Songs and Production
Nov. 19th, 2007 01:43 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
freakytigger.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
poptimistsWhat 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!
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!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-20 05:08 pm (UTC)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.)