Arrangement

Although arrangement appears as our second letter in the producer’s C.A.P., it is most often the element that comes first in the production and recording process. The term arrangement can conjure up a whole realm of different meanings and interpretations.

For many, arrangement means a notated string or brass part, for example, a string or brass arrangement. Others might consider the choice of instrumentation used to be arrangement and further still some would consider arrangement to be the organization of a song in a structural sense, for example, verse, chorus, mid eight, chorus, outro. Whichever seems most applicable to you, it is important that as a producer you get to the bottom of what arrangement can be and not what you might think it is. As one of the three pillars of production, the arrangement is a major benefactor to the success of a song.

You may consider yourself to be a producer or an aspiring one but would you also add “arranger” to your résumé? Likewise if you consider yourself to be an arranger what would make you stop short of using the term producer when referring to your skills? Is there a difference between the two roles and if so what is it? For a moment let’s consider what an arranger and producer actually do. You might see yourself in a slightly different light.

Just how much does arrangement fall under the producer’s jurisdiction? If you are thinking of arrangement in a traditional sense which concerns notation, scores, stave, and dots, then how involved the producer may get depends on his or her own skills or those of the artist or band they are working with at the time, and, of course, the requirements of the track. If we consider the role of George Martin with the Beatles, his compositional, arrangement, and scoring abilities were used extensively.

However, it is not always a necessity for a producer to read and write traditional notation and if a project does require this skill then a specialist arranger can be called in to arrange a string section, for example. Modern production and producers could be considered as direct descendants of the traditional arrangement and arrangers. Although a bold statement to make many modern producers could be considered as the new breed of arrangers but simply use technology in order to realize the end result. In a similar way the modern mix engineer could be compared to that of an orchestral conductor. Mixing itself isn’t necessarily a new idea as conductors have been doing it for quite some time, albeit in a slightly different context. Whether you agree or disagree with these ideas they are worth considering.

So much of arrangement is about understanding the structure of music. With a song it is very much about understanding how the various components of the song work together. This means that although a producer may not arrange a track in the traditional arranger sense she will influence the arrangement via alterations to the structure of the track, which instruments play where and when, and how they play certain parts. These things in turn alter the way in which instruments interact and go toward creating a groove or vibe.

Modern DAW software has enabled this to take place to an increasing extent in recent years and it is this technology that has allowed producers to discover new ways of piecing music and instrumental parts together, taking them apart and then putting it all back together again in a totally different way (remixing!). If this is not arrangement in the traditional sense of the word, then what is it? Production? In some respects production could be considered as the orderly management of sound and recording if traditional arrangement is considered as the orderly management of music/instrumentation.

Arranging a piece of music means much more than simply moving blocks of audio or MIDI on a sequencer or DAW around until it works best for the song. This might work for some musical genres and pieces, but it is the true arranger who will consider the rhythm, harmony, and melody of a piece and manipulate, massage, and reorder these to achieve a successful outcome.

As Brian Morrell has eluded to in his accompanying sidebars, arrangement is an art form and something that takes years to master. In this context, we are referring to the arranger that can take a lead line and perhaps some other aspects of a piece and completely reinterpret it to realize a new piece. If one was to be blunt about this in the way in which we’ve painted it here, the modern equivalent might be the remixer in today’s popular music. The remixer will take pertinent and prominent parts of the main track such as the vocal and the main riff perhaps and envelop this within a completely new arrangement with new instrumentation, and so on.

As such, the skills required by the traditional arranger, say one who worked with big bands reinterpreting classic standards would be well-versed in instrumentation, ranges, and rhythm, as well as melody and harmony.

Performance

A great arrangement, high quality flexible capture, and an excellent standard of musicianship equals a perfect take. Or does it? Why is it that even when everything is in place the perfect take, at times, can seem so elusive? And what is a perfect take anyway? The judgment of this question is often left to the producer to make. The performer of course will have an opinion, which needs to be considered, but as producer you should possess the ability to remain objective and clearly focused on the end product. Knowing when you’ve got the best performance is often a gut feeling; however, recognizing signs of performer fatigue and realizing when you’ve got what you need are skills that should be developed.

