REFLECTIONS

Negotiations

First off, I’d like to adress negotiations. They aren't just about reaching an agreement; You could call it an art form of understanding, connecting, and harmonizing varying perspectives. I have found three guiding principles that shape the essence of negotiations and I would like to share them here:

Firstly I’d say that negotiations reflect reception: 

At its core, a successful negotiation often hinges on a willingness to adapt and evolve. This approach isn't about coming to the table with inflexible demands but rather being open to what's presented. It's about listening intently, absorbing insights, and adjusting one's stance accordingly. By valuing "what I receive," negotiations transition from monologues to dialogues, fostering mutual respect and understanding.

What happens when I don’t know the people I am working with ?

When embarking on a negotiation without prior knowledge of the other party, the landscape changes. It's like navigating unfamiliar terrain where trust becomes the compass and seeking clarity the map. Without the benefit of past interactions or insights into motivations, the negotiation hinges on establishing rapport, asking the right questions, and deciphering intentions.

Beyond agendas and points of discussion, every meeting is, at its heart, a negotiation of relationships. Whether consciously or subconsciously, participants navigate power dynamics, set boundaries, and work towards mutual respect. It's not merely about what's being said and what’s not being said, but also how relationships are being shaped, repaired, or even redefined in the process. As producer it believe it is my obligation to align participants to a common goal, which is where the music producer draws on leadership abilities.

My artistic process and area of focus are generally shaped by initiating actions that demand a new type of response from me. This approach is fundamentally different from a typical musical process, which resembles coming up with an idea that is then organically developed. In this project, I have adopted both approaches in different contexts. This experience has led to new insights, presented numerous challenges, and prompted reflections on my progress that have, in turn, tested and evolved my working methods.

I have found that in the realm of music production, negotiation is a constant, underlying process that shapes the creative outcome. This negotiation happens within the information and ideas received from various collaborators, requiring the producer to react, direct and respond - it is part of the role of the producer. For a music producer, these negotiations are complicated by the fact that there is no way to know the outcome beforehand and you work with people and technology. It is a conditional form of negotiation, rooted in the need to understand and – again - align performance with vision, maybe even when the producer is unfamiliar with the collaborators' personal and artistic backgrounds. 

Collaboration is a fundamental aspect not only in music but also in various other art forms. The focus of the research was to explore how decisions are made within collaborations and try to understand the processes that lead to these decisions. In considering art forms other than music, how can we identify similar dynamics, where groups of people come together and face similar challenges regarding who ultimately has the authority to make decisions in an artistic project? I have come up with a list of how it seems to work in other art forms here:

1. Film Director

Much like a music producer, a film director guides the overall vision of a movie, making key decisions about the script, actors, locations, and the final cut. They must work collaboratively with actors, cinematographers, editors, and other contributors. They are responsible for creating a coherent and impactful final product, akin to a music producer’s role in shaping a song or album.

2. Art Curator

An art curator is responsible for selecting, organizing, and presenting artworks in a gallery or museum. They shape the narrative and thematic coherence of an exhibition, collaborating with artists, historians, and other professionals, akin to a music producer’s role in shaping an album.

3. Book Editor 

A book editor works with authors to refine and shape their manuscripts, ensuring that the final product is polished and aligns with the vision for the book. They provide feedback on story structure, character development, and language, much like a music producer might guide the structure and sound of a song.

4. Theatre Director 

In the world of theatre, the director is the individual who oversees the mounting of a stage production, shaping the vision from script to performance. They collaborate with actors, designers, and other crew members to create a cohesive and engaging live experience, similar to how a music producer shapes a recording.

5. Choreographer

A choreographer creates and arranges dances for performers. They design the movements and patterns that dancers will perform, and work collaboratively with dancers to shape the final piece, much like a music producer works with artists and musicians to shape a song.

6. Architect

An architect designs buildings and physical spaces, working collaboratively with clients, engineers, and builders to realize a vision. They are responsible for the cohesive and functional design of a building, akin to a music producer’s role in creating a cohesive sound for a song or album.

