The Smiley Smile Message Board

Hey guys, here's the last one.

One album (Sunflower) and one non-album single (Cotton Fields)

vs. One album (Let It Be), one non-album B-side (You Know My Name)

Now, which band's output do you prefer in 1970? Make sure you go only by your own preference and consider only the released stuff listed above.

Look forward to your opinions & discussions   :)

The Beach Boys won this year for me. Let It Be is a mixed bag for an album with some really weak moments while Sundlower is one of The Beach Boys finest. No contest.

Im giving The Beatles the edge by a hair.

As much as I like Sunflower, and its one of the Boys' most consistent albums, I think the high points of Let It Be are a little higher.  And the low points of Let It Be are really just two brief throwaway tracks. 

This is easy...Let It Be was such a lack-lustre, poorly conceived hodge-podge that even the Beatles tossed it into the 'in basket' and went back and provided Abbey Road as a last great statement.  Did McCartney take over because the others just no longer really cared?  Looked and sounded like it.  NO HEART.  NO SOUL.  The Beatles were toast by the end of 1969.  Sunflower wipes the floor with Let it Be as its competition.  A sensational album versus one of the Beatles worst.  Only Yellow Submarine is less as an album.  And then to let Phil come in and produce it into a mindless mix of mediocrity?  Well...Beach Boys by a LANDSLIDE.  Sunflower is one of the Beach Boys 3 best albums ever.  So clearly a winner that one would have to be blind-drunk and passed right out under the table in order to miss it.

Well let's see, ha - Sunflower's got the worst of the bunch song "Tears In The Morning" which hilariously lately fans shifted to REALLY liking. Copycats. :)

BUT, Sunflower's got the best of the bunch too - "At My Window" & "Cool Cool Water".

In Let It Be, I dislike "Across The Universe" but it's not AS bad as "Tears". Except this song, John's contributions - who I generally didn't like reading things about him, seeing interviews, hearing solo material etc. - here in LIB seem rather passable than in previous albums (White Album, anybody?).

Paul's songs shine like they do usually; really cool tracks "Get Back" et al but, as Add Some rightly said, Spector shouldn't be producer. In fact, should quit it really & do sth. else instead. There's variety different occupations, you know. :P

Bottom line? Beach Boys win. :3d

Copycats??   I've always liked Tears in the Morning. 

The Beatles. Too many classics, even if Let It Be wasn't a proper album.

I think Sunflower sounds really good, thanks to Desper, but a lot of the material is basically just pretty crap.

Was just listening to the Mothers Live At The Fillmore East (1971). They do a song called "Tears Began to Fall" which sounds very much like a parody of "Tears In The Morning". Go to YouTube and see what you think.  ;)

probably not. not sappy enough.

I voted what I was damn sure of - The Beach Boys! Sunflower is my favorite BB album, tied with Wild Honey. Let it Be is better than its reputation, but it's no match for the BB's best.

Compared to their other albums Let It Be is pretty lackluster; though it still has some phenomenal material on it...including one of my favorite songs ‘Across The Universe’. Given the comments I’ve read here and elsewhere I seem to be one of the few who like Spector’s work on this album.

Sunflower is a sonic masterpiece marred by some fairly mediocre material. ‘Tears In The Morning’ - good lord if this isn’t the sappiest song this band ever released; when I hear this I kinda think of that scene in The Godfather where Vito Corleone is telling Johnny Fontane to “act like a man!”. Brian’s music has the ability to take you to some emotionally dark places, but he doesn’t literally repeatedly tell you “this morning I cried and cried and then I cried some more” (unless it’s a badass cover of drip drop).

‘Got To Know The Woman’ - I would actually like this song if the title weren’t repeated 537 times in the span of 2 1/2 minutes.

Okay, all my negativity is out of the way. ‘Slip On Through’, this song so much deserved to be popular as hell and it kills me that I don’t hear it on classic rock stations. ‘This Whole World’ - one of the most beautiful pocket symphonies this band ever recorded. ‘Deidre’ and ‘All I Wanna Do’ are flat out phenomenal in terms of how they were mixed/produced (not to mention their top notch songwriting). ‘Forever’ is simple and beautiful and ‘Our Sweet Love’ has such an incredible string section (that can be heard very well in the ‘string/vocal-only’ track on MiC). ‘It’s About Time’ has those kickass drums - I think I heard a boot of these drums isolated and it is mind blowing. ‘Cool Cool Water’ ending the album is as perfect of an outro as you can get.

