Teah McCafferty
(MCC22081642)
The divisions between originality, authenticity, and mediation are increasingly debated in contemporary music production, which takes place at the centre of technology, creativity, and cultural discourse. In this context, the producer’s role has shifted from a technical facilitator to an active creative artist who uses both analogue and digital techniques to shape musical expression. By placing this within current theoretical and philosophical discussions on creativity and the role of the producer in contemporary creative industries, this essay should critically and reflectively evaluate my own music production practice, which starts with inspiration drawn from existing music and media in general, progresses through digital drafts in Logic Pro, and is developed through both digital production and live recording. This is followed by a discussion of how, in the context of contemporary creative industries, these theories both support and contradict my production methodology.
My workflow for producing music is an alternating method that starts with media-based inspiration, progresses through digital experimentation in Logic Pro, and is refined with live recordings. Exploring this technique in the essay is helpful because it encourages innovation, supports trial and error, and can lead to new collaborations and ideas during production. It also promotes risk-taking and creative flexibility by letting ideas develop freely, inspired by quick digital drafts. In music production, mistakes can often become creative tools instead of just being seen as failures. Being open about this has really helped my own workflow. Recording live later on also makes the production feel more dynamic and thoughtful. This approach opens up the creative process by encouraging people to work together and by turning earlier digital ideas into performances by real musicians. While this hybrid production approach aligns with modern creative techniques, it poses challenges in terms of efficiency, originality, and the translation of digital concepts into live performance settings.
Though my processes have become my comfort zone when creating, to be critical, some hindrances to consider are split into two categories, meaning I face challenges in both digital production and live recording. In the context of digital, the main issues I personally run into are over-reliance on external inspiration and unconsciously imitating too closely to the original source material which strips away room for individuality – idea overload during digital drafting has previously caused for an excess in drafts which has led to difficulty committing to decisions and artistic direction – ideas that work digitally don’t always translate smoothly to live performance or are sometimes too convoluted to play which can require compromise or reworking arrangements. In live recordings, it involves scheduling performers and collaborators, access to studio space and resources, and greater use of time than in fully digital production.
When considered collectively, these advantages and disadvantages show that my production workflow is not only a useful technique but also a place of critical tension where issues of authenticity, originality, and creativity arise. This approach also connects my work to wider trends in modern music production, especially the increasing mix of digital and live methods. Fast digital drafting fits with today’s “bedroom producer” cultures, where speed and easy access encourage trying new ideas and developing them further. However, by restoring aspects of physical performance, teamwork, and embodied expression, the following incorporation of live recording challenges strictly traditional production concepts. Bringing some unpredictability and a human touch back into my work, which can be missing in fully digital production, helps me use digital tools more effectively and flexibly. Still, this approach means I have to stay alert and think critically at all times. While using pre-existing material as a source of inspiration can be a fruitful creative catalyst, as mentioned earlier, it also raises concerns about influence, originality, and stylistic dependence. Because of this, I make a point to limit how much reference material I use and focus more on reinterpreting than simply copying. I also choose to wait until later in the track’s development to record live parts. Committing too early can hold back experimentation, but waiting too long can make the track feel less unified. These factors show that my workflow is a constantly changing approach defined by examination, experimentation, and critical self-evaluation rather than a set methodology.
To put this into context, the sonic identity of my own work is characterised by a fusion of orchestral textures and dark R&B aesthetics, combining cinematic harmonic language with contemporary rhythmic and production techniques. When starting a project, I normally draw inspiration from at most three to four different media types. For the purposes of this essay, I will refer to a recent project that I had worked on, which was a 30-minute portfolio made up of three 10-minute tracks of dark R&B and orchestral fusions, to explain my creative practice. Taking a closer look at my previous portfolio shows how this approach functions differently in each piece, emphasising both its versatility and its limitations. Each of the three songs examines authenticity and mediation in different ways, yet maintains a consistent orchestral dark R&B style. To achieve immersion, one track relied heavily on continuous harmonic material, spatial processing, and progressive sound design. It also emphasises orchestral texture and ambient development. In this instance, digital sketches created a cohesive atmospheric framework before being reinterpreted through expressive instrumental recording, as the live performance was introduced later. This allowed subtle performance mistakes that added to the piece’s emotional depth while reinforcing its cinematic identity.