7. Game Designer

A game designer creates the concept, rules, and structure of a game, whether it be a video game, board game, or interactive experience. They collaborate with artists, programmers, and other designers to create a cohesive and engaging player experience, akin to a music producer's role in crafting a cohesive musical experience.

8. Fashion Designer/Creative Director

A fashion designer in a fashion house is responsible for the overall aesthetic and design of a clothing line. They work with a team of designers and other staff to bring their visions to life, much like a music producer works with musicians and engineers to craft a song or album.

9. Photography Director (for magazines or shoots)

The director of photography for a magazine or photo shoot plans the visuals and works with photographers, models, and stylists to achieve a particular look or theme, much like a music producer’s role in shaping the sound and feel of a recording.

These roles all involve a blend of creativity, leadership, and collaboration, akin to the role of a music producer. In each case, the individual is deeply involved in both the artistic and practical aspects of a project, guiding it from concept to final product.

There may be other relevant art forms that I could include here, but because music today can be created both as a collective and as an individual process and because technology has offered new possibilities for everyone to create, I have chosen to use base this project on the two role positions initiator and facilitator. They can be said to be typical within artistic processes, but especially in modern music production, can be said that oneperson often contains both positions at the same time and at different times of the artistic work to create a finished work of art. The music producer is the one who has the responsibility to create a final product, and this responsibility can be given by others or one can take it upon oneself as an artist. I already talked about this earlier that the two roles are at one end of the scale the 'initiator' and at the other end of the continuum the 'facilitator'.

Unlike a person who performs music or one who composes music, the role, scope, and competency demands of a modern music producer are so complex on an artistic, technological, and social level that I believe it exceeds the complexity typically associated with a musician or composer. It therefore rightfully becomes a different breed with different charateristics on its own.

It is important here to consider that I am not in any way downplaying a musician or a composer’s knowledge, skills, and competencies – not at all! A music producer is deeply dependent on other people and their contributions to the work. Perhaps, to make it clearer: I am trying to articulate that the musician is not the work of art but they are contributers to the work... I am therefore trying to articulate that the modern music producer's area of responsibility encompasses a demand for knowledge, skills, and competencies which - if one is to be successful, sought-after, and actually able to create music with high artistic value, then the task for a music producer by definition is large and complex.

As a music producer, you make decisions that only a music producer can make (and the interesting thing in this project: How are these decisions made?).

It goes without saying that if the music producer is the one responsible for the finished product, it requires insight into all the parameters that are part of the finished musical product... but no one can be an expert in everything, so the journey for a music producer starts somewhere, and you navigate in and create and develop the music with your own aesthetic (art), your mastery and understanding of technology (technology), and your abilities to create a social framework(social) for those participating in a project, which evokes a personal expression.

In essence, I believe the role of the music producer is to ensure that what was intended by the one who came up with the idea  (took the first steps towards something) comes through as clearly as possible to a recipient... And in this process, the choices one makes and what one negotiates become absolutely crucial: that you can and dare to use your own taste/ aesthetic and that it is not only obviously okay, but a requirement... If this point-of-view offends anyone listening here, then I think it may challenge more the conventional perceptions and ingrained traditions of what a musician and a composer are... Just as there are helpless architects who can draw a line that has magnetic abilities in its essence, but cannot be realized and therefore need help to realize the idea, the same can be said within music: it is not always the musician / composer who has the ability to complete works because the task is too complex, and simultaneously the person who comes up with an idea is not necessarily the best at realizing it... I think it is extremely important to consider this when considering what the modern music producer's role is... but it is completely undisputed that this role exists and there IS therefore talk of a hierarchy, which for historical reasons has evolved to where it is today. With the availability of technology it actually supports the fact that this hierarchy is changing – for better or worse.

Some might say that a music producer can be called a creative architect, sound sculptor, sound magician, creative alchemist, sound visionary, sound arranger, etc. Overall, a music producer works within an artistic process based on collaboration with other artists. In their personal way, they lead a team of professionals based on an artistic vision. They possess a sense for cultural sensitivity, may play a mentoring role, and definitely have the responsibility to create an inclusive space for participants. Furthermore, they are responsible for how something sounds – e.g., the sound engineer makes choices, but all these choices need to be coordinated and streamlined so that the final musical expression has a sound that is cohesive, allowing listeners to connect with the artistic expression.