That warm and ethereal Beach Boys sound is all over Sunflower and makes this an easy choice for me: Beach Boys.

I actually like Spector's work on Let It Be also, and I never really understood the hate.   I prefer it compared to the versions on Let It Be.....Naked.   

I also never understood the slagging Let It Be gets.   Maybe it's because we're talking about a band with so much great material, but Let It Be would be a masterpiece for many other bands.   I think the only negatives are Dig It and Maggie Mae, and neither sticks around long enough to detract from the album. 

Sunflower is one of my favorite BB albums, but if you really sit and break it down track by track, like you said, there are some weaker moments.   And frankly, I never got the attraction for Cool Cool Water.  The intro is great, but once you get past that, it's a pretty run of the mill track, and very anticlimactic album closer.   

Sunflower does have an overall vibe and consistency that's often lacking on BB albums though. 

This was the easiest choice for me. Sunflower is my favorite Beach Boys album. This Whole World, Deirdre, All I Wanna Do, Forever, At My Window, are all some of my favorite songs. In fact, All I Wanna Do is the best song I've ever heard.

28-3 huh? 

I hope The Beach Boys are better at protecting big leads than the Atlanta Falcons. 

Yeah, I think opinions about Let It Be are usually made with their other albums in mind. This may be an odd way to look at it; but if The Rolling Stones had released the same album, you’re right, it would be considered a masterpiece from them.

Back to Sunflower, ‘Cool Cool Water’ is nothing grandiose, true. But that’s what makes it a great closer. It’s just a chill rolling track that sets the album to a close. I see it kinda how I see Pet Sounds ending: it doesn’t end with a loud bang, but with a really chill sigh. It’s the best way to end an album that is full of top notch tracks.

I guess so, but I think I tend to prefer Caroline No to CCW because it's much shorter, whereas CCW tends to plod a bit IMO. 

:lol

The best game of football I’ve ever seen. I’m not even a Pats fan, but that was some phenomenal playing.

And yeah, regarding CCW, I can see why you’d think it’s a bit too long.

Let it Be is a good album, better than I had remembered it hearing it many years ago. It could have been a great album IMO but there were too many misfires. I Me Mine is a good song but the chorus seems to have been an afterthought. The Long and Winding Road is one of Paul's greatest compositions but, holy moly, is way too overproduced on this album.
I don't know how some of the other songs got on except to take up space.
I really do like Get Back and Across the Universe. The version of Let it Be is okay.

I just prefer Sunflower. This Whole World and All I Wanna Do are on my nightly music listening before bed list. I just ignore Tears in the Morning.

I actually thought this years's Super Bowl was better.   Until the Patriots mounted their comeback, it looked like it was going to be a blow out. 

I have a shorter version of CCW on the Warmth of the Sun comp, but they chop off the intro, which is the best part. 

OK. Everybody except you. :D

Btw, I see many say Let It Be is "overproduced", not "Phil Spector is bad producer". Interesting.

I think that's because Phil Spector is a very well respected producer.   But, many don't seem to care for his work on Let It Be, including Paul McCartney. 

Respected for what? His wall of sound is very samey in songs I listened to, popular & least well-known.

To each their own, but those Wall of Sound songs are very highly regarded.  Songs like Be My Baby are revered as essential classics.  He's also credited with producing one of the great Christmas albums of the modern pop era. 

I didn't hear anything special in these revered classics. As I said, Spector's wall of sound is very samey. If you think it's creative when you hear it - good. I don't.

Fair enough.   Like I said, to each their own.   But, his production style was very innovative for the time, and very influential to Brian Wilson. 

As they say. Is it "innovative" to YOU? If yes, tell exactly what makes you think it.

