How can I help a "one man band" give up some contr

[egr]

The vast majority of artists I deal with are "one man band" deals. They write, record, and mix all of their material and feel that what they send to the label is a finished and marketable product (which usually includes artwork, blurbs, everything).

Sometimes it's not. (To be fair, usually it is.)

In the cases where I have to tell a dude that we need to do some more work on his project, it can get a little touchy and always turns into a lengthy back and forth with tiny incremental improvement.

Is it more important for me to get involved in the process sooner or to be more stern at the end? Anybody else deal with a lot of OMB situations?

[Nick Sevilla]

Involvement: The sooner the better.
Advice: Uphill battle.
Returns: Worth the battle?

[chris harris]

What's your role in this? Producer? Engineer? Both? Don't assume. This is something that should be a clear agreement between you and the artists before you ever start work.

[egr]

What's your role in this? Producer? Engineer? Both? Don't assume. This is something that should be a clear agreement between you and the artists before you ever start work.

Good question.
I'm in the producer role. Organization, communication, scheduling, and promoting. I'm not doing any of the recording or mixing myself except in a very few instances (honestly this is what I'd like to be doing more of).
I'm also the label owner so I also give the final thumbs up/down on all projects, accept/reject demos, and handle all the financial matters (a few bucks here and there).

EDIT: Oh, wait I see you what you're saying. I have to admit that there's usually very little talk about my role at the beginning of a project. In fact, the first I know of a project is usually an email containing the completed package. Not ideal at all.

[Nick Sevilla]

So, you're a Label:

http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopic.php?t=78677

OK.

You do need to define your role more precisely.
It seems from all that you wrote so far, that you really specialize in the distribution / duplication / promotion side of things, and not on the actual production.
Up until now, you get a finished project, and do very little interference (that is what the artist will probably look at your "suggestions" as) so far.
Every now and then you get a shit record.
Well, you can do what every other label does when they get a shit record :
1.- Tell the artist to give you something else because this sucks. Be honest with them
or
2.- Tell the artist you want to produce their album, with all the attendant work that this will require. THis is the part you want to do. Do you really want to do this? Because the more you do this, the less of the workings of your label you will be able to do.
Ask yourself, what do I REALLY LOVE DOING?
And then, do that.

Cheers

[chris harris]

I've produced and/or engineered several of the records that I've released on my label. I truly LOVE doing both! Both are also BUSINESSES that most people would recommend avoiding like the plague, in 2012. So, you really do have to love it.

With the label, I've never agreed to release an album for an artist without being absolutely sure that I'm going to love what they bring me. I guess a situation could arise where they might bring me something radically different than what they led me to believe I'd be getting. If that happened, I guess it could lead to a situation like, "welllllllllll...... let's talk about this recording....." In that case it shouldn't be uncomfortable at all. However, from being an engineer/producer, there are things on almost every record I've released on my label that I maybe would have done differently if I was engineering/producing. In the end, it's their record. If I like it, I put it out. If I didn't, I would just pass. I assume that at the level we're talking about, these "label" releases are just licensed from the band and there's no label ownership of masters, or huge pre-manufacturing advances to recoup. No big deal...

With projects I produce, whether my label is involved or not, there is no awkwardness at all with making suggestions about the recording/songs/performances/etc., because, y'know, that's the job.

[dfuruta]

I have a one man band, and I've had releases on a number of small labels. At this level, I'd be kind of offended if a label tried to tell me what to do, creatively, instead of just saying "no".

[egr]

I have a one man band, and I've had releases on a number of small labels. At this level, I'd be kind of offended if a label tried to tell me what to do, creatively, instead of just saying "no".

Surely there's something between "no" and "yes" though?

In general my situation is just as Chris Harris has described.
"Label" could easily be replaced with "brand".

[dfuruta]

Surely there's something between "no" and "yes" though?

In general my situation is just as Chris Harris has described.
"Label" could easily be replaced with "brand".

I suppose it's a different situation if you've commissioned the release, so to speak; if you ask to put out a record by someone and they send you something bizarre, I understand why it'd be good to see if they're willing to change things rather than force you to renege on your commitment. In this case, taking on more of a producer role could make sense, if you can negotiate it with the artist. However, if you get something completed in the mail without a prior commitment, I think it's different.

