DM's Beatles forums
Solo forums => Fifth Beatles and the Merseybeat Scene => Topic started by: real01 on October 26, 2015, 10:36:56 AM
-
First, I came across and video interview (I'll try find the source), but I believe I've remembered correctly.
When Paul was asked: would Beatles be so much popular/good had they not met George Martin, he replied:
- We would be big - but not as that big we became!
Re-e-e-eally? :-\
Yes - you would be surely a very popular bend. In Germany alone. Or maybe in Liverpool alone. Maybe just in Liverpool area, maybe only in England and not in the U. S. Who knows?
Next. John:
John Lennon trivialised Martin's importance to the Beatles' music. In his 1970 interview with Jann Wenner, Lennon said, "[Dick James is] another one of those people, who think they made us. They didn't. I'd like to hear Dick James' music and I'd like to hear George Martin's music, please, just play me some."[67] In a 1971 letter to Paul McCartney, Lennon wrote, "When people ask me questions about 'What did George Martin really do for you?,' I have only one answer, 'What does he do now?' I noticed you had no answer for that! It's not a putdown, it's the truth."[68] Lennon wrote that Martin took too much credit for the Beatles' music. Commenting specifically on "Revolution 9", Lennon said with ironic authority, "For Martin to state that he was 'painting a sound picture' is pure hallucination. Ask any of the other people involved. The final editing Yoko and I did alone."
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Martin[/url] ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Martin[/url])
Again, re-e-e-eally John?
OK, I understand that Lennon wanted to disconnect himself from his former band, so he was negative about it. But this...?
"[Dick James is] another one of those people, who think they made us. They didn't. I'd like to hear Dick James' music and I'd like to hear George Martin's music, please, just play me some.
Well, you know, I'd like to read some good poetry from John. Like you know, Shakespeare. So, can someone show me John's song or poem which is good as that man from Stratford-upon-Avon?
Or - can someone show my a rock'n'roll song written by William Shakespeare? roll:)
You know, John, if someone is a very good singers/songwriter - what does that mean - that everyone should do song-sing-writing?
Where is George Martin's music? GM music equals Beatle's Music - it is there, on records, CDs etc, you just press to play and enjoy! icon_good
It was Martin's idea to make a strings arrangement for 'Yesterday'. Moreover, I read somewhere that Paul initially disliked the idea.
So, if the song had only Paul's guitar - or whatever he had in mind - I don't know - maybe it would be great, maybe it wouldn't.
Also, it was Martin's idea to record 'Eleanor Rigby' without the Beatles playing on the track - they were just singing.
(Ringo's drumming was great on that song! - if I may joke! glassesslip).
OK, the Fab Four and their Producer had some disagreements (he wanted to replace Ringo initially), and they didn't agree on some other things at the start of the career,
but it was him ho connected together everything they composed/wrote.
And no - Martin wasn't the Fifth Beatle. Sir George Martin was the First Beatle.
-
Ive read (I think in Geoff Emericks book) that the boys never liked how he seemed to take a lot of credit for their music, especially on things like Pepper.
GM was important but I dont see him as the 5th Beatle or anything. I think he was lucky to get them, I never liked the strings on Yesterday, I liked their live version better.
-
Martin was luckier to have them as a band more so then they were lucky to have him as a producer. Seriously most any producer can come up with ways to put ideas to music or use the studio in odd fashions but it takes the band to write the songs and bring the magic. I love George Martin but John had a point. What else has George Martin ever done besides being the producer of the Beatles? Well he produced America for awhile but that's not going to make somebody into a household name. Most producers have a body of work that extends further then one band.
-
I think he was a great idea sounding board, which I believe a producer should be, and suggested things that the Beatles may not have ever considered on their own. Can't we all be happy and say everyone gets credit?
-
I think he was a great idea sounding board, which I believe a producer should be, and suggested things that the Beatles may not have ever considered on their own.
Yes but thats the producers job, thats why he is paid, as Todd said any producer would do that
Should he get a knighthood and tons of credit for doing his job ?
If there's any mythical 5th Beatle imo that would be Brian Epstien, without him we probably would never have heard of The Beatles
-
There's a lot of 5th Beatles when you stop and think about it.
