Albums on which the producer was arguably more important than the band/artist

It was relevant to the comment that I was responding to, which said that Lanois and Eno's work on Unforgettable Fire made U2 "the hot ticket for the rest of the decade".

 

You (too) make the point I've been making: U2 was a band on the rise, not one that Eno/Lanois put there.

If Big Country had worked with Lanois/Eno for their 3rd album - after 1 hit and 1 commercial disappointment - and then become big... sure, given the producers lots of credit.

But U2 already had the makings of a BIG band, as I discussed in prior posts.

As for performance, in the US "War" and "Fire" both peaked at #12. "War" is certified 4X platinum vs. 3X plat for "Fire", but it's unclear how many of those copies were sold in later years, not when the albums were new.

In the UK, both went to #1 and were certified 2x plat.

No U2 singles did much in the US pre-1987. Even "Pride" only got to #33 here.

The "Fire" singles were bigger in the UK than the "War" singles, though. The 2 singles from "Fire" went top 6, whereas the 2 from "War" were top 10 and top 20, respectively.

If "Fire" was a commercial disappointment, it would've been because it didn't elevate the band's sales status - at least in terms of recordings.

After "War" made them popular and "Blood Red Sky" amplified that, expectations should've been higher for "Fire", but it left them in "treading water" status at record stores.

However, they were still becoming more popular overall, which is why they were able to go from theaters (mainly) in 1983 to arenas in spring 1985...

 

You're right. Fair enough.

 

You could make an argument that Lanois and Eno's most critical contribution was to the Achtung Baby.

 

Maybe. They already pointed in that album's direction with some of the "Rattle and Hum" material, though - especially "God Part 2" - and Lanois/Eno weren't involved with it.

I don't want to give producers no credit, of course, but with a band like U2, I think the bandmembers themselves deserve the overwhelming credit - or blame - for the recordings.

I just don't see U2 circa 1984 - or 1990-91 - being pawns of their producers...

 

"Remain in Light " Production Brian Eno

All lyrics are written by David Byrne, except "Born Under Punches (The Heat Goes On)" and "Crosseyed and Painless", written by David Byrne and Brian Eno
all music is composed by D Byrne & Brian Eno & T Heads

Brian Eno : keyboards, percussion, guitar, bass guitar, backing vocals, vocal arrangements.

its almost a DB/BE album .

 

any of those awful Disney pop tarts

 

Do you think this makes Eno more important than Byrne and the Heads, though?

I can hear an argument for equal importance, but the thread's "more important"...

 

As Im sure you know, Remain in Light and Speaking in Tongues are the two albums where Franz, Weymouth and Harrison also receive credit for composing the music.

 

That is ridiculous. How old are you, if you don't mind me asking? Rick Rubin was one of the most in-demand producers of the era long before he produced Johnny Cash.

Even before producing Slayer, Rubin had already produced the breakthrough albums from L.L. Cool J. (Radio) and Run DMC (Raising Hell) and was working on the Beastie Boys Licensed to Ill (Slayer's Kerry King even played guitar on "No Sleep 'Til Brooklyn"), all of which are platinum or multi-platinum albums, and were crucial to Hip-Hop entering the mainstream.

In fact, his production on Run DMC's Raising Hell led to that album's collaboration with Aerosmith, who Run DMC had originally planned to sample, on "Walk This Way." That song is almost universally acknowledged as the single in which Hip-Hop truly broke through to mainstream radio.

All of that before Slayer's Reign In Blood.

He then went on to produce hugely important albums, including The Cult's Electric, the first three Danzig solo LP's, the Black Crowes' Shake Your Money Maker, Slayer's Seasons In the Abyss, Mick Jagger's Wandering Spirit. and the Red Hot Chili Peppers' Blood Sugar Sex Magik, which yielded the hits "Under the Bridge" and "Give It Away."

In addition, he had executive produced or advised on the breakthrough albums from Geto Boys, Sir Mix-a-Lot and Public Enemy.

And he had already begun his collaboration with Tom Petty on "Last Dance With Mary Jane," and would soon begin working with Petty on Wildflowers, all of which was hugely important to Johnny Cash's American Recordings, as Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers were often the house band for those sessions.

Now, if when you say "Most people did not give a crap about Rubin," you mean most average non-music fans, that would be true of the majority of the producers discussed on this thread. Bob Ezrin, Daniel Lanois, and Trevor Horn aren't exactly household names.

But any serious music fan over five years old in 1987 knew who Rick Rubin was and knew that his importance and demand as a producer was incalculable long before "Hurt."

 

This is the more typical SAW mix/arrangement version of "That's What Love Can Do."

 

This whole thread is ridiculous if you ask me. How does anyone gauge "importance"? They don't. It's all a pile of subjective opinions. So let's not get all factual on what is and is not important. If the OP meant "more famous, lengthier career or more albums sold", then they should have stated that.

Rick's resume does not mean he was more "important" than Slayer in 1986. He would tell you the same, otherwise it would have been called "Rick Rubin's 'Reign In Blood' as played by Slayer".

I struggle to name any producer who outshined the artist on any album. It is their very job to ensure they don't.