I think so because no other producer in rock/pop was doing what Spector was doing at the time.  And it had a huge influence on the works of The Beach Boys, Billy Joel, Meat Loaf, and Bruce Springsteen just to name a few. 

See, I mean specific elements in it being "innovative". Let's forget about influences just this time. It's not the main question.

Specifically staking instruments to make that big sound.  It can turn a decent song into something epic.   Without Spector, for example, Be My Baby is a standard girl group pop tune.   With the "Wall of Sound," it's an opus. 

How can a fan of the Beach Boys/Phil Spector not understand at least the fundamental aspects of what Spector brought to pop music? Brian Wilson's main deal in musical life was in many cases for periods of time about Phil Spector.

Can someone name a producer prior to Spector who regularly used the "wall of sound" (meaning a large in-studio sound with often multiple instruments doubled, etc.) effect and achieved success/hits with it?

There's room to argue whether maybe his work is overrated or overhyped I suppose. As Howie Edelson has said in the past, his work was/is more "timely" than "timeless." But to be incredulous as to the very general idea of Spector's most well known works being innovative if for no other reason than that "wall of sound" that influenced Brian, that makes absolutely no sense.

Spector's work on Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" is a further extension of that production ethos. Whether you love the sound of that album or find it annoying, it's definitely unique.

That being said, when it comes to 1970 and the Beatles and the LIB album, anyone who thinks Spector has any large hand in the *sound* of the "Let It Be" album beyond the orchestration on "The Long and Winding Road" would have to be pretty unfamiliar with the LIB album/sessions/project. Spector did little heavy lifting in working on the LIB album. His biggest stamp on the project beyond the infamous "Long and Winding Road" overdubs would have to be his laziness in *not* extensively going through the session tapes (the old narrative of Spector "wading though hours and hours" of LIB session tapes is not accurate) and picking inferior takes of several of the songs, and then using already-selected/earmarked takes and simply mixing them and mastering them for the LIB album.

You believe nobody else did it before? Regardless, the epicness falls flat. Besides, it's very samey.

Innovative doesn't even equate directly to good. You can not care for something and still acknowledge that it's innovative. Spector innovated the "wall of sound" approach in the same way that the Beatles innovated use of a sitar on a pop record.

That is, someone may be able to find scattered examples of someone doing it prior (or contemporaneously), but part of the "innovation" is bringing it to the fore for people to hear.

Not to the same effect.  

Like I said, to each their own.   You can say that it's "samey."  Sure, it's a similar technique applied on a lot of the hits he produced, but the melodies of those songs are distinct.  

Different people hear different things.   I think his production style greatly enhanced many songs, and he also did some great work with John Lennon and George Harrison (as HJ noted, All Things Must Pass).   If you can't hear the greatness of Be My Baby, A Christmas Gift for You, or What Is Life, then that's your opinion.  

Spector's 60s work, his work on solo Beatles product, and his work on LIB are three pretty different animals.

I'd liken his work on LIB to be almost more of a Boyd/Linett role, taking something that was already recorded and molding it into a product, sometimes remixing and maybe even occasionally overseeing an overdub here and there, but more of an "archival" role (the difference being Spector was doing "archival" work on something was 1 or 1 1/2 years old, and was attempting to present it as a "new" product rather than an archival release of course).

His 60s body of work is its own thing, and has been dissected by others in plenty of detail.

His work on the solo Beatles stuff varies wildly. Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" has that cavernous, reverb-laden sound, a kind of 1970 slightly modernized version of his 60s deal. His work with Lennon teetered between a slightly "wall of sound-ish" deal ("Instant Karma"), to something more like the LIB sound ("Imagine"), and then very sparse, dry stuff ("Plastic Ono Band").

Read reply to KDS - I told him influence isn't main question. I asked what HE thinks about it, I didn't ask to list people influenced by Spector. It's just boring factoid, everybody read it.

Yep. When people say they looove "Be My Baby" et al, it's opinion too. If majority likes some song (anything), doesn't mean it's factually great. Agree?

You asked for examples of Spector's innovation. You've been given some simple examples of such (and you can take ten seconds to go on Wikipedia to find many more examples).

