DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => Books, Magazines, Articles => Topic started by: Bobber on March 15, 2006, 01:04:48 PM
-
Geoff Emerick's book on The Beatles seems to be pretty good, from what I've read in excerpts so far. Is it out yet and does anybody read it?
-
I've not read any book about Geoff ... but he's one of those people I'd like to know more about ... I'm sure he's got lots of interesting things to share ... I think that not many people can say such a thing ... being sincere! ;D
-
It's not about him. He wrote it. It's called Here There And Everywhere.
-
Wow ... ;D
-
'Here, There' is a musical read about the Beatles
HERE, THERE AND EVERYWHERE: MY LIFE RECORDING THE MUSIC OF THE BEATLESBy Geoff Emerick and Howard MasseyGotham, 387 pages, $26.
Like the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Civil War, new books appear every year about the Beatles, adding bits of understanding here and there to a cultural phenomenon that has yet to see any shortage of interest from the public. Geoff Emerick, who was chief recording engineer during the band's most fertile period (1966-69), is the latest of a very short list of Beatles intimates to write things down.
"Here, There and Everywhere" takes the reader into the control room at London's Abbey Road Studios to sit in on the sessions for "Revolver," "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" and other groundbreaking recordings.
They were groundbreaking, of course, because of the Beatles' talent, which Emerick was able to observe from the early days (he'd been a young assistant on "She Loves You" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand") through the group's dissolution. Yet the recordings, particularly those from the fabled psychedelic period, would not have had as much impact without Emerick, whose mission was to help the Beatles
-
Wow ... ;D
tongrio could appreciate this lol
-
You mean tongiro massile?
-
yeah he makes inane post like this too....i think its just to boost numbers....he will post just a smile face some times too...
-
not that its anything i am critical about but contents has to be there sometimes...
-
I'm just reading this book at the moment and it's a nice read so far.
Here's what me made laugh out loud:
He talks about recording 'Tomorrow Never Knows"
....John said, "Make me sound like the Dalai Lama chanting from a mountaintop."
"....I think I have an idea about what to do for John's voice," I announced to George (Martin) in the control room as we finished editing the loop. Exitedly, I explained my concept to him. Though his brows furrowed for a moment, he nodded his assent.
Then he went out into the studio and told the four Beatles, who were standing around impatiently waiting for the loop to be constructed, to take a tea break while "Geoff sorts out something for the vocal."
Less than half an hour later, Ken, our maintenance engineer, had the required wiring completed. Phil and I tested the apparatus, carefully placing two microphones near the Leslie speakers. It certainly sounded different enough; I could only hope that it would satisfy Lennon. I took a deep breath and informed George Martin that we were ready to go.
Setting down their cups of tea, John settled behind the mic and Ringo behind his kit, ready to overdub vocals and drums on top of the recorded loop; Paul and George headed up to the control room. Once everyone was in place and ready to go, George Martin got on the talkback mic: "Stand by....here it comes." Then Phil started the loop playing back. Ringo began playing along, hitting the drums with a fury, and John began singing, eyes closed, head back.
"Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream..." Lennon's voice sounded like it never had before, eerily disonnected, distant yet compelling. The effects seemed to perfectly complement the esoteric lyrics he was chanting. Everyone in the control room looked stunned. Through the glass we could see John begin smiling. At the end of the first verse, he gave an exuberant thumbs-up and McCartney and Harrison began slapping each other on the back.
"It's the Dalai Lennon!" Paul shouted...."
"...Moments later, the first take was complete and John and Ringo had joined us in the control room to listen to it. Lennon was clearly bowled over by what he was hearing. "That is bloody marvelous," he kept saying over and over again. Then he addressed me directly for the first time that evening, adopting his finest snooty upper-class accent. "I say, dear boy," he joked, "tell us all precisely how you accomplished that little miracle."
I did my best to explain what I had done and how a Leslie worked, but most of it seemed to go over John's head; all he really got out of it was the concept of a rotating speaker. In my experience there are few musicians who are technically savvy - their focus is on the musical content and nothing else, which is as it should be - but Lennon was more technically challenged than most.
"Couldn't we get the same effect by dangling me from a rope and swinging me around the microphone instead?" he asked innocently, throwing the others into paroxysms of laughter....." (http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f243/1cass/lmao.gif)
-
Only just seen this thread......Why did I not ask for that on my birthday...This is a must read!!!! Chrs Bobber and Kate for that great excerpt.
