Best Ever Albums

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

RoundTheBend — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 23:02:06 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 02/03/2016 04:02

Lachapelle wrote:

This is a really common thing with hip hop too..

The producers rarely get any recognition. It surprises me because so many hip hop tracks rely so heavily on the instrumental. I can't even begin to explain how many times I've heard a new song and liked it instantly because of the beat. This had nothing to do with the MC.. but everything to do with the producer, yet so many hip hop producers sit under the radar gaining no recognition.

I always appreciate it when an artist gives props to their producer. Joint hip hop albums always turn out dope, and if you ask me its because they actually get the recognition.. Their name is actually on the cover.

Madlib & Freddie Gibb's Pinata for example. Or groups like Atmosphere or Gang Starr where its an MC/Producer team.

Agreed.

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

RoundTheBend — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 22:51:20 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 02/03/2016 03:51

Well, there's a thing call New Historicism in literary theory (probably history/other areas of academia as well), that the just of it is, is that there is no singular cause or influence. There is no linear cause of events. Reality is much more like a web of causes to an event. So to say an artist is original or something to this effect really is ignoring New Historicism.

In other words this idea that other artists "rip off" other artists or that an artist is 100% original is never the full picture. Truth is, something like Martin Luther being the reason why the Bible was popular and that "his" language became the language of the people is oversimplifying all the other things that really lead into that, and the 6th graders version is that simplified statement.

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

Lachapelle — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 22:39:14 GMT

Author: Lachapelle

Posted: 02/03/2016 03:39

This is a really common thing with hip hop too..

The producers rarely get any recognition. It surprises me because so many hip hop tracks rely so heavily on the instrumental. I can't even begin to explain how many times I've heard a new song and liked it instantly because of the beat. This had nothing to do with the MC.. but everything to do with the producer, yet so many hip hop producers sit under the radar gaining no recognition.

I always appreciate it when an artist gives props to their producer. Joint hip hop albums always turn out dope, and if you ask me its because they actually get the recognition.. Their name is actually on the cover.

Madlib & Freddie Gibb's Pinata for example. Or groups like Atmosphere or Gang Starr where its an MC/Producer team.

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

RoundTheBend — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 22:22:47 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 02/03/2016 03:22

meccalecca wrote:

I think it's about understanding strengths and knowing what's going to work. Springsteen handed Patti Smith "Because the Night" rather than releasing it as his own, and she killed it.

On that note, Hendrix was immensely talented but was not a great songwriter, so he needed that Dylan song more than Dylan needed Hendrix to take it to that level.

A song can be good on its own, but you're right in that sometimes it really takes the right performer to really take it special places.

Totally agree.

I work at a place that has a life coach kind of training environment (sounds way lamer than it really is). He talks about how leveraging our strengths gets us further/faster than trying to do everything.

When he said that, I immediately remembered something the Edge said (I think in "It Might Get Loud") that he knew he'd never be Jimmy Page. Trying to emulate him was a total waste of time. Jimmy Page emulating the Edge would be equally a waste of time and probably as disappointing as it is to hear Elvis do Tutti Frutti.

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

RockyRaccoon — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:52:38 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 02/02/2016 16:52

Satie wrote:

I'm glad I now have this little morsel of info about one of rock's demigods explicitly acknowledging his indebtedness to the past. No one lacks that, and I think that the self-awareness and critical acknowledgement of your context in history and where your music is derivative and isn't could be evaluated better than the two poles we seem to have in rock music analysis right now - either you're Scaruffi, and you make some arbitrary line in the sand where the artist you likes is a master innovator from out of nowhere, or you're an indie rock journalist trying really hard to parse why the latest Pavement ripoff deserves your audience's overworked ears.

Agreed. I've always liked that Dylan freely and openly acknowledges that, and I mention it whenever someone wants to tell me that some musician sucks because they play "other people's music" or whatever.

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

Anonymous — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:27:27 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/02/2016 16:27

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Dylan is heralded as this incredible songwriter, but even by his own admission, he's not much of a melodist and just kind of reworks old folk songs. Does that somehow diminish Dylan's work, or is that excusable? Some argue that it is specifically excusable because that's the tradition of folk music, implying that that wouldn't be acceptable in another genre.