TRUST IS CRUCIAL IN THIS PROCESS

As a music producer, I would say that one must establish trust in decision-making processes, and also from those who might be the featured artists. But they might not recognize or acknowledge what it takes to achieve what they hear ‘inside their head.’ Thus, it is almost always necessary to use other professionals as a resonating board for decisions to be made, or for negotiations about the artistic expression to occur at a sufficiently high level, ensuring that the right decisions are made for the project and personal insecurities or egotistical attitudes do not obscure that expression that is already there but perhaps just needs to be unearthed. And this adds another layer of complexity for a music producer, which involves having psychological insight into artistic processes – like referenced earlier to Jung and Ehrenzweig. Sometimes you need to refocus the mindset of those involved in the project on what is essential, as this often only becomes apparent quite late in a project. For me, it has become particularly apparant in subproject 2 of my research project as both initiator and facilitator.

Many decisions are made after the recording and during the re-arrangement/mixing process, and this is not a performance like a musician's. I believe that, unlike a musician who performs in front of a microphone, a music producer doesn't necessarily position themselves to perform. Instead, they need to be attuned to the room's atmosphere, sensing where the energy lies, and deciding if and when to react to it. And dare to be even more dependent on others than on one’s own ‘performance’. Thus, attention is critical on all levels the music producer has control of or access to and in some cases you have to bring it up – bring it to the negotiating table.

In relation to what I may allow myself as a music producer to do with recorded elements, my basic stance is that ‘I don’t really care’ because the role of the music producer also typically involves being ruthless towards the recorded material and possibly also those involved in the project, those outside the project or those financing it – to some extent. In my view you have to dare do what’s necessary to make the music present itself in the best possible way. Or, at the very least, the question arises: who are the decisions being made for, and based on what considerations? Am I serving the music or serving the musicians? 

It is a position that may be necessary, but I use it almost as a driver that I do not communicate directly. I give leeway to others, but I 'take it home' and proceed with my drive and focus, while also remaining open to the emergence of something new.

So, the moral dilemmas in relation to those participating in a given project are: how can I effectively influence others, so that it satisfies BOTH the music becoming the best possible in relation to the existing competence level, and can I do this if I don’t understand others' processes at a basic level, at a craftsmanship level, and on a psychological level?

Throughout my research project I have found certain elements to be key areas to be aware of in the context of negotiation in music production projects. Failing to observe this or be mindful of them can undermine the project and potentially lead to frustration or suboptimal outcomes when navigating the complexities of interpersonal and creative exchanges in music.

To begin with, I can not stress the importance of adequate preparation enough. Jumping into a project without a comprehensive understanding of the details, potential options, or the stakes involved might leave one vulnerable. Alongside, clear and open communication plays a pivotal role. It helps avoid potential misunderstandings, ensures everyone's on the same page, and maximizes collaborative opportunities.

Equally vital is the art of compromise. While being overly flexible might not always create the best results, being too stubborn can lead to missed opportunities. It's about finding that sweet middle ground. Additionally, the essence of active listening should never be underestimated. By genuinely paying attention, we can better understand and cater to the other party's needs.

Developing clear objectives and be in constant dialogue about them guides negotiations towards a mutually beneficial outcome. 

WHO IS THE REAL ARTIST IN THIS PROJECT ?

In a music context, "artist" typically refers to a person who performs, composes, or presents their music. Often, the artist is the person at the center of musical performances, whether as a singer, instrumentalist, or a combination of the two, conveying the music to the audience through live performances or recordings.

Many artists also write their own music, which may involve composing melodies, harmonies, and lyrics. Some collaborate closely with other songwriters, while others primarily write independently. As the creative force behind their music, an artists often have a clear vision for their art, which they work diligently to realize. This vision can extend from the music's sound to the visual aspects of their work, such as music videos and stage performances.

Some artists primarily perform music written by others. In this role, the artist – typically referred to as a recording artist - emerges as an interpreter of the music, infusing their unique style and personality into the performance of a piece.