-
Have finished reading this book and must say it is an enjoyable read. You really get a good impression of what it was like working with them, dealing with their moods and whims; also describing how they'd done certain effects on different songs and how complicated it was with the technology and the imposed restrictions they had those days at the EMI studios.
The book starts off with Geoff Emerick recording 'Revolver' and then he goes back a little to his biography - but it's only a small part....and to be honest I skipped it till he got back to the main story.
Good read all together. :)
-
Not a bad gig for a teenager.
-
Okay, for those of you who have read this book: WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL US HE ANSWERS THE AAAHHHHS QUESTION?!!? :o
-
Okay, for those of you who have read this book: WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL US HE ANSWERS THE AAAHHHHS QUESTION?!!? :o
I haven't read it, sorry. Could you tell us please? ;D
-
I haven't read it, sorry. Could you tell us please? ;D
NO!
Just kidding. I just posted it. Although I was tempted not to. ;D
-
Ha! Maybe you shouldn't have.
-
Geoff Emerick's book on The Beatles seems to be pretty good, from what I've read in excerpts so far. Is it out yet and does anybody read it?
(http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/3738/geoffemerickqv0.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/1552/geoffemerickdd1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Geoff talks with Rob Warmowski about his experiences recording their material, and his recent collaboration with journalist Howard Massey on the book "Here, There, And Everywhere" about Emerick's halcyon days with the moptops. Don't miss Geoff Emerick dishing on how he bent over backwards to accommodate the Fab Four's requests to move beyond then-accepted studio recording techniques and into uncharted waters. Emerick's discography includes work with Paul McCartney for the outstanding Band On The Run.
Take a look:
http://rapidshare.com/files/8963360/Geoff_Emerick.wmv.html
-
I read Geoff's book a few weeks ago, and it was a surprisingly good read. I went into it thinking, "A recording engineer, this has to be the most boring thing on the planet." (Sorry, engineers!) ;D
Instead, I found it really engaging. Unlike the tell-all books where the authors try desperately to stir up dirt regarding sex, drugs, quarrels, what-have-you, Geoff for the most part stays refreshingly focused on the music. I just love his first impression of the group, when they come in for their second recording session (he missed the first, but another 17-yr-old engineer told him he had to see these guys). Geoff's impression is like, "Those clothes! Those accents! That long hair!?!? Who are these guys?" :D "One of them is really skinny and has a black eye; the drummer doesn't seem to know the songs." I mean, this is just hilarious stuff if you know your Beatles history, and know all about the Pete Best replacement. Just delightful.
But even then, the band's charisma was going full force. Geoff noted the Beatles were wearing skinny ties; the next week there are skinny ties all over EMI studios. Even when they were Liverpool scruffs with nothing really going for them but attitude, they had "it"-- whatever that elusive "it" is that later had millions emulate them. But the young engineers were the first converts. ;D
Fave moment: Geoff tells a wonderful story of the day they recorded "She Loves You". I'd never heard about the chaos during that recording; it's worth picking up the book just to read that chapter (I got mine out of the library; I only buy the book if I can't live without it). ;)
Just a warning: Geoff is a big Paul fan, so you'll get a lot of nice Paul stories on into Wings. The other Beatles are treated less kindly. As one of the reviewers on Amazon said (paraphrasing), "Geoff didn't get to become great friends with the Beatles, and seems to have taken it personally." Only Paul ever reached out to him, so Geoff only really warmed to him. Despite being a George fan myself, I found the book entertaining and engrossing because of its unique viewpoint. It's definitely worth a read. Cheers!
-
I read Geoff's book a few weeks ago, and it was a surprisingly good read. I went into it thinking, "A recording engineer, this has to be the most boring thing on the planet." (Sorry, engineers!) ;D
Instead, I found it really engaging. Unlike the tell-all books where the authors try desperately to stir up dirt regarding sex, drugs, quarrels, what-have-you, Geoff for the most part stays refreshingly focused on the music. I just love his first impression of the group, when they come in for their second recording session (he missed the first, but another 17-yr-old engineer told him he had to see these guys). Geoff's impression is like, "Those clothes! Those accents! That long hair!?!? Who are these guys?" :D "One of them is really skinny and has a black eye; the drummer doesn't seem to know the songs." I mean, this is just hilarious stuff if you know your Beatles history, and know all about the Pete Best replacement. Just delightful.