Another track, on the other hand, emphasises vocal intimacy and rhythmic restraint, with minimal instrumentation and straightforward harmonic movement intended to bring out the human voice. To maintain a sense of closeness, subtle timing variations and tonal irregularities were incorporated into the vocal delivery and processing decisions, which hone in on the idea of authenticity. To give live performance more direct control over the track’s emotional nature, the digital drafting stage was deliberately kept to a minimum. This illustrated how different expressive results can be prioritised based on compositional intent using the same technique.
The third track served as a culmination of the methods previously mentioned, establishing an appropriate equilibrium between the vocal and rhythmic parts and the rich orchestral layering. This piece showed some of the challenges in the workflow, especially when trying to develop long sections without using traditional melodies. To keep listeners engaged, I had to use careful automation, dynamic changes, and slow shifts in texture. This process made it clear how important control and thoughtful choices are. Overall, this portfolio shows that my production is a flexible framework. It adapts to the needs of each piece and is guided by regular analysis and assessment, not just a fixed template.
For this, I drew inspiration from Artist and Producer Chris Grey for his contemporary R&B rhythmic feel, with syncopated drum programming and laid-back tempos, textural sound design of processed synths and ambient pads, and central, intimate vocal processing. My reasoning for drawing on this reference was to keep the R&B elements clean and simplified, letting the orchestral fusions take centre stage. A common artist I tend to use for orchestral elements is the experimental cello-and-sax duo KatzPascale. Their use of expressive melodic interplay between their instruments often feels conversational or dialogic, as well as their dynamic contrasts and atmospheric, immersive soundscapes, all traits I commonly feature in my own music. The final reference I used for this piece was game, film, and TV composer, Samual Laflamme, specifically his string work and overall sound design on the Outlast games. My own use of symphonic instruments in a contemporary production setting is similar to Laflamme’s extensive processing of orchestral elements, including distortion, reverb, and spatial manipulation. The distinction between acoustic and electronic sound is often blurred in my style by layering synthetic textures, saturation, and ambient effects over classical strings and other instrumentation.
The production choices in my work function not only as technical decisions but also as deliberate creative strategies that reinforce atmosphere, emotional impact, and genre identity. For instance, I like to create a sense of audio tension and psychological impact for the listener, which is achieved by how I normally process my low-end frequencies and sub design, harmonics and synth processing, sound design, vocal processing, and spatial and stereo field processing.
For bass, I typically use 808-style sub-basses layered with low cello drones to create a sense of cinematic weight, while still falling within the modern production aesthetic; gentle saturation to add harmonics; and sustained sine or triangle wave drones.
With harmonics and synth processing, the goal is to keep in theme with atmospheric dark R&B and cinematic elements. The common sound sources I use for this are soft synths, synth and string pad, and filtered keyboards. As this is not the main focus point of my tracks, I process them with heavy low-pass filters to avoid brightness, long, dark reverbs, and volume and filter automation to maintain audio interest. This method of processing acts almost like a ‘glue’ at the bottom of my tracks to build on top of.
With sound design, I tend to process both existing layers and new ones. With existing layers, I use techniques such as filter sweeps, reverb and stereo width automation, and slight, gradual increases in distortion. Automating effects on pads and/or background vocals can also help maintain interest while preserving emotional consistency. Additionally, I sometimes intentionally make the line between music and ambience unclear in my sound design to keep it ambiguous for the listener. I do this by blending noise layers with tonal elements, reversed reverbs and tails, and utilising non-musical source material picked up on mics as well as recorded instrumentation. The purposes of these processing techniques are to create a sense of unfamiliarity and tension, as previously stated. I also find that blending found sounds and noise textures with orchestral and R&B elements helps push my music towards a more cinematic, immersive identity.