Enabling the artist to produce their best performance on cue is an art, and the psychology of performance is a complex subject, which we will not attempt to delve into too deeply here. However, it is worthwhile to consider the various factors that are at play when working with artists in the studio and therefore develop a greater understanding of what may be required of the producer’s role.

As we have previously alluded to, the producer’s role becomes a balancing act between enabling creativity and encouraging productivity. The pressure to produce a great performance within a certain timeframe is not always conducive to a creative environment, and the producer can quickly become the catalyst that will make or break a session.

So how can a producer capture that perfect take? This is indeed the golden question to which there are a multitude of answers, some of which may not be related to the music at all. At an elementary level the producer must use his or her common sense. Making sure the artist or musicians are comfortable in the recording environment is not rocket science and changes should be made to ensure this is the case. Basic issues such as lighting, temperature, and positioning can all have a marked effect on the performance given.

On a more technical level, headphone mixes are crucial to a musician’s well-being and this is where the communication between performer, producer, and recording engineer is important. Many an experienced producer or engineer will recognize the need to spend time on getting this right. Once these basic yet important issues have been addressed, the performance envisaged by the producer may be relatively easy to capture. However, as many of us would acknowledge, this is not always the case.

At this point it is the producer’s ability to communicate and have empathy with an artist or musician that can really make that difference. Being able to understand their artistic vision and marry this to your chosen production watermark is key to success, and it is from this relationship that a great producer–artist collaboration can occur. These interpersonal skills and traits are things that should not be overlooked and can only be developed with experience over time. If only it were possible to teach these qualities, many of the issues our student producers come up against would be easily solved! It should be noted that in some situations the problem may not require a musically related solution at all. Being able to talk, discuss, and listen to life related issues might be all that’s needed to put a performer’s mind at ease and therefore enable them to give their best.

Remember, most people listen to music for an emotional experience (Levitin, 2008); it is therefore essential that the performer be able to inject emotion into their musical performance in order that this might be communicated to and received by the listener. Above all, the producer should be aware of the ingredients a session and an artist need in order for this emotional delivery to take place. In his book This Is Your Brain on Music (Dutton Adult, 2006), Daniel Levitin discusses the emotive recordings of the great 20th-century pianist Arthur Rubinstein. He quotes a music critic, “Rubenstein makes mistakes on some of his records, but I’ll take those interpretations that are filled with passion over the 22-year-old technical wizard who can play the notes but can’t convey the meaning.” This is, of course, not to say that technical accuracy and proficiency are not important, but that it is emotion, passion, sentiment, and feeling that a listener requires in a performance in order to have a truly musical experience. As the producer it is your job to coax this performance out of the artist by whatever means possible (within reason!).

The differences of working with a group and a solo artist should also be mentioned. Although the same skills are required to capture a good performance, the ability to produce the group’s sound and not that of a collection of individuals is important. Roy Thomas Baker came up against this situation while working with Queen in the ‘70s and ‘80s. As individuals, the members of Queen were all very capable of writing material and it was therefore necessary to harness and encourage a sense of collective creativity that would result in the Queen sound we know today. In this way many producers could be considered as sculptors working to mold a band’s sound. Thus, the final product becomes the blend between the band’s artistic creation and the producer’s watermark.

In conclusion, the final performance that is required can be influenced not only by producer and artist but also by A&R and labels, who have a vested interest in the commercial viability of the material being produced. How much the end product is altered due to this factor is variable, and this is something that should be considered within your triangle of influence at the commencement of a project.

Capture

A largely bandied around statement these days is “we’ll fix it in the mix.” What exactly will be fixed in the mix? Granted, there are many things today that can be manipulated and managed, such as editing. However, it is not always possible to edit everything due to spill, the drums and cymbals played at the edit points being different, and so on. Additionally, you cannot always tune everything you need to.

The same doubt can apply to whether a poorly captured instrument can be fixed in the mix. There are indeed many differing tools that can alter and help the mix. In some ways this aspect is easier to fix than others. Nevertheless, the need to capture an excellent recording from the beginning is vital.