-
There's a lot of 5th Beatles when you stop and think about it.
I'm just happy to be the 1,999,999th Beatle! :)
-
I think George happened to have that element of quirkiness and instinct in his nature, like our 4 heroes, and the chemistry just happened.
-
George Martin's contribution to The Beatles phenomenon was, in my opinion, significant but not crucial. He polished the gems - expertly I will admit - which he was lucky enough to stumble across. The raw talent was theirs alone and I think was destined to sooner or later erupt somewhere, somehow. He took a gamble on them but I think he was shrewd enough to sense they were special right from the start, despite talk of cover versions and session drummers...he knew there was a spark there, I'm sure of that. If he hadn't helped kindle it someone else would have done. Brian Epstein was so convinced they were special that he would not have given up peddling them anywhere and everywhere. I don't buy the legend that George Martin was the last throw of the dice. They learned a hell of a lot from him, that's for sure (as he did from them) but they assimilated his influence and expertise with their usual voracious, quicksilver appetite. Paul is right - they would have been big anyway, just perhaps not quite as big. But would most of us have heard of GM without them?
-
You would never have heard of Richard Starkey had he not joined the team, just saying.
The best way to look at it IMO is that a tremendous lot of things had to, and did, go right for it to all fall into place. Timings, introductions, family connections, obviously personalities. What if Stu hadn't passed when he did? Would John have taken him out of the group for the betterment?
-
Martin was the guy who gave them a chance, and was a great teacher to them in the beginning, but really, he was in the right place at the right time!
-
I think George was significant. He was the ideal producer for them. Relatively open minded, and skilled (with his engineers, but GM was the boss) to nurture and take advantage of the lads talent. Without micromanaging them like some producers were inclined to do. Particularly in that era.
But the Beatles would have shone regardless. Maybe some of the legendary quality control would have meant some of their albums weren't quite as high standard, but they'd have still produced great stuff.
-
Coaches get major credit when their teams win, despite the fantastic players and performances made in order to win. A coach can do a lot to motivate and pay attention to both their strengths and weaknesses, and point out aspects of their techniques that need improvement and development.
There are a lot of Beatle phenomena we can't fully explain and questions we can't truly answer because we can't re-arrange the variables in any way. We can only look at what was and not at what might have been.
What if Stu had lived; what if Pete had stayed; what if there were no Ringo as a result; what if Paul hadn't met John; what if they got a hit record while at Decca, etc? What if John never met Yoko; What if Paul blew his mind out in a car; what if they hadn't backed Tony Sheridan; what if they hadn't named themselves the Beatles; what if they never met George Martin???
My first impression in reaction to this post was how George encouraged John to speed up Please Please me which I firmly believe caused it to become a number one hit. I mean what would John and Paul say about that?
It just sounds to me like they were being egotistical and wanting the credit for everything. This is typical human nature, isn't it? You've got to just ponder for a moment that the Beatles must have believed they were Gods due to their incredible fame and fortune. Can a God attribute anything wondrous or miraculous to an ordinary mortal? I don't know but I think that if Gods exist, they don't. Thank you.
-
Also, George Martin played a major role in "For the Benefit of Mr. Kite." John instructed him to create a carnival atmosphere which was achieved by cutting up and splicing together multiple recordings of fairground organs and calliope music. Although John claimed to have written this entirely, Paul has recently laid partial claim to it.
I think that element of the ending made the song very attractive to me. George Martin deserves credit for the aura he created.
Think about this as well. Many people believed Paul to be the talented songwriter of the group. In fact, many thought of him as a composer. John knew this and resented it. It started around the time that Paul performed "Yesterday" solo on the Ed Sullivan show. John said in one interview that sometime interviewers would ignore him while talking to Paul about the Beatles music as though John did not play a significant part in its creation.
Another assumption made by many - even to this day - is that Paul was the driver of John and that without him John would have gone no where and amounted to nothing. While John didn't want to give props to George Martin, many fans also did not want to give props to John. The belief is now widespread that Paul was the real force behind the Beatles success with his songs being branded the most "Beatlesque," particularly evidenced by his solo efforts. It is argued that Paul wrote the "feel good" sounds of the Beatles. Surely, this was the primary attraction of their music overall.
