU-POP of c.2001-02 was a kind of chartprog related to this idea, that different creative levels of the "object" were operating in different cultural clusters, and that these clusters were creatively (and fruitfully) at odds with one another

i also felt -- and again this hasn't been followed thru (dalek chap 234589094 ahoy) -- that the opening up to public gaze of the process of gatekeeping-as-"creative"-input (and war for control) was a STAGE or ARENA or FORUM in which the two struggles could be energised or amplified or dramatised

which demanded a species of concept alb -- pop as an opera abt the drama of "making pop"* -- and that lovely doomed britney is the first to have moved anywhere CLOSE to the concept i had in my head

*(aka "let's put the struggle on here!" as the hi-concept of a musical!)

also also SUKRAT ALERT

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

"tunes" = the mere conventional blah blah of the blah blah

yes yes "what ELSE can be a hook?" is one of the things sukrat's minions can school poptimists in; but sukrat's minions are often absurdly allergic to the admission that they are merely after other types of hook

a different type of hook = a different world-view (possibly intuitive and unexamined) = battles of types of hook = the cruise-clash of communities, to the benefit (or ruin) of both/all

[whalefish.livejournal.com]

I tend to be grabbed by the song first, particularly with Britney/Girls Aloud-esque pop music. If the song doesn't hook me and pull me in I often never give it enough of a listen to notice the production.

Like with the two Girls Aloud singles mentioned really - as big and clever as the sound on Sexy! No No No... (I blush just typing that title) is, the song as a whole's never appealed much to me.

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

I tend to hear the production first, tune second, words last. It's no surprise that I like minimal techno really! 'Call The Shots' is an exception - great production (I still love that 'Place In The Sun' theme tune noise that's a bit like a bird call or something) but it draws my attention to the melody and lyrics rather than obstructing it. Sonic & structural variety is very important to my enjoyment of a song, and the main reason I dislike acoustic cover versions.

[brak55.livejournal.com]

I have always been drawn to music over lyrics. It's not that well-written lyrics can't affect me or make the song, it's just that the first draw is always a well-written melody or hook.

Also, I NEVER would have said the production draws me to a song until this year. For some reason, I'm drawn to just about anything that Timberland and Mark Ronson produce, no matter the artist.

[koganbot]

It isn't so much that I disapprove of the binary as I can't figure out what it is.

Like, which do you prefer more in an article, the plot or the editing? (Well, what about the writing?)

Or which do you prefer more about a movie, the script or the camerawork 'n' editing? (Well, what about the acting? And doesn't the directing have anything to do with the acting?)

I think a lot of time when people on this thread are saying "production" they mean THE RHYTHM and the TIMBRE. Whereas the songwriter might have started with a rhythm and then come up with a melody. And you all are not taking account of the producer going through twelve takes of the song and splicing the vocals together seamlessly. Or the producer hiring the musicians who play on a track. Or the singer being in the room during the mixing and arguing whether the track has enough "bottom." Or millions of other things.

Is the fact that you're using an oboe part of the production?

Is the fact that the singer is male rather than female part of the production? (It's not part of the melody.)