During the visioning of the project, the producer will have an idea of the sound that is required. Is this band supposed to sound like a late ‘60s Soul/R’n’B outfit recorded with today’s equipment, or are they supposed to be recorded using the latest technology and be larger than life? These considerations will dictate the equipment used and the method by which you record.

Should the attempt at the ‘60s recording be authentic, the choice of microphones, equipment, placement, and so on, will be very specific. The amount of technical input the producer will have is dependent on their areas of expertise and the relationship they have with a recording engineer. Looking back at bygone eras, the producer’s role in the art of capturing the performance was partly forged by the increasingly mentioned George Martin. His ideas, along with engineers Norman Smith, Ken Scott, Malcolm Addey, Ken Townsend, Geoff Emerick, and so on, helped to create and capture the Beatles sound. There has to be a high level of communication and understanding between producer and engineers and both need to be able to understand the vision with regards to the ethos of the project. In the case of the Beatles production team, this required a willingness and understanding in being experimental and trying new techniques and ideas, from both a technical and musical perspective.

From the producer’s angle much of the process of capture should be about attitude, approach, and priorities and not necessarily technical detail, such as which type, make, and model of microphone. Too many student engineers or producers place an over-emphasized importance on the gear that they “need” in order to capture a certain sound or performance. Certainly decisions in this area are important and need to be considered; however, as is said many times by a variety of textbooks and industry professionals, there are so many other links in the chain that can at times determine the quality of capture and these should not be overlooked or underestimated. Whether you record using Pro Tools, Logic, or even 2” tape, it doesn’t matter if you haven’t considered the myriad other issues and decisions that need to be thought through.

The logistics behind a recording session are the first elements that should be considered. As the previous section mentions, how a band is used to performing live will affect how they cope with the somewhat unnatural studio environment. Whether you record “live” or overdub, where people need to be positioned (line of sight) and the issue of using headphones all need to be carefully thought through and organized.

Just expecting an artist or band to turn up and track a song without considering these aspects is potentially production suicide and will most likely end in a wasted session. As the producer, it is your job to make sure that these things are thought of and ironed out before the recording sessions commence, hence the term pre-production. This is where being organized is important; discussions need to be had with the band or artist (first and foremost), with the studio, the recording engineers, session musicians, even the record label. Everyone needs to be aware of the requirements of the project and someone has to ensure that this comes together at the right point in time. That someone is the producer. So an organized, open, and flexible approach and attitude can be added to the checklist for a quality capture.

The essence of capture is about the photographic snapshot of a performance and how it is represented. As with photography, light, lenses, and illusions can make a picture leap out of the page. In the same way, a musical performance can be represented in a powerful and delightful way which leaps out of the speakers, or is purposefully integrated with the band, locked in musical synergy. In either way, capture in this sense is not only about looking at the sonic qualities but also the vibe and the mood of the music at the time of performance.

Having said all that, the equipment is, of course, very important and without it we’d not really get very far, so please forgive our statements if you got the impression the equipment is not that important. The meaning of our message is that, in this day and age, we’re very fortunate in that the equipment is of such high quality that it is theoretically possible to produce Grammy award-winning stuff on your laptop (perhaps even on an iPad?). We’d like to stress again that we say “possible,” because it is the knowledge and experience that produces and records great tracks more often than not.

The vibe

The choice of studio for the producer can be varied (depending on budget) and this is probably one of the first points on the quality capture checklist: where? Most producers would agree that three key ingredients generally spring to mind when considering a studio: equipment, acoustics, and feel (vibe). Of course the fourth consideration (and possibly the most important!) is whether these elements match up with the requirements of the project and artist.

In terms of the studio environment, the vibe or feel of a facility can be the make or break of a producer’s choice. Having a space where the artist and performers (and producer and engineer) feel at ease, comfortable, and relaxed is of paramount importance if a strong performance and recording is to be created. Does it have natural light? Is there a lounge? Is there a pool table? Is there a kitchen? Is there a view of the outside world? Is it near somewhere to eat? Although some of these points may seem superficial at first, all of them can play a huge part in the general perception of a studio and can ultimately help create the right conditions for a successful project. The artist and band need to see the studio as somewhat of a base, a place where they can be themselves for the duration of the tracking process.

