Producers killed instrumentalists

Zero Mercury Drummer

Senior Member
Something in Bill Bruford's book got me thinking- at some point in time, producers took over the art and business of music-making from instrumentalists.
Does anybody else get a little miffed by the fact that instrumentalists, especially drummers, have been relegated to somewhat anonymous participants in the making of a final song (depending on the band).
The only drummers that seem to get respect or notoriety anymore are the ones that either pre-dated the switch (ex. Neil Peart) or somebody known for something other than drumming (ex. Tommy Lee).

I guess it depends on the band, but any studio drummer will tell you that producers write their checks, and its all about pleasing the knob-twirler.
Drummers often find themselves booted from lifelong bands when the producer appears because they can't conform to the sterility and automation of the studio. The opinion of the drummer in the overall scheme is usually nil.
Listeners as a result have been attuned to the mechanized processes of sequencing and drum machines. What happened is there is almost zero appreciation anymore among the general public for the talents of instrumentalists, unless you are talking about a hot guitar lead.
The main audience for musicians that dare to explore any sort of technique or sophistication in music-making is....other musicians.

Interested in people's thoughts on this...
 
The main audience for musicians that dare to explore any sort of technique or sophistication in music-making is....other musicians.

This is the most telling statement right there. 100% of the pop music I have been subjected to could (if it wasn't already) be made using drum tracks from Superior Drummer and that ilk and circumvent the need for a carbon-based biped with a pair of sticks.

The music I prefer has requirements that make it much more difficult to do with a machine. Using your Bruford example, could a producer have come up with those wonderful, off-kilter fills BB devised for "One More Red Nightmare"? I think not.

The good stuff, IMO, will still be done by and / or under the direction of a gifted musician. How well that stuff "sells" is a different discussion...
 
I guess it depends on the genre.

In jazz, you have Jeff Hamilton who has led a trio and co-led a big band for quite a while. He writes a lot of songs even though he is known for being "just a drummer".

Stanton Moore too. He just released a straight up jazz trio record.

Other drummers, such as Roy Haynes, Peter Erskine, Terri Lynn Carrington, and many others I'm sure I'm forgetting, are definitely in charge of how a song sounds in it's final form.

Even in blues too. Sam Lay still records as leader of a band.

Within pop music however, I really don't pay attention to it, or even care to. It's not really about instrumental craftsmanship. Pop music is more of a product; pure and simple.
 
Good arguments here already. But looking at the "what sells" part, I've noticed that more and more, pop music doesn't have the longevity it used to. It seems to cycle through faster, in and out of our lives, which I suppose helps to ease the pain. Yet at the same time, when it disappears, is it still selling? So maybe that rubric is changing too? Maybe nobody is really 'making it' from music production alone - leaving the really hard-working musicians and performers out there to continue to play live and thrive (The Aristocrats with Marco Minneman comes to mind, since they're always touring and recording, but not necessarily being heard on mainstream radio - if that even exists anymore).

But to be honest, I don't think what you're talking about is any different than what we complained about in the 80s, or the 70s, or the 60s.....all eras had pop music, and some of it was good (because we still hear it today), and alot of was bad, especially the clone artists that appeared because they were like what was the hip #1 act of the day. The real original and hard-working acts are always out there doing it, and the flash-in-the-pans always eventually disappear.
 
Something in Bill Bruford's book got me thinking- at some point in time, producers took over the art and business of music-making from instrumentalists.

While I agree they took over "the business", I hesitate to concede on "the art". To me the art exists in the bedroom, the basement, the rehearsal area, the campfire, and occasionally, the stage. Once it's played, it's done. You can record it and you end up with the equivalent of a photograph of an oil painting. If you produce it, it's no longer art... Unless you're doing an sonic-Andy-Warhol thing....

I guess my point is: Produced albums are not art by virtue of their production. The music was the art. We listen to an interpretation that's been compromised by several other entities, from the recording engineer all the way to the manufacturer of our loudspeakers.

As a child, I had the good fortune to have a performing musician for a father. As a parent and a musician, I feel a strong obligation to expose my children to live music in the hopes that they'll understand someday.
 
The direction of the music industry has been discussed many times here on this forum.

I thought that it was pointed out that a "producer" who is putting up the money, is now becoming less and less a factor in the current music industry.
Seems to me the issue of a controlling producer is an old view of the music industry.


.
 
The direction of the music industry has been discussed many times here on this forum.

I thought that it was pointed out that a "producer" who is putting up the money, is now becoming less and less a factor in the current music industry.
Seems to me the issue of a controlling producer is an old view of the music industry.


.

I've never in my life heard of a producer paying a musician

I've been payed by a record label
I've been payed by the artist directly

but never a producer

a producer is under contract just as the musician is
they are there to provide a service just as the musician is
and often it is the musician paying the producer .... whether it is out of a labels budget or straight from their pocket.
even if the label is to pay the producer.... guess who is really paying the producer.... the artist when everything boils down to its essence

sometimes they take pay upfront
sometimes they want points on the record

but a producer paying a musician ?

can't say I have come across this in all my years in the industry

but thats just me and what the hell do I know
 
Last edited:
While I agree they took over "the business", I hesitate to concede on "the art". To me the art exists in the bedroom, the basement, the rehearsal area, the campfire, and occasionally, the stage. Once it's played, it's done. You can record it and you end up with the equivalent of a photograph of an oil painting. If you produce it, it's no longer art...