Though a large part of my mixing, especially in this recent project, focuses on atmosphere over melody, my vocal processing aligns more with traditional R&B mixing, using EQ, compression, saturation, de-essers, and reverb and delay. I usually start by adding a high-pass EQ around 80 to 120Hz and gently cutting some of the muddy low-mids to make the vocals clearer. Then, I use two-stage compression to keep the dynamics sounding natural. I add a touch of harmonic saturation for warmth, use the de-esser lightly, and put a bit of reverb on the main vocals. I also like to use a te,po-synced delay, which I filter and automate. This approach helps the vocals to sound close and natural. I also prefer when my recorded instruments have small imperfections, since it makes the music feel more real and less polished.
Although the production-led method used in this project successfully created a unified atmospheric and genre-specific identity, it also posed a number of technical and artistic challenges that required constant critical reflection. One of the main strengths of this approach was its ability to keep a consistent emotional feel throughout long tracks. This worked especially well with sustained orchestral sounds, evolving sound design, and steady rhythms. It meant that I didn’t have to rely on traditional song structures or change melodies often, so listeners could get fully immersed in the world I was creating. Still, focusing on mood and texture instead of melody and harmony had some downsides. Using the same harmonies for too long could make the music feel less dynamic, especially in longer pieces.
Although this stillness was often deliberate, intended to heighten psychological tension and cinematic immersion, it needed to be carefully balanced to avoid listener disinterest. In order to maintain interest without compromising the intended emotional restraint, this demonstrated the significance of modest variation through automation, dynamic contrast, and the development of spatial processing.
The dependence on well-known production methods and processing was another drawback I faced. Even though these helped create a distinctive sound, there was always a chance of artistic recurrence, especially when comparable low-end design, reverb-heavy orchestral textures, and ambient layers were used. Recognising this and considering others’ constructive criticism helped me take a more thoughtful approach in the later stages of the project. I made small changes to the automated behaviour, sound sources, and spatial treatment to keep things coherent without becoming predictable. It was also necessary to carefully balance electronic precision with acoustic expressiveness while incorporating symphonic parts into a modern R&B framework. While extensive orchestral instrument processing, including saturation, distortion, and spatial manipulation, yielded an improved cinematic impact, it occasionally obscured articulation and transitional clarity. This showed how important it was to listen carefully, making sure that strong emotions did not come at the cost of clarity or dynamic range. Keeping small imperfections in the recorded vocals and instruments also made the music feel more genuine and emotionally close.
However, in order to avoid distracting the listener with errors, this method required moderation in corrective processing, especially in tuning and timing. One important part of making the final mixes feel more human was finding a balance between polish and imperfections. Overall, this project showed how closely creative intention and production choices are connected. The process also showed how important it is to keep evaluating your work, especially when following a set style. This perspective motivated me, and even now continues to motivate me to maintain the atmospheric and cinematic elements that characterise my current approach while expanding the harmonic language, exploring greater rhythmic variety, and using new sound sources going forward.
All things considered, my assessment will demonstrate how continuous discussions among digital mediation, human performance, and creative authorship shape my production process. Although these choices are made on a personal and artistic level, they also represent broader changes in modern music production, where issues of originality, authenticity, and technology impact are becoming more hotly debated. As a result, the section that follows situates my work within current international discussions on music production and the creative industries.
Whether technology mediation diminishes or redefines expressive value remains a central concern within contemporary discussions of authenticity in music production. People often say that digital tools make music feel less human, but in my production work, I aim to balance authenticity and technology. I let digital processes and human performance work together, instead of choosing one over the other. By deliberately avoiding over-polishing, the preservation of minor imperfections in live recordings and vocal performances reframes authenticity as an expressive and aesthetic choice rather than a purely technical requirement. These imperfections show presence, vulnerability, and human agency in a digital setting. Instead of trying to copy ideas of ‘realness’ from before the digital age, I see mediation as a neutral part of how we create today. I focus on how expressive meaning can come from thoughtful, creative choices within this environment. This view argues that authenticity in modern music production is not about rejecting technology. Instead, it is always changing, shaped by intention, context, and how people listen. Digital resources do not lessen authenticity; they help redefine it as producers balance control with imperfection. In my own work, this reminds me that production is an interpretive process. Emotional credibility comes not from holding back on technology, but from making sure the way I work matches my creative goals. This method is consistent with critical viewpoints that see music production as a place of meaning creation, where authenticity is produced through practice rather than inherited from performance traditions that predate digital technology.
