Lynne/Harrison

I just had the funny idea of 'what would Brainwashed sound like if George Martin was asked to produce it?'

I wonder what the two would have done differently. Certainly, the Martin/Emerick team has a lot of experience with George, and getting some great guitar and vocal sounds...not to mention the drums sound good.

I mean, it never would have happened, probably, even if GM still had good hearing...but it's still a nice 'what if...'

If there is a 'problem' it is that Lynne knowingly went against George's wishes on the songs, as he admitted in the 'Making of Brainwashed' clip. I'm still not sure it is accurate to say that George 'chose' him in the forst place - seems more like he was brought in after the fact.

In any case, I just listened to the whole album (the advances came in today) and it sounds fine to me, not TOO Lynned up. If it had been left rougher, however, as George had apparently wanted, it probably would sound less 'MOR', as critics have already been reported as calling it. Certainly the lyrics are among the strongest George ever wrote.

- Dr Strangemonde

i totally disagree.

a producer should be transparent.

its not his record, its the artist's.

I was thinking the exact same thing when the reissues started coming out. I seem to recall vaguely that Yoko had said she wanted GM to produce that album anyway...or something like that, or would have liked him to looking back.

Would have been great.

My mistake - I just read inthe press release that George intended from the beginning to bring Lynne in.

- Dr Strangemonde

Spoken like a true artist!

sure, if you asked phil!

charlie charlie charlie, wheres your head at?

the artists creates *the sound*, not the producer.

mediocre producers may be, but TOP producers *are* transparent. here's a little exercise that may be illuminating.....

try to find a recognisable George Martin 'trademark stamp' on any Beatles record, then try to find one on any of the Jeff Beck records he produced. then try to find one on the LRB album he produced etc etc etc etc ad nauseum.

you wont, because there isnt one.

because George produced records FOR THE ARTIST, not himself.

you could try the same exercise on any Quincy Jones production, and the results would be the same.

same with Brian Wilson.

and for the record, Phil Spector and Jeff Lynne are two of the most over-rated, self hyped wannabees in r'n'r history.

heh.

although i was speaking from a producers POV in this case.

any producer worth his salt would never leave any sort of 'footprint' on his work. his job is to facilitate the best possible recording of the artist work, nothing more

Yes.

Yup. Agreed.

It's always amazed me that JL liked PS's work so much. Why he had him involved in POB, Imagine and SMINYC, not to mention Let It Be, is beyond me. Rock 'N' Roll finally taught him the lesson, I guess, and then we got the Walls and Bridges effort without Spector, thank god.

I can see both sides of this discussion... and I think both sides are right... I would think both the artist and the producer would have to come to some sort of agreement... I find a perfect example of a producer leaving his footprint on an album would be XTC's 'Skylarking'... if ever there was an album with the producer's footprint on it, this is the one. Andy Partridge and Todd Rundgren had some bitter disagreements when putting this one together... but Rundgren's production is what made the album for me... though I very much like XTC's other albums as produced by other producers.

Peace...Dave www.Shemakhan.com

'Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.' Through the Looking-Glass Lewis Carroll

I think that 'should' or 'shouldn't' depends on the artist and the finished product.

To say, 'The Ronnettes shouldn't have had Phil Spector's imprint' would be ridiculous.

Would you say that Hitchcock should not have had an 'imprint' on his movies?