I was 9 when Reign in Blood came out if you really want to know, and I listened to it. Did I know who Rick was then, of course not. I probably first knew who he was after I watched Funky Monks. Does that make me a "non-music fan" (whatever the hell that means)? You tell me.

Industry knowledge and popular knowledge are not even close to the same. Most people is just that, most of the people who heard the songs he produced did not know who he was. After Cash died, there was a lot of press on Rubin, and many more awards. Hence he became more famous in the public eye. But not in 1986, and not until the early 2000s.

Hell, most people still don't even know that "Hurt" is a NIN song, and if you want to go poll the American public on that please do so.

 

Yep. I didn't date that well when most of his earlier work had a "timeless" quality.

 

Destroyer.
The worst Kiss album from the 70’s

 

Welcome to this pleasure dome.

 

If you think this whole thread is ridiculous, then you should have led with that. Or maybe you shouldn't have posted at all, if you feel that strongly about it. And of course, these are subjective opinions - you couldn't possibly objectively measure anyone's importance. It's inherently subjective. That's a given.

Also, this is not about fame. It's not about marquee value that "outshines" the artist. This is about importance to a recording and its success. And on that note, I'd never heard of Slayer before Reign In Blood, so one could argue that Rubin's massive production style had a great deal to do with their success with that album. More than the band itself? Probably not. Equal to? Possibly.

But Rubin had measurable chart success before he met Slayer, and he had a lot more before Cash died. Subjective as this thread is (or any SHF thread, for that matter), Rubin was nominated for two Grammy's for Tom Petty's Wildflowers, two years before the first Cash record. And by the time "Hurt" was a hit, Rubin had six Grammy nominations and one Grammy award.

That's about as much objective proof as you can get that he was far from someone "most people did not give a crap about," and that's not counting all of the platinum albums and singles he had produced by that point.

Was he a household name? Not among non-music fans. But again, very few producers ever are. Did anyone "give a crap" about him? Only those who wanted hit records, and the fans of those artists.

I was half-joking when I said that any real music fan over the age of five in 1987 would have known who he was. But given that you were only nine in 1986, I was pretty close. You were simply too young to know who he was before Funky Monks. That's fair. I don't take issue with your ignorance. Only the arrogant condescension attached to it.

It would be the equivalent of a 14 year old today rolling their eyes and saying, "Well, I've never heard of The Clash, so they couldn't be that important." Which has actually happened.

 

u mean best

 

Dude, you are a riot.

You call me arrogant, but you're insulting my musical knowledge at the age of 9? That's pretty darn arrogant if you ask me.

I stand by my statement, that most of the people who listen to the music Rick produced (ie: not diehard fans, not audiophile nerds, not industry insiders and not anyone on this forum .... which still leaves millions of people) do not know who he is, or didn't until Cash died.

If you believe this to be arrogance, so be it, but it's true. Nothing I've stated is diminishing what Rick has achieved, his accolades or him personally. I simply took issue with someone saying he was more important than Slayer in the context of the album Reign in Blood.

 

David Foster and his work with Chicago. And that was not a good thing.

 

I don't think the thread is ridiculous, and I agree it's subjective.

But I think some of the picks here are pretty absurd.

IMO, "producer more important" really restricts to music where the artist was essentially irrelevant.

Like some Phil Spector stuff from the 60s - he could've plugged in a variety of singers and the songs would've been as good.

Probably a lot of Stock Aitken Waterman stuff, or Max Martin material to some degree.

Basically that's how I view it: producer with a strong sound and performer who could've easily been replaced.

So not U2 or Talking Heads or even Britney Spears - love or hate Britney, she clearly has a charisma that elevates her above her peers.

IMO, the thread's largely restricted to one or two-hit wonders who just happened to get a lucky break with a strong producer...

 

Nah. With Slayer, I don’t think Rubin did much”producing” beyond recording the band more drily, which allowed the force of the music to come through without being dissipated by reverb.

 

...really? I knew it would be mentioned, but do you really think that? "More" important?

If I hummed these songs and put them on a record, it'd still be a great record, because the melodies alone are superb, and that's just one part of what makes the album... let alone the nigh unparalleled (imo) Beatles arrangements.
Martin helped the album come to life, especially on Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite!, but this album would be nothing noteworthy if some other band with the same level of creativity but not the same level of musical talent was under the reigns of Sir. Martin. What is to many (and me) considered the best album they've ever heard cannot possibly be chalked up solely or even nearly all credit to good production on an album of original songwriting material.

 

I don't know about that...I think the melodies themselves on Pepper are a bit less strong than on Revolver or even the White Album, for example. Frankly, I'd say that the "revolutionary psychedelic" status it has would probably not have been tagged on this record without Martin's work.

 

“Naked” also.

 

Welcome To the Pleasuredome is the obvious one that comes to mind.

Steinman was obviously more important than Meat Loaf, but IMO that has a bit of an asterisk around it, since (as far as I understand) originally they were to be billed equally, and the record company insisted on Meat Loaf. Always wonder if we'd gotten more music out of them if that hadn't happened and wasn't an issue to contribute to their on/off rift over the decades.

I suppose the PSB's half of Dusty's Reputation is another.