Photo by j. botter
Some believe that creators need a firm guiding hand to help them create their best work. Others will swear that a nurturing friend will help a creator make the most of their talent.
So which is right? Should the creator go unchallenged or should they be forced, even bullied, in directions that improve their work? Let’s look at a pop band who experienced both extremes and see what we can learn from them.
XTC was an influential British pop rock band based in Swindon that started recording in the late 1970s. They were known for imaginative, clever, snarky and often beautiful songs. At one time they toured with The Police and Talking Heads and even had their songs covered by future stars like R.E.M. However, in 1982, just as they were starting to hit achieve commercial success, they stopped touring. Unless you’re The Beatles, this is a death sentence for any musical act which has relied heavily on live performances to build a following.
XTC’s core members were Dave Gregory, Colin Moulding and the irrepressible Andy Partridge. Partridge was widely regarded as the driving force behind XTC in terms of personality, creative output, and his drive to shape the band according to his own vision. He also forced the band to stop touring due to a combination of exhaustion, unhappiness and stage fright – just when XTC started to consistently sell hundreds of thousands of albums.
Commercial success is not always a good measure of the quality of one’s work. However, it is a common yardstick to measure progress over time and it is much less subjective than album reviews. Commercially, then, XTC began to look like a failure. The next two albums, Mummer and The Big Express, each sold less than 50,000 copies. With poor new record sales and no other revenues, XTC was also heavily in debt.
Enter the Drill Sergeant
Desperate measures were called for. Virgin Records, despite a rocky relationship with the band, agreed to support the band with a decent budget for a new album. They even managed to get a star producer, Todd Rundgren of Utopia, to sign on for the project. This would prove to be a significant milestone in the band’s history… and their greatest challenge to date.
Partridge was used to setting XTC’s direction and creative output, powered by an unwavering faith in his artistic vision. XTC had a habit of hiring good producers but then largely ignoring or overriding their advice. But they had never worked with Todd Rundgren before. He was as strong, determined and controlling as the band members. He insisted on producing the album in his home studio, deciding on the tracks and their running order, the album theme, making some of the musical arrangements, and so on while paying little attention to the band’s wishes.
The recording process was difficult and full of conflict. Rundgren made no attempt to bond with the band. The band members fought amongst themselves. There were disputes with Rundgren even up to the remix stage, when XTC rejected three remixes of the album, but were forced to accept the third when Rundgren left the project. In the end Skylarking was as much a Todd Rundgren production as it was an XTC album, much to Partridge’s chagrin.
So was it worth the pain, the hard work, and the lack of control?
On the surface, it would seem so.
Propelled by strong critical reviews and the college radio success of the song ‘Dear God’, Skylarking became the band’s biggest record to date. The album sold a quarter of a million units in the US within six months: more sales than their previous three albums combined. In later years, Partridge would later acknowledge that Rundgren helped them make their best album to date.
A More Laid-Back Approach
But the next album, Oranges and Lemons, was a completely different story. Paul Fox was hired to produce it. Partridge would refer to Fox as one of the most caring and nurturing producers he’d ever worked with. Fox was also one of the least experienced producers that XTC worked with: the album was his first big project. Moreover, the relative success of Skylarking helped the band to regain some clout with their record company. This album would stay closer to XTC’s artistic vision, predictably dominated by Partridge’s ideas.
And how did this project work out? Oranges and Lemons was bigger, louder, more intricate, and more colourful than its predecessor. In the first six months after its release, Oranges and Lemons sold twice the number of albums as Skylarking, yielding XTC’s new biggest album ever. Its commercial success was matched with respectable critical acclaim.
What Made the Difference?
How can we explain the difference between the two albums? In a situation with a producer who did little to nurture them, XTC put out their most successful album ever. But, when placed back into a situation with greater creative control and a more positive producing experience, their follow up album was arguably twice as successful as its predecessor. How can we explain this?
- Improved confidence, songwriting skill and musicianship: musicians continue to learn and grow with each project they undertake. Partridge has said that despite the friction with Rundgren, he was quite impressed by some of Rundgren’s musical ideas and arrangements. Between that experience and other natural growth, XTC would naturally become better musicians and writers. A number of the songs on Oranges and Lemons were among the better songs that the band ever recorded.
