Too often those who analyze the art of creation tend to forget this fine point: successful creation is most always achieved with fewest amount of steps; not using two words where one will do, not over producing an album, not using too many brush strokes/colors/media, etc. but only using the absolutely necessary to achieve the end product.

In actuality, when too many ideas, too much freedom, and too many chefs and not enough cooks occur in the creative process almost always the creative process is cumbersome, difficult, and often not successful. But in contrast when there is unity of purpose, oneness in mind, and a singularity of skill and craft the creative process flows freely, quickly, and joyfully with greater success.

Rundgen might have had a large ego that got in the way, but it also appears that he had figured out the “economy of means” necessary to achieve his end goal. He didn’t feel he needed to explore alternative methods, or even require XTC’s input and creativity. His objective was to produce an album – period.

Had XTC understood that, and willfully allowed him to do that; meaning, marching to his orders, the process for them would have been much easier and less stressful, and perhaps even more successful, albeit more to Rundgens vision then Partridge’s.

But on the other hand, I’m sure you can see the necessity for absolute rigidity and obedience in the Armed Forces – lives are at stake, but this was not the Armed Forces this was a band for heaven’s sake. Had Rundgen realized that and relinquished a bit of his rigidity then perhaps he and the band would have had more unity and would have exercised an “economy of means” to produce an even better product.

Fox seemed to understand this fine line. He understood the distinction between having too much rigidity and too much freedom and was able to harness the bands best creative energy and with that “economy of means” produce a critically acclaimed creation.

Thanks for exploring these issues in your article. There are tremendous lessons to be learned for all creators. I appreciate your insights.

@Jenny – if only those shifts could be controlled…

@Katie – I think that you meant “Rundgren” when you referred to “Partridge” in your comment. Yes, we often REALLY learn things through mistakes and hard knocks. At the same time, a lot of that is probably unnecessary pain. A lack of trust and respect often keeps us from learning lessons in a positive, nuturing way. Yes, we do need to learn how to overcome hardship and adversity, but I think a lot of it is self-inflicted.

What is unfortunate is that the hand holder and drill sergeant can rarely be the same person. You need to have that ability to conflict and dislike someone, without being concerned about their feelings. I completely respect Partridge’s decision to not become involved with the band emotionally. It ultimately led to greater success.

Musicians are usually music fans first, so I’m guessing one of the occupational hazards for indie musicians is the risk of viewing commercial success as a *bad* thing. I don’t follow that scene, so this is just a guess based on human nature. And of course even if it’s true in general, doesn’t mean it was true of Partridge.

@Stacey – interesting point: a perceived (or real!) lack of respect was one of the major problems during the Skylarking experience. The band definitely felt that Rundgren didn’t respect their opinions.

@Jenny – do you mind elaborating on that a bit?

@Jenny – interesting to bring up the idea of different roles for different times (e.g. coach vs. assistant coach). It could be hard to do in small organizations unless one person can wear multiple hats. Good point, though.

@Suzie – your method makes a lot of sense. I think that XTC had no room to negotiate or maneuver during Skylarking as they weren’t on good terms with their record company. The relative success of Skylarking gave them more latitude, which may be why they got someone like Fox instead.

@Fox – I’ve heard of the common enemy technique before. I really couldn’t say whether or not that was what Rundgren had in mind. Chalkhills and Children seemed to indicate that his behaviour stemmed more from his natural personality (read: ego) than a plan to make the band bond more tightly. At any rate, it almost destroyed the band, so it probably wasn’t a great approach.

@Drew – the more I think about your comment, the more I think that your assessment is correct. Commercially, they were in debt with minimal income. The only point I’d make is that Partridge wasn’t opposed to making music, but he didn’t want to make commercially successful music if it compromised his tastes and values. However, it was basically do or die (e.g. get another record label or get jobs).