I've got most of his albums. I've listened to them all. I've read interviews. I'm well aware of the albums he's made and his history. I just don't know what he does in the studio. I guess he kibitzes, drinks tea, deals out enigmatic playing cards and tells the real musicians what he thinks they should be doing.
Have you heard Jerry Harrison's remix of Speaking in Tongues? It's better than the Eno mix.
By the way, look at the lighting, color and composition in that Rockwell painting. They are all drop dead brilliant and show a real master at work. Rockwell was an illustrator, not a fine artist. So his paintings had to read quickly and directly like a billboard. Subtext and layers of meaning don't work in illustration. But if you look at the way your eye moves through that image and the details it lingers on, you'll see that this particular painting is worthy of its fame. Rockwell was also a great teacher. His contribution to the Famous Artists Course was enormous and continues to influence artists and illustrators to this day.
J C Leyendecker painted men in shirts. Earl Oliver Hurst painted people in swimsuits. George Petty painted pretty girls frolicking with Ridgid Tools. They were all masters. You just have to look past the subject matter and see the artistry beneath. Art is about ideas, but it's also about the eloquence of how those ideas are expressed. Warhol was a horrible example for the artists who followed him. I think Eno is a terrible example for musicians to follow.
Apologies for not responding to the technical stuff as much -- turns out I'm a bit too busy to really follow in depth. But an interesting direction this has gone.
In one sense, I feel a kinship with bigshot... I have strong opinions about most music, and in some cases I can find nothing valuable in certain pieces. I feel the same about some recordings.
So music is subjective. I also think that recording and producing is subjective -- that is, as soon as we bring in any subjective criteria to judge the result. And ALL useful criteria have a subjective component.
So I tend to know what I don't like, and why. Note that bigshot has very specific reasons that cover both the details and the larger picture of what Eno is up to, and his opinion is "reasoned" in a way.
I've decided, however, that music I dismiss can be wonderful music to other people. Now, that seems obvious, given that music is subjective. But I think that those of us with strong opinions can end up in a sort of bubble, in which our opinions start to seem very reasonable and based on facts. Yet I have decided that I have NO WAY of knowing what those other people are hearing in it, any more than I can know first hand what it's like to live as an octopus on the ocean floor.
For instance, when I first heard free jazz, in the album "The Freedom Principle," I hated it. I had REASONS for hating it. My opinion was not uniformed. I was analyzing it. I was trying hard to enter into its world. And I concluded that far from being "freedom," it was highly constrained in an uncomfortable way.
But I also know that I simply have no way of knowing what someone hears in it. All my principles and analysis don't matter one whit, if the question is how someone else experiences it. This was not easy to come to grips with, but I think I understand it now.
And the other component I’m bringing up is the time and era element. Kids today may hear The Big Bopper and think it’s cute music. Where at the time it was the blues having a devil baby called rock and roll. That child monster at the time was braught to life by cutting edge musicians like The Big Bopper and he had a slighly difference relevance in his day.
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.
It’s probably pretty hard in a music forum to state such ideas about someone who is arguably one of the era’s greatest musical influences.....and not be politely questioned.
And yes, it appears on the surface that he may not be much of a true virtuoso musically. Be that as it may it’s still hard to judge someone who’s primary focus has been in the studio against some live performance. Probably playing live was and is not Eno’s speciality?
And it’s true much of his musical influences have not stood the test of time, but much of it is classic. And........I’m not even some Eno fanboy. It’s just that I’ve run across his influences for years and years....finally accepting his contributions to modern music.
It’s interesting how many feel the Eno produced “Remain In Light” to be The Talking Heads greatest record.
[1] 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.
[2] But ultimately, the ones making the creative calls are creative people.
[3] I'm someone who can play a few cowboy chords on a guitar. I'm not qualified to tell musicians how to make music.
[4] 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. [4a] By my definition, those are lousy producers. [4b] They aren't qualified to do that, and they are riding on the backs of the artists.
[5] That is the primary reason why I have very little respect for Brian Eno.
1. Bigshot, you have made this error in the past and you're doing it again now. You are confusing the role of the Producer in TV/film with the role of producer in music. With classical music the role of the producer is quite similar to the role in TV/Film but with non-acoustic genres, particularly popular music genres, the role is ENTIRELY different!!!
2. Exactly! In the popular music genres, the most creative person involved should be the producer!
3. In popular music, the musicians are NOT making music, they are simply performing on their instruments, one at at a time. The person "making the music" is the producer! It's like baking a cake; the musicians are making SOME of the raw ingredients. The producer is like the chef; defining some of the properties of those raw ingredients, adding some other ingredients (spices, sweetness, icing, cream, etc.), then choosing the proportions of all those ingredients, how they're prepared, what order they're added, mixing them all together and then baking the cake.