I like Robert Fripp's analogy along the same lines when he asks "Would you rather have a 'hot date' (live performance) or a 'love letter' (recording of said performance)?".
 
My question with the line of "producers took over the art and business of music-making from instrumentalists." is when exactly were the instrumentalists fully in charge?

In an orchestra, or symphony, the instrumentalists are serving the conductor, and usually playing something already written, by someone else.

Much of pop music pre-60's were show tunes, and/or the music that became standards, all of which was generally written by someone else. A musicians hired to play in a big band, or to back a singer like Sinatra or such was following the chart, following the band leader, and wasn't exactly in charge. If a drummer got hired for a gig, it was to back the singer, or provide dinner music, or get people to dance.

Obviously, jazz moved toward way more improv, and the instrumentalists being in charge, but that was outside of pop music.

It wasn't until Bob Dylan and the Beatles that the concept of a pop/rock artist writing their own material become a common idea.

So then there was a roughly a 20 year period of drummers in successful bands being creative before you get into what Bill is describing.

So, yeah, in part, Bruford has a point. But I also think for the most part, he lives in an alternate reality from most of us. He got lucky, not just once with Yes, but again with King Crimson. Most guys don't get to join a band that makes unusual music, sell a ton of records, quit that band, and still have success playing really out there music. His career is such an exception to what the average drummer's or musician's career, and he was lucky to live at just the right time that a band like Yes could find commercial success.
 
really ?

the producer payed you and not the person funding the project ?

I've never experienced this but I find it interesting

Yes, because the producer was almost always also the composer. I've worked for a lot of guys who had the contracts and produced everything right up to the final presentation, even for the TV ads.

(Have you ever had to play to video, to the video click? It's weird.)
 
My question with the line of "producers took over the art and business of music-making from instrumentalists." is when exactly were the instrumentalists fully in charge?

In an orchestra, or symphony, the instrumentalists are serving the conductor, and usually playing something already written, by someone else.

Much of pop music pre-60's were show tunes, and/or the music that became standards, all of which was generally written by someone else. A musicians hired to play in a big band, or to back a singer like Sinatra or such was following the chart, following the band leader, and wasn't exactly in charge. If a drummer got hired for a gig, it was to back the singer, or provide dinner music, or get people to dance.

Obviously, jazz moved toward way more improv, and the instrumentalists being in charge, but that was outside of pop music.

It wasn't until Bob Dylan and the Beatles that the concept of a pop/rock artist writing their own material become a common idea.

So then there was a roughly a 20 year period of drummers in successful bands being creative before you get into what Bill is describing.

So, yeah, in part, Bruford has a point. But I also think for the most part, he lives in an alternate reality from most of us. He got lucky, not just once with Yes, but again with King Crimson. Most guys don't get to join a band that makes unusual music, sell a ton of records, quit that band, and still have success playing really out there music. His career is such an exception to what the average drummer's or musician's career, and he was lucky to live at just the right time that a band like Yes could find commercial success.

Great points in this thread, including this one.
Bruford admits that he was insanely lucky. They were handing out record deals to British musicians like candy around that time. (to think that the Beatles, Stones and Who were selling us our own musical traditions back to us).
Peart was also very lucky. He was selling tractor parts when he got the gig with Rush, which had a fresh record deal and was embarking on a tour. His first gig with the band was in front of more than 10,000 people.

Some people mentioned that there was a short period when instrumentalists were in control- the era of Cream, Hendrix, Zeppelin etc. There was so much more respect paid to the musicianship.

My wife, bless her heart, is a great example of a modern listener. She has no clue what makes a good drummer. She can't tell the difference between Dave Weckl and Ringo Starr. It's interesting trying to explain to her. Not only can she not appreciate the subtler shadings that are possible on the drums, she is not even aware that the possibility exists. To her the drumbeat is just a background pulse she never paid attention to.
Showing her a drum solo and explaining the concepts of technique, creativity etc. is really interesting, if a bit frustrating.
 
My wife, bless her heart, is a great example of a modern listener. She has no clue what makes a good drummer. She can't tell the difference between Dave Weckl and Ringo Starr. It's interesting trying to explain to her. Not only can she not appreciate the subtler shadings that are possible on the drums, she is not even aware that the possibility exists. To her the drumbeat is just a background pulse she never paid attention to.
Showing her a drum solo and explaining the concepts of technique, creativity etc. is really interesting, if a bit frustrating.

Kind of like her trying to interest you in hair and makeup lol.

The only people who really think deeply about drums are drummers.
 
Does anybody else get a little miffed by the fact that instrumentalists, especially drummers, have been relegated to somewhat anonymous participants in the making of a final song (depending on the band).

Drummers often find themselves booted from lifelong bands when the producer appears because they can't conform to the sterility and automation of the studio. The opinion of the drummer in the overall scheme is usually nil.

