The Recording Rant: Producing v.s Over-Producing
By Mike Chin on Apr 15, 2009 in Featured, The Recording Rant
Eric Talley is an alumnus of The Appalachian State University Lost in Sound, and is currently an a cappella recording producer. Talley writes The Recording Rant on selected Wednesdays for The A Cappella Blog.
As a producer, I find myself gravitating towards reviews on albums more and more these days, and less concerned with performance reviews and tips. Maybe it has something to do with my lack of performance experience after leaving my college group. It could be the days on end that I have spent in front of a screen editing and mixing that have soured my taste in unfiltered a cappella. No matter the reason, I find more and more of a trend in album reviews, and an even stronger trend in those outside of the “inner circle” that might not agree with how an album is given its mark. I use the words inner circle because as people leave collegiate groups, more often than not they eventually move on to other aspects of life. This inner circle involves the people that have made themselves a landmark in the industry, or are at least making an attempt to do so, by not moving on, but finding new ways to add to the genre. As many things in life go, seniority and experience leads to advantages, such as being the one that RARB sends an album to for a review. The forum on that site is where my point comes in.
Lately, I have seen more and more, not complaints per se, but disagreements with the way modern a cappella is being mixed in the studio and released to the general public. Now let me say that I prefer not to pick sides in this situation. I appreciate the studio talents as much as the vocal talents, and firmly believe that you can’t have a successful album without both. I also believe that any producer posed with a similar question would agree. With that being said, the trend for larger, more popular groups, is moving towards very mixed production styles. A good example would be the Duke Pitchforks latest album, Disconcert. Vocal Source is internationally known for their excellent studio work as well as their ability to draw incredible performances from their clients. It has definitely shown on this album. With success though, comes criticism. A young a cappella enthusiast posted on a forum recently that he didn’t believe that albums like this constituted a cappella. He was firm in his opinion that when enough effects are added, it ceases to become a work of a group of singers, and more of a work of producers twisting and shaping every little sound. I almost felt bad for this person, as they were almost immediately ambushed by an army of popular a cappella producers. The more I thought about it though, I appreciated these people standing up for their profession and mine, and speaking out about why these songs are mixed the way that they are. Why? Well…
It is an artistic choice made by the group and its leadership. To my knowledge, very few producers record the group, disappear for eight or nine months, and reappear with the finished product. All of these companies keep in close contact with group members who are available at all hours of the day to comment and help the producer achieve the sound that they are hoping for. If you went to them as an a cappella purist, wanting a clean track with as few effects as possible, you would still walk away with quality product. The choice to go with a more mixed version correlates to the album being commercially viable. By creating something that has some added bass, booming soloists, or explosive vocal percussion, you are appealing to a larger crowd than a pure vocal CD might do on its own. These groups are looking at the big picture. If you release an album that has those added effects, then you create more fans that you might have never acquired. These fans show up to live shows, where the group sings with no vocal effects and they get to see the passion and talent that went into the original album. More fans equals bigger shows and more opportunities to perform, and a commercial album creates financial freedoms to allow more travel and a better overall experience for every member of the group. Is it worth the exchange? That depends on the goals of your group. If you simply love to sing and want it documented on a disc, then maybe the full package isn’t for you. If you are looking to next spring hoping to do a week tour across three states, then it might be something worth considering.
Musical decisions made by various groups are their business and their choice. Submitting it to be reviewed does, however, open it up to public opinion. Those groups that have received lower marks than they might have been expecting need to answer one question. When you hit play, do you like what you hear? That is the true review. If your answer is yes, then move on and learn what you can from the experience. This is in no means a shot at any of the RARB reviewers, because more often than not I agree with what you have to say….but not always! That is the true beauty of music, is that no two people feel the same about it. So whether you walk away with a 2 or a 5, keep this in mind; your group and your fans are the ones that will be listening to the album two or three years from now. If it can last that long, then congratulations; you have created a successful album.
—-
Trying to find the next ICCA show in your area? Check out our new, advanced Events page!
Related posts:
RSS
Loading ...
I happen to be someone who agrees with that person who said that once it is over produced it ceases to be a cappella anymore. A Cappella means by voice, but once you put all sorts of effects on an a cappella track that create sounds and syllables that a voice couldn’t actually produce, it’s no longer by voice, period. That’s not saying that it’s not perfectly legitimate as an artistic form, it’s just not a cappella.
In this rant, however, I feel like you’re not arguing against that conviction whatsoever… All you’re arguing is that over producing garners a group more wide spread attention. That has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually still a cappella. And actually the fact that these over-produced albums are so much more popular than more purist recordings (at least according to you) is actually kind of disappointing. Because ultimately I’d prefer if a cappella gained popularity on it’s own merits and not those of the record producer.
But the bottom line is, if a voice can’t make the sound on it’s own, it’s not a cappella. And don’t get me wrong, there are some very talented people out there who can make some pretty spectacular sounds, but often times over producing can take things a few steps too far. And quite frankly, in the end, I think it’s more impressive as well when a producer can successfully produce a pure a cappella album than when he covers up so so recordings with fancy effects.
Jake | Apr 15, 2009 | Reply
The problem, Jake, is that there’s nowhere obvious to draw the line. A voice can’t make reverb…shall we have all albums recorded dry, on in a messy hall? A female voice can’t sing the ubers that guys potentially could. Do we leave their mixes sounding tinny and thin? Heck, a voice can’t move across the sound spectrum on it’s own, at least not with traditional mic techniques. Is panning “not a cappella” too?
