Sir George Martin vs Phil Specter?

Was Martin influenced by Specter?

Bill Kawalec...

I'm quite sure he never even heard of Specter

Is there a connection? Who was the better producer?

Frank from Deeeetroit...

Both are producers

Who was the better producer?

Bad question, art is subjective.

Dale Houstman...

Well the question is a difficult one, but art is not totally
subjective...Whois the better painter, Van gogh or Leory Neimann? And so

BlackMonk...

Better at what?

on. The problem here lies in the fact that Martin produced the most
successful/innovative band of all time, working on full albums, and they
had a lot to do with the sound that was produced. Spector is somewhat a
different fish all in all, often producing great records (usually a
matter of great singles) with sometimes quite naive and young talent he
found supremely "moldable" - using their voices as if they were just
another instrument in his toolbox. Much like Brian Wilson, his biggest
fan. So a comparison is problematic. Personally, I'd choose Spector, if
only because his sound is strictly his in many ways, because he wrote
songs, because there is something more distinct (a signature) in his
work as opposed to Martin, who (very likely) would scarcely be known at
all if he hadn't met the Beatles. Also, asked to name the work he
produced outside the Beatles sphere, I would have to research a bit,
while Spector's projects dot a sizeable length of the early rock and
roll landscape. His later work is less memorable, but his influence
(such as on "Born To Run") is quite obvious. All in all, he was more of

BlackMonk...

He did a good job on his last major project, The Ramones' End of The
Century.

a one man show" than Martin. Like the solo Beatles themselves, with
Martin one feels that "the sum is greater than the parts," but Spector
could have produced memorable tracks with any number of vocal artists
that he discovered.

Danny Caccavo...

Spector put his stamp on everything he did, he had a "sound" - George
didn't have one. Apples and oranges, completely. George Martin didn't
get in the way of an artist's vision, he helped enhance it and bring out
the best in the individual musician or band. Spector did nothing like
that - the musicians employed were strictly studio folks, did everything
he could to actually "repress" musical individuality to achieve his
unique "mini-symphonic" type of arrangement/production. I've read
accounts of tracking sessions where he'd do take after take without even
saying anything. The vocalists were all interchangeable - they were
essentially HIS records.

Bill Kawalec...

well said.

That being said, Spector producced probably about one LP's worth of
really great singles that had a huge effect on others. Do note how
formulaic many of them are, though. It's pretty hard to sit through more
than a couple of Spector productions at a time.

Brian Wilson, although influenced by Spector (maybe "inspired" is a
better word), used the same group of studio musicians, but quite
differently. You wouldn't know it was the same crew. You can't even
pick out a lot of instruments from Spector's productions, but with
Wilson's, they're all woven together in a more expert way (IMHO) which
reveal the individual parts while achieving a much more varied, detailed
and dynamic sound than Spector did (even on the very Spectorish "Don't
Worry Baby.")

Spector pretty much imposed his will upon the musicians, while Brian
collaborated with them - and ultimately achieved (IMHO) a result that to
me is much more enduring and listenable.

I'd vote for Martin strictly based on the Revolver album although its
hard to argue with the number of successful lp's Specter produced.

Forgetting Specter's obnoxious personality, who was the better producer?

Frank from Deeeetroit...

For the Beatles? Martin.

fishandchips...

Dale Houstman...

I agree that Wilson's body of work is much more listenable/varied. And
Spector's work is often formulaic, although (within the aesthetic
demands of the time) it is still quite sonically innovative. I have sat
through more than an album's worthof his productions, and - frankly - I
din't once get tired, and there is a nice (if limited) variety between
relatively hard-beat songs and rather affecting ballads, all drawn
together by a generous wash of pure instrumental excitement. Spector was
tyrant - no doubt - but Brian wasn't Mr. Rogers himself when it came to
demanding others replicate the "perfect" sound he had already consructed
in his head. Obviously, Brian worked with (basically) the same group of
people again and again (unlike Phil), but I think the collaborative
aspects of that are debatable, no matter what Mike Love claims. And
Spector's aim wasn't to create "discrete instrumental tracks" but a real
wall of sound, a monolithic carrier for the song's emotional content. So
they were going for different ends.

So it can be apples and oranges. Spector's the apple, and Brian's the
orange I suppose...

And - yes - "inspired" is a better word.

Danny Caccavo...

You're right - I think I was being a little too charitable saying that
Wilson "collaborated" with the studio guys. Perhaps by comparison to
Spector, he did , but it was more like Wilson was open to suggestions
from the studio musicians, and the studio musicians appreciated working
with Wilson far more than working with Spector.

Dale Houstman...

Certainly Wilson was a nicer guy by all means.

Which Love claims are you referring to?

Dale Houstman...

Nothing in particular. One just gets the general feeling over the years
that Mike wants a bit more of the credit than he deserves. He actually
wrote some fairly nice lyrics early on, but I've always found him to be
(in TV appearances) a real egotistic cheesehead about the Beach Boys,
and I think he feels he was much more indispensible than he really was.

BlackMonk...

It might be like some people have suggested about McCartney feeling he has
to overcompensate for decades of "John was the real genius in The Beatles."
Love was arguably the second most important contributor to the Beach Boys
sound. He co-wrote a lot of their material, not only writing some good
lyrics, but also making a musical contribution on a couple of songs, he was
the lead singer on the majority of the hits, and as the bass voice, he was
the most distinctive part of their ensemble vocals, yet you keep hearing
from "fans," that he was just lucky and anyone could have done what he did.
Forty years of that has to get under his skin.

Danny Caccavo...

