On Thursday, 9 May, I woke to the devastating news that Steve Albini had passed away, at the age of 61.
Who is Steve? And, why am I heartbroken?
Well, if you don’t know who he is, hit google for some information. The bottom line is he has been an incredibly important figure in the music world over the last 40 years.
Steve and his friends Bob Weston and Todd Trainer have been in a band called Shellac since 1992, one of my favourite bands of all time. I have been having weekly drum lessons with Todd since October 2020, he is one of my favourite people and we have become great friends. It is for him that my heart breaks.
Steve acknowledged my existence in this world last year. We emailed each other many times concerning a series of articles I was writing for medium.com on the role of a music producer. We also briefly discussed Parkinson’s disease, which his wife has, and for which she was to undergo the same procedure I experienced last year.
Steve was very obliging in his responses to my simple queries about music production. I have drawn his material from the four articles I wrote and reproduced it below, with some context so it makes sense. I hope you find it interesting.
Thank you, Steve. Rest in peace.
The role of a music producer
For the past year or two I have taken part in the Album of the Month discussion hosted by the Medium.com publication called The Riff. A volunteer chooses an album and introduces it via an article. Then, up to a dozen people get together on a zoom call and thrash out their thoughts on the album. Yep, it’s book club for music nerds. It has been a lot of fun, and great to get to know some people. I have hosted the discussion three times.
Each monthly conversation has often rolled around to the production of the album under examination. A few questions have arisen about how an album is created, and to what extent a producer is involved in the various processes. I decided to put together some thoughts and notes on what a producer does. After some searching and general snooping around, I very quickly came up with a reasonable knowledge base to read from. I wanted to distil that information down to some sort of guiding text about what producers do in the grand scheme of making a record.
Now, I’ve not completed a PhD study here, although I did find one! This piece is not a definitive text about the role, nor does it cover a complete history of the recording of music. It is my summary of some of the models of the producer role, and how the job has changed, evolved, or morphed over the years.
I have included some quotes, or question-and-answer details from conversations I have had recently with Steve Albini.
Steve has an incredible wealth of experience as an engineer and producer, (he prefers the former term; often an album credit may read Recorded by Steve Albini). Steve has worked on more than 1,000 recordings, including albums by Pixies, The Jesus Lizard, Om, Jon Spencer Blues Explosion, The Lizard Train, Nirvana and PJ Harvey. He designed and built his studio, Electrical Audio, in Chicago, in 1997. Steve has been in several bands, and has been the vocalist-guitarist in Shellac since 1992.
I hope you enjoy reading what he has to say. I thank Steve profusely for spending his valuable time sharing his experiences with me.
What producers do
A music producer’s main goal is to assist an artist with the realisation of their vision for a music recording. Plain and simple. In other words, let’s make a record!
The key tasks that a producer may be responsible for, include:
- manage, direct, guide and influence the creative process;
- collaborate with the artist in the the development of existing ideas and song elements, including the creation of new material;
- be a sounding board for ideas put forward by the artist, and offer suggestions that the artist might not have considered;
- act as the main technical person that records, mixes and masters the sounds created;
- supervise studio engineers and technicians;
- take care of business matters, including arranging and managing studio rental time;
- engage and schedule session musicians, arrangers and orchestrators.
The extent to which a producer is involved in a project, and in what particular skill areas, varies dramatically. The level of involvement of a producer can be as little as acting as an overseer of organisational arrangements, right through to becoming fully invested in the role, including as a songwriter and performer.
Keep in mind that the producer role is a fluid rather than static one. A particular level of involvement for an individual producer may swing like a pendulum between projects, depending on the needs of the particular artist. Any and all tasks may vary to differing degrees between projects, artists and genres.
And, of course, the array of tasks performed also depends on the skill level of the individual. Some producers may be outstanding collaborators, able to invest deeply in the creative process, but may have little technical expertise and wouldn’t recognise a mixing console from a tape recording machine.
I asked Steve Albini to share his thoughts on what a producer’s role looks like, and what role he actually performs under that moniker:
My conception of a producer is the person responsible for the creative decisions on a record. Which songs, what arrangement and overdubs, what sound, style and tempo… that sort of thing. I don’t get involved in any of that. I’ll ask the band what they’re trying to do and then my job is to execute that. In that way of thinking I consider the band I’m working with to be the producer of the session.
Steve also commented further on how deep a producer might get involved with the creative process:
Some producers create whole tracks, complete arrangements of music, then find a singer to decorate them. That’s a kind of extreme example, but it shows how varied the definition of producer is from session to session. Some “producers” just hang out in the session saying “do it again,” or “more feeling,” and if their clients value their opinions then they get work.
Steve reiterated that this is simply not the way he works:
However you perceive the role of producer, it’s manifest to me that I am not doing that job.
Steve explained that the organisational aspects of a producer’s role form a major component of the job, and may be overlooked:
I still have plenty to look after: The equipment, planning, time management, scheduling, details about sound quality, keeping things under budget and on time … There’s a lot to do in a session that has an impact on the result beyond things generally attributed to the producer.
