I picked up a new release the other day and noticed without thinking about it much that the leader was the producer. Sometime later, a little light bulb went off in my head and I was scrounging through my collection of CDs and discovered that a great many of my modern CDs are produced by the leader. This suprised me since my favorite record label, Blue Note, has most of my favorite recordings produced by one guy, Alfred Lion.

My questions are these:
What are the advantages to this arrangement?
Financial ramifications?
Does the producer have special rights for future use?
Does ownership of the recordings revert to the producer after X years?

All in all, I am naive about this and it may be nothing as crazy as what I've asked. I'm just curious.

I also brought this up on Blue Note's bulletin board because I was thinking that a single producer helps define a label's "sound" (like Teekens does with Criss Cross for instance) and if Blue Note ever considered this at a corporate level. I wonder if I'll hear back?

Later,
Kevin

Kevin - one of the advantages of producing your own recording is that you have absolute choice over the material you will be doing, and the people in your group. If someone else is producing this for you, they will probably want to put their own input into this. And you might not agree with their "vision" of what your recording should sound like, or what material should be on it, and who your musicians will be.

Someone told me once "at least nobody is telling you to write a hip arrangement of 'Mary had a little lamb'!"

as far as ownership? if you are producing your own recording on your own label, then you own your masters. if you sell your master to a bigger label, then they will own them. some labels will make an agreement with you that they will own it & distribute it for you for the first five years, then after that ownership will revert back to you. But by then it might be difficult to actually get them to do this - not necessarily because they're trying to rip you off, (which sadly has been the case for many people) but just because unless you've been putting out a new release or two every year since the first one you let them have, then you are no longer "hot" and not a priority. they have other fish to fry. you've been lost in the shuffle unless you're one of the rare lucky ones who sells a lot of "product". and most jazz records don't.

in jazz a "hit" record sells maybe 30,000 copies, with a very few rare exceptions that sell more. in rock or pop or rap, that would be considered an abysmal failure. because they've already spent a lot more than that promoting it. they don't spend much to promote jazz artists, and then it's all the artist's fault if it doesn't sell. :-)

I believe the producer is paid a signifigant fee, at least if it's for a major label. If the leader has a vision, knows what s/he wants and feels comfortable in the studio and with the planning process it's another way for them to get paid, as artist and producer. Greg Osby has produced some very fine records for a number of artists on Bluenote in recent years.

As Ladybop and hearsay have already said, you have more control and it's cheaper. Remember that even if you have a label contract, all costs come out of your "advance" before you receive any proceeds.

One of the producer's main jobs is to define the sound of the album, which could include anything from hiring the band to writing the arrangements to picking the tunes. If you have already done this by working out the arrangements with a gigging band, then the need for a producer is eliminated. However, by self-producing you lose an objective ear.

Because there are so many other details to producing, like finding and hiring a studio and engineer, doing the mixing and mastering, etc., my preference would be to work with someone who understands and shares my musical vision but can take care of the business necessary to see that the vision is fulfilled. That would leave me free to concentrate on the music.

<<I believe the producer is paid a signifigant fee, at least if it's for a major label.>>

I'm not sure this statement is applicable in the jazz recording area ...( see Nancie's comment re 30k sales is considered i "jazz hit" .. such sales don't usually make for significant producer fees being paid by any label , IMPE )

over the years, I have done several projects where I was specifically contracted ( and paid ) to write arrangements for a given artist .. and then be expected to "co-produce" the date as part of that fee ..this could entail anything from conducting the orchestra, to budgeting out the date for the nominal "producer", to participating in the mixing, etc.

Laurie -

<< As Ladybop and hearsay have already said, you have more control and it's cheaper. Remember that even if you have a label contract, all costs come out of your "advance" before you receive any proceeds. >>

yep. and the bigger labels are notorious for their "bookkeeping" where the artist always owes the label, no matter how much they sell. check out courtney love's speach on that other thread, to see how they treat multi-million selling pop stars. And diminish that an octave or so, and it's the same story for jazz musicians. ask anyone who's been recording for a while.