In the studio, an artist's role can also expand to include active participation in the recording process, with some even having control of the production of their music. This may range from having a strong voice in the studio to actually serving as their own producer.

It's important to note that not all artists necessarily possess all these roles simultaneously, and in some cases, especially within modern music production, the lines between artist, producer, and other contributors can be more fluid, with roles overlapping to varying degrees as my interviews concluded.

As early stated there is no music to be produced without an artist present. The odd thing is that the producer needs an artist to be able to work. The artist can possibly do all tasks today through technology but the task is huge.

My project does not include the commercial and managerial aspects of a music career. Hence, the business and marketing responsibilities that artists are often expected to handle aren't relevant to delve into here, but they are a strong identifier when discussing who the artist is.

In some instances where both the composer/singer and producer contribute equally to the artistic expression and have equally strong influence on the final product, the producer may be regarded as co-artists. For instance, in a close collaboration where I create the music and sing, while the producer (whether that's me or someone else) contributes significant creative input and shapes the final sound. This reflects a more contemporary view of the producer’s role and is – in my view - made possible through technology becoming more available and its continued ease of use.

In some music projects, especially in electronic music and pop, it can be common for the producer to be listed as a 'featured artist', even though they may not sing on the track. This acknowledges their substantial contribution to the artistic work.

When I, as the initiator and facilitator of subproject 2, transition from being behind the scenes as a producer to stepping into the light as a composer and singer, the dynamics shift significantly, influencing who can be regarded as "the artist" in the project.

In this scenario, even if I work with a producer, I am the primary creative force behind the music and the one delivering some of the emotional and artistic interpretation through my voice.

Therefore, in my case, where I now am both composer and singer and producer, it is entirely valid to assert that I am now the artist in the project, as it is my creative vision and voice that are at the forefront. The producer's role, even when it is me, will in this context usually be to help realize this vision, rather than being the primary artist.

When I asked and paid for the musicians' contributions as a service, they were acutely aware that they were participating in a project that was my vision, and their contribution was seen as a professional service rather than an artistic partnership. Thus, they have been on board with contributing to the realization of my artistic vision, with their role in the project defined as studio musicians.

Under these terms, my decision to step in as the singer likely doesn't come as a surprise to the musicians. They were informed that the purpose of the project was to combine the recordings into one new singularity and, thus, that it was a very open frame. This means they have been aware of the experimental and open nature of the project and have recognized that many aspects, including who would be singing, were fluid and could change throughout the process.

Given that I communicated this clearly from the beginning, the musicians likely felt ok with this structure and my leadership of the project. They knew what they were getting into and expected that their contributions later would become part of a larger, composite work. Because of the clarity of communication, they likely do not feel that their artistic integrity is compromised by my decision made after the recording process to sing myself.

This transparency likely also contributed to establishing a professional and respectful working relationship between me and the musicians. Since they were fully informed and agreeable to the project’s nature and my intentions, there has been a clear and mutual understanding of roles and expectations, ensuring that all parties know what they are contributing and what they can expect from the final product.

So, in this arrangement, where I have been clear, open, and have paid for the musicians’ contributions as a service, I can reasonably present myself as the artist of the project, and the musicians, who were aware of this structure, likely respect and accept this definition of roles.

QUALITY PARAMETERS

I will now turn to a term I have found useful to examine in a professional context: quality parameters. After returning home from with the recordings, I was faced with the monumental challenge – I touched on a bit earlier. This challenge turned out to be far more complex than I imagined:

Some of the general questions I observed at this stage of the process that came to me was 

• • How few elements can I use and still retain the core of both recordings?
  • How do I create a genuine fusion of two musical expressions?
  • What’s at the heart of merging these two expressions, and how does it manifest in the final product?
  • What are the basic artistic values that drives me?
  • How do I define the musical goal I am trying to achieve?

Throughout this process, I was continually reminded of the complexity, but also of the incredible potential inherent in this challenge of merging.

Now, as I mentioned earlier I had arranged the music so that both recordings would match in terms of key, tempo, structure, etc. I had the recorded tracks aligned and on top of each other and I could then decide which elements from both recordings should play simultaneously.