Sounds likely. I mean, just because he might be an asshole doesn't mean
he didn't contribute.

Heck, if he's the one responsible for changing the lyric on Good
Vibrations from what it was, hats off to him...

Dale Houstman...

I would guess so. I wasn't all that aware of his musical contributions,
but I always thought his lyrics (yes, even the ones about cars and
surfing) were lots of fun, and even "hip" in their carefree surfdom way.
So I can see how there might be just a little bit of bitterness there.

dmh

fogpotion...

Good point about the "Born to Run" lp. I'd forgotten about that.

Dale Houstman...

I just recalled that its producer (Phil Ramone) was in an interview
staing that he was going for the "wall of sound" effect. Pretty
successful all; in all. I mean I don't much like Springsteen's work, but
that album sounds fantastic...

Danny Caccavo...

I don't believe Phil Ramone produced "Born To Run" or anything by Bruce
Springteen. Jon Landau produced "Born To Run."

Dale Houstman...

Well, goes to show how often I listen to Springsteen: still, they were
going for a "wall of sound" and I read someone who said that.

Well...at least Phil managed to avoid Bruce.

Rich...

Trust me, with Bruce and Phil it was the other way around. The one

Dale Houstman...

Probably, but (a small semantic point)...the phrase "managed to avoid"
is entirely reversible. Whether you go out of your way to miss running
into me, or I you, we both manage to avoid the other.

time I saw the two together (R&R HoF Induction party in '99) Bruce was
ducking for cover and Phil had to be escorted out of the area by a
couple of his own bodyguards. As easy going as he seems to be, I
cannot imagine Bruce ever working with Phil Spector.

Dale Houstman...

Again - I was referring to Phil Ramone avoiding having to work with
Springsteen, whom I mistakenly assumed had already worked with Phil
Ramone. I also have also learned that Ray Romano never worked with Rick
Springfield, Caesar Romano never worked with Buffalo Springfield, and
Dusty Springfield was never coated in Romamo cheese, or shot with a
Springfield rifle. Maybe Phil Spector never worked with Bruce, but
Inspector Lestrade might have been utilized in recovering the Bruce
Partington plans. Bruce Wayne knows The Spectre, and many springs have
had filters installed in them. It's a confusing world...

Dale Houstman...

dmh

-rich cook-

Danny Caccavo...

Or maybe the other way around . I mean, did you ever see the Ramones
interviewed about what it was like to work with Phil Spector? They
seemed to be avoiding saying anything, but said, "well, he's a
legend...."

thehungryintruder...

I'm not so sure about this. Martin's "sound" was very much The Beatles'
sound, it seems: Crisp and clean. He may not have had an eccentric
sound, but what he did do tends not to sound dated, because of his
spare -- or intelligent -- use of effects.

A listen to the solo work of John Lennon (too much echo) or George
Harrison (murky and unfocused) or Paul McCartney (overdone!) will
confirm this. Another good way to "hear" Martin's sound is to play
Beatles records against other similar sounds of the day. And as much
as I dislike America, their discs still sound good.

Danny Caccavo...

What I mean is that different artists that George produced do not sound
similar - George didn't have a "signature sound" that identified his
productions as "George Martin recordings." George brought out the best
in the artist - he didn't become the artist himself.

Compare to Spector, of course, and duh. Or for that matter, Jeff Lynne.

Dale Houstman...

Right I think. Also, when one listens to some of the recordings produced
at Abbey Road by its engineers and other producers without George
Martin's input (such as the Aerovons' record I just got, whic was
actually produced by the band's young singer/songwriter), much of the
clarity and separation one gets on the Beatles recordings is still
there. No doubt this is partly due to Martin's influence,but the fact is
he didn't need to be involved to get that "Beatles records feel". Phil
was a tyrant in the studio, and artist after artist speak of his method,
which involved endless retakes to capture some elusive vision he had in
his head. George - of course- was perfect for the Beatles, who had their
own ideas and a rather more laid-back approach to recording, but there

poisoned rose...

Anyone have a ranked list of the Beatles songs which had the most
recorded takes? I know people often claim "Not Guilty" is the #1
offender....

This looks like a job for Donz.....

is every reason to think Martin would never have gotten involved in rock
and roll recording at all but for his assignment to the Beatles, while
Spector was apparently driven by an inner need to express himself via
music, and the various groups he used were mere instrumentations.

Apples and oranges, completely. George Martin didn't

fogpotion...

Interesting point about Wilson "Don't Worry Baby" is a tremendous piece
of music and transcends its time easily.

Frank from Deeetroit...

Don't Worry Baby is a great song and a change of direction in Beach Boys
music.

Also, studio tapes show that Wilson's "perfect" sound wasn't already
constructed in many cases...

Dale Houstman...

Certainly - studios do that to people. But I've heard Brian speak many
times of how he heard songs (with arrangements intact) in his head, and
he worked in the studio toward that sound. Not all the time no doubt,
and awkwardly enough other times, but I was using it as a rather general
metaphor for his method.

Gonna be in the 60's here in NY tomorrow, Frank........"Rub" time

Frank from Deeetroit...

If there is smoke in your hood, put smoe extra on the grill for your
neighbors! Enjoy.

DanKaye...

Spector was okay for some of the hits he produced for 60's bands, but
as to the Beatles' music, there is only one who qualifies:
George Martin,
and now, with "Love", also George's son, Giles.

poisoned rose...

Boy, you sure do casually elevate "George Jr." to top-of-the-class
status.

Spector nearly ruined "Let It Be" and "All Things Must Pass". His work
on Lennon's albums is not great, either. He also nearly ruined "Rock n
Roll" by Lennon.