<< One of the producer's main jobs is to define the sound of the album, which could include anything from hiring the band to writing the arrangements to picking the
tunes. >>

right. and if you already have a vision of what you want to do, and who you want in your band, then most likely the label's producer will be more of a hindrance than an asset to you. >>

<< If you have already done this by working out the arrangements with a gigging band, then the need for a producer is eliminated. >>

yep. but that's not all the producer does. It's also his/her responsibility to *produce* after the recording is in the can - get it out there, have it promoted, and so on. most musicians find the musical part of making a recording very easy, but the follow-up after it's released very difficult. having someone as a producer who has some connections can be most helpful. It can be your insurance policy that your recording will be heard, and not the sound of one hand clapping to only your inner circle of friends & audience members.

people always say to me once i have the finished CD in my hands (we have 3 out now, and #4 will be in my hands in about 2 weeks) "wow, you must be glad that's finished!" and i always say "no, now is when the *real* work begins." Because if you self-produce on your own label, nobody is out there helping you sell them to make your money back. And you don't have a floor full of people promoting you as you would on a big label. you have to do all that yourself.

<< Because there are so many other details to producing, like finding and hiring a studio and engineer, doing the mixing and mastering, etc.,>>

well, most musicians have no need of assistance in that part of the project.

<< .... my preference would be to work with someone who understands and shares my musical vision but can take care of the business necessary to see that the vision is fulfilled. That would leave me free to concentrate on the music. >>

don't we all wish we had that! :-)

I've been lucky enough to produce two other artists' recordings, plus my own CDs. As far as working with the other artists, I would only do it for someone whose music I loved, without exception. Since I was also the engineer and an instrumental performer on both of these projects, I knew I'd be spending a LOT of time with the music, so loving it was crucial.

One artist came to me with outstanding songs, sung only by her on her acoustic guitar. She wanted more, so I wrote a few arrangements that really open up the material, using everything from synths to dobros to harps. No cliches, all beef. She flipped and asked me to "take her music someplace it had never been." She was such a strong writer and singer that the songs still sound like her, and although the album was a minor success commercially, I will always think of it as an enormous success in terms of creativity and being a partner to an artist. We had some disagreements, but mostly it was smooth sailing for over a year.

The other album was pretty differet--the artist was my dulcimer-playing/singer/songwriter brother. I love working with him, but his "band" (a dobro player and a prima dona chick singer) almost made me lose my mind. Andy wanted the record to sound like them live, only fuller, so I added electric upright bass, a bit of keys and some percussion. He was totally into where I was taking it, but the other two players (neither of whom composed a note, nor were they paying anything for production assistance) dragged their heels all the way. They wanted it to sound like they sound live, only worse, I suppose. ;)

When all was said and done, the album was once again really impressive, imo. But then the chick singer started threatening to sue my brother if he sold it on the 'net without giving her a substantial cut...up front! She did, after all, sing backup on 5 tunes! Give me a break.

But the lesson for me was to understand how open ALL of the parties involved are to taking suggestions. I would never have gone into this project had I known how committed they were to their sound, which neither my brother nor I was reallyu satisfied with. I was the wrong producer for that one, and they were the wrong players for my brother.

graypencil -

>> <<I believe the producer is paid a signifigant fee, at least if it's for a major label.>>

I'm not sure this statement is applicable in the jazz recording area ...( see Nancie's comment re 30k sales is considered i "jazz hit" .. such sales don't usually make for significant producer fees being paid by any label , IMPE )<<

well, maybe a producer of a jazz recording on a major label might be making less than someone who is producing a pop star. i don't really know. any feedback from those who do know? i'm curious. but i will say that when i was working as a secretary for a major record label, it seemed that all the producers made out pretty well. and they are on salary, they don't get a percentage of the sales. so their checks come in every 2 weeks whether what they produced sells well or not.

and they are at least making a living which enables them to enjoy a secure borgois (sp?) lifetyle, which is not always the case with the artists, be it of any genre.

<,well, maybe a producer of a jazz recording on a major label might be making less than someone who is producing a pop star. i don't really know. any feedback from those who do know? >>

I think graypencil qualifies as someone who knows. The staff producer position you described is probably rarer and rarer nowadays--it's overhead a label doesn't need to carry, as there are plenty of guys one can call on an as-needed basis.

Ladybop--
Could you compile a list of your recordings? I would be interested in obtaining some. Are they available in the record marts or just at your venues?