With the above points in mind, the ability to adapt a studio to the artists’ requirements is one other area that should not be overlooked. Can drapes be hung from the walls and rugs placed on the floor? Can uplighting be brought in and the live rooms’ lights dimmed? Again, strange things to consider but essential in terms of making the environment work for the good of the recording process. Some studios may take to this approach easier than others. Some studios may be very hard to disguise.

Producers should be aware of selecting a studio based on the clients that have previously recorded there. It may have worked for them and achieved great results, but then that was a different project at a different time with different people. The studio can give a lot but it can’t give it all. Likewise, a studio’s history can be inspiring and some artists may benefit from feeding off of this historic vibe. We only have to think of Abbey Road in the U.K. in order to realize this; however, this can also add a degree of pressure to the occasion. It might be difficult in certain studios to keep thoughts of past clients and recordings at a distance, and this sense of greatness is not always a vibe that helps artists feel relaxed in the process of realizing their own artistic endeavors.

Whatever studio is finally chosen, it needs to meet the artist’s needs in terms of feel and vibe and as long as the studio sounds good and is appropriate acoustically speaking (see below) then the vibe can often take precedence. After all, if the artist is happy and at ease, then this can make their performance and therefore the capture of a successful project a less troublesome task for the producer.

The sound

Hand in hand with the question of studio vibe is the sound a studio has, or to be more technically accurate, its acoustic properties. Obviously most professional studio facilities will have the acoustics of their various rooms “tweaked” in order to give the best possible results. However, not all studios sound the same and therefore results can vary. Different studios will also have a variety of different rooms: small, medium, large, some “live” and some “dead.”

It is the blend and variety of these individual room characteristics that a studio may have to offer that can give a recording a certain sound, and this is a factor that many producers take into account when selecting a studio to record in. Often studios will have reputations based on specific sounds that they are able to achieve and capture. If a lively and large drum sound is required for the album, then specific studio facilities with big-sounding drum rooms may come into play. Likewise, if a full string section is to be used then a studio with the right sized space and live acoustic properties needs to be considered. Again, the artist and their project will dictate the type of sound required; however, it is the producer’s job to select a studio that will offer the best possible opportunity to capture these specific requirements.

In his book Producing Hit Records (Schirmer Books, 2006), David Farinella interviews guitarist and producer Daron Malakian about the recording location of System of a Down’s album Toxicity stating that when looking for a place to record he “turned to his record collection.”

According to Farinella: “The album he pulled out that he wanted to mimic was A Date with Elvis, a 1986 offering from The Cramps. ‘I was looking for a thicker sound for the band, and I thought if a room can make The Cramps sound thick then that was the room for us,’ he explains. The Cramps album was recorded at the part of Ocean Way Studios that is now Cello Studios in Los Angeles. ‘We were already ready to record a thick-sounding record, so I thought, imagine what it would do for us.’”

As we are all aware, the record industry has changed greatly in recent years with budgets and economics having an ever-increasing influence over the way in which an album is recorded. With this in mind, it is worth mentioning that many albums these days are not recorded in one studio alone and that a variety of smaller facilities may be used at different points during the tracking process.

The previously mentioned point of capturing a drum sound is a good example to use here. A producer and band may select and use a studio specifically for capturing the drums or the rhythm section due to the size and acoustic properties that it has to offer, but then switch to a different and possibly smaller facility to record the overdubs, keys, vocals, and so on. In fact, with the flexibility that recording gear now offers, many producers and artists are tracking the larger or main elements of an album in professional facilities and then retreating to their own studio setups in order to finish the project. Obviously the sound of these smaller (possibly home studio) facilities is important and any discrepancies in terms of capture quality need to be addressed. However, with a reasonable live space that offers good control of the sound source being captured there is no reason why this “mix and match” approach cannot produce excellent sounding results.