I personally think that the expansion of the view of songwriters and composers as master collage artists - whether Dylan reworking melodies of the past and spinning new words overhead, Beethoven using folk songs as motifs in his orchestral works, or hip hop producers reworking "other people's work" - is nothing but positive, and I'm glad I now have this little morsel of info about one of rock's demigods explicitly acknowledging his indebtedness to the past. No one lacks that, and I think that the self-awareness and critical acknowledgement of your context in history and where your music is derivative and isn't could be evaluated better than the two poles we seem to have in rock music analysis right now - either you're Scaruffi, and you make some arbitrary line in the sand where the artist you likes is a master innovator from out of nowhere, or you're an indie rock journalist trying really hard to parse why the latest Pavement ripoff deserves your audience's overworked ears.

EDIT: BUT I'LL SAVE THAT FOR THE THEFT TOPIC 🤐

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Also, this sounds like a great point of discussion topic, nice thread!

Yeah, I saw the submissions thread right after I posted this! D'oh!

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

meccalecca — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:25:32 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/02/2016 16:25

RockyRaccoon wrote:

What do you all think about Dylan's admissions that he mostly jacked his melodies from other songs?

Yeah, like you said it was folk tradition at the time, so no one within the folk world minded. Dylan even re-used his own melodies. But of course his talent went beyond melodies and more heavily focused on his lyrical output.

But it is a good basis for another topic in regards to what constitutes as theft

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

RockyRaccoon — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:17:27 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 02/02/2016 16:17

Interesting that Dylan was brought up.

What do you all think about Dylan's admissions that he mostly jacked his melodies from other songs?

Here's a quote:

Quote:

Well, you have to understand that I'm not a melodist... My songs are either based on old Protestant hymns or Carter Family songs or variations of the blues form. What happens is, I'll take a song I know and simply start playing it in my head. That's the way I meditate. A lot of people will look at a crack on the wall and meditate, or count sheep or angels or money or something, and it's a proven fact that it'll help them relax. I don't meditate on any of that stuff. I meditate on a song. I'll be playing Bob Nolan's "Tumbling Tumbleweeds," for instance, in my head constantly—while I'm driving a car or talking to a person or sitting around or whatever. People will think they are talking to me and I'm talking back, but I'm not. I'm listening to a song in my head. At a certain point, some words will change and I'll start writing a song.

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

meccalecca — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:02:16 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/02/2016 16:02

sethmadsen wrote:

Also when I was thinking of this, I couldn't help but think of someone like Bob Dylan. Let's face it, as much as we like him, his performances often are leaving much to be desired. All Along The Watch Tower is a great example. He was the original writer and performer on the first recording of the song, but similar to Elvis vs Little Richard... Jimmi Hendrix blew this song out of the water. Again for me the credit goes to the performer.

I say the credit goes to the performer because, similar to reader response theory, the song didn't really "exist" until it was interpreted and brought to life by Little Richard or Jimmi Hendrix in those performances.

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

RoundTheBend — Tue, 2 Feb 2016 10:49:29 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 02/02/2016 15:49

I think you bring up a really good point. Why is it that we often hear, well they didn't write their own music... they aren't real musicians. Usually when we hear this, we agree, because it often is said towards acts like Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys, etc. Music we already find less artistic/sophisticated, etc.

The truth of it though is I do find people like Michael Jackson and Justin Timberlake extremely talented. They are great performers.

As for "Classical" music... I think while the composer got the biggest credit (State Composer... was there a State Saprano... I don't think so), performers of classical music did have some clout (today more so than then).

As for the song writer vs performer thoughts... I've thought about this a lot recently as well as I'm going through and redoing my 50s chart. There are MANY songs performed by the same artist at that time... it was a thing. They weren't even seen as "covers", rather someone wrote the song, and then there were performers doing the song.

Some performers do better than others. Elvis doing Tutti Fruiti for example... totally not my cup of tea. Little Richard doing it= mind blown. Same song. Even though Little Richard co-wrote the song, in instances like this, I think the performer, not the song writer should get the credit.

