Sir Paul McCartney on Music Production

Is that how the Beatles produced Sgt. Pepper; recorded, mixed, taped and done in one day?

Just asking. 

Dave

Sir Paul said he advised young musicians to write their songs first: "It sounds obvious but people don't do that so much these days."

Could not agree more wholeheartedly. It's all about the writing. Case in point: just watched a terrific tribute to Stevie Wonder a few days ago, and almost every single singer sounded great singing Stevie's songs, far better than they do when singing their own ... uh ... songs. And then, of course, Stevie absolutely killed singing a medley of his own.

Write a great song, then go into the studio and cut a great record ... that's the way you do it.

Fred,

As an accomplished musician, your thoughts are appreciated. As for Sir Paul's recommendation to write songs first, I'm certainly in no position to question it. The Beatles first album was recorded in a single day. The Beatles Anthology albums and other studio outtakes document that songs were brought by them into the studio to be developed. Many were completed in a few takes, some took longer, others were "shelved" and appeared years later on solo LPs. The counter notion that a group just gets together in the studio with the hope that magic might happen seems a waste of resources. Album production time might a separate issue, but no one can really question Sir Paul's productivity or success. If I was an aspiring musician I'd certainly heed his simplistic advice.

Possibly - 'simple'?

Yes, "simple" as opposed to "simplistic." Or maybe "simplification." Because although I do firmly agree with Paul's bottom line that it all stems from writing a good song, it is a simplification to not take into account all the songs the Beatles developed in the studio ... they always had the germ of the song before bringing it in, but often changed elements of it in the studio: tempo, feel, instrumentation, production, etc. over the course of hours, days, or even weeks, logging numerous takes/revisions until they felt it was as good as possible.

But I think Paul is addressing the modern phenomenon of starting in the studio with nothing, where a team of producers build layers of beats/synth loops, bits and pieces, etc. into a fully produced track, and then, and only then, bringing in the recording artist to sing/improvise "melody" and "lyrics" on top of it, resulting in an unremarkable "song" that is credited to no less than eight or nine authors. The essential difference being the idea of polishing a rough gemstone versus polishing a turd.

Fred

In your line work, did you ever cross paths with any of the four lads ?

Jeff A

Only in my imagination, Jeff.

However, a very good friend and fellow musician, drummer Jim Hines (we went to high-school together, and later recorded and toured with violinist Jerry Goodman) was on the road with Brian Wilson for years, and they did some double bills and festivals with McCartney. One day, McCartney came up to Jim and told him that he was a great drummer, and added something to the effect of "And when I tell you you're a great drummer, you've been told!"

I'd certainly say so!

Closest I ever got was taking my then 12-year old daughter to hear McCartney in concert a few years ago, and it was truly awesome ... not as in "Wow, this gum is awesome."

Thanks, Fred, little stories like that are always fun to read.

Jeff A

Sir Paul makes some good, and indeed obvious when he says it, points.  I'm so thankful though that Taylor Swift is still available on my Qobuz subscription, I don't know what I would do with my time if were I to be robbed of such musical genius.  The $300k+ that spotify allegedly paid out in October 2014 alone for streams of her song 'Shake it Off', well it's just an insult.  It's worth so much more, I can see why she might be bitter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfWlot6h_JM