I think the grandness of any production should be based on how appropriate it is for the artistic vision of the piece. For example, Peter Gabriel songs often sound great with a huge, grand, pristine production, but The White Stripes might sound quite ridiculous being produced the same way. This principle of artistic appropriateness can also be applied on a song-by-song or album-by-album basis.

I'm not sure if I really think to myself 'oh, I like the production on this one' when I'm listening to a song...but I think there's certain elements that I do or don't like that is sometimes linked to it. For example, I really dislike "echo-y" vocals, which I think has to do with the recording process. (If I'm thinking right, that style of vocals seemed to be used a lot in the 80's and early 90's, which is part of the reason why I don't like some 80's songs.)
It's part of the reason why I don't like this early Rebecca St. James song, even though I'm a fan of some of her later work: http://www.pandora.com/music/song/1d745935d21465ca
Michael W. Smith's song "Rocket Town" is sort of similar, but it doesn't have that weird reverb element as heavily in it, so I like it much better: http://www.pandora.com/music/song/d63df673cb4d5cb6
That being said....I don't know if I could really sit down and analyze every part of a song like that and say why I do or don't like it. At least in part, I tend to take songs more as "everything in the song" rather than "this one element". I can only point out the echo-y/reverb vocals because it's one of my main pet peeves in music.

I'm new to pandora, just wanted to give you some feedback on it. Best thing I can say is it's motivated me to buy some real speakers for this mac. And I'm pretty lazy so that's a two-thumbs-up.

I recently saw the film "I Trust You To Kill Me" with Keifer Sutherland promoting Rocco Deluca & the Burden. What an incredible artist that guy is, I expect to hear lots more from him. He's got more soul in his little finger... well, anyway I don't think I'd want to live way down wherever he draws from to come up with this music but it's truly astounding. Check it out if you get the chance.

I think Eddie is dead on with his answer. Consider two new releases. Katharine McPhee's whole album feels overblown and overproduced. Every sound is pristine, full and bloated. It overpowers the simple beauty of her voice which gets lost in the process. Then consider Patty Griffin's "Children Running Through," which if you're familiar with Griffin's repertoire, is the most polished release of her career. But ever choice in the production was made with the intent of enhancing the message of each song. Basically, if there's something there to work with, then production (done right) should enhance that. It's when there's very little substance that heavy-handed production is needed; and that's why it gets the bad wrap.
Gwen Stefani's sound is very similar to Katharine McPhee's, but it's inspired from a point of true artistic integrity. So you walk away from the experience feeling like you actually connected.

I've gotta back up Eddie as well. It's all about how appropriate it is to the recording itself. I do sometimes notice that a song sounds "over-produced" to me and that's a very bad sign if I'm not pulled into it enough that I actually take note of such things.

Some bands also have energy and a certain sound/feel that is best captured in a very raw nature while others (bands or songs) can be really enhanced by a good production job. Even the slightest changes in recordings of a song can make a big difference in the feeling they leave me with so it's important that the production work match the intended feel of the song. Often I find that I like demo tracks better than the final produced version, but again, that heavily depends on the song itself as well as personal taste.

One album I was really blown away by was Weston's "The Massed Albert Sounds" for the reason that all songs were recorded in full in a maximum of two takes. The resulting album sounded more polished than pretty much any of their previous efforts. The last I saw them live their renditions sounded dead on what the album had captured without being a live-show recording which I rarely ever like. One would never have believed the lack of production on that album without seeing the live show.

As an aside, they had gone on very late at an overbooked show that night during a blizzard in upstate NY with only a handful of us left in the audience (mostly friends of the band, members from the other bands, and members of bands local to the area) yet they belted out the full set holding nothing back like they were performing any of their much bigger shows. Given the cirumstances, it was even more impressive than the unexpectedly small shows I'd been to that turned into very personalized affairs. They broke up a few days/weeks later I believe. Ah well.

Regards,

Jā

I tend to like simpler music, without overblown, overdone dramatic vocals. (Like the National Anthem sung at sporting events - talk about ruining a song!) But ultimately it's about the mood and feeling that a song evokes. It's not even always about "pretty". Some of the most soul-stirring and moving music I've ever heard could best be described as rough and raw.

In my opinion, good production is a lot like good layout, or good security. When it's functioning properly, you don't notice it, or the lack of it.

trevor horn and phil spector knew when to go big.

It really depends on the style of music. For example, Jackson Browne would allow a lot of space and echo to come through on his recordings, which made the music a lot more personal. However, artists like James Blunt are too overproduced to be enjoyable (there's also the problem of the ever-annoying voice, but that's for another post).

