Another "Let It Be" question...

[Derek]

...Why the hell didn't George Martin produce this in the first place? I know there are somepeople on this board who just loves Phil...but i gotta be honest..the man makes me sick!! I read his interviews and...his blatent arrogency and disrespect. And yes, i do believe he killed that woman. He's a freakin' psycho! Paul knew who and what he was from the very beggining, John was so strung out, you couldve brought in Manson and he wouldve thought..."Awsome!". As for George...i don't know, i guess he was just curious. And Ringo was just happy with whatever. Yall can blame Yoko for the split, but she had help from 2 others, Allen Klien and Phil Spector. It dont surprize me that someone like Klien would appoint Phil. He ruined "Let It Be".
But i think when he did ATMP, he was heavily "supervised" by George. George still had somewhat of a control (if not complete control) over the production, because it doesnt sound as crappy or "muzacy" as "Let It Be".
All in all, George Martin shouldve produced "Let It Be" and i'll go as far as saying Martin shouldve produced ATMP, "Imagine" and "Living In a Matereal World" (although those albums were not as bad sounding as "Let It Be")

[mervap]

All valid points...Spector did overproduce things most of the time. The only defense I would ever offer for him is this: His early work with groups like the Ronettes and even the Righteous Brothers suited those artists just fine...I think he called them "little symphonies for the kids". Where Phil runs aground as pertains to the Beatles is that, as ground-breaking and progressive as the Beatles were, they always had a layer of understatement and restraint. They used schmaltz as it suited them and didn't use one template, sonically speaking, to fit every song. Spector seemed to try and do that...

I think that George Martin had reached the end of his patience with the Beatles after the "White Album" sessions had been so contentious...Geoff Emerick's book "Here, There & Everywhere" chronicles this period in some detail and is a fine read, BTW.

[acebackwords]

...Why the hell didn't George Martin produce this in the first place.

George Martin was quite taken aback and insulted when Lennon told him they didn't want any of that "phony production crap" that he had done to "Sgt Pepper."   Something like that.  They were going to produce a "real" album with "Let It Be" with none of the phony over-dubbing and slick stuff.

In a way, that was part of Lennon's charm.  He constantly reversed himself.  Debunked what he had previously done and then tried to set out in a whole new direction.

Lennon also hired that lunatic Magic Alex, his "guru" at the time, to build an entire new "state-of-the-art" recording studio so they wouldn't be stuck with the out-of-date facilities at Abbey Road.  It was all part of the whole '60s hippie credo at the time.  The hippies are gonna come up with all these great new innovations that put the old, square ways to shame.  Course it didn't work out that way.  Magic Alexs studio was a disaster and they had to tear the whole thing down.  And Lennon had to concede that "Let It Be" was a "poorly recorded load of crap."  And of course they went back to Abbey Road and George Martin for the "Abbey Road" album, asking George to do it like how they used to do it.

Martin wryly suggested the credits for "Let It Be" should read:  "Produced by George Martin.  Over-produced by Phil Spector."

[acebackwords]

Geoff Emerick's book "Here, There & Everywhere" chronicles this period in some detail and is a fine read, BTW.

Agreed.  Thats a great read.  Especially if anyone's interested in the nut-and-bolts of how the Beatles recorded the classic albums from "Revolver" to the "White Album."  Plus, its a very revealing personal portrait of what the Beatles were like as people and what it was like to work along side them.  As George Martin put it:  "John was a very strange person."

[acebackwords]

One of the best accounts of what it was like to work with a lunatic like Phil Spector is May Pang's great book "Loving John."  She was there in the studio during the whole "Rocknroll" debacle.

[Kylenz]

Whoa... some very harsh comments here. I'm reading comments such as "poorly-recorded" and "crappy"...

..yet when I listen to a song like I've Got A Feeling, it reminds me of The Band and the Music From Big Pink album.. such a great spirit.. nobody ever accuses The Band of being poorly-recorded or "crappy"... The Weight is regarded as a rock classic.

And when I listen to The Long And Winding Road, it reminds me of mid-70s Billy Joel. Nobody ever accuses Billy of being crappy or poorly-produced. He's one of the legends of modern songwriting and performing.

I don't even think of Phil Spector when I put the Let It Be album on. When I think of Phil, I think of The Ronettes or River Deep Mountain High.. there's NOTHING like that on Let It Be. Or I might think of the 'stripped down' production style he did with John Lennon in the early 70s.. very sparse production with the slight echo on the snare and a little bit of piano.. the sort of thing copied many years later by the likes of Lenny Kravitz ('Mama Said' album) and Sloan (The N.S). Even with The Ramones, his production style was not overdone at all, more like a crisp distillation of the 60s sound he masterminded.

I think Let It be has really great production. Full mids and bass, crisp highs, a nice full snare sound, I'm willing to stick my neck out and say it's one of the best 'sounding' Beatles albums (Abbey Road would have to take top spot obviously). How come people are happy to listen to strings on 'Yesterday' or 'Eleanor Rigby' or 'A Day in the Life' or 'I Am The Walrus', yet put 'em on 'I Me Mine' or 'Across The Universe' and suddenly all hell seemingly breaks loose within the mind of the Let It Be hater. I truly don't understand it.