- The natural boost following the success of Skylarking – the success of the album increased XTC’s US following, particularly on college campuses. New fans would naturally be interested in the next XTC release.
- A more relaxed working environment – relations between Partridge, Moulding, and Gregory were better during the recording of Oranges and Lemons than on Skylarking. The reduced tension between the band members likely made for a more productive environment.
- Personal touch and handling – the contrast between Rundgren and Fox: some people work better in conflict situations, other people need more support and a gentle touch. It could be that XTC, or at least Andy Partridge, just naturally worked better with a producer like Fox.
- The impact of ‘Dear God’ – Skylarking’s sales figures hide a story about how the album really did. We’ll never know for sure, but there’s a good chance that Skylarking would have sunk like a stone without the success of ‘Dear God’ on the US college radio circuit. After its initial release, Skylarking peaked at Number 90 on the album charts and soon began losing ground. However, several thousand copies of ‘Dear God’ were sent to American radio stations… as the B side of the first single! In fact, ‘Dear God’ wasn’t on the original release of Skylarking! Somehow, American DJs decided that ‘Dear God’ was better than ‘Grass’, the single’s A side, and started to play it like mad. The response to the song was so strong that the record company released a different version of Skylarking in the US, including ‘Dear God’. It’s highly unlikely that Skylarking’s sales would have risen as high as they did without the inclusion of ‘Dear God’. This suggests that while Rundgren may have helped XTC to create a great album, it lacked commercial appeal and it was only the good fortune of ‘Dear God’s popularity that sold most of the albums.
What Does This Tell Us about Creative Control?
Does this example suggest to you that the creator works better with a taskmaster or a hand-holder?
Would your feelings change if you were the editor, producer, or coach in this situation instead of being the creator?
Are there other more creative approaches to take your innovative ideas to fruition?
Note: the author is indebted to Chris Twomey’s excellent biography of XTC, Chalkhills and Children, for providing the source material for this article. For an ongoing fount of information about XTC, visit Chalkhills.org.
About the Author: Mark Dykeman is an IT professional, blogger, and writer based in New Brunswick, CANADA. Mark writes at Broadcasting Brain and other fine blogs. You can also find him on Twitter at @markdykeman.
This is a great question and I doubt there is one hard and fast answer to it. I know that I have had my confidence crushed by the drill sergeant approach, so that is far from helpful for me. Having said that, the greatest music that comes out of my band is born of the friction between conflicting ideas.
But a band that is happy to embrace conflict within itself is different from a band being told what to do by a producer – someone outside the band. We are used to being self-produced or having a calm nurturing producer. I don’t think a hard task master would be very good for my own output, but it would be interesting to find out.
I think the best is a combination of the two. I enjoyed this kind of an atmosphere during my athletic days. In most situations, the head coach serves as the disciplinarian and the tough, taskmaster whereas the assistant coach provides the calm reassurance after the tough halftime speeches. This may be difficult to get from just one person in the creative field, but a solution is to surround yourself with a combination of people who love everything you do and people who have constructive criticism for every creation. That’s my personal solution anyway.
Drill Sargent or Buddy is one way to look at this.
Another way to pose the question could be: connection OR dis-connection?
Joy, connection and alignment in the creative process OR anger, tension and misalignment in the creative process?
For myself I’ve really been working on finding alignment with everyone in the collaborative process as I’m working on a project. That include alignment: within myself, with the client, with participants and with the tools and equipment.
If I do that (find and create alignment) then the project is a success every time. The process is strong and the outcome is strong. Most of all I feel good.
Every time I’ve taken on a project that’s contentious from the start or gets contentious or majorly frustrating along the way, I lose.
Oh, the project might be an outward success, the client likes it and I get paid, but in my own life I’m miserable, stressed and exhausted.
I do believe that contrast is good and important to the whole creation process. I don’t shy away from tough commandos. In fact I can often like them and learn from them.
But, for me, I never go into projects anymore that are crazy and full of mis-matched players and visions.
That’s a promise I made to myself after I moved forward on several projects that were crazy and out of alignment, for me. I paid the price.