People are talking more about whether technology changes, limits, or even creates musical meaning in music production. As digital tools have become a key part of making music, producers have shifted from being just technical helpers to creative authors. They are now in charge of influencing not only sound but also perception, authenticity, and emotional engagement. This section explains how my hybrid production approach fits into current debates about technology and authenticity. It explores how, again, digital tools can shape and change what we see as authentic, rather than simply blocking true expression, drawing on music production theory. I will show how my approach – combining digital drafting, live performances, and intentionally keeping imperfections – both fits with and challenges current ideas about music authenticity. I do this by engaging with theorists who see production as a way to interpret and create meaning.
Simon Zagorski-Thomas (2008) argues that music production is an interpretive process where the producer’s technical and aesthetic choices create audible meaning. This idea helps put the current viewpoint in context. This knowledge underpins a production technique in my own work that embraces technological mediation while maintaining aspects of human imperfection, framing authenticity as the result of deliberate creative control rather than the absence of technology. You can see this in the way I record live instruments and vocals. I choose to keep minute timing mistakes, tonal quirks, and performance flaws instead of fixing them, so the music keeps its unique character even after digital editing and post-production. Here, imperfection acts as an expressive signal instead of a technical flaw. It helps the recorded sound feel more present, vulnerable, and emotionally real. This strategy, however, also emphasises the level of accountability placed on the producer, since the quantity of tools for improvement and correction in digital environments requires constant balancing between excessive control and expressive constraint. Zagorski-Thomas’ framework explains how production choices shape meaning, but it does not fully address the emotional and intuitive aspects of creative judgement that come up during improvisation and group performance.
Whilst Zagorski-Thomas offers a useful structure for comprehending how meaning is produced through production processes, his emphasis on the producer’s intention encourages further analysis of how listeners eventually form their perceptions of authenticity. Questions about authenticity go beyond production decisions alone and encompass how musical expression is perceived, contextualised, and emotionally received. To look further into this aspect, I felt it would be beneficial to consult Allan Moore’s (2002) work on authenticity. Allan Moore looks at musical authenticity from the listener’s point of view, not just how the music is made. He argues that authenticity depends on context, intention, and how people receive the music, rather than being a fixed quality of the sound itself. In short, it is shaped by how listeners interpret and feel about the music. Connecting this idea to my own work, I see that keeping some vocal and performance flaws helps create emotional intimacy. It makes the music feel sincere and lets listeners sense a real human presence. These flaws ground the music emotionally and keep the production from coming across as overly distant or artificial within the context of my symphonic dark R&B aesthetic by contrasting with thick harmonic textures and cinematic sound design. From what I have observed in my research, Moore’s strong focus on listener perception, on the other hand, makes my approach more complicated, as it implies that authenticity cannot be completely controlled through production decisions alone. Defects may be intended to show emotional authenticity. However, how people perceive these imperfections depends on their cultural expectations, the listening context, and how well they know the genre’s traditions.
Within the field of current music creation, the perspectives of both Zagorski-Thomas and Moore, when taken together, provide a complementary framework for understanding authenticity. Zagorski-Thomas points out that producers play an active part in creating auditory meaning. He explains that their choices affect the sound’s aesthetic and emotional qualities. I personally feel that this notion is further developed by Moore’s listener-centred approach, which reframes authenticity as a perceptual and contextual experience rather than a fixed feature of sound itself. In my personal work, these theories come together in the intentional use of technology mediation to influence expressive results while recognising that the listener’s interpretation of those decisions ultimately determines authenticity. This synthesis shows that production is a space where audience perception, technology, and creative intention come together to shape artistic identity and emotional realism. In my orchestral dark R&B work, I see this not as a compromise between authenticity and technology, but as a deliberate way to bring them together.
