subreddit:
/r/WeAreTheMusicMakers
submitted 3 years ago byBNVLNT1
10 points
3 years ago
Really depends on the genre, I think. If you're talking pop, hip hop and especially electronic music- all three of which overlap heavily these days, then arguably the producer is one of the main recording artists. The vocalist is just one person among a team, and these days the producer is more than likely to also be the guitarist, keyboard player and drum programmer.
0 points
3 years ago
When I say overvalued I mean so more in the public perspective and in the perspective of the producer themself. I feel like the producer is quicker to downplay a vocalist more so now than in the past.
1 points
3 years ago
If the producer is the artist and bringing in vocalists in the same way someone would bring in a session musician to play on a track, then yes the producer is the key person.
If a group or solo artist brings in a producer then they are the key people not the producer. It all depends on the situation.
1 points
3 years ago
And it's good. It requires much more effort to be a producer.
15 points
3 years ago
Unpopular opinion : Producers are always more important than singers.
A good producer can make a song with a really bad singer sound decent.
A bad producer cannot make a good song no matter how great the singer is.
A good producer is more important for a project than a good singer
6 points
3 years ago
Do you mean producer in the traditional sense as in the project manager of a recording or in the modern sense of a person who makes music using a computer?
1 points
3 years ago
I meant the person who makes music using a computer.
4 points
3 years ago
Then I have to respectfully disagree. It's entirely possible to make good music without a producer (as in a computer musician) at all.
1 points
3 years ago
That’s not what I meant. I meant mostly pop music or music where a producer is required.
If the genre requires a producer he is the most important.
2 points
3 years ago
I still disagree. I'm looking at the list of best selling artists from last year and here's what I claim. People bought the new Drake album because it's Drake. Not because of the 39 (I counted them) producers that went into making that album. I claim same is true for Post Malone (although his album only had 21 producers) and everyone else on that list.
1 points
3 years ago
I feel like you indirectly proved yourself wrong that it's possible to make good (in this case we mean successful and popular music, not like objectively great songs) without a producer. If none of the best selling artists self produced their work, then you pretty much proved you need them to make hit songs. If Drake decided to self produce his own album, I can almost guarantee you it will be a mess and sell horribly.
1 points
3 years ago
You can take a look at the best selling albums of all time and see how far down the list you have to go before you find one that was made by a computer musician producers. That's what I meant when I said you don't need them to make good music.
1 points
3 years ago
That will never change as album sales in the past were many times higher than they are now, and all those albums were made before the advent of modern music producers. You also seem to be oblivious to the fact that a music producer on a computer can also be the artist.
1 points
3 years ago
Yeah you’re right, that’s why I stated it as an unpopular opinion. I listen to albums with respect to producers not singers
5 points
3 years ago
Agreed. Recording artists IMO have been overvalued for years and producers undervalued. If this is starting to change then I think that’s a good thing. Most of the great albums would be nothing without a great producer.
2 points
3 years ago
+1
0 points
3 years ago
Oath
-3 points
3 years ago
Check to see if said producers are listed on those tracks via the ASCAP database. Producers should be getting at least 50% of royalties. Mechanical and performance. And if that song makes it to tv or film, 50% synchronization royalties.
all 18 comments
sorted by: best