Phil Spektor
- Thread starter _DK
- Start date
R
RAMI
Guest
Could anyone explain to me what's so great about this guy?
'Cause I can't stand every record he's done. Those drum sounds and that muddy bass...I am missing something?
You're not missing anything. Or we're both missing something. He created this "wall of sound" thing that always sounds like shit to me. I can't listen to most of "Let it Be" because of him.
bennychico11
...
he kills B actresses....isn't that cool enough?
_DK
New member
Okay, I don't mind about it, but he ruined several Lennon albums...when I've heard those for the first time I thought it was a bootleg copy or something. And that Ramones album... boy...they've always sounded better before and after him.
gummblefish
Twitchy Wanker
I think the thing that makes him "Great" is that he invented a trademark sound, by trying quirky things like doubling and tripling parts in order for to make a fuller sound. His mixes sounded great in AM radio and Jukeboxes, not always so in stereo i feel. If you look at his list of hit records i think that speaks for itself really. There is a few of his records that i really don't think that the 'wall of sound' worked but then when it did. Take 'Be my baby' by the Ronettes or 'you've lost that loving feeling' by the Righteous Brothers.
I didnt really think his work on Let it be (Long and winding road) was that good either, And i didn't like the album version of 'How do you sleep'
I didnt really think his work on Let it be (Long and winding road) was that good either, And i didn't like the album version of 'How do you sleep'
_DK
New member
Freudian Slip
New member
The wall of sound seems to work for some things. Like gummblefish said - Be my baby is a good example of it. I think that song sounds great with it..
Brian wilson often tried to copy the wall of sound technique, he probably did it best on Pet sounds and also the song Good vibrations. When he finally released Smile in 2004 (I think?) he also tried recording it with a similar approach to what he was using in the 60s.
But then again... My favorite beach boy recordings are "I get around" and "In my room" n both of those the instruments seem much more up front, and at this time I dont think he was trying to do the Phil Spector sound
I dont think Paul Mccartney likes the wall of sound either - didnt he release "Let it be Naked" which stripped all the Phil spector elements?
Brian wilson often tried to copy the wall of sound technique, he probably did it best on Pet sounds and also the song Good vibrations. When he finally released Smile in 2004 (I think?) he also tried recording it with a similar approach to what he was using in the 60s.
But then again... My favorite beach boy recordings are "I get around" and "In my room" n both of those the instruments seem much more up front, and at this time I dont think he was trying to do the Phil Spector sound
I dont think Paul Mccartney likes the wall of sound either - didnt he release "Let it be Naked" which stripped all the Phil spector elements?
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Yep, Gummblefish hit it on all cylinders here. Most of his stuff did sound better on AM radio and on mono 45s than they do today. And like any other technique or production style, it doesn't always work well on all pieces. Some songs don't take well to a wall of sound in the same way that some songs don't take well to hard panning or chorused vocals.
And I'd add the Spector mix of "River Deep, Mountain High" by Ike and Tina Turner to the list of where it did work quite well. The way he crescendoes that "wall" somewhwere around the bridge or the end if it still adds several BPM to my heartrate when it happens.
To elaborate on Gumby's first point about inventing a trademark sound, he was really seminal in the use of many different instruments used in ways not typically even considered for a given genre of music, which enlightened and opened up possibilities for other producers and engineers. Even though it sounds entirely different, much of what George Martin did with Sgt. Pepper has it's roots in what Phil Spector did a few years earlier.
And along with his "unconventional" use of instrumentation came the added concept of the "wall" itself. It's main concept of multitracking and overdubbing several different instruments in a way where the whole sounded different - sometimes greater, sometimes not, but at least different - than the sum of it's parts, and the ability to combine them in a way that had an eye towards filling the spectral dimemsion rather than just fulfilling an individual arrangement.
These were pretty radical ideas back in the early 60s when the standard bearers were Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley, and the early Beatles, which were all quite formulaic and stale in their production style at that time, and it helped blow open the door for the development of everything new from the Who's rock operas to the orchestral rock of the Moody Blues (both of which started out like the Beatles, as very basic blues and skipple cover bands) to concept albums like Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper, to the phychedelia of the late 60s, to the heavy rock of Led Zepplin and it's metal decendants.