Building on the theories discussed earlier, I will reflect on how exploring ideas like authenticity, mediation, and production as ways of making meaning has changed how I make creative decisions and see myself as an artist. This is especially important for understanding my own creative choices and artistic identity. The intention of this reflection is to analyse how my approach to orchestral and dark R&B production has developed over time, to highlight continuous hinderances within my workflow, and to contemplate how my practice may continue to change in response to both theoretical understanding and practical experience.
Over time, and especially now as I reflect on different theoretical perspectives, my assessment of my own production choices has changed, particularly regarding imperfection, control, and expression in my work. Before, I thought of authenticity mostly in terms of live performance with little interference. I often saw digital processing as something that could make the music feel less human. After exploring debates about mediation and authenticity, I now see authenticity as something created by production choices, not just maintained by the limits of technology. Because of this, I now, and will continue to take a more deliberate approach to production, concentrating more on how digital adjustments enhance emotional credibility and expressive meaning than on whether a sound has been altered. In practical terms, this has resulted in a more assured use of processing methods in conjunction with live recordings, where mistakes, though minor, are preserved as intentional expressive aspects rather than artefacts or disregarded faults. This shift has made my process more thoughtful and reflective. Now, I judge authenticity by how the listener experiences and feels the work and not by how closely it matches traditional ideas of realism. Still, I face challenges in my production, especially when trying to balance careful planning with creatiuve instinct. The reality of digital workflows often drives excessive refinement and optimisation, even as theoretical discussions have inspired me to see production and music-making as a deliberate process. Wanting to edit or polish content can sometimes conflict with keeping the writing emotionally immediate. This raises important questions about when editing helps expression and when it might actually take away from it.
This continuous debate demonstrates that authenticity in my work is a consistently controlled process, influenced by both conscious aim and instinctive judgement, rather than a fixed result. Understanding that these conflicts have begun to influence my approach to upcoming projects, particularly regarding decision-making constraints and workflow structure. I want to keep the intuitive choices I make in early drafts or live recordings. To do this, I plan to set clearer stages of commitment in my creative process, instead of letting digital resources tempt me to keep changing things. This could involve prioritising first or second takes, restricting corrective processing at specific points, or purposefully avoiding automation and refinement once an expressive balance has been reached. By putting these restrictions in place, I hope to maintain this idea of emotional immediacy while also taking advantage of digital tools’ creative potential. In this way, my practice’s future growth will be more concerned with honing judgement, restraint, and responsiveness to expressive aim than with increasing technical capacity.
To further this, thinking critically about theory has also made me consider how collaboration in general functions in my production processes and how authorship is managed in shared creative spaces and environments. Working with live performers has shown me that meaning comes from collaboration, not just from one person’s control, even though my process puts the producer at the centre. Admittedly so, it has taken some self-control to allow the performer’s timing changes, phrasing, emotive choices, and pitching and tuning to be included in the finished performance and overall product, which has tested my inclination to step in or make corrections. However, this has strengthened the understanding that the dynamics of trust, responsiveness, and mutual interpretation, in addition to producer intention, shape reality in collaborative production. A more dialogic approach to production that acknowledges collaboration as a site of shared creation of meaning rather than something to be resolved through post-production has resulted from my increased awareness of situations in which intervention may override rather than support expressive contribution.
This reflection has shown me how important risk and limits are for my creative growth. I am now more willing to see ambiguity and imperfection as helpful parts of creating, and my idea of authenticity has changed from focusing on technical accuracy to valuing expressive honesty. Of course, there are drawbacks to this mentality, especially when it comes to opposing conventional methods or well-established aesthetic solutions that provide creative stability. Recognising this has made me look more closely at my own style. It has made me consider when consistency helps build artistic identity and when it might cause creative decline or make my work feel stuck. In the future, I will need to be more open to experimentation and discomfort, in addition to technical judgment, than I already am to retain authenticity in my practice. Over time, to reiterate, working with orchestral and dark R&B music has taught me to balance confidence with vulnerability. This balance now guides how I judge creative success, not just by how well something fits a genre.