Listening to those recordings at the same time turned out to be a task that demanded immense capacity. I thought it would be straightforward, but the main issue was that the musicians had delivered outstanding performances, and it worked individually, whether in the recordings from Rio or from Nashville. But collectively, there was an overload of information that left me breathless. I was faced with determining what should remain and what should be discarded, and I quickly realized that I couldn't afford to get attached to minor parts at that time.

I spent a long time making the basics work - importing files, ensuring they played correctly together, naming tracks, structuring, and color-coding the individual tracks. New ideas appeared when I was pondering on how to select which elements:

• • Should I make sharp, overarching cuts between the recordings?
  • Should I let them integrate over time and thereby shift focus?
  • Should I integrate or reserve individual elements in various parts of the songs?
  • Should I use tricks, like side-chain, to allow elements to coexist simultaneously?

Several tracks seemed to work quite well when merging elements, while others didn't work at all because the 'feel' with which the music was recorded had different emphasis. The musicians in Nashville hadn't listened to the recordings from Rio De Janeiro and – of course - vice versa. The internal timing among the musicians in Rio De Janeiro worked incredibly well, and similarly within Nashville, but in combination, several tracks did not work. This dilemma brought about other considerations that came to me:

• • Can I adjust the timing? is that an okay thing to do ?
  • Am I taking anything away from how the studio musicians intuitively played?
  • Am I destroying unique characteristics that arose, and is apparent, in the recordings from each city?
  • Are there ethical issues to consider?

At this stage, which I named the re-arrangement process, I was genuinely trying to craft something new based on two recording processes. I made the decision to respect the musicians' performances as much as possible, but I also promised myself to be ruthless and make decisions based on the overall musical expression. Here, a consideration may come into play about what many might call musicianship or 'interplay'. It's something that I tried to capture and which I've experienced both in Rio De Janeiro and in Nashville. They play in harmony, in a sense seeking each other out and converging in a musical universe they develop based on my compositions – in the now. But the catch is, that they aren't aware of the bigger picture they step into when I later will merge the two sessions... only I am. This grants me power but also a responsibility. You could say that the musicians' process is done and over, and I have no dialogue, no band, no emotions, or anything else to consider. One might say that with these recordings, I've essentially created a sample library where the focus isn't on one-shots or soundscapes, but rather on a more cohesive sample library presented linearly, which allows me to have control of the material. It's evident that playing both recordings simultaneously is chaotic – the music, of course, isn't communicating from one point, and it's my responsibility as a music producer to direct the overall expression; to align the energy.

As stated previously, I found myself having to cut every sixteenth note to, as an example, get the two drum sets to play in sync, aiming to make them sound as one drum set, a goal I felt intuitively compelled to do in some songs.

At this point more broad questions arose during this process. It was questions like: 

• • • How few elements can I use and still make it clear where they originate from and it then transcends into a new third? 

Or :

• • • What is actually required to create a fusion of music that results in an entirely new expression?

I also had to consider: 

• • • What artistic values truly matter to me?
    • What's essential for me in the intersection of these two expressions, what's essential in the songs, and how is it collectively expressed?
    • What characterizes the music I'm attempting to create?

A selection process driven by intuition is subjective and internally motivated, it often appears spontaneous and non-logical. Intuitive decision-making doesn't necessarily rely on a rational analysis of all available data, but rather on a deep, sometimes subconscious, feeling or "gut instinct". 

The intuitive decisions often emerge swiftly, not from superficiality, but deep understanding. Intuitive decisions draw on previous experience: I have found that it is often based on patterns and experiences from my past and that intuitive choices often align emotionally with the values and feelings of me. Sometimes it even becomes a physical sensation in my body. When working with music I’ve come to trust that my intuition often leads me to aesthetically pleasing choices - it is a reflection of my personal aesthetic – my likes and dislikes.

But doing this also requires something of me. For one, it demands a strong sense of belief in myself - I have to trust myself a whole lot. I also need to be able to accept the uncertainties embedded in my artist practice - that is actually essential because nobody knows if the work of art will come to life and be able to attract attention. When using my intuition, any form of post-decision reflection can deepen my understanding but it is already there in the meaning of the word reflection: it is out of the specific time domain of intuition - it comes after the intuitive process. One thought comes to me here: Does it make sense to be critical of what comes to you from your subconscious; that which you have no active control of ?