Did Spector hit a home run every time? Let's just say his aim with a gun was better than his aim with a fader. But when he was on target, man, it was straight through the heart.
And like when Picasso came along with his cubist-lke perspective art, did everybody find it any more pleasing to look at than some people find the wall of sound pleasing to listen to? No, neither one is everybody's cup of tea. But both were equally seminal and influential to the future of their respective arts.
G.
mshilarious
Banned
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Perhaps, but I'm not sure how that dulls the analogy.Except cubism wasn't Picasso's only idea
G.
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
Could anyone explain to me what's so great about this guy?
'Cause I can't stand every record he's done. Those drum sounds and that muddy bass...
Compared to what? At the time, early/mid 60's, there was very little low end on any albums, except maybe Jazz, and most drums sounded like shit. Good drum sounds and low end weren't invented until '69 by the Johns brothers
(coincidentally the Beatles rejected Glyn John's "Get Back" session mixes and went with Spector instead.)I miss how different producers and studios used to have a different sound. Nowadays almost all music within a genre sounds exactly the same no matter who is behind the production. Everyone just wants to sound like Rick Rubin.
CoolCat
Well-known member
i posted this before, but reading the Gold Star studio article in some magazine...
these engineers actually created the reveb tunnel or whatever it was, real primitive with a tunnel, some "special paint", a speaker in a room and a mic on the speaker.
the guys that actually made the famous reverb physically never got mentioned.
phil recorded in their studio....I think they agreed he utilized the gear and filled the room with people or something crazy....he did do some original stuff.
and of course when you have hits, your "made".
yeah...I liked a lot of those songs, River High Mountain I didn't know he did that..
He's fried man, I read articles on Lennons lost weekends and Spector was fried way back then...a casualty of the buz..er. biz....
these engineers actually created the reveb tunnel or whatever it was, real primitive with a tunnel, some "special paint", a speaker in a room and a mic on the speaker.
the guys that actually made the famous reverb physically never got mentioned.
phil recorded in their studio....I think they agreed he utilized the gear and filled the room with people or something crazy....he did do some original stuff.
and of course when you have hits, your "made".
yeah...I liked a lot of those songs, River High Mountain I didn't know he did that..
He's fried man, I read articles on Lennons lost weekends and Spector was fried way back then...a casualty of the buz..er. biz....
rayc
retroreprobate
Spector WROTE some great stuff too. He mentored & promoted top talent on top of that.
He recorded a big, bombastic sound in & for MONO. It was a revolution, it was a case of burn down the museums (after I've had a last look). He didn't produced bobby sox music; he produced TEEN music.
It can be a case of need for context BUT I have the back to mono set & IT SOUNDS GREAT.
Brian tried for it and came up with something similar but different.
The muddiness of bass, the lack of separation, the loss of some highs are aspects of the recording process - sometimes 3 basses, 2 pianos, etc etc. Then again he deliberately (at least eventually) had all those sympathetic vibrartions by having instruments playing together.
He went on a steep declien when he tried to catch up with the world after being insular & then retreated into his WALLOFSOUND when the world wouldn't listen. His work for Leonard Cohen & the Ramones wasn't entirely successful but there are gems amongst the tracks - he was, primarily a singles producer NOT a LP, concept maker (except the Christmas album now THAT was a nice concept & an almost completely successfull album - being that it was - essentially a collection of thematically linked singles).
What is it about Jeff Lynn would be a question I'd ask - EVERYTHING he touched was tainted by HIS sound, HIS pukey backvocal stylings, HIS overboard personality - at least the Ramones & leonard etc sounded like themselves albiet playing on a Spector record. EVERYTHING Lynn touches sounds like a later period ELO track with guest vocal slaves.
He recorded a big, bombastic sound in & for MONO. It was a revolution, it was a case of burn down the museums (after I've had a last look). He didn't produced bobby sox music; he produced TEEN music.
It can be a case of need for context BUT I have the back to mono set & IT SOUNDS GREAT.
Brian tried for it and came up with something similar but different.