Spector's "innovation" is a totally separate deal from whether *you* just don't like his stuff, and/or have some hangup for some reason about multiple influences that Brian Wilson has cited (Spector, Beatles).

25 years into the internet and we're still stuck on explaining that someone's opinion is their opinion?

There's a very simple concept called objective analysis.

I like this, I don't like that. That's subjective. And if that's *all* you're interested in posting about, then have at it.

But when you pose an open question about Spector's "innovation" and ask for examples, that veers into more objective territory.

There are MANY articles out there (and some posts here) about Spector's innovations. There's always still going to be a subjective aspect to interpreting those historical facts about Spector. But if you're unwilling to acknowledge any innovation on the part of Spector, then we're pretty much into "it's your opinion that that's a fact!" territory, which is of course not conducive to any sort of discussion.

There are MANY musical artists/producers that I'd cite as innovative that *I* don't care for. But I can OBJECTIVELY ACKNOWLEDGE their innovations.

Yes, that's why at 1st I didn't understand why KDS brought "innovative" to the table.

Interesting, didn't look at it like that.

"very samey" is directed to 60s artists' work. THAT'S samey.

Yes, KDS answered why he thinks it's innovative - staking instruments to make big sound. But 1st he talked about influences which I don't think is related to the question about what makes HIM think it's innovative. Is it not clear?

Hangup, my foot. Again, it's just not the main question. I wanted to know the specific elements in it being innovative which is NOT THE SAME as influence. KDS then got it & replied with "big sound" post.

I never said it was factually great.   In music, you can't quantify what is and what isn't great, which is the main flaw of the so called Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. 

I said "to each their own."

I know right? But I'd seen elsewhere, including this board, if you dare say you dislike "Be My Baby", it's nothing special, boring, people would look down at this view adding "It's great!". As if it's huge fact that "Be My Baby" is great song when it's just their opinion. Let's face it, it is. I've big problem with people falsely thinking that if lots of people say this song is great, critics praise it etc, then it's factually indeed great. But guess what? Reviews critics give is opinions too.

What for do you explain this? It's discussion - me & KDS discussed Spector.

I didn't say you did, you know. Read previous reply to HeyJude. There's many people who think their opinion is superior, present it as fact. Hence I said "Yep. When people say they looove "Be My Baby" et al, it's opinion too. If majority likes some song (anything), doesn't mean it's factually great. Agree?".

This bit means you do agree.

Yes, basically, I agree to disagree about our opinions of the merits of Phil Spector. 

And that not all people who like Tears in the Morning are copycats. 

:)

Spector.

Auteur who redefined role of produder.

One of the first successful producers to use the studio as a creative instrument in it's own right.

Created works of phonography, i.e, recordings that were not merely concerned with capturing a live performance but were defined by the fact they were recorded 'experiences', autographical rather than allographical. This was alluded to in this quote from BW.

"I was unable to really think as a producer up until the time where I really got familiar with Phil Spector's work. That was when I started to design the experience to be a record rather than just a song."


This seismic change in how we thought about and approached recording was hugely influential, not just BW, but on everyone who followed.

Whether you like his recordings or not, you cannot deny his important place in recording history.

To repeat, I didn't ask who Spector influenced. It's well-known/ well-written. I'm curious about single specific interest - what's inventive about Spector-producer? I discussed it with KDS initially, he made the mistake to bring up influences too but soon got what the actual question was. Influence & inventiveness is 2 different subjects.
It isn't denial but interest in knowing "his important place in recording history". Asking questions creates discussion. Which I did to get the clear fleshed out answer about Spector's inventiveness. The points in the last post add to the picture as well but, as I said, not Brian's/ everybody's influence by Spector.

What is inventive is the sound of the record has now become the important thing, rather than the song or the performer. Up until now recordings had presented the illusion of reality, and though it was often heavily stylised, what was presented to the listener was something that could exist in the real world. With Spector this changes. When listening to the Wall of Sound it is often very difficult to seperate all the seperate instruments out from the overall sound. The implications for this on our relationship with recorded sound was HUGE. It is the noise coming out of the speaker that is important.