The gear

Gear, or to put it slightly more eloquently, recording equipment, can be a big deal. Certain mics, a certain desk, and a varied selection of outboard are all important points on many recording engineers’ checklist. As the producer, this may be just as important to you. We say “may be” as you may not be a producer that comes from the producer-engineer stable (as identified by Burgess in his 2005 book The Art of Music Production, Omnibus Press, 2005), in which case it is entirely possible that you are not interested in what gear is used but more the results that are achieved.

Whatever your viewpoint, you will at least have to consider or discuss the equipment that a studio has when looking for a location to record. Of course, there can be situations where the ideal studio for the project in terms of capture (sound and vibe) doesn’t necessarily have the equipment you would prefer to work with. It is in this instance that the option of bringing your own gear in or hiring it in needs to be explored with the studio. In some cases the producer might be intrinsically involved in what gear is brought in, and in other cases it may be that the producer leaves this entirely to the recording engineers. Again, much of this will depend on the producer’s skills and expertise and their relationship with the engineers.

Whatever the situation is with equipment, a producer should never choose a studio based on the gear alone. Key factors are quality, variety, and (therefore) options, and of course personal preference. If these factors can be met by the studio in question then it could be a great choice if the other boxes of sound and vibe are also checked. If not, then bringing in your gear from outside should enable the quality of capture you’re looking for.

The engineering, equipment, microphone choice, and positioning

Engineering, equipment, microphone choice, and positioning can all have a huge effect on the capture of an artist’s performance and therefore the final outcome of the recording. If you are from the technical side of things then your involvement in these decisions may be a natural process; if not, then your ability to communicate the kind of sound you want to others is key.

If you do match Burgess’s description of an engineer-producer, then the important link to make is between the gear and the sound you are trying to achieve. Many of your decisions will be based on previous experience and you will know what equipment has worked well for you in the past and the (hopefully) pleasing results you have gotten from it. However, the question should be asked, “What is the most appropriate choice for this project?” If you are an aspiring engineer-producer then your experience of different gear may be limited, but it is this question that can help you stay focused on the sound that is needed and not get carried away with exotic equipment choices that might be tempting you.

As we have mentioned previously, if you are trying to capture a retro sound then perhaps close-miking the drum kit with 9 or 10 mics in a studio’s drum room is not the best route to take. In this instance consideration of how many mics, their placement and type should all spring to mind, as should the tracking method; whether live multitrack or overdubbed. In fact, you’ll also want to consider the types of pre-amps you might use in order to gain the desired characteristic for the sound, and this is where knowledge and experience of different mics and outboard will come into play (enter the recording engineer for assistance). If you’re looking for retro warmth and coloration, then perhaps valve based equipment needs to be experimented with. Above all, even if you have an engineering background, the role you are playing as producer should never be forgotten, as the sound of the recording is ultimately your responsibility. Therefore, don’t get too bogged down in mic and pre-amp type discussions, as this is one of the reasons you have a separate recording engineer.

As a producer, if engineering, equipment, mics, and so on are not your forte, then this is where the skills of a strong communicator need to kick in. Your vision for the project and therefore the way you want it to sound need to be put into words so that others (such as the recording engineer) can understand, allowing them to cross-reference and match this to their experience and skill on the technical side of things. Establishing an engineering ethos may be the way forward here, something that can act as a blueprint for the recording sessions. Again, the final capture is your responsibility so if something isn’t working it’s ultimately your call to put it right.

At this point it is worth mentioning that, as the producer, you may have the luxury of choosing the engineer you work with, in which case your decision will most likely be based on a working relationship, ethos, previous experience, and specialist skills. There is much to be said with regard to the working relationship between the producer and engineer (as discussed in Section B).

Recording methodology

It would be very tempting to repeat ourselves and get lost in discussing a favorite topic—recording techniques with regard to mics, placement, outboard equipment, and so on. However, here we’d like to highlight the underlying practical approaches for recording and why these need to be considered.

Your recording methodology is obviously linked very closely with your equipment choice, in that the type of equipment you use is likely to alter the way you may record in the studio. The biggest difference is apparent between the use of analog and digital formats and DAWs. It is not our intention to enter into the long-running “analog vs. digital” debate here. However, in comparison to working with DAW software such as Pro Tools, using analog tape can make the recording process more time-consuming and has certain limitations. Larger track counts, virtual tracks, nonlinear recording and editing all make the digital world a different place to work in and obviously this affects the way in which recording takes place.