The muddiness of bass, the lack of separation, the loss of some highs are aspects of the recording process - sometimes 3 basses, 2 pianos, etc etc. Then again he deliberately (at least eventually) had all those sympathetic vibrartions by having instruments playing together.
He went on a steep declien when he tried to catch up with the world after being insular & then retreated into his WALLOFSOUND when the world wouldn't listen. His work for Leonard Cohen & the Ramones wasn't entirely successful but there are gems amongst the tracks - he was, primarily a singles producer NOT a LP, concept maker (except the Christmas album now THAT was a nice concept & an almost completely successfull album - being that it was - essentially a collection of thematically linked singles).
What is it about Jeff Lynn would be a question I'd ask - EVERYTHING he touched was tainted by HIS sound, HIS pukey backvocal stylings, HIS overboard personality - at least the Ramones & leonard etc sounded like themselves albiet playing on a Spector record. EVERYTHING Lynn touches sounds like a later period ELO track with guest vocal slaves.
rayc
retroreprobate
Picasso's mid period cubism and the wall of sound make a fine analogy. Pablo tried to show a range of perspectives and dimensions in a single plane - he blended angles & cultural concepts into a single space, (OK, his sculpture moved further but that's another time & space continuum). He revolutionised not only perception but also persepective with big, broad statements in paint & collage.
The art world went beserk, worked to emulate it then worked through it, moved on from it, yet still looks back at & to it with respect, affection, appreciation and awe.
Look at Picasso's mid period cubist work in an art text book and you get an idea, see it in a museum or exhibition space & you may even get the point.
Phil tried to make a massive sound collage covering as many aspects of the sound in his head as possible. He made BIG statements with a BIG beat, (from a cultural melange heavily peppered with afro American rhythms), in a single soundspace. He revolutionised pop music by making sounds that were TEEN oriented & TEEN appreciated.
The pop music world went beserk, worked to emulate it then worked through it, moved on from it, some music folk still looks back at & to it with respect, affection, appreciation and awe; other dismiss it with the same disdain as they use for Stock, Aitken & Waterman productions or Nu Metal.
He has been fried & has been for a long time - then again so was Van Gogh, so was Andy Wahol, so is Paul McCartney, as was Henry Ford, MacArthur, McCarthy, MacDonalds (pickles on a hamburger??).
Play a sepector recording on a good stereo, MP3 player or walkman & you hear but probably won't understand.
Play it through a good stereo rigged for mono and you'll get an inkling.
Play the 45's through a transistor radio or a portable record player and you'll hear the point.
The art world went beserk, worked to emulate it then worked through it, moved on from it, yet still looks back at & to it with respect, affection, appreciation and awe.
Look at Picasso's mid period cubist work in an art text book and you get an idea, see it in a museum or exhibition space & you may even get the point.
Phil tried to make a massive sound collage covering as many aspects of the sound in his head as possible. He made BIG statements with a BIG beat, (from a cultural melange heavily peppered with afro American rhythms), in a single soundspace. He revolutionised pop music by making sounds that were TEEN oriented & TEEN appreciated.
The pop music world went beserk, worked to emulate it then worked through it, moved on from it, some music folk still looks back at & to it with respect, affection, appreciation and awe; other dismiss it with the same disdain as they use for Stock, Aitken & Waterman productions or Nu Metal.
He has been fried & has been for a long time - then again so was Van Gogh, so was Andy Wahol, so is Paul McCartney, as was Henry Ford, MacArthur, McCarthy, MacDonalds (pickles on a hamburger??).
Play a sepector recording on a good stereo, MP3 player or walkman & you hear but probably won't understand.
Play it through a good stereo rigged for mono and you'll get an inkling.
Play the 45's through a transistor radio or a portable record player and you'll hear the point.
cusebassman
Freakin' sweet
I recently read a biography on Spector. He was very creative as a producer for his time (and had to fight hard to get his ideas accepted). He did write some popoluar songs (starting his career as a "Brill Building" writer), opened and closed several record labels and mentored several artists. He opened the door for new ideas and used multi tracking and layering sounds in a way that had not been done before. He does deserve his due for being a creative force.