Scramble - thanks for asking! :-)

i have 3 recordings out now, and the 4th one will be in my hands in about 2 weeks (my pressing plant assures me).

they are:

Waves of Peace
Bert's Blues
Ear Candy
Out of It

all are with my big band, and 3 of the 4 have additional special guests. 23 musicians on Waves of Peace, 21 on Bert's Blues, 17 on Ear Candy (no guests) and 19 on Out of It.

we have a little bit of distribution, but you won't find us at the K-Mart in Des Moines, for example. they are available online at a few different places. It's easier to email me, and i'll give you info on how to get them.

you can check out sound bytes at my webpage at:

http://www.jazzsingers.com/NancieBanks

Have been invited to the Kennedy Center affair in May.

Scramble - yep. Thursday, May 10th.

Well, now I am a bit more confused. First, I get the impression from a few that artists self-producing sessions is a good thing i.e. you get to do what you want, get to pick the players etc, but then Jazzoo presents a situation where he, as a producer, clashed with the musicians but in the end felt the record was better for it. Those two things are opposite in my eyes.

A fundamental question for me is can a musician be very objective of their creations? I mean, some of these recordings are the results of months and sometimes years of development. What if it really stinks? The creator won't think it. In Jazzoo's example, he felt their way wasn't right. Is this likely to happen more and more as musicians take over their recording sessions?

Later,
Kevin

<<Jazzoo presents a situation where he, as a producer, clashed with the musicians but in the end felt the record was better for it. Those two things are opposite in my eyes. >>

Well, two things to remember in this case: one is that you're hearing my opinion about the record being better. I'm correct, of course, but their opinions might vary. The most important thing, though, is that I was completely aligned with the most important musician: my brother, who was the actual artist--all his songs, his arrangements, his name on the CD. The other two players were backups to him. I think he basically allowed me to be the bad guy and tell them where he and I wanted the music to go...which is probably another good use for a producer if you're trying to hold a band together.

<<A fundamental question for me is can a musician be very objective of their creations?>>

I say the answer is a big no...but on the other hand, objectivity is often overrated. In the end, I think I enjoy art more that is born from passion, rather than rationale thought process. I liken it to testing a movie ending with a focus group--the smart thing would be to change your ending if everyone hated it. The artistic thing is to tell the focus group to beat it and put out the movie you wanted to make in the first place, trusting that it will find its audience.

<<I mean, some of these recordings are the results of months and sometimes years of development. What if it really stinks? The creator won't think it. In Jazzoo's example, he felt their way wasn't right. Is this likely to happen more and more as musicians take over their recording sessions?>>

Yes. I am totally in favor of self-produced projects (how could I not be?)...but producing is a different skill set, and a lot of artists I know don't have the ability. A good producer will help them express themselves, and that is a great partnership.
>>

Kevin - Jazzooo wasn't doing a self-produced session, he was producing the session for somebody else. there's a difference. if it was his own session he was producing, all the trauma & drama due to creative conflicts would not have been there. he would have been able to do whatever he wanted, without having to answer to anybody.

<<f it was his own session he was producing,
all the trauma & drama due to creative conflicts would not have been there. he
would have been able to do whatever he wanted, without having to answer to
anybody.>>
Nancie:

... as has been pointed out by both yourself and Doug:


making the record can be the fun part ..but it's only the beginning of the "producers job" ... what follows the creative phase is really the hard stuff ...


producing yourself depends on the end result of the project. as a example, while I 've never produced a "record" of my stuff for my own satisfaction ( or sale or whatever ), I have self-produced many movie scores that I have written and recorded.My criteria of acceptability under those conditions is based on maximizing a profit while still pleasing my end client ( the film guys) and satisfying myself that the music is acceptable to my professional standards. Were I to actually make a "record" that was to be a representation of myself artistically, I think I would want to have at the least a co- producer on the projext to help me keep my subjective viewpoint in check while looking out for my objective best interests .

graypencil -

<< making the record can be the fun part ..but it's only the beginning of the "producers job" ... what follows the creative phase is really the hard stuff ... >>

how true. the creative part of going in the studio and doing the recording and deciding what material you will do is the fun part. also the easy part.

it's after you have the finished recording in your hands that the hard part of being a producer begins. because then, if this is a self-produced project rather than something on a big label, it's up to you to get it out there so people can hear it. to send it out to the radio stations so it can get airplay, and writers so it can be reviewed, to sell enough of them that you can at least make enough of your expenses back so that it makes sense to do another one.
without that type of post-production, your project falls into the "sound of one hand clapping" category.

producing independent jazz records is certainly no get rich quick scheme!