When facing decisions, especially complex ones, I feel various forces pulling me. Rational arguments, past experiences, and my intuition vie for attention. My "gut feeling" often speaks loud and I have grown to trust it very much. Herbert Simon, a renowned researcher in cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence had a particular viewpoint on intuition. He believed that intuition was the result of learning and experience, rather than a mystical or inexplicable phenomenon. According to Simon he said that ‘Intuition is nothing more and nothing less than recognition.’ Carl Jung - The Swiss psychiatrist - saw intuition as a way of perceiving possibilities, a process that is largely unconscious and taps into the collective unconscious. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, a French writer once said, "You know you have reached perfection of design not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away." This emphasizes the intuitive understanding of simplicity in design and creation and is maybe at the same time describing the process I have utilized when selecting from the recording sessions but also describes the mixing process.

However, I also use feedback from others as it provides new perspectives I might've missed. Their honesty helps me see how my values and emotions influence decisions. In this project I have used  a network of professionals for this part but it is critical that  it happens at the right time or else their feedback or input can be utterly destructive.

Ultimately, decision-making in music production is deeply personal for me. While I value others' input and strive to balance reason with intuition, I just know decisions must resonate with me. I believe I understand myself best and I must trust the wisdom I've accumulated over the years – what else can I do?

Artistic values within music production refers to the principles, beliefs, and standards that I prioritize and work from when I create and produce music. These values can vary widely based on the individual project I am working on, but the core values I hold dear while at the same time are mindful of using include:

• • Emotional Connection: The ability to touch listeners' emotions and establish a lasting bond through the music.
  • Depth: Pursuing a profound meaning in music, both sonically and lyrically, that can resonate with listeners on a personal level.
  • Aesthetics: Upholding a high standard for aesthetic beauty and harmony in music, both in composition and production.
  • Originality: Crafting something distinct and unmistakable, setting my work apart from what already exists (very difficult).
  • Authenticity: Music should be a genuine expression of my emotions, thoughts, and experiences and come across as such.
  • Technical Proficiency: Striving for perfection in technical execution, be it instrumental mastery, engineering or the technical quality in general.
  • Innovation: Challenging the norms and forging new sounds, structures, or approaches in music production.
  • Collaboration: Valuing the process of working together with other artists and professionals to achieve a shared vision.
  • Sustainability: This signifies the importance of producing music sustainably and ethically, be it environmental considerations, fair compensation for participating musicians, or respecting cultural property rights.
  • Integrity: Standing by my artistic choices and being truthful to myself 
  • Exploration: A curiosity and eagerness to continually learn and explore new techniques, genres, or ideas.

These values guide and inspire me in my work. Some of these values might appear universal but their use, or significance and emphasis, can vary considerably from one project to another, but this is where I stand.The clarity of this position is all coming from the work I have done with this artistic research project.

Navigating the boundaries of musical innovation presents an intriguing paradox for me. I often have an urge to break expectations, introduce new sounds, and redefine structures in my own way. But, there's an undeniable truth: the spectrum of human emotions remains constant, through all music. Emotions like joy, sorrow, love, and angst have been the cornerstone of artistic expression since allways. So, how do I innovate in a landscape where the emotional core remains unchanged?

This duality poses a unique challenge. It's not just about presenting age-old emotions in a fresh sonic package, but about exploring the depth, intensity, nuances, and layers of these emotions through new musical avenues resonating with the time I live in. The real innovation, from my perspective, lies in the intersection of emotion and method. It's in the craft of taking a familiar sentiment and making a listener feel it as if for the first time, using a combination of melodies, rhythms, instruments, or even silences that they might not have encountered before.

While the raw essence of emotion might remain unchanged, the ways in which we perceive, interpret, and express these emotions are ever-evolving, influenced by our personal experiences, cultural shifts, and technological advancements. To be truly innovative, then, is not to invent a new emotion but to offer a novel perspective or depth to what's always been felt, creating a resonance that's both fresh and timelessly familiar.