But even then, the band's charisma was going full force. Geoff noted the Beatles were wearing skinny ties; the next week there are skinny ties all over EMI studios. Even when they were Liverpool scruffs with nothing really going for them but attitude, they had "it"-- whatever that elusive "it" is that later had millions emulate them. But the young engineers were the first converts. ;D
Fave moment: Geoff tells a wonderful story of the day they recorded "She Loves You". I'd never heard about the chaos during that recording; it's worth picking up the book just to read that chapter (I got mine out of the library; I only buy the book if I can't live without it). ;)
Just a warning: Geoff is a big Paul fan, so you'll get a lot of nice Paul stories on into Wings. The other Beatles are treated less kindly. As one of the reviewers on Amazon said (paraphrasing), "Geoff didn't get to become great friends with the Beatles, and seems to have taken it personally." Only Paul ever reached out to him, so Geoff only really warmed to him. Despite being a George fan myself, I found the book entertaining and engrossing because of its unique viewpoint. It's definitely worth a read. Cheers!
Yes, it does seem that Paul can do no wrong in GEs eyes, to such a degree that it makes me wonder how accurate some of his descriptions are.
One of the most surprising things I read was how he seemed to feel that George was a mediocre guitarist, couldn't get his leads down, was flubbing up a lot, and had to be "rescued" often by Paul, or George Martin's overdubs. I have a hard time believing all that, but hey, Paul did do the lead on Taxman (George's song, of course), Emerick says it's because George couldn't get it down correctly even after lots of practice!
The flip side of that is when he is complimenting one of the other three for some studio heroics, it probably did happen!
Nevertheless, it is a GREAT read (I got it for Christmas), and I'm just so happy I read it.
-
[...]
One of the most surprising things I read was how he seemed to feel that George was a mediocre guitarist, couldn't get his leads down, was flubbing up a lot, and had to be "rescued" often by Paul, or George Martin's overdubs. I have a hard time believing all that, but hey, Paul did do the lead on Taxman (George's song, of course), Emerick says it's because George couldn't get it down correctly even after lots of practice!
[...]
I like George a lot but I believe that this could be true :-/ ... Paul helped them a lot improving their own parts from the very begining ... I can remember some examples: Paul giving John the clue for his guiding vocal in Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite or arranging drums for Ticket To Ride (George's guitar part on it too) ... and many others (apart from almost everything for his own songs) ... George was a great guitarist and composer but he was the youngest too and was learning through the 60s while he was giving the best of himself 8)...
-
Yay, a discussion of George the guitarist! As some of you know, I have been making this my special field of study lately, to my increasing joy and satisfaction. :)
As I mentioned in another post, I have become a Simon Leng groupie. His book, While my guitar gently weeps: the music of George Harrison is just spectacular. He really knows his musical history and the different skills that are required for composing different styles of music. Other music theorists, feel free to join in, but my answer to both Raxo and Alexis would be to read this Q&A by Leng. This is the article that spurred me to buy the book, and I'm very glad I did:
http://www.riprense.com/simonlengq&a.htm
Scroll down to the middle, below the "George is flying" picture, and you'll find the two questions most relevant to this discussion.
Additionally, if you believe Rolling Stone, then Paul playing the lead on Taxman was a compromise. George wanted the band to play his song, so they (Paul, John, and George Martin, who all had veto power over George's compositions) said sure, but Paul wanted to play lead. John liked to play lead as well on occasion, as it made a nice change for him, although he never pretended to be as good a guitar player as George. Paul often liked to play all the parts himself; I think he's the one who most under-valued George's abilities. (His comments regarding "Free As a Bird" indicate that he never did realize that George had any particular talent, even though George for decades had been sought out by other bands to add his unique signature style to their records. "It'll sound like My Sweet Lord," was his self-proclaimed initial reaction, until he heard what George did and realized that people considered the solo one of the strengths of the song.)
I think George's playing was excellent for when the group started; reputedly he was one of the most fluid and adaptable guitar players around. He could play the country & western licks, ballads, rock-n-roll-- anything but blues, basically, which was not in his background. Then the "hero" style of guitar playing came into vogue in the mid-sixties. Paul was eager to jump on this bandwagon, but George was not a virtuoso player, he was a melodist. The current fad did not play to his strengths. He did develop his own completely unique rock-n-roll slide method later on, but he was blind-sided by the new trend because he had a different background. It's not that George was "learning to play" in the Beatles-- he never would have held his place in the ambitious young band if so. It's that the world changed, and his style of playing was (for a few years) not as fashionable. Ironically, his thoughtful melodies stand up well over the decades, whereas people tired of the "hero soloist" fairly quickly.
