I remember a session, 17 years ago, with the band Quasi, for the album Field Studies. We'd tracked a song, "Birds." I thought the initial take was fine, and I believe we'd started overdubbing on it. But one morning the group (Sam Coomes and Janet Weiss) arrived, and they expressed some doubts about the quality of the take. I couldn't believe it. We'd need to set mics back up for the drums and keyboards, find a new spot on a reel, as well as get all the levels and headphone mixes again. I thought we were done with basics, and I probably (stupidly) fought them on tracking the song again. Stubbornness, combined with adhering to the standard workflow (basics, overdubs, and mixing) were guiding me back then. It would be the same during the mixing process for this album, when I resisted piping all the drums and instruments back into distorted amplifiers for "It Don't Mean Nothing." In both cases, Quasi's instincts turned out to be totally correct. Just as the distorted drums helped "It Don't Mean Nothing" become more intense and messed up, in a great way, this new take of "Birds" had a more consistent tempo with a better overall feel, enabling the quirky time signature to fit in the groove in a better way. If we had labored over the old take for days, it still would not have been as good of a recording as this new version.
When I look back, I realize how green I was. I hadn't yet learned how to fully listen to a take of a song. I would put on blinders and assume just because something was recorded with some degree of quality that it would all work out. What I've realized since is that I need to hear the "song" that is being recorded. Not the version that is happening in front of me, but the core of the material, the root of the idea, the message, and the emotions that are being channeled and created. Then I have to think about the potential of this core song, and decide whether we are capturing a version that is as perfect (as possible) at representing what it could be.
Sometimes my concept of what a song "could" be is hindered, or limited, by the ability of the artists, especially in a "band" setting. This is okay and, in many cases, defines what the group "is." How the individuals come together and perform can be as important as the songs themselves. The Ramones? Sonic Youth? Radiohead? There is a certain chemistry at work. But a good producer can recognize when to push (and how far to push) in order to get a performance that brings the most out of the song, and the band. Luckily for me, Quasi were policing their own abilities, and they knew "Birds" could be better. They were willing to push themselves.
Other times searching for the best version of a song involves "casting" the proper players, setting up a new, or more appropriate, recording scenario, and guiding the process through communication and experimentation. Maybe multiple versions of a song are required, in order to get to the "best" one. Or possibly an early, unsatisfying take of a song might point the way towards changes that will help create a better recording. But notice what is at play in both of these scenarios: The artists, engineers, and producers must be willing to let go of takes and performances.