With only a few exceptions, a drummer who's a member of a group never had a large role in the final outcome of the tracks that they played on. There are writers, players, and producers, and there's historically not a lot of crossover.

It's the producer's job to make sure the product is suitable for the intended audience. The fact that the drummer or any band member may not be involved in that process shouldn't be considered some sort of personal affront. The fact that an artist bows to the producer shouldn't seem strange... plenty of non-pop and other 'evolved' types had producers.

Eventually in the course of a relationship with a label, an artist may demonstrate, or have a suitable track record, or possess enough clout, that they can produce their recordings themselves.

As far as producers recently gaining some sort of control, they were always in control of the sound/product, and much more so in the past. I'd say artists and groups in most genres have more creative control than ever before. Arguably, dance and rap and a percentage of pop music are subject to a producer's talent more than the singer's, however but those genres don't lend themselves to live drumming or bands anyway.

As to the statement "Producers killed instrumentalists", perhaps they did in a few cases, particularly with emerging genres, but certainly not completely. Don't forget that many of today's producers are also the instrumentalist.

Bermuda
 
With only a few exceptions, a drummer who's a member of a group never had a large role in the final outcome of the tracks that they played on. There are writers, players, and producers, and there's historically not a lot of crossover.

It's the producer's job to make sure the product is suitable for the intended audience. The fact that the drummer or any band member may not be involved in that process shouldn't be considered some sort of personal affront. The fact that an artist bows to the producer shouldn't seem strange... plenty of non-pop and other 'evolved' types had producers.

Eventually in the course of a relationship with a label, an artist may demonstrate, or have a suitable track record, or possess enough clout, that they can produce their recordings themselves.

As far as producers recently gaining some sort of control, they were always in control of the sound/product, and much more so in the past. I'd say artists and groups in most genres have more creative control than ever before. Arguably, dance and rap and a percentage of pop music are subject to a producer's talent more than the singer's, however but those genres don't lend themselves to live drumming or bands anyway.

As to the statement "Producers killed instrumentalists", perhaps they did in a few cases, particularly with emerging genres, but certainly not completely. Don't forget that many of today's producers are also the instrumentalist.

Bermuda

Thanks Bermuda, it's great to have the perspective of a pro.
I'm not really offended by this dynamic- I do find it interesting. I noticed as a kid reading "Modern Drummer" there was always interviews with drummers talking about "playing for the song," not being too flashy with too many fills etc. I realized early on that the most famous drummers were not necessarily the most skilled, unless they had a musician audience (Weckl, Donati, etc) I also played with older musicians that constantly urged a "less is more" philosophy. They always said "don't busy it up with a bunch of fancy drumming."
I guess my point is that the drummer is the one most often saddled with this kind of requirement. No one ever says "play a very simple, basic guitar lead," for example.
 
No one ever says "play a very simple, basic guitar lead," for example.

they absolutely do .... and very often actually

every producer I've ever worked with in a contemporary rock situation has preferred something like this .... and I have worked with many producers who actually cited these examples

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dccx5QSsOqs&t=2m55s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtLpZWNyM0I&t=3m2s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBecM3CQVD8&t=2m52s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3RYvO2X0Oo&t=1m55s

to something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyMQLrnbBgE&t=3m33s
 
I noticed as a kid reading "Modern Drummer" there was always interviews with drummers talking about "playing for the song," not being too flashy with too many fills etc.

I also played with older musicians that constantly urged a "less is more" philosophy. They always said "don't busy it up with a bunch of fancy drumming."
I guess my point is that the drummer is the one most often saddled with this kind of requirement. No one ever says "play a very simple, basic guitar lead," for example.

I've seen more than a few guitar & keyboard & bass players told to cool their jets on parts, it's hardly limited to drummers, although I do see the most violations with them. FWIW, I haven't been told that I overplayed in almost 40 years, and in my defense, I was still a teen and not too experienced.

Ideally, in a pro situation, very little has to be said to any of the players. That's not to say they don't get direction, and that typically comes from the producer. But the producer is also responsible for making sure the right players are on the project, whether it's a solo artist or an established group (hence the plethora of studio musicians ghosting on hits of many '60s & '70s "bands".) And who decides who's 'right' for the job? why, the producer, of course!

The producer is in charge, period, whether he's independent, or happens to be the artist or a member of the group. There's a certain amount of democracy and diplomacy involved in dealing with the artist and players, but it is ultimately the producer's job to make the artist/band sound its best. It's not that the players aren't capable, they may simply not have the overall vision for the sound (and arrangements and even specific parts) that an experienced producer has.

Consider an actor, and how their performance and the ultimate success of a role depends on the director. It almost doesn't matter as much how good or bad the actor is, as how good the director is, and what they can bring out of that actor. That's essentially what a producer does with musicians. And like famous directors that work best with certain actors and film genres, there are famous producers who bring out the best from certain groups and artists.

Can a great actor also direct themselves? Sure, but you don't see it very often, and only once they have a lot of experience. Same goes for most artists and bands.

Bermuda
 
Back
Top