fredthe3rd wrote:

---

He certainly knows how to strike the balance between experimentalism and more traditional stuff. I also find myself wondering how well Discodeine would work with Pulp. I thought their album was really good. Falkenberg from that album reminds me a little of This Is Hardcore (song) the way the different instruments, voices and samples are gradually layered on top of each other.

---

 I'm sure you already know but Jarvis has worked with Discodeine on that Synchronize track.

The guys from AIR could be quite good as well. Oh, I am loving this game.

Stephen wrote:

---

I think that Pulp with Thomas - like Blur with Street - had definitely run its course. I think that William Orbit (like Scott Walker) provided a wonderful tonic for both bands that allowed them to make one last great record.

---

Disagree: Street produced two of the best Graham Coxon solo records, post Blur. He gave the production level the songs needed, coz he knows the guy, his history, his style.

saw119 wrote:

---

Even considering the events that surrounded the aborted sessions for WLL?

---

Pulp last worked with Thomas a long time ago, and even though the last sessions didnt go well, water under the bridge... etc people have changed since then, especially Jarvis. And i still think Walker didn't work with Pulp, although i like WLL, because he didn't really know them.

An "historic" producer is the way to go for a big comeback because it's unlikely that he'll greenlight something that is shit. Something to do with legacy i guess...

And having listened to Let It Be and Let It Be Naked I'd say they have the power to totally screw up an album.

I'd also like to nominate David Bowie to produce their next album. The Idiot, Transformer... good times.

I don't think Pulp ever found their definitive producer, personally.

A lot of their '90s/'00s recordings seem to be driven by a lack of confidence, in a weird sort of way. When talking about the Chris Thomas stuff, there are various quotes from the band about how he made them "sound like competent musicians" (or words to that effect). To me, there's a sense of overcompensating there - there isn't a note out of place anywhere on either of those records, and any weird noises have been reined in and tidied up. That doesn't mean they're not great records, but by making sure they're nice and clean and tidy and solid-sounding, they're kind of slightly removed from what makes Pulp unique. In my opinion. The same thing is sort of true of Alan Smyth's work on Separations.

As for the Ed Buller stuff, those recordings are dripping with atmosphere and emotion, but he takes the sort of Martin Hannett approach doesn't he? You can tell everything's been broken down into its component parts and built up again, the sounds have been taken out of the room they were made in and put in a different room of Buller's own imagining. Which is a ridiculously poncey way of saying there's a lot of reverb! But again, it's sort of Pulp and sort of not Pulp.

What does that leave then? My favourite Pulp tracks, production wise, might be the Inside Susan songs. Which were produced by... Pulp.

Stephen wrote:

---

Speaking as an enormous Beatles fan, I think Spector manages to save that album, to be honest! I adore 'I Me Mine' so hearing it at twice the length helps :) Plus, as Lennon said, "He was given the shittiest load of badly recorded shit with a lousy feeling to it ever, and he made something out of it."

Let It Be Naked - as overseen by Paul a few years back- is much better than the pre-Spector version sounded. Don't believe the smearing of the truth! Find yourself a copy of the original Glyn Johns mix of the 'Get Back' album and see how much Spector added! For a start, he got shut of 'Rocker' and 'Save the Last Dance For Me' for which he should be freed from prison IMO :)

---

I agree there, Spector did a fantastic job on Let It Bet, but i guess that's how it was done that irritated McCartney. I love both Naked and the Spector version though, they're two different records really.

fredthe3rd wrote:

---

I always thought producers were the people with the technical know-how to make the bands ideas reality, but also suggest some of their own ideas relating to effects and stuff.

---

As Stephen said, it really depends, there's no written rule: some bands have complete control over their art and the producer is more of an engineer or the "knob turner" (Like in Oasis, Noel was the producer). In other bands, the producer can be the real force behind the sound: and i'd say Pulp falls more in the latter category, judging by the demos. There's also producers that put "their sound" on band records (see Danger Mouse, Steve Albini, William Orbit).

Sturdy wrote:
I don't think Pulp ever found their definitive producer, personally.

A lot of their '90s/'00s recordings seem to be driven by a lack of confidence, in a weird sort of way. When talking about the Chris Thomas stuff, there are various quotes from the band about how he made them "sound like competent musicians" (or words to that effect). To me, there's a sense of overcompensating there - there isn't a note out of place anywhere on either of those records, and any weird noises have been reined in and tidied up. That doesn't mean they're not great records, but by making sure they're nice and clean and tidy and solid-sounding, they're kind of slightly removed from what makes Pulp unique. In my opinion. The same thing is sort of true of Alan Smyth's work on Separations.

-----------------------------

Those two records needed that "perfect" production. They had to be spotless in order to work. DC couldn't have been messy, it was a record with 12 pop singles, there wasn't room for a weird note or a drumbeat not in tempo. And TIH even less, it had to be that grandiose over the top record. And those kinda records can't be messy. So i guess it worked, Pulp may have lost a bit in it, but what i see is, almost 20 years later, they don't need remastering, or remixing, unlike most of the records of that time. For that only, thumbs up to Thomas

----------------------------

Stephen wrote:
Mark, I agree with you here. The Chris Thomas stuff is competant, but it doesn't sparkle in the same way that, say, Stephen Street's work with Blur did. But then again...he did work with Pink Floyd, so I suppose it was all about making things sound perfect rather than necessarily exciting. Hence also Jarvis saying how his vocal tracks would be pieced together from numerous different takes - it was about perfection rather than capturing the moment.

---------------------------

I think he managed to do both: make spotless records and capture the moment. That's how you know a producer is great or not. Street's works with Blur captured the moment perfectly, but now it sounds really... Mid 90s. DC and TIH are timeless. It might not be what Pulp were then, but it's what Pulp needed to be on record.

(Sorry about that something went wrong during copy paste )