Of course, I can only speak for myself, and it's not the same for everyone. I've had albums out on some well-respected labels in my corner of the music world (black metal), but there's little money involved once all of the expenses are covered. Since I'm not making anything, why would I let someone compromise my work? I'd rather find a different label or put it out myself. And, if the artist doesn't take to your suggestions quickly, he/she probably does view it as compromising.

Speaking for myself, I'm much happier getting a rejection note from a label, maybe with some comments about why they didn't like it, than I am getting requests for changes.

[egr]

Since I'm not making anything, why would I let someone compromise my work?

Hmmm, exceedingly well put. My answer may be as simple as working on writing better rejection letters.

[Chris Graham Mastering]

I think there's a general misconception among many of todays artist was a producer really "is". I think a big upfront convo about what producing a project really means is helpful. Finding a mastering engineer that will give mix feedback is nice as well to have a third party to bounce things off of.

I find that OMB guys usually tend to like their vocals way to low or way to high depending on their ego or lackthereof.

[teleharmonium]

The way I see it is that there are many possible types of relationships between labels and artists and producers and artists. So it's wise to be clear from an early stage as to how you see your role and what the expectations are, which would be in effect unless negotiated otherwise.

If you're wearing both of those hats, even more so.

As stated above, if you're not commissioning new work as such, but rather receiving what the artists feel to be finished products and accepting or rejecting them, the simplicity of that relationship relies on you doing just that and not trying to take control at a late stage when that doesn't seem to have been part of established goodwill.

On the other hand, if you're looking for certain specific kinds of results or want to only use your time on projects with a high likelihood of working out, getting involved earlier deeper seems like the way to make that happen.

My personal viewpoint is that the narcissistic rampage our society is on coupled with generalized bad attitudes about the music business and music production has led to a lot of people considering themselves to be auteurs in the possession of genius that should be presumed to be better than and beyond the reach of any critique.

I don't think I would want to be in the position of dealing with that all the time. I think those attitudes are a hallmark of younger people and tend to get worn down by real world experience and interaction with others. This can improve a persons work, or destroy their aspirations through what they learn about their limits... at least, if they make it through, they'll be more humble, and usually they will have better people skills.

I think it takes a lot of that to get the point that you're not likely to be improved by objective input from others - and even then, a lot of the greats are known to seek out and relish such input. Not that it's easy to find the right input (in content and delivery style), or that it isn't a two way street with the producer/label being able to compromise as well or maybe improve their understanding of meaning or goals.

[sears]

Great thread. Keep it going. I always wondered how labels deal with one man bands.

I like "Charzard."

[fossiltooth]

I have a one man band, and I've had releases on a number of small labels. At this level, I'd be kind of offended if a label tried to tell me what to do, creatively, instead of just saying "no".

Surely there's something between "no" and "yes" though?

I understand the sentiment dfuruta, but I'm not sure if I agree.

Imagine if I was mixing your record and your thought the results were 90% there, but not quite perfect yet. You thought it was sounding pretty great, but you thought that it would sound even better with the vocals down, the drums up, and if I didn't make the guitar solo quite so bold and unusual on that one song. Would you say "no"? Or would you say "it's almost there, let's try to tweak a few things"?

What if I turned in an article to my editors and they thought it was great -- except that two paragraphs were redundant, I misspelled the word onomatopoeia, and I could try to make the opening a little leaner and more gripping. Should they just tell me "no" or should they give me the opportunity to do my best work for them?

When I'm mixing a project, I make recommendations when I feel a performance or arrangement is holding a song back from reaching its full potential. Similarly, when I get articles from guest writers, I edit them painstakingly to help them take their grammar, pacing and flow up to another level. Essentially, I do for them what I hope my editors and my engineers would do for me.

So: If I'm a label and someone hands me something that's not 100% of the way up to my professional standards, should I just say "no" or should I try to help them do even better?

If the work is 80-90% of the way there (which is rare) then it makes sense to work together to make it great. When it's 50-60% of the way there (which is quite common) that's a whole 'nuther story. That's when a simple "no" is in order, I think.