How producers work
Steve summarised how he approaches the recording of an artist:
My normal method is to set the band up to perform as they would onstage, or with some additional isolation (keeping the amps away from the acoustic drums for example), record backing tracks live, then add overdubs as necessary or requested.
Steve explained that many artists, especially those that do not have multinational corporations paying the bills, rely on a producer to run the whole show, taking care of every aspect of the business:
Most records done on a shoestring budget cannot afford to hire specialists, so most of those sessions are done that way by default. When I work on a record, 90-plus percent of the time, I’m doing it start-to-finish, from the first take through to the mixing, but not mastering.
Steve further explained that mastering an album is a specialty field:
Mastering, especially for disc cutting a vinyl master, is a specialised task and requires a completely different set of skills and equipment. I have been a mastering supervisor for a bunch of records I’ve worked on but I’m not a mastering engineer and I don’t have a mastering studio, so I’m always doing it at a mastering studio I respect, typically Abbey Road or Chicago Mastering Service.
When Steve was asked about aspects of his approach that set him apart from other producers, he gave the following example:
It’s rare that I build a track up from nothing track-by-track. I rarely use click tracks or metronomes, but some bands have the metronome built in essentially as a band member, and for those bands playing with the metronome is normal and easy. It’s very rare for me to introduce a metronome at the last moment to keep things regular. I can’t recall ever doing it except by request.
Technology
Significant advances have been made in the way music is recorded — we moved from acoustic and electrical signals being scribed into wax master cylinders and discs, to the advent of recording to magnetic tape, which became widely used after World War II. Magnetic tape would be the dominant recording method until the digital age emerged in the 1970s. The first all-digital album was released in 1979. Then, in a nutshell, digital dominated: compact discs > digital audio files > digital players > file sharing > increase in capacity and decrease in cost > increase in quality > streaming services.
Recording to tape still exists, and still has its champions. Steve is one of those champions. However, even the diehard analogue engineers have adopted digital to some extent in their studios, essentially to cater for those clients that wish to record that way.
Steve briefly talked about his peers or contemporaries that have a similar approach or outlook to recording:
Lots of engineers of my generation started out using all analogue methods and likely kept more than a few of those methods through a transition into digital recording. I know that’s true for Brian Paulson, Bob Weston, Matthew Barnhart, Peter Deimel and plenty of others.
Steve also briefly mentioned the advantage of fit-for-purpose equipment that makes an engineers job easier:
Having purpose-built equipment can be great, especially for tasks that require a precise arrangement of gear or unconventional usage. Using the M-S stereo mic technique for example can tie up several channels on the desk and be prone to error and misalignment, but a purpose built M-S matrix like we have here at Electrical makes the setup easy and repeatable.
A Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) is a piece of software, or a separate device, designed for the production of music. The digital software and hardware components had a significant impact on the music recording process. The widespread uptake of software applications like Pro Tools and Logic Pro has now reached a point where just about anyone with a laptop can be a producer and engineer. Pro Tools was first released in 1989, Logic Pro in 1993. Both have undergone many changes and improvements, to increase capacity and functionality.
Musicians use DAW tech in different ways. An important use is simply throwing ideas down so one does not forget them. Anywhere, anytime! It’s an almost instant process — a riff, a chord progression, a rhythm, anything, might pop into your mind — in a short minute or two, it goes straight into the computer!
I’ll never forget a message from a great friend when he figured out what his Mac could do: “I’ve just discovered I can plug my guitar straight into the computer and record stuff using GarageBand; goodbye law degree!!”
Some musicians create demos to bring to bandmates. Others create fully fleshed out pieces ready to bring to a studio. Going into a recording session with advanced and detailed preparation can mean much less time in an expensive studio.
Steve was generally positive about the development of DAW tech, as a way for any artist to record their material:
The democratizing effect of recording software is great because it gives everybody the chance to record themselves, and I remember vividly when that was a distant, unattainable goal for most bands. It does mean that the average standard of quality has been necessarily lowered to the level of amateur sessions in untrained hands, but on the whole it’s been a good development.
Steve noted a further advantage of broader DAW accessibility, namely the development of skills and knowledge:
When bands come into the studio they have a better understanding of the possibilities of the studio and generally have a better idea of how to proceed than in an era where everybody was ignorant and studio recording was like a secret black art.
Steve added that DAW tech may allow artists to record additional material for their project, in their own time, after recording in a studio:
It’s often the case that a band will come into the studio to record some basic tracks, then take those basic tracks to their home studio setup and develop a complete production there with unlimited time for overdubs and such. I don’t know that I’d endorse “unlimited time for overdubs” as a marker for better records overall, but it’s definitely the opposite of being rushed and limited in capacity.
Royalties
Almost every producer working in the music industry will ask for a percentage of an artist’s record sales royalties as a method of payment. This percentage is known as points.
