^^^^^^^^
Above
Live recording of "Poppy Nogood and the Phantom Band All Night Flight" from the "Purple Modal Strobe Ecstasy with the Daughters of Destruction All Night Flight" concert at S.U.N.Y, Buffalo, N.Y., March 22, 1968.
Seeing Terry Riley at a stuffy UCLA auditorium in 1996 was a far cry from these midnight looping trajectories, though his idea of repetitive notes was still there at the core.
Learning from the Eno documentary that Eno was influenced by Cage and Riley all makes sense now. And the fact that his cybernetics learning curve gave him the understanding of closed loop mechanisms in music production. And we see once more that creative people are always influenced by other creative people yet take everything to a slighly different place in the end.
Just the fact that Eno was the odd man out with Roxy Music was in many ways the seed for his future style.
Yes, that's what's wrong with mainstream films too. Ever since those pesky film directors started sticking their nose in and directing the actors!
You seem fixated on the word "producer", rather than the role of the music producer. In the film world you have a director and a producer, the director is the creative talent and the producer is the organisational, marketing, budgeting talent. In the commercial music recording world there is also ALWAYS a director too but you will not find the term "director" listed on any album because in the music recording world the director is not called a director, he/she is called the "producer". Confusing if you've come from the TV/Film world, but that's just the way it is.
Just like a film director, what a music producer does depends on who he/she is working with. A film director will typically direct the actors but if you're working with a great actor, the director will often just facilitate their acting and nudge them in the right direction. However, even with a great actor, the context of the actor's performance, how that performance fits into the larger picture, how that performance will be perceived, it's framing and pacing, will all be controlled by the director. But of course it all depends, not all actors are "great" and even great actors sometimes need a more proactive director, depending on the film.
Once you get past the fact that in music production the "film director" is actually called the "music producer", you'll have a much better understanding of the role of the music producer.
Well I’ll say this for eno’s latest music for installations after listening to a few tracks, there are 30 average 20 minutes per, calgone take me away is in full effect. The ebb and flow, the seemingly endless notes, the subtle integration of sound then reconstruction, makes my mind float from thing to thing, then one realizes the song is ending. Certainly not everyone’s cupa, but wow.
I know I have posted way too much Eno, ..........but at 21 years old stuff like this (Eno on synth) was the music I listened to (lost- entranced) late at night with horn tweeters and 12 inch woofers X 4! My favorite Bowie!
Gregorio... As a producer, I have parameters on what I need to deliver. If the network orders an apple, we can't deliver a watermelon. But ultimately, the ones making the creative calls are creative people. I'm someone who can play a few cowboy chords on a guitar. I'm not qualified to tell musicians how to make music. My job is to *facilitate* them making music. That means doing everything non-creative for them, so they can focus on the things that only they can do, and helping them explore the options open to them. I know there are a lot of producers out there who ride herd with an iron fist or noodle and cajole to make changes all over the place... basically trying to be "creative" themselves. By my definition, those are lousy producers. They aren't qualified to do that, and they are riding on the backs of the artists. That is the primary reason why I have very little respect for Brian Eno. He is very interesting and has fun theories on things. But he is pretty much incapable of playing an instrument (and I have a live recording of him in Paris to prove it). He noodles over the top of some of the greatest musicians of our times. I saw an early performance of Roxy Music on Old Grey Whistle Test where in the middle of the song, all of a sudden Eno patched the instruments through his synthesizer and started slathering on weird filters and sounds. At first I was thinking, this is interesting... Then I realized that the aural mush was made out of Robert Fripp's skillful and highly organized guitar playing. When the bridge was over and it went back to the real sound of Fripp's guitar, it was clear that Fripp was responsible for everything that was good in Eno's hash, and Eno's noodling didn't make it better. In fact it muddled it all up. I see Eno as a talentless hack who assumes a persona that makes him look like he knows what he's doing. And he builds his reputation by noodling the work of artists who he really isn't fit to shine their shoes. I think he is a fraud. I'm saying this knowing full well about Eno's career. I have all of his records. I listened to them back in the 80s and liked them. But I was a kid and didn't realize that what I *really* liked was Adrian Belew and Robert Fripp and David Byrne. I admire skill and construction and organized sound. In Eno's records, he isn't the one providing that. He is all style and no substance. Warhol, Jeff Koons, Basquiat, John Cage, Stockhausen, and all the other "artists" to whom the idea is more important than the product fall into the same category for me. They're all influential and successful bums too. It was good back in the late 60s when everyone was on LSD. Now we've grown up.
There are a million different kinds of producers. It's probably the job description with the broadest range of definitions. I know all about "creative producers". I've run into quite a few of them and I don't care for them. I've run across "creative network executives" and "creative marketing people" too. When I'm working, my job is to try to keep them at arm's length so the real creative people have the space to do their job. I believe that the purpose of a producer is to support, facilitate and enable artists to make the best product they can. I don't think it's a producer's place to tell an artist what to do and what to make and use them as his hands. You hire a creative supervisor- a composer, director or the leader(s) of the band- to supervise creatively, and you hire a producer to supervise production. It's a philosophy that has allowed me to work with some of the most creative and successful artists in my field, and it's probably the reason I'm still working after 35 years in the business. Maybe it's different in the music business, and I'm sure it's different for artists who are just breaking into the business. I haven't had as much experience there. But I have run across A&R men who considered themselves "creative" and I've run across ones with my philosophy of working and my opinions of them are the same as for film.
My opinion of Brian Eno is that the bands he produces are the real creators. It's easy to see that. Devo was still Devo after the first album. The Talking Heads were the same great band both before and after Remain in Light. I see the little noodley production touches he adds... specific sounds and ambiences. They are fine. But that isn't what I am listening too. That is a layer on top of it.
I was watching a documentary on Sgt Pepper the other night and George Martin was talking about working with John Lennon on how to approach Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, and it was clear that Martin was facilitating Lennon, not telling him how to make the song. I've got great respect for him. He was able to guide Lennon through making the creative decisions and experiments that were necessary for Lennon to find his music. That is a good producer by my definition.
Redcar, the reason Remain In Light is the best Talking Heads album is because of the percussion. Jerry Harrison's remix of the album makes the sound clearer and focuses on the percussion and the way they work with guitars. It is even better than the original mix. Yes, I have opinions that a lot of other people might not share. I have a set of criteria behind them that makes sense. Someone else might have a different criteria and come up with a different opinion. That's fine. But I don't take "consensus" at face value. There are people who are famous and successful who are bums.
I listened to Roxy Music in the late 70s and Eno's albums back in the 80s and continued to listen to them regularly into the mid 90s when I started venturing out and listening to a broader range of styles. Recently, I went back and revisited the music I listened to in college. With a broader perspective on music, having explored classical, opera, jazz, country, folk, etc. I saw the music with new eyes. I think progressive rock is largely a fraud. By contrast, going back and listening to Frank Zappa, R&B and funk from the same era was a revelation. Back in the 70s and 80s I was definitely listening to a lot of music that wasn't worth it, and not listening to a lot of music that was valuable.
Well this is better articulated than calling him a bum lol....i understand what you're saying ,but still don't agree....love some of his stuff...don't get some of it also....but i never have anything bad to say about someone pushing the boundaries.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