Similarly, bands like the Flaming Lips and TV On The Radio have music that is meant to surround the listener and should be produced accordingly (with a wide, pure sound). One of my major problems with the early Pixies' albums is that the music was too big for the production (this is also the same reason a lot of people hate the Sex Pistols).

Then there's the anomaly of hip-hop or dance production. Like the above sound, the production in hip-hop or dance music needs to be big, but calming as well. The focus needs to be on the voice, the music should be secondary (many rappers, like Paul Wall and T.I., tend to make this mistake, which is usually because they spend $20,000 buying pre-made beats).

So, overall, the production can have a massive effect on the music. If an artist is really good, and yet the production of their music makes them sound annoying (i.e. Marylin Manson), then it will not fit. But however much money you put into a producer, it will not surpass your own shortcomings as the performer.

I pretty much agree with Eddie. Sometimes big production just works and sometimes it doesn't. And production styles can make a song sound dated or make an artist sound somewhat better or worse than his talent level suggests.

I do like a lot of variety. Right now I've got an 80s-ish mix on -- INXS, U2, Simple Minds -- and there's a lot of production going on in there, with echo, reverb, chorus, sweeping keyboards. But another station I listen to often is based on bluegrass, which is about as un-produced as music gets. Generally I prefer smaller production and a more organic sound, but every now and then, almost like a cheap thrill, I want to hear something big like "Life in a Northern Town" or something by Loreena McKennitt, as long as the big production is sort of different and interesting. I don't really need to hear another Meatloaf or Celene Dion song. Ever.

And it can all vary within a song -- an instrument can be drenched in chorus and 'verb, and yet the vocal can be clear and up-front for a very personal and gripping effect. Overall that's relatively big production in my mind, but a particular element of the song might be laid down relatively organically.

I have a very different opinion than does zeronymous. I actively listen to and for production. If I could choose to either perform (sing/play) or produce a platinum record, I'd much rather produce. Between songwriting, production and performance, I care least about performance as long as it's basically competent. From the little I've heard, I think Taylor Hicks is a good exmaple of a guy whose performing ability is decent enough, but atrocious songwriting and insipid production let him down.

interesting observations - thanks to everyone for posting so far - it's stimulating to read these thoughts while immersed in the studio...

as I sit on the studio couch, listening to things developing, something occurs to me. production is actually the accumulation of a million separate decisions. if you're looking for creative, new things as you work and make the record, it's not possible to predetermine the end result.

and yet paradoxically that production ends up feeling very intentional and mapped out to the listener. in fact it almost might be the first thing that people really absorb. that is strange, because much of record making is starting from a known point (the song or the content) and then searching for something that sounds or feels like it works (the recording). it's amazing how different the basic idea of a song can be from a compelling single recorded version. usually, that eventual recorded version will have its own tendencies and life, which it demands from the production, and the artist and the engineer need to be attuned to those cues, and they need to follow after them, all the while making creative choices that suit the material and the record overall.

so production is primary for the listener - it's the presentation of the content, but it's an unfolding experience for the people making the record. it's uncontrollable in many ways.

how mysterious...

cheers,
mz

Great topic, MZ.

Production can be as important to a song as the lyrics, especially when you include instrumentation and arrangement into the nebulous umbrella of production.

I often enjoy big-production, studio masterpiece rock albums. Nigel Godrich and J Robbins are my favorite of contemporary guys working in that vein, and the old-school masters of that were George Martin, Eddy Offord, Hugh Padgham, Tony Visconti, Brian Eno and Brian Wilson.

I think the toughest aspect of making a record with huge production is keeping it from sounding dated. A lot of those big '80s reverbs and choruses sound very much 'of their time' to me. The best productions to me are ones that don't scream "this is 1972" or "here we are in 1985."

What makes a big production timeless?

I thought of bread-making when I read your post. If you overwork the dough or let it rise too much or...well, it seems there are about nine million other factors that can mess up a loaf of bread, you wind up with a brick that would gag a crow.

The same seems to apply to production: The producer must know when to STOP. There's an artist who is great live, but the person who produced her first CD decided to pull out all of the stops (or lost his mind) and smothered her high sweet sprightly voice and keyboard with a lot of extraneous echo/reverb/overdubbing/you-name-it-he-did-it that wasn't even close to appropriate for the music.

Perhaps he was trying to stamp his own "signature sound" onto the recording but the end result was a dense, unpalatable brick.