Producer royalties are different to publishing royalties, which are earned by each person listed as writing a particular song.
So, how much does a producer get? Figures floating around the industry show a range of about two to five per cent. That can end up being a substantial amount of money if a record sells millions of copies.
There is an exception to every rule, though, and Steve is that exception. He does not take royalty points from artists, preferring to work for a fee. I asked Steve how he arrived at that decision:
I’m only working on a record for a limited amount of time. Days or weeks at most. I think it’s unreasonable to expect someone to be beholden to me, to keep paying me for those couple of days, forever. That’s just ethically unacceptable to me and I won’t do it. I am comfortable placing a value on my time and asking to be paid for it, and that’s just a simpler, more obvious way for me to be paid for my work.
In recent years, there have been many examples of multiple contributors to a song or album all being listed as producers. In the past, one would invite a guest into the studio to do something small and discrete, such as sing a backing vocal, play a guitar solo, or arrange melodies for a brass section. It seems that if a musician was to do that nowadays, they would be given a production credit, which would entitle them to royalty points.
As an example, the last Maroon 5 album had 25 producers listed. I wondered just how much each of those people had actually contributed useful material to a 37 minute album. Steve Albini briefly commented:
I can’t speak for other people or records I wasn’t involved in but that sounds like a political solution to crediting and paying people for a record that got out of hand and scattered around. I do my very best to prevent things from getting out of hand.
Take a chance on me
Everybody’s got to learn sometime. So The Korgis song says! How do producers get their start? Get their foot in the door? Start as an assistant to the assistant floor sweeper and work your way up? Make the coffee? Operate the tape machine? Everyone is likely to have a similar story about getting into the industry, give or take a few menial jobs.
Steve guided me through the former, traditional career pathway for an engineer:
In the days of institutional studios with internal ladders for employment, starting positions were often doing menial tasks while observing sessions, then assisting in modest but material ways, then finally dealing with equipment live during sessions. After a sufficient informal apprenticeship some session duties, and finally engineering. There are essentially no studios like that left, so basically nobody does it that way anymore.
Steve explained that career progression pathways are now quite different, given the ready accessibility to digital recording technology:
The contemporary paradigm is that people begin recording on their own, as amateurs informally, and if they become competent they start doing sessions in studios as freelance engineers, often while building an ad-hoc studio setup themselves at home or in a rehearsal space. Most engineers who find themselves working in a professional studio will have been involved in building the studio either from the outset or very early in its lifespan. At Electrical Audio we have had several interns become self-sufficient engineers, some working on their own and a few staying on staff.
When asked about specialising in a particular area of the industry, Steve explained that identifying a need for a service is often key to expanding skills or branching out:
For most engineers, you do what you’re asked to do, or you open a facility to provide a needed service where there is a gap in the local scene. I know Bob Weston was a successful recording engineer before he decided to build Chicago Mastering Service. Chicago was flush with recording engineers but didn’t have much in the way of professional mastering and disc cutting, so he found a gap in the business that he could fill. Since then he’s nearly fully committed to mastering and only records a few sessions a year and his studio employs several other mastering and cutting engineers.
The artist-producer-label relationship
I wanted to dig deeper into the relationship between a band, the label that has signed them, and the producer they are working with. All too often we hear of labels interfering with the creative process, demanding a hit single and sending the band back to the studio to record one, or parachuting in another person to create a different mix from the recently created recordings.
Steve shared his thoughts on working with a band during the recording process, and dealing with outside influences:
During the session, the best advice I have is not to listen to any advice or instructions from anybody not in the band. If the label has an opinion or their friends or other critics, they’re welcome to their opinions, but they shouldn’t have any bearing on what you do in the studio. The session is for the band, they are the only people I listen to or care about.
However, in terms of control over the finished recorded product, Steve explained that at that particular point, the producer’s job is done:
Once a session is over, the masters are out of your hands and you need to abandon any thoughts of maintaining control over them. It’s not your record, it’s the band’s, and they’re going to do what they want with it.
A prime example of the modification of a recording after it was completed by band and producer is the third Nirvana album, In Utero, which was recorded by Steve. The record label, rumoured to be unhappy with the “abrasive” material presented, engaged another producer to remix the three songs from the album that were to be released as singles. That producer was Scott Litt, who had worked on six REM albums from 1987–1996. Steve was unhappy about the situation, as one would expect. However, re-releases of the album, particularly the 20th anniversary edition, feature Steve’s mix.
This is the end
My heartfelt thanks and deep appreciation go to Steve Albini who was kind enough to share his thoughts on this subject, and willing to answer my questions. His contributions, opinions, and genuine experiential evidence substantially complemented and supported my research and the material I prepared. I am truly grateful. Remember: all you have to do is ask.
As usual, thank you for reading.
Anthony Overs
Canberra, Australia
[The image associated with this post is a photograph of the Studio A control room at Electrical Audio, owned by Steve Albini. Copyright remains with Electrical Audio, Chicago].
Eclectic Antics 