Read on Twitter
Phil Spector is a sharp and difficult case for the debate about whether an artist’s biography should or should not affect your judgment of their work. 1/
Phil Spector is a convicted murderer with a long, documented history of terrorising and abusing people, particularly women. 2/
This isn't merely his private life (if that could ever be called 'merely'); he terrified collaborators in studio with guns and some of the victims of his abuse were singers on his recordings, notably Ronnie Spector, who he exploited and whose career he then tried to destroy. 3/
But he also created some of the most extraordinary records of the 1960s. 'River Deep Mountain High' is one of the greatest achievements of that decade. The moment Tina Turner's voice lets rip at 26" is blisteringly astonishing 55 years later. 4/
The infinitely cool, propulsive ferocity of 'Da Doo Ron Ron' by The Crystals is perhaps the pinnacle of the Girl Group moment. 5/
The vocals on The Ronettes' 'Sleigh Ride' are sassy and smart and they sit back and perfectly inhabit the arrangement. When Darlene Love repeats the middle eight of 'Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)' at 1'30" it will knock the breath out of any feeling person. 6./
It is tempting to say that yes he was flawed BUT he produced great music. But I'm not sure we can accept the distinction. Did he get those performances by terrorising his singers? Is Tina Turner's throat-tearing performance a symptom of genuine fear of her producer? 7/
Conversely, do we have to conduct autopsies on the creative process to judge it healthy before we can approve of the product? Not all collaborations are sunshine and smiles throughout and are we being too pious about the dirty business of making transformative art? 8/
And then, is he given too much credit? There was an NME Book of Rock published in the 70s in which, from memory, the entry for 'CRYSTALS, THE' just said 'See SPECTOR, PHIL'. Do we silence these women by assuming that HE 'got' their performance 'out of them'? 9/
Maybe we can console ourselves that his great period was short-lived, maybe five years (1962-66). He fucked up The Beatles' Let It Be. His production on albums by George Harrison, John Lennon, Leonard Cohen, The Ramones has not worn well. 10/
I find Phil Spector a difficult case because he was unquestionably a damaged, damaging, horrible person. But he did create some transcendent records - records that showcased and glorified women's strength and soul, despite his behaviour. 11/
The anti-authorial position (of Roland Barthes etc.) would say we limit our ability to engage with the rich ambiguity of art if we reduce the art work to the creator's (or one of the creators') biography. We should free these works from Spector's prison. 12/
But does that give cruelty and exploitation a free pass? Do we not have a moral and political duty to understand (and judge) the historical conditions under which our pleasure is produced? 13/
Experiencing art is not easy. What IS easy is to foreclose on the complexity of art by making solely moral judgments as if they make the aesthetic ones go away. 14/
But then, maybe morality simply does trump aesthetics. This will, unfortunately, be easier for philistines than for people who have worked hard to look and listen openly and generously. So it may seem like a triumph of the dull. 15/
But Phil Spector's work is significant & important & we SHOULD ask hard questions about how to hear it, what to feel about it, and the things we should do with it. As for me, I don't know. I don't what to do with that extraordinary work. RIP Phil Spector. RIP Lana Clarkson. END