Also when I was thinking of this, I couldn't help but think of someone like Bob Dylan. Let's face it, as much as we like him, his performances often are leaving much to be desired. All Along The Watch Tower is a great example. He was the original writer and performer on the first recording of the song, but similar to Elvis vs Little Richard... Jimmi Hendrix blew this song out of the water. Again for me the credit goes to the performer.

I say the credit goes to the performer because, similar to reader response theory, the song didn't really "exist" until it was interpreted and brought to life by Little Richard or Jimmi Hendrix in those performances.

As for giving more people credit where credit is due, I agree with what was said earlier. I do think that simply has to do with it is way easier to market/sell a single artist/group instead of the whole team that brings it forward. Some producers are lucky enough to get their recognition (Albini, Eno, Martin, and Rubin have all gotten the "clout" they deserve).

I probably have this all wrong and I hope you understand the gist of what I'm trying to say.

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

Anonymous — Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:03:39 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/02/2016 02:03

I'm off and on studying for shit atm so any contribution I offer will come with some delay, but for now just wanted to praise Satie for dropping this thread and thank you all for the wisdom and insights so far. Been some nice food for thought to read through (some of which I hopefully will be challenging/adding to in the near future)

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

Anonymous — Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:20:02 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/01/2016 23:20

Extending the auteur theory analogy, I still think that there is a huge divide between how we decide who exactly the auteur is in music. In film, there's always been this clear hierarchy because the delegation of tasks (whether well-delegated or not) has been an official role of the director. I suppose in formal music, we have the composer. In jazz, we have the bandleader. However, in pop music of all stripes, we have hugely conflicting perceptions. For some people, Phil Spector is the auteur of all the wall of sound brill building stuff. He's a producer, so George Martin should be the auteur of the Beatles. But he's not, that would be the songwriting pair of Lennon/McCartney. In the case of pop starlets in the modern day like Rihanna, the producers and songwriters have taken more of a backseat role, unless we're talking about famous producers who typically have marquee presentation of some kind but don't permeate records like Timbaland. For other pop stars like Kanye West, we see him as an auteur because he lets us know constantly about the way he delegates, plus he's a producer. But we also call Kendrick an auteur, and he basically has a technical virtuosity at rapping, the ability to write good lyrics, and the ability, one would assume, of visualizing how he wants his production to sound. People argue about who produced Low more completely, and whichever your answer, there's still others who would see Bowie as the central visionary of the album. I think auteur theory is all well and good for a knowingly and self-awarely narrow view of film for analytical ease, but in music, we don't have such a unified theory because no one has any fucking idea who is actually delegating.

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

meccalecca — Mon, 1 Feb 2016 17:45:51 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/01/2016 22:45

The ability to relinquish and delegate control is a pretty incredible talent that many artists simply don't have or aren't willing to have. They pride themselves on the ability to have their hands on every little detail, and sometimes the product suffers because of it. I think the comparison between a full music studio team and film production is actually pretty strong. And similarly in film, many talents are overlooked with one or two big names involved being rewarded the bulk of the acclaim.

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

Applerill — Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:25:37 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 02/01/2016 19:25

I hope this answer doesn't sound too stereotypically Charlie, but I think Satie's question boils down to the intentions and limits of auteur theory. It's no coincidence that the Beatles were at their height right before the New Hollywood, because it seemed like the fetishism of both came from a similar mindset (though my history mileage may obviously vary).

I genuinely love auteur theory, I really do. It gives us the easiest avenue to talk about popular culture as serious art, and is still mostly applicable today. That being said, it has always been a bit misleading, because outside collaborators are so often essential to that "individualist" piece of art. Just as Thelma Schoenmaker contributed as much to Raging Bull as Scorsese and Schraeder, rock history's equivalent The Wall often feels just as much Bob Ezrin and David Gilmour's. So there's obviously a bit of unfairness with auteur theory, but I think discussing these works as art instead of commerce is worth that sacrifice if we understand this going in.

And today auteurism really is still prevalent in pop music. One of the most amazing things about Britney Spears isn't the virtuosity of her uptalk and vocal fry, or even her strong charisma. On every album of hers she knows how to reinvent her image to the message she wants to make, allowing her to be the director to Max Martin's screenplay.