Personnally, I don't like alot of what he did, but as others here have pointed out, certain songs were very good and still hold their own to this day. Sadly, he convinced himself that due to his "greatness", he did not need to adapt and change - so he was to some degree a "one trick pony".
Based on what I've read, he was a tortured and insecure person starting at an early age, with more than a little mother/sister fixation and just a touch of a Napolean complex. He stepped on a lot of people and stabbed a lot of backs along the way. In later year he grew paranoid and started to carry guns (he waved them around in recording sessions and on more than once discharged them in inappropriate places).
He may have had his own brand of genius - but as often happens, it came at a steep price.
Personnally, I don't like alot of what he did, but as others here have pointed out, certain songs were very good and still hold their own to this day. Sadly, he convinced himself that due to his "greatness", he did not need to adapt and change - so he was to some degree a "one trick pony".
Based on what I've read, he was a tortured and insecure person starting at an early age, with more than a little mother/sister fixation and just a touch of a Napolean complex. He stepped on a lot of people and stabbed a lot of backs along the way. In later year he grew paranoid and started to carry guns (he waved them around in recording sessions and on more than once discharged them in inappropriate places).
He may have had his own brand of genius - but as often happens, it came at a steep price.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
You gotta be careful, Ike & Tina cut at least two different versions of "River Deep, Mountain High"; two different tracking sessions, two different mixes, two different productions. Only one of them is a Phil Spector production, and IMHO is the far superior of the two; a far more energetic arrangement far more typical of Tina's strengths. You'll recognize the Spector sound immediately on that version. High-reverb orchestral instrumentation behind it all. The other one is kind of a more serious, ballad-y version that to me sounds disjointed and just doesn't flow. I think (not sure) that Ike might have produced that one himself. Ugly compared to the Spector one.
-----
As far as the other post's comments about 60s bass and drums being anemic and muddy, and good low end not being "invented" until '69, I'd like to offer a revised version of that history (or maybe just another perspective of one big intertwined history.)
As was breifly mentioned, "maybe jazz" was an exception. It was indeed. Engineers were making faily wide fidelity (comparatively speaking) pressings for the general public that included very nice bass reproduction and nice crisp drums as early as the late '50s. It wasn't that the technology wasn't there to give good bass and drum in the 60s, it was an idiotic marketing decision much like today's RMS wars: they purposely made stuff to sound best on the mono AM radios of the time. Spector's stuff sounds best on AM radios and crunchy old mono 45s because that's where it was designed to sound best, and it sounds like mud on a stereo high-fidelity system for the same reason.
When the late 60s came around, while there may have been an invention of certain techniques, it was a combination of the maturing of the music styles beyond pop and the move to a more FM/album rock fashon that drove much of the re-discovery of the parts of the spectrum below 300Hz and above 3kHz
. As with the jazz of the 50s (and still to that day), it was the music and the audience that drove the changes, not so much the technology.We're seeing that today, except with dynamic range instead of frequency range. We're working with digital media that gives us 144dB of dynamic range to work with, yet the Great Unwashed want to use only the top 10dB of it. The question is who or what is going to drive the next big fashon sea change that'll dispose of the flat as a pancake productions altogether the way that FM and album rock disposed of telephone bandwidth productions in the late 60s and early 70s?
G.
cusebassman
Freakin' sweet
*places fingers on temples*
I foresee a new era ushering in a wave of dynamic range, ending the RMS war. But be careful what you wish for... this new era will severely limit the frequencies used - and soon you will find music that boasts the use of a mroe and more diminished frequency range throughout an entire piece...
I can see it now - Britney Spears has made her comeback after 15 years out of the spotlight, and has recorded an album that utilizes only the frequencies 150Hz, 400Hz, 1.134kHz and 2.478kHz!
I foresee a new era ushering in a wave of dynamic range, ending the RMS war. But be careful what you wish for... this new era will severely limit the frequencies used - and soon you will find music that boasts the use of a mroe and more diminished frequency range throughout an entire piece...
I can see it now - Britney Spears has made her comeback after 15 years out of the spotlight, and has recorded an album that utilizes only the frequencies 150Hz, 400Hz, 1.134kHz and 2.478kHz!