Talk:Producer Relationship Type

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 03:29, 16 March 2009 by Nikki (talk | contribs) (New page: I still disagree with the notation that co-producer is described as a reporting structure. Coproduction is collaboration. Executive Producers don't necessarily put up money in the recordin...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I still disagree with the notation that co-producer is described as a reporting structure. Coproduction is collaboration. Executive Producers don't necessarily put up money in the recording industry. They make the final decisions on the product so there is some reporting structure there. They choose the producers, studios, engineers, etc. -- WolfSong 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't understand what you mean. are you saying that 'co-producer' is the same as 'more than 1 producer'? because it's not. you can have 1 producer & 1 co-producer / 2 producers / 2 producers & 1 co-producer, etc. as for exec producers - fair enough, i don't really know what they do so feel free to ammend. i did say 'typically' they provide financial backing, though, and i believe that is still the case. --Gecks
    • Yes and no. While you might have a production team that involves multiple producers, you might also have a scenario where a portion of the track was produced by someone else with or without the involvement of the other producer. For example, a producer could be replaced but still credited for legal reasons or because the tracks they worked on were used but reworked. Another example is where the artist receives a co-producer credit. Clearly not evidence of a reporting structure. Still another example is where a portion of the production is farmed out such as orchestral arrangements. This example probably does imply a reporting structure but it certainly does not describe all cases. Ultimately, a co-producer collaborated on the production effort while additional implies that the recording was later spruced up. -- WolfSong 16:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • But why does any of this mean that 'co-producer' is not a valid relationship? I don't understand the term 'reporting structure' - what it means in the context, and why this addition needs it or not. --Gecks
        • No. I only have a problem with the definition "The co-producer reports to the Producer". Co-producer itself is a valid relationship. -- WolfSong 16:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm with you :) Ok I've tried re-wording that - better? I also stuck some stuff about electronic production in here and added your input to the exec producer section. --Gecks
            • Looks great. I changed the wording for executive producer. While your original statement is true in the film industry, most record companies pay expenses in advance and the executive producer is the person who has creative control of the project. I left it there because for independent projects they may in fact finance as well, I honestly don't know about those cases. -- WolfSong 19:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Hmm, i'm not sure about exec producers still - i've seen 'unknowns' given that credit on releases for big name bands, and i'm almost certain they had no creative input. the producer might report to them i suppose, so there's a 2nd hand influence. that said i'm not too sure on the whole thing so what the hell :) --Gecks

Mornin' all. I have a CD that credits an artist as being the "Associate Producer" of the album. Should the "Additional" attribute be used here? --TimeDilation 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)