Somewhat beside the point, I really think Paul outgrew the Beatles around the time of Sgt Pepper. They really couldn't keep up with him any more. He was such a prolific songwriter and had so many songs to write and express. John seemed to have lost interest. He even said that he was disillusioned with the expectation that with each album the Beatles were expected to top themselves. But, really, what could they do after Sgt Pepper?
It was then, after the White Album, that Paul's dominance prevailed over their remaining albums. The Beatles couldn't go on as a group under those conditions. It had to be all 4 together, not 1 and 3.
Well, I got off track a bit here. But I think I've made a point. Giving credit where credit is due is difficult when a bunch of individuals are trying to claim all the credits for themselves. And I don't think there were equal efforts in the end. John got lazy and uninspired and George, like a little brother to him, followed suit by seemingly not wanting to be a Beatle anymore. Yes, Paul gets a lot of credit for his struggle to enliven the expiring Beatles in their death throes. But in the end, well, you know, the love you take is equal to the love you make. Not sure what this means really but sounds like a good way to end a song as well as this little opinion piece. Thanks for listening.
-
George Martin was as instrumental (pun intended) in the evolution of the Beatles as was the location and time all of our parents conceived each of us. Had the time/location not been that exact precise time, maybe all of us would be someone else, born somewhere different, to different people.
-
Well, then, maybe if George Martin hadn't come along then maybe John, Paul, George and Ringo may also not have come along. Don't know what would have happened in the studio then.
-
Well, then, maybe if George Martin hadn't come along then maybe John, Paul, George and Ringo may also not have come along. Don't know what would have happened in the studio then.
Nothing
-
Interesting concept. The Beatles came out of nothingness and created somethingness in the studio.
-
First, I came across and video interview (I'll try find the source), but I believe I've remembered correctly.
When Paul was asked: would Beatles be so much popular/good had they not met George Martin, he replied:
- We would be big - but not as that big we became!
Re-e-e-eally? :-\
Yes - you would be surely a very popular bend. In Germany alone. Or maybe in Liverpool alone. Maybe just in Liverpool area, maybe only in England and not in the U. S. Who knows?
Next. John:
Again, re-e-e-eally John?
OK, I understand that Lennon wanted to disconnect himself from his former band, so he was negative about it. But this...?
Well, you know, I'd like to read some good poetry from John. Like you know, Shakespeare. So, can someone show me John's song or poem which is good as that man from Stratford-upon-Avon?
Or - can someone show my a rock'n'roll song written by William Shakespeare? roll:)
You know, John, if someone is a very good singers/songwriter - what does that mean - that everyone should do song-sing-writing?
Where is George Martin's music? GM music equals Beatle's Music - it is there, on records, CDs etc, you just press to play and enjoy! icon_good
It was Martin's idea to make a strings arrangement for 'Yesterday'. Moreover, I read somewhere that Paul initially disliked the idea.
So, if the song had only Paul's guitar - or whatever he had in mind - I don't know - maybe it would be great, maybe it wouldn't.
Also, it was Martin's idea to record 'Eleanor Rigby' without the Beatles playing on the track - they were just singing.
(Ringo's drumming was great on that song! - if I may joke! glassesslip).
OK, the Fab Four and their Producer had some disagreements (he wanted to replace Ringo initially), and they didn't agree on some other things at the start of the career,
but it was him ho connected together everything they composed/wrote.
And no - Martin wasn't the Fifth Beatle. Sir George Martin was the First Beatle.
Brian Epstein and George Martin were both very lucky to meet The Beatles and to have them,especially John Lennon and paul McCartney as their employees,it was like they discovered gold or won the lottery.George Martin had moderate success as a producer of mostly comedy albums before he became The Beatles producer,and he never had nearly as much success before and after producing them even though he went on to produce many other music artists.But he said that he never has known and worked with anyone as brilliant as The Beatles,especially John and Paul.
And the truth is,if Brian Epstein hadn't had the good luck of becoming their manager he would have remained a record store manager that no one ever heard of and George Martin never would have been as known and successful either.