It’s so much more fulfilling to go with the flow, than go against it. And I am in this for fun and joy too. My thoughts.
Love your work here at Lateral Action. Bright, smart, leading edge and really cool. Thank You!
I really like the two points you brought out here in this article. It reminded me of a speech I heard Jim Craig give regarding the 1984 US Olympic “Miracle” hockey team. Craig was the goalie for the team and was giving the teamwork and over coming odds motivational speech to the company I was at. However, what stood out was the unorthodox methods Herb Brooks, the coach, used to bring out the best of this team and bond them together.
Similar to Rundgren, he did not try to be friends or part of the team. In fact, according to Craig, Brooks went out of his way to irritate them and make the team dislike him to a certain extent. As an example, he forced them to do drills for hours when they made simple mistakes. (You can watch the movie ‘Miracle’ if you want to see what they went through)
This hockey team consisted of players that came from rival teams. They had an inherent dislike for each other because of where the other players came from and didn’t really have any respect for each other as teammates. Brooks’ methods to push their buttons and aggravate them were perfect, similar to Rundgren. Why?
One of the fastest and easiest ways to bond a group of people is to create a common enemy.
The common enemy will force a group of very diverse people to bond faster and put aside egos and personal agendas faster than trying to achieve a common goal.
Sept. 11, 2001 in the US is a larger example of this at work. On the 10th the country was in complete disagreement on almost every political issue. Within a few months of the attack almost the entire country was in favor of going after the (given) common enemy of Iraq and in support of our president.
The leader in a situation has to take into account the group he’s leading and determine the means to achieve your outcome. The taskmaster or the hand-holder method are both useful and appropriate depending on the group your leading and the outcome desired. It’s the effective leader that can step back and determine what method is appropriate.
It’s not a question of which is best. It’s a question of which is best *right now*.
When the creative force in the band decides to shy away from success, someone needs to get him to pull his head out of his a** and get it back in the studio. That’s what XTC needed when Rundgren came in.
Once the band was working together again, what they needed was creative freedom, and that’s what they got with Fox.
Before jumping to solutions, you need to figure out: What problem am I trying to solve *today*?
@Daniel – there are a number of forces in society which frown upon the Drill Sergeant approach – even the US military is backing away from a bit, or so I’ve heard. At the same time, I know from personal experience that I’ve occasionally benefited more from a kick in the pants than a pat on the back, but it’s never fun. At the same time, I think that many people will respond better to kindness.
@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).
Mark, if I might generalize about “indie” types, I suspect Partridge was afraid that commercial success was proof he had compromised his tastes and values.
There’s nothing like having your back to the wall to get you motivated, but I’d like to throw something else into the mix: respect. Respect for yourself, respect for your collaborators, respect for the work. That can help keep raging egos at bay and maintain a little perspective.
I agree. It seems that in small organizations it’s an either/or depending on the day/mood.
@Drew – certainly you would think that most “indie” types would be worried about damaging their reputation or credibility. I never got that impression from what I’ve heard about Andy: I don’t think he ever cared too much about what most people thought! (But I could be wrong…)
@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?
Mark, I was thinking more of the stereotype of the indie fan: They like a band until they achieve commercial success, then stop listening to them.
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.
Mark, I meant that in a small organization you usually have a direct report who is either task master or the buddy depending on the day. Although, now that I think about it more.. maybe I was thinking a little narrow-minded on that one. On the days when I do report to “tough task master” I have plenty of friends, co-workers and family who are there to play “buddy.” Not sure if I clarified or muddled my initial response with this follow-up.
I think ultimately what it comes down to is the growth of the individual, or in this case the members of XTC. In my opinion, people only grow from hardship. We need real lessons that are hard and challenging to get us to learn. If you are hand held your whole life, you really are only getting half the experience. Therefore, XTC needed the experience with Partridge in order to achieve success with Fox.
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.
@Drew – yes, it’s true that going popular often turns off the hard core indie fans.
@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.
In Robert Fritz’s book “The Path of Least Resistance” he illustrates that artists and accomplished creators get to a point in their craft where they use an “economy of means” to get to their final product: their creation.
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.