I don't know if I answered Satie's question or not, but I guess I'm trying to say that it's more than possible to have it both ways. Having a perfect dream team of producers and performers should valued just as much as an artist doing everything on their own. And while someone like Elijah Wald argues that this focus on auteurism compromised quality all around, art doesn't always have to be about having the most fun product.

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

meccalecca — Mon, 1 Feb 2016 13:38:08 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/01/2016 18:38

Satie wrote:

I think I'm most interested in where and why this "back room of content creators" receded into the shadows and why we see that as a particularly negative thing. Was it the expansion of television and print media that focused on artist image over (or at least alongside) musical content that made the backlash so great?

I think you pretty much answered your question here. It's a hell of a lot easier to market a singular artist rather than a group of artists. Even in the jazz era, you'd see an album released credited to Mingus rather than all of the additional high profile players. And once MTV came along, attractiveness became majorly important. Video definitely did some harm to the radio star even if it didn't kill it entirely.

Funny enough, the guest performers and producers have been a major promotional vehicle in the modern era. Being able to hype Timbaland or Pharrell producing your track is major. And a guest verse from Kendrick or Beyonce is similarly effective.

It's hard to pinpoint the point during which the studio team became so reviled. In my own life it seemed to hit around the time of the NSYNC, Britney, Backstreet Boys, etc, which may be partially due to the nature in which those artists were presented. It was unavoidable and overkill. At the same time, the rise of indie was strengthening, so I guess those two clashed heavily.

In regards to the nature of DIY/Indie, it's a very interesting thing. Most known indie bands have a publicist if not more than one. Hardly anyone can really be regarded as totally DIY, because notoriety depends so heavily on community and support. So I guess it ends up being about bluntness. If publicity stays behind the scenes the public doesn't really notice what's happening in the backrooms. But some major label marketing is so overblown that it's inescapable, and there's a very noticeable difference. The concept of indie was hijacked yeas ago. When major indie bands signed to major labels it blurred the lines. I have no idea what indie actually means anymore likely because it's been rendered meaningless by misuse.

You've honestly raised more questions than I can possibly even elaborate on.

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

Anonymous — Mon, 1 Feb 2016 13:06:26 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/01/2016 18:06

I think the crux of my argument would be, however, that, despite the egalitarian ideals of the DIY approach, it frequently produces a much different kind of product and fosters a much different kind of respectability. I think I'm most interested in where and why this "back room of content creators" receded into the shadows and why we see that as a particularly negative thing. Was it the expansion of television and print media that focused on artist image over (or at least alongside) musical content that made the backlash so great? Why do we view the great composers and performers of the pre-LP era as great, but the current performers are reduced to being figureheads of a media dynasty and the current composers are seen as cynical marketers? Record labels or before that schools of composition and conservatories have always had more resources than the simple bards and solo performers. Is there a genuine reduction in quality of music from those eras or is it more complex? What's driving that? Should we perhaps assess the economic tendencies here? Marx came to the conclusion that no art was made in a single individual's mind, and that such idealism was ultimately a way of obscuring the group process and economic dynamics of the art piece, whether it was the transmission of oral history or the peasant building the cellos used in the great concert halls.

A follow-up to this question that we might want to assess is where DIY music stops being DIY music, but maybe this is beyond the scope of this topic. For example, as part of the presentation of image in today's media landscape, there has to be a clear demarcation between what is "indie" and what is not, even if musically, they're very similar, and they perform on the same kinds of late night shows and such. When a band like CHVRCHES gets picked up by a major publicist and connected to all the traditional media outlets, what keeps their music "pure" enough for the indie crowd? In other words, are journalistic obfuscations starting to take the place of major label secrecy about the creative process in conjuring what I ultimately see as the myth of individualistic, genius creative processes and aesthetic standards?

Re: Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

meccalecca — Mon, 1 Feb 2016 12:55:53 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/01/2016 17:55

Great post. You're raising so many issues that I'm not sure where to start.

I think the key is that there's a consistent need to be perceived as authentic when acting as any type of artist. The entire concept of pure originality is a lie. Nothing has ever been conceived without some kind of precedent, influence.

