A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

PLEASE READ OUR FORUM RULES HERE

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles  (Read 3534 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pothos

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 80
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2016, 09:30:23 AM »

Very sad news today.

RIP Sir George.
Logged

fanofthefab4

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2016, 02:15:36 PM »




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


 
Logged

Harlena McStarkney

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 369
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2017, 09:04:05 PM »

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
Logged
Love, love is a verb. Love is a doing word.

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 7725
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2017, 09:55:12 PM »

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?

Moogmodule

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1647
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2017, 10:45:46 PM »

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.
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 7725
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2017, 02:30:34 PM »

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.

Moogmodule

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1647
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2017, 12:11:28 AM »

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.
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 7725
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2017, 01:19:06 AM »

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'. 

Harlena McStarkney

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 369
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2017, 01:14:40 PM »

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?
Logged
Love, love is a verb. Love is a doing word.

Moogmodule

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1647
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2017, 10:03:23 PM »

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.
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 7725
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #30 on: January 17, 2017, 02:10:39 AM »

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.

nimrod

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2474
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #31 on: January 17, 2017, 07:58:58 AM »

 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.
Logged

Harlena McStarkney

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 369
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #32 on: January 17, 2017, 01:39:12 PM »

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.
Logged
Love, love is a verb. Love is a doing word.

nimrod

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2474
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #33 on: January 17, 2017, 11:20:19 PM »

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
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 7725
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2017, 09:53:44 PM »

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

Moogmodule

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1647
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2017, 11:40:06 PM »

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.
Logged

NotTheWalrus

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #36 on: May 12, 2017, 06:25:02 AM »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
 

Page created in 0.904 seconds with 21 queries.