Of course, one of the main concerns will always be cost and therefore your budget may dictate the way you end up working. (Not only is analog very different to work with but also expensive.) However, the approach to recording and the methods you use should again revolve around what is appropriate for the project and the artists you’re working with. Some artists and producers like the perceived warmth that analog tape can bring to a track; however, when balanced against the practical advantages that digital recording has to offer, the choice may be more straightforward.

The two main questions that are generally asked when considering recording methods are “Should it be recorded live?” or “Should parts be overdubbed?” The answer to these questions should take into account the initial vision for the product in conjunction with the pros and cons of each tracking method, as this will help dictate the methods used. For example, a live and energetic band sound will require a more natural live approach to tracking, whereas a polished, tight commercial pop track requiring high production values is more likely to utilize the overdub method of tracking. It is interesting to note that it is common within the production of commercial pop music (where much of the accompaniment is sequenced or sampled) that the musicians may never meet the vocalists or artists in a studio session due to the nature of overdubbing.

Of course, the artist and band may also have a preferred way of recording (based on their past experiences and results), and if working with a group or individual for the first time it is important to establish what works for them and perhaps, more importantly, why. Having said this, an artist or group with relatively little recording experience may not fully appreciate the pros and cons of each method in relation to what they are trying to achieve. If this is the case then as the producer your knowledge, judgment, and guidance need to come into play in order to ensure both a smooth process and a pleasing result. But be aware, suggesting a change in the way in which an artist or band records—for example, live multi-tracking or overdubs—may not be easy and, as ever, diplomacy and tact may be needed to get the message across that something isn’t working.

Session times for best capture

When we say best capture, what do we actually mean? We’re basically talking about harnessing and capturing the essential characteristics and energy in a performance that are required for the track in question. It is important to point out that when we say energy we are not necessarily referring to energetic performances or characteristics, but more to emotional energy, whatever form that may take.

Out of all the various debatable issues within music production and recording (of which there are many!) the time at which sessions should take place is possibly one of the most difficult to discuss. To try to suggest that there are specific times during the day or night that will always yield a great result would be incredibly assumptive, especially given that the process of music production is such a personal and creative pursuit and therefore highly unpredictable. In fact, it is only after consideration of the wider context of the project and the individuals involved that decisions in relation to what time your sessions occur can really be made. The key to organizing anything well is good communication and booking studio sessions is certainly no exception. After speaking to various producers for this book, we realize that creativity and good performances can’t really be predicted but certainly taking some time to plan out the recording schedule with the artist and band and clearly understand each other’s thoughts on when and how the sessions should occur is essential.

One of the fundamental factors here is remembering who exactly is doing the performing: the artist or musician. As Hayden Bendall reminded us when talking to him at Strongroom studios in London, the artist should really be treated as the most important person in the room. Therefore, with this in mind, you really need to consider when it is that they want to record, and at what time of the day or night do they feel at their best. It may be that an evening session would work best, as the artist has had time throughout the day to relax and then is ready to perform. However, what is perhaps the most important aspect here is the fact that they have been able to relax and feel ready before the session is due to start. If this does not happen, then an evening or late-night session may be a waste of their and your time as tiredness or stress will kick in and creativity will be stifled as a result. Taking this on board, it could be suggested that the specific time the session takes place is not necessarily the most important factor but more the condition or state of mind the artist finds themselves in on a day-to-day basis. If an artist is ready and raring to go in the morning, then why shouldn’t the session happen at that time? (From our conversations with producers this seems to be a rarity!) Being flexible enough to accommodate various session times is important as the project and recording progress, and again it’s all in the interests of best capture.

