In this article William Wittman explains why exploring every creative opportunity can get in the way and ultimately might compromise your project.
The other day a friend of mine said what I considered to be a very interesting thing. It should be said that this friend of mine is in a very successful show biz, but not music, duo.
And the thing he said that struck me was that, during their creative process, when they were brainstorming and working out the details for their shows, that it sometimes surprised, even shocked, those working around them to see that he and his partner were always fine saying “no” to each other. Often bluntly.
So one might say “how about we____” and the other will simply say “No, I don’t like that” or “that won’t work”, and then they just move on. No anger or recrimination, no whinging or manipulation or sulking. Just move on. Because they know each other, and they professionally trust each other, and because they both know the end goal will be reached both more efficiently and more quickly by not wasting time.
And it occurred to me that in the record making process it’s also important to be willing to take those ‘no’s’ and move one sometimes. These days, many, if not most, of you are more likely than not working in your own spaces without the clock ticking in an expensive studio. So saving every minute might not be your first concern. But still, saving that mental energy and potential distraction is also a valuable consideration.
In a practical sense, what tends to happen is that someone in the band has ‘an idea’. “Hey what if I try a wah-wah guitar in the chorus?” Now the question becomes: do we stop and set that up and try it, or is it more likely to be a dead end that only the guitar player enjoys while everyone else can’t see, or even actively already hates, the idea?
In my experience, and as my friend so forcefully pointed out, there’s strength and value in being able to say “NO!” here. Whether that’s the producer talking or another band member. Yes, I may have sometimes been pleasantly surprised when a seemingly unlikely idea ends up being brilliant. But I’ve far more often than I care to remember spent all night chasing an idea that was never going to work only to end up with everyone exhausted and frustrated for no discernible gain.
Now don’t get me wrong. There’s also the concept that comes from improvisation training wherein the rule is to always respond with “yes, and…” In improv, when someone says “I’m a one-legged astronaut” you never say “no, you’re not”. You always take it and run with it (well, run with it as well as you can on one leg, anyway.) And this is also a useful concept.
Who knows really? Perhaps the wah-wah is going to be transformatively brilliant and turn the lacklustre chorus into the hit song hook we were all longing for. I’m in no way saying to never explore an idea sprung from a moment of inspiration. But I am saying that not every spur of the moment idea is worth that exploration and that we shouldn’t be afraid to use a little judgment here as to what might be an inspiration and what might be just a needless time-suck.
Ideally someone (and ideally that means a dedicated, designated, producer) has a handle on the big picture and a plan as to how to get there. It’s important to not be arbitrary or to stomp on potential creativity. Clearly the band needs to feel that their ideas are being ‘heard’. But that producer, especially, also needs to be able to just say “no” sometimes. As should other band members! The Beatles (this reference dedicated to Russ Hughes) had a rule that any decision had to be okay with all four of them. Any member could veto any idea. And yet still, they employed this rule in parallel with the concept of always letting each songwriter basically dictate the direction on his songs. So they struck a balance between being able to say ‘no’ and giving the creative force, in each situation, the ability to explore and steer.
A famous example might be Paul showing the band Hey Jude. When he sings the line “the movement you need is on your shoulder” he mutters as an aside to John “I’ll change that later”. John responds instantly “no, you won’t!” And the trust is there to take the “no”. Sometimes the “no” from a potentially more objective partner is more helpful than your own insecure need to keep chasing alternatives. The movement you needed was right there on your shoulder.
I see a lot of young bands, especially those with their own home recording set ups, who unfortunately go way the other way. They chase every possible idea down for hours or even days, just because they “can”. But the result is that they quite often find themselves somewhere down the line exhausted and confused as to what they actually ‘have’ now that they’ve thrown every possible idea at the proverbial wall and no one is sure anymore what’s sticking.
It’s really useful to have a tonne of ideas out of which a few good ones can emerge. That’s far better than sitting around being stuck. But, on the other hand, you can waste a lot of time and energy chasing down bad, or at least not useful, ideas. A process that works well includes the ability to reject bad ideas immediately, to test some possible good ideas and either reject or accept them, and especially to recognise the genius ideas as quickly as possible. But it doesn't mean saying “yes” to everything; that's a prescription for an enormous waste of time and energy. “No. I think a wah will make this feel too retro” simply bypasses the time and mental drain of running down a path that is unlikely, at best, to end up being useful.
The truth is that the record could, of course, probably be made with or without this wah-wah guitar. The real question is: is it necessary? Is it undeniably better? And most important: is it worth the time to find out? If the record will do just as well without crawling into this rabbit hole then having someone say “No!” is a win.