>
> > On a personal note, I don't hold to the theory that is sometimes
> > advanced
> > here that artists are "forced" to bend to the will of producers
> > against any
> > artists' better judgment. I don't know jack about how to record an
That was Shane, this is Matt, the turncoat <g>
> > Unfortunately, Shane, this is true in alot of
> cases: artists are frequently forced to bend to the will of the producer
> in making records. That's not to say it always happens, or even happens
> most of the time, but it does happen. Newly signed artists don't always
> have the clout or experience to guide them. COurse, I can't think of any
> examples right this minute (well, I can: Buddy Holly), but the "theory"
> -while perhaps applied wistfully by fans -like Terry-who disagree with
> production choices- is based on valid concerns and tales voiced by
> performers.
>
Shane sort of made it sound as if there's this constant level of contact
between artist and producer; it's always the same. In fact, I'd imagine
unwistfully that's it's always different, depending on the producer and
artist and what sort of relationship they have (or have had foisted upon
them by the label). Sometimes the producer calls the shots on how a record
will be arranged and produced, and sometimes the artist keeps a lot of
control, or produces it himself. Sometimes it's a draw, or shifts to one
side or the other. But I think it's just as big a mistake to assume that
artists usually keep creative control over their work as it is to assume
the opposite. This idea that labels always force their artists to do
this or that is a notion that I ain't heard around here, except in the
sense of, sure as shit it happens sometimes. Does anyone else notice how
qualifications such as "sometimes" or "occasionally" drop out of later
discussions of issues? I do it, too, but then I'm old and weary, and
brain-dead from listening to too much Bobby Bare/Chet Atkins. -- Terry Smith