[mervap]

Whoa... some very harsh comments here. I'm reading comments such as "poorly-recorded" and "crappy"...

I think Ace was paraphrasing Lennon's own remarks about the "Get Back" sessions and Phil Spector's participation in them:

When Spector came around, we said, "Well, if you want to work with us, go and do your audition." He worked like a pig on it. He always wanted to work with the Beatles, and he was given the shittiest load of badly recorded shit, with a lousy feeling toward it, ever. And he made something out of it. He did a great job.

My only quibble with Spector's production on "Let It Be" was that he ignored the original premise of the project: to show the Lads, warts and all, making an album with no overdubs. Of course, the Lads themselves had already cheated by adding some overdubs...

My main reason for giving some stick to this album was that, when I saw the movie, I was watching my fave band blow up. There are a number of fine tunes to be had here....in fact, it was Spector's idea to repeat the verse section on "I, Me, Mine", thereby almost doubling the length of a great GH tune...I mean he added the first verse again as an edit piece, not telling the Beatles to play it again. :)

[Derek]

On some songs, strings work. Like on "Eleanor Rigby" and "A Day In The Life". But strings do NOT work on songs like "I, Me, Mine" and "Long & Winding Road". None of those song recorded for during the "Let It Be" sessions were meant for strings. Paul made that perfectly clear when he started that project. What Phil did defeated the purpose of what Paul was trying to achieve. The other Beatles agreed but they were so desperate to get it over with, they didnt care..except maybe Paul. Paul had the right idea on how the album was supposed to sound...and Phil screwd that up.
And i'm not trying to ignore the other 3, but as long as it mattered to at least one of them then don't you think the wishes of that one should be honored? Phil was totaly disrespectful to Paul.

[acebackwords]

Whoa... some very harsh comments here. I'm reading comments such as "poorly-recorded" and "crappy"...

I think Ace was paraphrasing Lennon's own remarks about the "Get Back" sessions and Phil Spector's participation in them:

Oh exactly.  I think "Let It Be" is great.  Like all the Beatles albums are great.  But I guess somebody like Lennon, his standards were so high.  He was reaching for the highest level of artistic acheivement, and judging his work by that impossibly high standard.

[acebackwords]

Phil was totaly disrespectful to Paul.

Tell me about it.  Spector actually erased one of Paul's vocal tracks on "Long and Winding Road" so he could lard it up with another orchestral track.  Still, I like what Spector did with that track.  But I could see how that would be a mortal sin from Paul's point of view.

[Paperback Writer]

Whatever your point(s) of view on Let It Be, it's a good example of TMI.  The movie and raw nerves overwhelm the purity of the music - which was not left pure in all the Beatle's eyes.  Multiple producers, even if you liked some of the songs, left ,at best, an un-even and non-cohesive sound.

Spector was a genius - until stereo - then a lot of his techniques didn't work.  Also, his early works, were with session players, not the writers and players on the records.  The Beatles just were way out from his usual , older form of musician, singer and mono forms.

Brian Wilson's first half of Beach Boys work was in the Spector mode - but listen to when Stereo was utilized by the Beach Boys - notably Beach Boys Today, onward - and it all changes.  Give it a listen,it illustrates my points well.

[Kylenz]

Good points. Spector's wall of sound was geared towards a mono mix. Once stereo took over, Spector himself had to adapt his style, and I think he did successfully. Listen to the song 'Imagine', you've got John and piano, the sparse drum sound, and the strings sit nicely in the background, they don't overtake everything. There's no multiple rhythm guitars like we hear on George's All Things Must Pass.

But as a person, for sure, he's a nasty piece of work. On the Ramones documentary 'End of the Century' they recall a moment when he pulled a gun on them all and they all leapt behind the sofa!

[acebackwords]

May Pang paints a very chilling portrait of the creepiness of Spector in her book.  I wasn't the least surprised that he shot that woman.  What surprised me was he made it this long WITHOUT doing something like that.  It was said of Spector:  "He was one of the few people who needed a bodyguard to protect other people from him."

During one of the "Rocknroll" sessions, Spector was standing right next to Lennon in the studio, and he suddenly became displeased over some slight, so he shot his gun up in the air, leaving a bullet in the ceiling, and leaving Lennon's ears ringing.  To which Lennon replied:  "Phil, If you're gonna shoot me, go ahead and shoot me.  But don't fuck with me ears!"

On another night, during an alcohol and cocaine-fueled rage, Spector and his bodyguard got into a physical altercation with Lennon.  They ended up hog-tying him to his bed.  The next day at the session, Spector showed up with a big black eye and his face covered with bruises.  Lennon spent several hours apologizing.  Finally, after he felt Lennon had humbled himself enough, he admitted that the bruises were done by a Hollywood make-up artist he knew.  Gotta at least give Phil props for a pretty good practical joke here.

[2 of 3]

Somebody did say “There is a fine line between genius and insanity"..probably another musician.

[acebackwords]

Somebody did say “There is a fine line between genius and insanity"..probably another musician.

Well you know, thats the thing that always fascinated me about John Lennon. He basically considered himself a mad genius.  But it was sometimes hard to differentiate the mad parts from the genius parts.