John Lennon and paul McCartney as their employees,it was like they discovered gold or won the lottery.George Martin had moderate success as a producer of mostly comedy albums before he became The Beatles producer,and he never had nearly as much success before and after producing them even though he went on to produce many other music artists.But he said that he never has known and worked with anyone as brilliant as The Beatles,especially John and Paul.
-
Martin was luckier to have them as a band more so then they were lucky to have him as a producer. Seriously most any producer can come up with ways to put ideas to music or use the studio in odd fashions but it takes the band to write the songs and bring the magic. I love George Martin but John had a point. What else has George Martin ever done besides being the producer of the Beatles? Well he produced America for awhile but that's not going to make somebody into a household name. Most producers have a body of work that extends further then one band.
Around 2003 I found an online interview with George Martin and he said that even though he has produced many other music artists and he has never had the same success before or after producing The Beatles,he has never known or worked with anyone as brilliant as The Beatles. He was also interviews in the 1990's on a Breakfast With The Beatles show on a local rock station,and he said that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were incredibly talented people and he said it like he still couldn't believe it.And he also said they both were extraordinarily talented song writers and great singers.
-
Very sad news today.
RIP Sir George.
-
Here is a really good July 1976 Rolling Stone Magazine interview with George Martin in which he's asked about George Harrison who he says is talented but John and Paul are so enormously talented.But it's obvious George Harrison was even more talented as a song writer and guitarist than most people realize because in this same interview George Martin says that he didn't give George much encouragement he just tolerated him. And of course John and Paul didn't give him much encouragement,so he did mostly everything on his own.
George Martin says that he and George were good friends now and that he recently spoke with him.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/george-martin-recalls-the-boys-in-the-band-19760715?page=2#comments (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/george-martin-recalls-the-boys-in-the-band-19760715?page=2#comments)
-
Resurrecting this...
So as far as fans go, I'm one of the least well-read about technical details so please school me if I've gotten it wrong!
Personally, I consider George Martin to be an essential part of The Beatles. Maybe not the "Fifth Beatle", but he was an integral part of their success (talking real-life here, because no one can say how the band's career would have gone without him)!
They had raw talent in spades, for sure. George Martin was just particularly adept at polishing it and giving it direction when needed. Strawberry Fields is a good example of GM's wizardry, combining two different takes, two different tempos and two different keys into one hit. Think about Let It Be - Phil Spektor produced that one, and to me it just doesn't work as well as the Martin-produced records.
It's all a matter of opinion, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think George was the right guy for that band, anyone else and they wouldn't have been The Beatles as we know them. And we all know that Paul and John have/had big egos lol
-
Paul and John were going to make it regardless of who the producer was. To much determination and to much talent with those two. Sure GM did some amazing stuff, but who's to say another producer couldnt have done the same thing. As for Phil Spector and 'Let It Be', he was given a turd and told to make into a rainbow. It was an impossible task if you think about it. Would be interesting to see what he would have done with Sgt. Peppers or Revolver. Also, it was well known that Abbey Road and the studios around there were pretty much antiquated compared to what America had during those times (4 track vs 8 track). Who's to say the Beatles wouldnt have gone to America or wherever to record under better circumstances? We cant fathom a better product at this time, but who really knows?
-
I think GM was pretty essential to end up with the Beatles as we now love them . Not just because of his skills in polishing their product but also his open mindedness to let them develop as songwriters rather than force feeding them other songs hoping to rack up hits. .
But yes, John and Paul would still have been great regardless. And I think as a unit they were pretty strong willed. I doubt they would have lasted with a too dictatorial producer. So eventually they'd have found one like GM. Just like they went through managers til they found Brian. And drummers til they found Ringo.
-
Not just because of his skills in polishing their product but also his open mindedness to let them develop as songwriters rather than force feeding them other songs hoping to rack up hits. .
This wasnt always easy though. The guys had to fight hard and protest in the beginning to get their own stuff heard and recorded. If it was up to Martin, he would have been content for them to do nothing more than covers.
