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 3695 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

real01

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« 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:
Quote
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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Martin


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...?

Quote
"[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.

« Last Edit: October 26, 2015, 10:38:33 AM by real01 »
Logged
Sheet Music Plus Homepage

nimrod

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2502
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2015, 11:03:00 AM »

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.
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 7735
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2015, 02:10:05 PM »

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.

blmeanie

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 460
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2015, 06:50:51 PM »

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?

Logged

nimrod

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2502
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2015, 10:12:02 PM »

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
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 7735
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2015, 11:38:10 PM »

There's a lot of 5th Beatles when you stop and think about it.

Fab4Fan

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 270
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2015, 11:56:20 PM »

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!  :)
Logged
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

stevie

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 477
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2015, 02:53:28 AM »

I think George happened to have that element of quirkiness and instinct in his nature, like our 4 heroes, and the chemistry just happened.

Logged

Mr Mustard

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2015, 10:27:02 PM »

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?
Logged

blmeanie

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 460
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2015, 10:55:58 PM »

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?
Logged

Bingo Bongo

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 413
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2015, 12:42:51 AM »

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!
Logged
Beatles music gives me Eargasms

Moogmodule

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1665
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2015, 02:53:29 AM »

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. 
Logged

Loco Mo

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 190
  • Oh, woe is me, and Mo am I.
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2016, 06:32:01 PM »

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.
Logged
Some try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend.

Loco Mo

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 190
  • Oh, woe is me, and Mo am I.
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2016, 09:29:22 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 09:34:16 PM by Loco Mo »
Logged
Some try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend.

blmeanie

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 460
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2016, 09:57:14 PM »

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.
Logged

Loco Mo

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 190
  • Oh, woe is me, and Mo am I.
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2016, 11:50:17 PM »

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.
Logged
Some try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend.

nimrod

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2502
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2016, 12:27:59 AM »

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
Logged

Loco Mo

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 190
  • Oh, woe is me, and Mo am I.
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2016, 12:38:42 AM »

Interesting concept.  The Beatles came out of nothingness and created somethingness in the studio.
Logged
Some try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend.

fanofthefab4

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2016, 09:03:21 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:
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.





« Last Edit: March 09, 2016, 09:17:47 AM by fanofthefab4 »
Logged

fanofthefab4

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
Re: George Martin wasn't so important... say the two Beatles
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2016, 09:07:59 AM »

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.

 

 

 



 

 

 

 
« Last Edit: March 09, 2016, 09:18:36 AM by fanofthefab4 »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
 

Page created in 1.101 seconds with 21 queries.