COMING HOME

After returning home to Denmark but before diving into the task of integrating the two recordings, I jotted down some preliminary thoughts on the next steps. The complexity of blending these two outstanding but very different recordings became immediately apparent. Which strategy should I adopt? Why does setting aside one recording from one of the cities, even if it's exceptional, feel so fundamentally unjust to just cut it out? Am I obligated to pursue my initial idea of fusing the two genres? What can I morally allow myself to do with the contributions of others?

Upon returning from my travels and the recording sessions, I began the task of combining the recordings from each city, song by song. Each track had been recorded to a click track, maintaining the same structure in both locations. This setup allowed me to compare the two bands playing the same song at the same tempo simultaneously. The experience was overwhelming. I was overwhelmed with an enormous amount of information, making it difficult to determine the final sound and direction the music should take. Questions swirled in my mind: What should the song truly sound like? What should the final product be? How can I bring the song to life in the best possible way? What elements should be highlighted, and what should be subdued?

The musical feel of the songs varied between Rio and Nashville. In Nashville, the musicians had a tendency to drag the tempo slightly, while in Rio, they often pushed it forward. To reconcile these differences, I had to meticulously edit every 16th note, aligning one recording with the other on every track of each song. This painstaking process was very time-consuming but absolutely necessary to move forward.

Navigating this project, I was also confronted with too much information. I wanted to streamline things while staying true to my core idea. I considered grouping the same instruments, like the pianos from Rio and Nashville, into one aux channel. This would simplify things and make comparisons easier. I also thought about listening to everything on a mono speaker, hoping this could help in making clearer decisions. The possibilities were endless.

The complexity of my task increased significantly because I didn't have the lead vocal recorded. Although the singers in both Nashville and Rio were exceptional, the primary focus had been on completing the instrumental tracks first, intending to record the vocals later. Without the lead vocal, the usual focal point of the songs, I found myself in a challenging position. Navigating the mix without a clear hierarchy was nearly impossible until I had done extensive editing. Establishing the instrumental foundation was crucial before integrating the vocals properly.

Despite hiring session singers in both cities, neither seemed to fit the music I was creating. This left me questioning who could fill this role and what voice would best suit the project. Normally, the vocal is the primary ‘artist’ and guide creative decisions early on, so I considered delaying this part. I asked myself: What impact would that have on my process? 

I had to consider at what stage of the process it would make the most sense to focus on vocal recording. Ultimately, I decided that recording the vocals early in the process was the best approach. This decision would then provide a clearer direction for the music, helping to create a more cohesive and structured production. Recording the vocals early allowed me to build the instrumental arrangements around the vocal tracks and not the other way around.

Another challenge was deciding on the direction of the project itself. I had to figure out whether to focus on making the music more commercial or follow my instincts, even if it meant moving away from the initial structured approach. I pondered whether the project's narrative should have a commercial focus that influences my decisions, or if it should be guided by gut feeling without considering the project’s argumentative symmetry.

Lastly, during what I now call the re-arranging phase, I had to adjust my strategy. Re-arranging is a feeling I got from working on it because the process has been to come up with songs, having 2 bands play it and now I get to re-arrange it because the two bands cannot play at the same time – there would be too much. A lot of decisions I had to make was basically arrangement: re-arrange the recordings.

Sometimes I recognized that some things work well when combining it, but many elements were too cluttered and needs fixing to stay in the production. Again, there is WAY too much information when two bands are playing the same music at the same time. I asked myself why that would be a surprise to me – but I didn’t see it coming.

My usual detailed approach post recording wasn't effective. Instead, I had to be more direct, and sometimes even listening in an imprecise way, to move things forward. I can make a parallel to almost closing your eyes: you see the outline of things but cannot yet understand what you’re looking at… that was my method of moving forward. If the amount of complexity is too high, I had to de-focus on the entirety, basically be more imprecise and use my ears on a more abstract level than I normally would. This project kind of forced me into this method. It created the feeling of a more uncommitted approach, perhaps less playful, but coherence between elements and progress emerged more randomly - through not-so-precise trial and error. It felt less meticulous but seemed necessary for this part of the project.

After lot of contemplation I actually settled on myself as a singer. Assuming roles beyond production, including composer and artist, reshaped the project. This shift gave me greater artistic freedom but also a deeper emotional connection and a unique perspective on music's societal context. It simplified ethical considerations but demanded internal negotiations between roles. This all-encompassing approach redefines this project for what it means to be a music producer, showcasing the potentials modern music production.