<,Jazzooo wasn't doing a self-produced session, he was producing the session for somebody else. there's a difference. if it was his own session he was producing, all the trauma & drama due to creative conflicts would not have been there. >>

well, the crazy part is that I *still* have massive conflicts with myself! The main issues for me usually revolve around a) either leaving a song alone or adding some after the fact sweetening with organ, percussion, etc, b) liner notes and design, and c) song order. Song order in particular is kicking my ass right now, in fact. I am in love with my all song orders of the past, but I don't think that any of work perfectly for the listener. I keep saying that this is their problem, but I also find myself giving a disclaimer to people who buy Plays Well With Others--I say "I should have started this album with the second song, and put the first song around 9th." The first song, which I like, is kind of jarring, and it's the only with a synth solo...and believe me, I struggled to decide to put it first.

Right now, my fusion album sits, completely recorded and mixed. I want to start it with a powerful 8 minute blowout that i think is extremely charismatic...but I know will turn some people off, because it's kind of like getting started without any foreplay. It's also the only song on which I am not featured as a soloist--not a major concern, but a minor one.

So if I had a producer, i could drop this decision in his/her lap, then criticize him later!

Phil, you've heard Zagora--is it too risky to start the album with that?

This is a great dialogue on production. I do think there is a bit of a difference between production and promotion, which ultimately comes after the CD is completed and ready for shipping. For self producing artists, self promotion is the next step in the game. They are totally different skillsets. Bottom line is you have to be able to do it all.

Lynn -

<< Bottom line is you have to be able to do it all. >>

yep!

Jazzooo -

<< The main issues for me usually revolve around a) either leaving a song alone or adding some after the fact sweetening with organ, percussion, etc, b) liner notes and design, and c) song order. Song order in particular is kicking my ass right now, in fact. I am in love with my all song orders of the past, but I don't think that any of work perfectly for the listener. >>

well, that's why it's good to invite a person or two whose musical judgment you trust to be a co-producer. Sometimes they will suggest things you would not have thought of yourself. and sometimes they will give you the courage to go with something you have considered, but are not sure if you should do. for example, on my 3rd recording, i have a one minute eleven second vocal with just me, the bass & the drums. a writer (not a musician) told me he felt that it didn't even belong on my big band album. But those lyrics which i wrote to Bird's Anthropology are very close to my heart. they're me. they're my life. so i was determined to record them, and include them on my album, but i was going to bury it way in the back, after everything else, so that if people didn't want to listen to it, they didn't have to. they could just shut off their CD players at that point if they wanted to. But one of my co-producers told me he thought it was one of the best things on the album. and that i should put it further up to the front of the lineup. He's a very good musician, and had he not said that to me, i might have chickened out. as it turns out, that has gotten more airplay than many of the other songs on that recording that i really liked, and also a lot more nice mentions in reviews. go figure. he was right. i'm glad i listened to him.

<< "I should have started this album with the second song, and put the first song around 9th." The first song, which I like, is kind of jarring, and it's the only with a synth solo...and believe me, I struggled to decide to put it first. >>

well, song sequencing is like monday morning quarterbacking - after the project is pressed and it's too late to change things, it is only then that we have 20/20 hindsight. i would really like to change the sequence of songs on my second recording if i could now, but it would not be worth the expense. so i just chalk it up to the learning process, and apply that knowledge to the next project.

<,well, that's why it's good to invite a person or two whose musical judgment you trust to be a co-producer. >>

You're so right. I do that a lot, and I often give "associate producer" credits to these folks.

By the way, I'm glad your friend convinced you to go with your gut feeling and feature the smaller vocal track in the first half rather than the second.

jazzooo -

<< You're so right. I do that a lot, and I often give "associate producer" credits to these folks. >>

yep. that's why i list the people whose aid i call upon for opinions on sequencing or mixing "assistant producers". i might be the one who is doing 99% of the work as the producer, but without their input, i would not end up with as good a finished product. i appreciate them. and i need them.

it's so easy to get into your own little world doing this stuff. second opinions are vital, IMO. just make sure you ask it of those whose musicianship is of the highest caliber, and who have no agenda of their own they want to push, other than seeing you end up with the best recording possible.