The other elephant in the room is the fact that so many groups are just…not good…at all. The majority, in fact. Do we not allow them to record? Do we force them to show the world all their warts, b/c their voices “can’t sing well” and making them sound like they can “isn’t a cappella”? Who wants to hear that?
As an aside, It’s most often the newer groups who have never tried using effects, or the groups who can’t “afford” studio help, who take the purist line. It’s a defensive mechanism. An understandable one, but I don’t think it’s fair to the groups who do choose to make their art differently than you might.
To assume these groups couldn’t necessarily sound much “better” than any other group without their “fancy effects”, in most cases, would be a mistake. Most often, the groups are making *choices*, not using production as a crutch.
I’m all for the purist sound - if the group has the chops and the resources/facilities to record in a manner conducive to getting a “contemporary” sound. Most simply don’t.
Dave | Apr 15, 2009 | Reply
I see your point with the reverb and the panning, but those are not distorting the voices into something that they aren’t or artificially making voices sound appealing.
However, in the case of the female groups, I definitely don’t think they should be adding low tones simply because they can’t hit them themselves. The fact that they can’t hit them is the essence of being a female group. What’s the point of being all female if you’re not looking for an all female sound? If they want low voices then they can always join a mixed group.
And I agree that some groups are not good at all. And yes, I don’t think they should record (especially cause honestly, if you’re not good, you shouldn’t be shifting attention from actually talented groups). Yes, you should “force them to show there warts.” If you can’t sing you shouldn’t sing… other than in the shower. It’s not like we have people who can’t play the saxophone record with jazz bands. Unless of course you’re Jack Black singing “Sax Man.”
However, I don’t think they’re recordings are without merit. I just think that the credit should go entirely to the producer rather than the group, since he/she basically produced a CD from garbage.
“As an aside,” to say that my conviction on this subject is a defense mechanism is ridiculous. I’ve actually been involved in quite a bit of recording. But regardless of that, my opinion on this is mostly as an a cappella fan. The stuff I like to listen to is the stuff that isn’t ridiculously produced. And ultimately isn’t that what’s more important? Aren’t we all just playing to an audience? Who cares what your recording experience is, to me this issue is all about you experience as a fan.
And I’m not saying that groups shouldn’t over-produce if they choose to. All I’m saying is once a track is over produced I would no longer categorize it as a cappella. But saying that it’s not what I consider to be a cappella doesn’t mean it’s not good in it’s own right. Actually, that was one of the first things I said.
So inn the end, as I’ve said, my bottom line is that a cappella means by voices only, and that is not what I hear when I hear many of the tracks produced these days.
Jake | Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
“I see your point with the reverb and the panning, but those are not distorting the voices into something that they aren’t or artificially making voices sound appealing.”
– Erm…Really?
“I just think that the credit should go entirely to the producer rather than the group, since he/she basically produced a CD from garbage.”
– With respect, how on earth could you possibly know that?
““As an aside,” to say that my conviction on this subject is a defense mechanism is ridiculous. I’ve actually been involved in quite a bit of recording. But regardless of that, my opinion on this is mostly as an a cappella fan. The stuff I like to listen to is the stuff that isn’t ridiculously produced. And ultimately isn’t that what’s more important? Aren’t we all just playing to an audience? Who cares what your recording experience is, to me this issue is all about you experience as a fan.”
– Wasn’t meant as an attack, my friend! Just usually happens to be true. You are certainly entitled to enjoy whatever you like.
“So inn the end, as I’ve said, my bottom line is that a cappella means by voices only, and that is not what I hear when I hear many of the tracks produced these days.”
– I certainly respect your preference, Jake. I love more “natural” sounding stuff too, personally. I do think however that you’re choosing to draw an arbitrary line delineating what is “still a cappella” and what is not. And I think you might be surprised at what you think is “natural”, ends up being somewhat less so, in reality.
– As Bill has said many times, the Beatles’ recordings sounded *nothing* like what they sounded like live, in many cases. No one screamed at them and said “that isn’t (pick your adjective) music!”
– Well, maybe some people did. But we see how history reflects them…
– Here’s to hoping more groups bring the more “natural” approach to production, though. On that, we can agree! :)
Dave | Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
I’m really glad my article has inspired such a good debate, as I have found that to be the case on any forum that this topic rears its ugly head. Good to see you showing up to argue the case, Dave! I may have strayed from the topic a bit at the end, but my intentions were more directed at groups trying to make that decision right now, and hoping to guide them in the right direction. Jake, I see your point and appreciate it, because some of the people I work with have that same opinion. However, stick to the concerts of these groups that “should only sing in the shower”, but still produce amazing CDs, and tell me they have no business singing. It’s just wrong! Anybody should be given that privilege if they enjoy it, and if they want it recorded in their own way, then don’t buy the album. Rest assured, plenty of other people are, and that is why producing is important.
Eric | Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
I just stumbled across this article five months later, and I have to wholeheartedly agree with Jake. There’s a fine line between producing in terms of reverb, autotune, and panning… and manipulating sounds so that they don’t sound human anymore. There are plenty of incredible a cappella recordings out there that use production successfully in such a way as to enhance the a cappella sound - but the ones that sound like robots singing…what’s the point? I agree that it may sound awesome, and be fun to listen to…but no, it’s not a cappella anymore. Just my two cents on the matter. Oh, and while I don’t agree about bad groups not being allowed to record (everyone should have that opportunity), I definitely don’t think that female groups should be enhancing their sound to sound male. You’re right, Jake - join a mixed group if you want those low notes. Appreciate what’s great about being in a female group and embrace it.
Peter | Sep 9, 2009 | Reply