By placing it within current discussions about authenticity, technological mediation, and the changing position of the producer in the creative industries, this essay has critically assessed my approach to music production as a whole. Looking back at how I work – from finding inspiration in media, to developing ideas digitally, and then recording live – I have realised that production is more than just a digital step. It is essential for creating meaning. This study has demonstrated how human expression, technological control, and creative intentions interact in modern production contexts by analysing my orchestral and dark R&B practice alongside relevant philosophical perspectives.
A key component of this assessment has been interacting with critical concepts. Simon Zagorski-Thomas’s work establishes a foundation for comprehending creation as an interpretive, subjective process in which aesthetic and technical choices create aural meaning. Allan Moore’s listener-focused theory of authenticity sees authenticity as something shaped by perception and context, not just by the sound itself. This approach has supported this ideology. When taken as a whole, these theories have made it possible to view authenticity as negotiated through production techniques and listener perception rather than as something in opposition to technology.
My personal creative style has and will continue to change as a result of thinking about these concepts. In my work, authenticity is now seen as the result of conscious decision-making that, as stated previously, strikes a balance between control, imperfection, and expressive meaning, rather than as the result of technological constraint or unmediated performance. As a result, there is now greater confidence in maintaining performance consistency, welcoming teamwork, and avoiding over-refinement, while acknowledging the persistent drawbacks likely to arise in digital workflows. My work now actively addresses these conflicts as part of a developing creative process, rather than constantly trying to resolve them.
In the end, this evaluation presents my method for music production as deliberate participation in current debates rather than just a reaction to them. This essay has strengthened production as an area of creation, comprehension, and artistic identity by critically analysing theory and practice together. This knowledge will continue to guide my development, promoting a methodology that emphasises emotional credibility, thoughtful judgment, and openness to both technology and human expression.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bennett, S. and Eliot Bates (2019). Critical approaches to the production of music and sound. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Brett, T. (2021). The creative electronic music producer. New York: Routledge.
Collins, N. and Julio D’ Escriván (2017). Electronic music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Genius (2025). Chris Grey. [online] Genius. Available at: https://genius.com/artists/Chris-grey [Accessed 13 Nov. 2025].
Grey, C. (2023). MAKEUP. Chris Grey. Available at: https://open.spotify.com/track/2lJFv2tSELAN1IrLl1zu7y?si=b2727d97958f4190.
KatzPascale (2026a). KATZPASCALE. [online] KATZPASCALE. Available at: https://katzpascale.com/pages/about [Accessed 13 Nov. 2025].
KatzPascale (2026b). KatzPascale – – Bang on a Can. [online] Bang on a Can. Available at: https://bangonacan.org/people/katzpascale/ [Accessed 13 Nov. 2025].
Moore, A. (2002). Authenticity as authentication. Popular Music, 21(2), pp.209–223.
Samuel laflamme (2012). Music for Two Senses. [online] Samuel Laflamme. Available at: http://samuellaflamme.com/music-senses [Accessed 13 Nov. 2025].
Spotify.com. (2013). Spotify. [online] Available at: https://open.spotify.com/track/6UJAYVjz2wVz2e61xikj5p?si=9109423e46e04c44.
Spotify.com. (2026a). Spotify. [online] Available at: https://open.spotify.com/track/21TggH03kz3Z5VaLgcCNim?si=5eaa377b1eaa4851.
Spotify.com. (2026b). Spotify. [online] Available at: https://open.spotify.com/track/6St3lmctuMxsfSvzMDs2cr?si=c3f1ffdb13f845b0.
University of London (n.d.). Professor Simon Zagorski-Thomas | University of West London. [online] www.uwl.ac.uk. Available at: https://www.uwl.ac.uk/staff/simon-zagorski-thomas.
Zagorski-Thomas, S. (2016). The musicology of record production. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