-
True. I wonder if their success at getting him to listen to the originals was partly due to him not having a track record as a pop hit producer. If he'd had a string of successes perhaps he would have laid down the law more. Then trouble would have ensued.
Also the publishing arm of EMI was on the Beatles side pushing GM to release their originals.
-
Although Martin did fight them some, he was smart enough to realize when the product was sh*t and told them so like with their first proposal of 'Please Please Me'.
-
Although Martin did fight them some, he was smart enough to realize when the product was sh*t and told them so like with their first proposal of 'Please Please Me'.
Is that why he didn't produce Let It Be? Or did they have some kind of falling out?
-
Although Martin did fight them some, he was smart enough to realize when the product was sh*t and told them so like with their first proposal of 'Please Please Me'.
Yep. And they sort of respected his judgement. But they kept persisting pushing their own stuff. Which makes me think they wouldn't have lasted with a dictatorial producer who insisted on covers and b-sides written by the producer. There would have been some blow up pretty quickly.
-
Is that why he didn't produce Let It Be? Or did they have some kind of falling out?
The whole thing was kind of a mess. McCartney brought in Glynn Johns as a producer/engineer and also wanted Martins input. Too many cooks in the kitchen already. The band wasn't getting along and they really didn't know what they wanted to do or what direction they wanted to go with the album (live, studio, soundtrack, etc,,). It was shelved more than once. Spector was brought in to remix the material for an album release and that was after Johns and Martin had already produced and recorded the material (hell I think Alan Parsons was even involved somewhat from what I've read). Klein brought in Spector and the band had already broken up before the record was released. Of course McCartney hated what Spector did, but I actually prefer it to the Naked release.
-
I always thought that George Martin preferred Paul to John or George, Paul being the more musical one, I get the feeling the others got a bit miffed with him.
-
The whole thing was kind of a mess. McCartney brought in Glynn Johns as a producer/engineer and also wanted Martins input. Too many cooks in the kitchen already. The band wasn't getting along and they really didn't know what they wanted to do or what direction they wanted to go with the album (live, studio, soundtrack, etc,,). It was shelved more than once. Spector was brought in to remix the material for an album release and that was after Johns and Martin had already produced and recorded the material (hell I think Alan Parsons was even involved somewhat from what I've read). Klein brought in Spector and the band had already broken up before the record was released. Of course McCartney hated what Spector did, but I actually prefer it to the Naked release.
I didn't know there were so many hands in it. So Martin did actually produce it...sort of. Interesting! I think some tracks from the naked version sound better, like Across the Universe and I Me Mine, but the whole thing kind of just sounds "weird". I don't really like the original that much either, though.
This discussion reminds me of a Tim Minchin song "If I Didn't Have You". The Beatles probably would have found somebody else if not George Martin, but everything would have been different. "What I'm really saying is, I don't think you're special. I mean, you're special, but you fall within a bell curve."
I guess what I mean to say is that George Martin really was special in that without him being where he was when he was, etc, the Beatles' music as we know and love it wouldn't be. But the same could be said for each and every person involved, right? Lol everyone is special, ergo no one is special.
-
Paul and John were going to make it regardless of who the producer was.
Yeah but maybe if GM hadn't given them a chance to record they could've decided to split up, ie no Beatles
-
Yeah but maybe if GM hadn't given them a chance to record they could've decided to split up, ie no Beatles
Very true
-
Yeah but maybe if GM hadn't given them a chance to record they could've decided to split up, ie no Beatles
Although, according to Lewisohn, GM was forced into doing it by the EMI higher ups.
Still, I think GM was the right personality to nurture them just as they needed at that time.
-
You would never have heard of Richard Starkey had he not joined the team, just saying.
The best way to look at it IMO is that a tremendous lot of things had to, and did, go right for it to all fall into place. Timings, introductions, family connections, obviously personalities. What if Stu hadn't passed when he did? Would John have taken him out of the group for the betterment?
If Ringo hadn't joined The Beatles, and The Beatles made it without him (likely IMHO), then I think that it's quite likely Ringo would have been in one of the other British Invasion bands. Perhaps he would be like John Steel, who now owns the name of 'The Animals' and tours with a new lineup.