With the producer/composer/performer relationship, it gets murky. Since the beginnings of pop music, there have been songwriters in rooms responsible for many of the biggest hits. Songwriter teams like that of The Brill Building and Holland-Dozier-Holland were responsible for hit after hit. And as much as Ellie Greenwich was a very good vocalist in her own right, it's hard to imagine she could've done as much with "Be My Baby" as the Ronettes did with her tune. And now it's Max Martin who seems to be behind a hell of a lot of the contemporary hits.

Backlash against the big budget, multiple songwriters and producer system has been continuous. Punk and DIY have been direct responses. Some of the negativity has to do with the economic aspects. Most musicians don't have even close to the budget of one guest producer spot, let alone an album's worth. And then there's the songwriters, producers and composers who end up with a back seat watching others get famous for what is ultimately their work. They'll get their names in the credits and possibly even win awards, but the performer gets the fans, the glory.

There is something more personal about the DIY approach. And it's hard to argue that it's ultimately more authentic considering there's no secret room of artists behind the work.

The behind the scenes studio team will unfortunately always be overlooked by the general population. It's just too much information to keep up with if not obsessed with the details. It's just much easier to associate one name with a song you like than an entire team of people who may or may not have been equally responsible.

Credit Where It's Due: The Performer/Composer Split

Anonymous — Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:46:05 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/01/2016 16:46

In the 1960s, rock artists began to produce the majority of their LPs with music that they themselves composed and performed. The reasons for this were many, including the fact that songwriters had their own royalty payments and artists found that they could make much more money playing both sides of that game. Of course, artistic pursuit was in play as well, and I don't seek to ignore that. Geniuses like Brian Wilson could play the studio, compose incredible arrangements, and provide (within the rock context) virtuosic vocal performances with creative input coming from a handful of collaborators like Van Dyke Parks's lyrics for Smile (as well as his oft-cited insistence on cello triplets for "Good Vibrations"). Others, gifted in songwriting and performance, still needed outside help for studio manipulation - think the Beatles with George Martin. Over time, a monolithic narrative has emerged about rock music that these composer/performers produce "real," "authentic" art, and this has usually been placed in relief to "corporate" acts with what's seen as too many collaborators. Whether it's garage bands being mad about the shimmer and shine of the studio system, rock fans moaning about cover albums, or critics cutting down shows like the X Factor for showcasing "mere" performance ability, we seem to have come to some kind of consensus in the last fifty years that performance has to go hand-in-hand with composition to be validated.

But it wasn't always like this. Vocal jazz, while suffering its own version of this discrimination by being viewed as "lesser" than instrumental jazz created by bandleaders who wrote out, however provisionally, some roadmap for new arrangement, has largely come to be respected as a cultural institution. Some of our most beloved and trail-blazing artists in jazz, blues, and the transitional phase between those genres and rock like Billie Holiday and Elvis Presley wrote next to none of their own music. Going back even further, it was incredibly rare for composers to write, say, operas before then jumping into the lead performer role while distributing their instrumental arrangements to the orchestra. In most traditional folk idioms, original musical and vocal contributions come in the form of performance-based innovations, not in wholly original compositions.

In the present day, lists and lists of songwriters accumulate in the liner notes of albums from Kanye West, Rihanna, and Kendrick Lamar. Some argue that we should see these individuals as the faces of a vast corporate enterprise, depersonalized and unaffected by their contributions, much less shaped by their leadership or execution of the material (ostensibly) provided. Meanwhile, the claim to the "authentic" is vied for constantly, from rock musicians with slipping record sales and cultural relevance bemoaning drum machines and the like (perhaps another level of authenticity beyond the scope of the composer/performer split) to up-and-coming rappers dissing more major label artists for having ghostwriters and help producing.

So, where do you stand? Is the composer/performer synthesis, as I might be wont to call it, a historical aberration, or can you think of other examples in musical history? Was it a positive development, or has it reduced the virtuosity of performance and complexity of composition to force both things to be done by one or two people? How do performers deserve our respect, particularly vocalists? Is improvisation the necessary "other option" for being respected in the music industry as "just" a performer? Should pop artists with teams of producers and writers be marketed differently? Do you believe the music press when it sells artists like Kendrick Lamar as visionaries with lots of help, or do you think he's more constrained and controlled than profiles indicate? Is there a gendered divide in how we perceive male rappers and female pop singers, for example?