4. You cannot facilitate the musicians to do something they do not know how to do! You can ONLY facilitate the musicians to sing or play their instrument.
4a. Your definition of a (popular music genre) producer is substantially incorrect, to the point of being almost exactly the opposite!
4b. They are the ONLY person qualified to do that!!! Commonly in popular music it's the other way around, the musicians are riding on the backs of the producer, in fact quite often the musicians are NOT artists and have little/no talent at all. As I've stated several times though, it's sometimes/often far more collaborative than this. If the musicians are talented artists then it's a collaboration between talented artists (the producer being one of those talented artists). The only difference between them being that, for example, the talented singer's instrument is their voice and the talented producer's instrument is the studio equipment!
5. Effectively then, the primary reason why you have very little respect for Brian Eno is that you don't understand the role of the popular music genre producer!
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.
[1] 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. ... Maybe it's different in the music business ...
[2] 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.
1. That's what I'm trying to tell you! What you're describing is the role of a TV/Film producer and even then only under certain circumstances. The role of the producer in the music business IS different, VERY different! A (popular) music producer is far more akin to the role of the Director in film/TV and the role of producer in TV and film (organisation, budget, scheduling, logistics, etc.) in the music business is handled by the record label/company and has little/nothing to do with the music producer.
Maybe it is your job to keep the producer at arms length, IN YOUR LINE OF WORK. That would be both an impossibility and a stupid thing to even attempt in the music business, like trying to keep the director, the person with the artistic vision, at arms length from the film making process! What you believe or think about music producers and your opinion of Eno are all based on this serious misunderstanding of the role of the music producer.
2. Sgt Pepper is really the start of the modern era of popular music, the album where the producer started taking a more equal role, as the studio itself started to become an instrument in it's own right. During the late 1960's and all the way through the '70's and then a big kick in the 80's, studios became more complex, the options available for the studio to be a more proactive participant in the creative process increased dramatically and as it did, so the role of the producer necessarily became more creatively important/dominant. By the 1990's, even the late '80's in some cases, there wasn't any longer a need for ANY musicians whatsoever, just in effect a producer. You can make popular music with just a producer and no musicians but you can't make popular music with only musicians and no producer! As I've stated before though, it's often more of a collaborative endeavour, especially with some of the top and more experienced musicians, some of whom develop their own music production abilities.
You may not care to adjust what you think/believe a music producer does but that's your problem, the reality is that the producer is the most creative role in music production and whether you like Eno or not, he was skilled and talented. In the UK at least, Eno is commonly one of the music producers studied in university Music Technology courses because of the importance and influence of his contribution to the art.
Daniel lanois on his latest tour man machine, gave tribute to eno. Here it is, daniel lanois, a fantastic production. Course just cause someone doesn't agree doesn't mean nothin to anyone, eno included.
Of course, that's what you're supposed to think, it's a product. But the music has not been made/produced by the musicians, it's been made/produced by the producer, the musicians just played some of the parts and collaborated with the producer. A film is not made by the actors, it's made by the director.
That is probably what is wrong with mainstream music right now. I know that's the reason that mainstream films aren't what they should be. Television is doing well right now, because with the decline of the networks and the rise of streaming, there is more opportunity for artists to sneak things through without having their family jewels lopped off on the way. The streaming networks aren't quite so overrun by creative producers (yet).
Film making is a collaborative effort with one creative person at the helm- the director. He is like the conductor of the symphony orchestra. He makes all the creative calls. In a small crew the director serves the same purpose, but he may also write the scripts, run the camera and edit the film. That is like a rock band. Lennon and McCartney were in charge creatively and they also played guitars and sang and wrote the songs. Their producers were Brian Epstein and George Martin. They facilitated in their respective fields. They weren't in charge creatively. John and Paul were.
A film director has a producer too. That person is responsible for facilitating the director's creative choices and communicating with the studio/backers. Film producers can "get creative" too and undercut the creative director. Selznick is a good example of this. He had the greatest creative director of the time working for him, Alfred Hitchcock, and he hobbled him with a million noodley left field creative calls that diluted Hitchcock's ability to make the best film he could. The Disney studios were limited by Walt Disney's personal level of creativity. I think Thalberg was bad for the Marx Brothers too. The job of the producer is to support the creative people, not to be creative himself. Producers aren't qualified to be creative. They should hire people to be creative and let them do their jobs. I know this doesn't always happen, but great art is always made by artists.
I'm saying all this as a producer myself. I see myself as a catalyst, not the one making creative choices. I work with people who are very good at that part, and I am very good at my part. It works well. When the creative person starts messing in the domain of the producer it can create a mess. The same goes for producers messing in the domain of the creative person.
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.