In reading the above you might be starting to think that we are portraying the artist as the be-all and end-all of the decisions you make in respect to what times sessions occur. However, while their views and needs are fundamentally important, we should point out that as the producer you need to be aware of the other musicians involved in the recording session and their abilities to produce the goods at the times being suggested. There’s no point in the artist wanting a session to start at 11pm if the guitarist you have brought in to work on the track simply can’t produce their best at that time of night. Here the producer’s role again becomes one of an organizer and negotiator, making sure that the times chosen to record suit everyone involved as much as possible. Granted, this may often not be an easy task and will vary from project to project and artist to artist, but nonetheless being prepared to manage the issues and dynamics of the situation is a must. Of course, one of the benefits of overdubbing is that it negates the need for musicians, the band, and artist to all be together at one time, so depending on the project and recording methods used, some of this may never be a great issue. (Such as the example above.)

One topic that always crops up when discussing time is the duration of a session. Again, this can be very varied and highly inconsistent depending on the project and the individuals involved; however, the guidance for this is not rocket science and can be based on an understanding of basic human needs and an awareness of the people around you. We all know that, after a certain amount of time, most people reach a peak, and after this point results might not always be of the best quality. In terms of the studio environment, our hearing is one of the first things to suffer from fatigue and therefore long sessions should be managed with regular breaks. Although it may sound trivial, the producer also needs to keep tabs on when people within the session last ate. A tired and hungry artist, band, or musician does not make for a great take! Some artists may not want to be bound by a regimented structure of breaks for food and drink and certainly the approach can be flexible, but as the producer you need to be able to call time and make a food break happen. If not, the session might bound aimlessly along and, although the artist may have the best intentions at heart, the scale of diminishing returns dictates that the results will not remain of a consistent standard. A change of scene, some fresh air, and good food can make a surprising difference to the subsequent takes and therefore knowing the best local places to eat might be very useful information for the producer to have.

Of course, overall session length is often known to be quite considerable and it is not uncommon for some producers to work anywhere between 12 and 16 hours in one day. And this may continue for a number of days, which can take its toll. Therefore, establishing a work ethic for the project might be something that you want to consider discussing from the outset. In many cases (again from our conversations with industry folk), the amount of time a producer may work on a session will vary depending on where they are in their own career. If just starting out, longer sessions may be more commonplace than those of a seasoned producer with various credits to her name. As a younger producer you may be willing to give what it takes in order to gain the experience, which is fine and very commendable, as long as the number of hours you work in one session does not hinder the quality of what you produce. Knowing when to call it a day is quite a valuable skill to acquire, and certainly individual thresholds will vary in terms of the number of successful hours spent in the studio in any one session.

David Farinella includes many interviews with producers within his book, Producing Hit Records—Secrets from the Studio (2006). The comments below are taken from his conversations with David Fridmann on the topic of studio session duration.

From our own discussions with the producers interviewed for this book, we can conclude that a 12-hour session with breaks and meals seems to be about the average duration. Naturally this was not a unanimous view, but the majority assert that any longer is generally not that productive. However, the times at which these sessions start can vary and this is something particular to each producer and artist.

When all is said and done, it is worth remembering that there are many personal factors and situations that can contribute toward the best timing and duration of a session. Artists, producers, and engineers are all human and although some of the factors might not be that rock ‘n’ roll, they are real-life considerations that can influence the recording sessions and the project more than is perhaps immediately apparent.

Early on in a producer’s or artist’s career, personal commitments and responsibilities may be few, which on one hand can be a bonus. However, even after a session has ended, the young artist or band might be left wondering what to do and where to go. As the producer you may feel that your role extends outside of the studio and that you carry a certain amount of responsibility to ensure that the artist is comfortable and knows where to eat and relax, and so on. You may even end up spending the time outside the studio together, as this can be good for the artist–producer bond. However, as time goes by, friends, family, and leading some kind of life outside of the studio and your work might become more consuming. Therefore a balance needs to be struck in order that the time in the studio spent working can be uninterrupted by thoughts and phone calls regarding the other areas of your (or the artist’s) life.

This is certainly easier to say than do and we shall not pretend for one minute that we can offer a solution as to how best to achieve this, as many of the choices are down to personal circumstances. However, although the music industry might not be the easiest career path in terms of work and life balance, as a producer it is worth establishing what is important for you and the artist and therefore establishing a way of working before the sessions commence.