So whilst you can point to figures like Les Paul and Joe Meek before him, it is really in Phil Spector's hands that the studio completes its transition from technological tool to creative instrument.

What is inventive about Spector is how he approached the studio.

This resonates down to today.

RR1, the question you ask is strange. The whole conversation reads like this (to me):

Poster 1: The atom bomb was terrible.
Poster 2: What was so terrible about it? Lots of things kill people.
Poster 1: It killed Thousands of people.
Poster 2: So what?  Candy kills thousands of people too. What's so important about the atom bomb?
Poster 1: Well it's terrible. That is a fact.
Poster 2: What is fact there? That is your opinion. I think candy has killed far more people. What is so special about atom bomb? Tell me specifically.
Poster 1: It has potential to destroy the whole planet.
Poster 2: I have never seen it destroy a whole planet. Again, why single you the atom bomb.
Poster 1: I didn't single it out. I was just making a statement.
Poster 2: Your statement singled out the atom bomb. Everyone always talks about the atom bomb like it has killed the most people in earth's history. Whenever I ask for specifics why or to defend their statement I get the same boring reasons.
Poster 1: Agree to disagree. The atom bomb WAS terrible.

Apply, rinse, and repeat.
 :3d

Amen.

Reply #46 - detailed info added.

:brow

I am so lost right now

The analogy pixletwin gave to simple question regarding Spector's inventiveness doesn't make any sense & is really extreme. Why is it that when I ask some question or say sth. turns out I asked or said sth. "strange"? I think it's valid question. If I didn't know the subject very well, it makes me ask question about it, to many people to get many answers. Is it not what people do usually?

Result:
The Beach Boys 35 votes
The Beatles 3 votes

The winner is The Beach Boys.

I think that part of it is a translation problem.  Are you perhaps Russian?  I can understand you when you post things but I think that based on whatever your native language is, you think about things a little bit differently or focus on a word meaning in English that is just a little bit different than how a native speaker would use it, and that can create some misunderstandings.  In this case, I think for whatever reason you are focusing on the word "great"- in cases like this great can be used in its normal superlative form of the word good, but it can also mean "something distinctive" or "something that made a lasting impact".  In this case, someone can call Phil Spector's work great and it is applicable.  They can be a big fan of his music, or they can be apathetic towards it, but "great" would still apply.  
You could likewise describe Richard Wagner as great, or Woody Allen as great, or Jane Austen as great.  Even if you yourself don't think what they did is special.
You also shouldn't use the word "samey".

Shhhhhhh, or we'll have to spend three pages explaining why Wagner, Allen and Austen are considered great.

Arghh, too late, Range Rovers just logged in!

Oh come on now.  Show some decorum around here.  :-D

1 page worth of discussion, 2 pages worth of arguing and barb tossing.

I think you hit the nail on the head in the first couple of sentences, which is why I try to keep that in mind. I’m a little disturbed by much of this thread and I have to step in. Can we all please be a little nicer to each other?

Right.

Thanks for stepping in, which I should've already done.

Sorry I didn’t step in sooner. I actually expected this more in the main forum and this literally flew under the  radar for me.
Edit - this WAS on the main forum! Yikes. Ok I take full blame for dropping the ball.

I missed the voting but I would’ve cast by vote behind The Beach Boys. I may have said this before but I’m not a fan of the let it be album at all.

I voted for the Beach Boys, too. Sunflower is much consistent album and the songs are IMO better, with the possible exception of Let It Be.

You know this was a joke, yes? It wasn't meant unkindly, it was theatrical ribaldry.

No need for anyone to 'step in'. It was an intersting discussion about what Spector brought to music production, at least on my part.

The Let it Be album has some good songs but the production was awful and overall it sounded like crap. I’m comparison Sunflower sounded warm and lush and had some of the best songs of their career.

Roger that

I know we've had a few spats, but I'm fond of Range Rover.

Agreed. Let It Be stinks in terms of production compared to either Phil Spector's previous work and later work with solo Beatles.

We should consider continuing with the Beatles solo stuff vs the beach boys and their solo stuff continuing from 1970 on.

I'll consider that. That can be very interesting and debatable. Some might say it's pointless though.