Also, I think it's a little unfair to criticize George for being "slow". When Paul and/or John wrote a song, they worked on it an average of 3 hours--typically at John's house, in the afternoon, on a completely different day. They then brought that composition into the studio, and George had to develop his parts cold while the band worked out the arrangement. He never had the luxury of hearing the tune before that moment or knowing what the authors wanted until they demoed their already-thought-out work to the band. If he'd heard the tune the night (or week) before, as the authors did, he certainly could have been mulling approaches. As it was, he had to be brilliant off-the-cuff and on tape-- a much harder proposition, if you ask me. So if it took him 8 hours *gasp* to develop and learn the world's first-ever completely backwards guitar solo (and play it identically twice, because they double tracked it)... well, that just doesn't seem to me to be a horribly long amount of time, considering the classic nature of what he constructed cold upon one hearing.
-
Unforunately, I've never rated George that highly. He wrote some good songs (I'm only talking Beatle days here), but I believe that if I was hanging out with the two best writers in the business and only had to come up with a couple of songs a year I would have been alright. But then again, L&M would have overshadowed most people, and he was always being squeezed out by them, so he's in a bit of a no-win situation.
I'm no guitarist, so I find it hard to judge. The only reference point I can use is that when George isn't playing lead no one really notices (it's only when you read it in a book you go "oh, THAT was Paul!). That can't be good. And when almost every other guitarist went bluesy in the late 60's it seems George couldn't follow. But harihead has adressed that. Maybe it would have been different if he had become infatuated (like his peers) with John Mayall instead of Ravi Shankar. Did George take the wrong turn?
I think that old rock'n'roll maxim that an artist's true worth is judged by their third album is interesting. The 1st is generally good because it contains all the songs they've saved over the years (ATMP).The 2nd is generally OK because it's Album One Part 2, (LITMW). But the third is the real acid test - the artist normally has to come up with a whole bunch of new material and a new direction - the public won't accept Album One Part 3. And unfortunately George comes up with Dark Horse. And really, in the general publics eye, he never came back as a solo artist.
-
[...] Other music theorists, feel free to join in, but my answer to both Raxo and Alexis would be to read this Q&A by Leng. This is the article that spurred me to buy the book, and I'm very glad I did:
[url]http://www.riprense.com/simonlengq&a.htm[/url][...]
[...] It's not that George was "learning to play" in the Beatles-- he never would have held his place in the ambitious young band if so. It's that the world changed, and his style of playing was (for a few years) not as fashionable. Ironically, his thoughtful melodies stand up well over the decades, whereas people tired of the "hero soloist" fairly quickly. [...]
Thanks for the link, harihead, wonderful article! :)
It seems somehow that Leng agrees about George "learning through the 60s" ;):
"Leng: I think you are right. George reached an important peak as a finger guitar player around 1969
-
I'm no guitarist, so I find it hard to judge. The only reference point I can use is that when George isn't playing lead no one really notices
This sounds like the debate I had with my drummer friend who was vigorously defending Ringo! :D I think we all have our prejudices about what we listen for in a song. For me, the drumming just doesn't stand out, so I take Ringo's contribution to the Beatles more lightly. As a guitarist, I can play the chords for any John or Paul tune; very nice melodies, and I enjoy them. I wish I could play more George music, but I can't. My fingers won't bend that way! I think part of our appreciation is what we know.
Really neat list of 3rd albums, Raxo. I just love it. :D
in the general publics eye, he never came back as a solo artist.
I do agree with this, and I think it's a shame. George wrote many lovely and enjoyable tunes throughout his life, but he gave up on promoting them, so very few people have heard his solo work. It's painful watching these retrospective tributes, because the commentators all struggle to find "hits" from George's later work. His best work isn't top 40 type stuff.
other three had to develop their own parts in the sudio too (and there were a few cases when they didn't include a guitar solo at all) and they used to do this quickly
I won't argue that Paul was a faster solo writer than George. All the evidence backs this up. George's preferred method was to mull, to find the melody within the chords and tease out a second melody line that would compliment the song. Paul had the gift of writing melodies almost instantly in his head.
The point Leng was trying to make was, Who cares how many minutes it took for a solo to be constructed? We hear it forever after in its finished form; do we care if it was composed in 20 minutes or 4 hours? Is it a better solo because it was written more quickly? Our only effective measurement is how much we enjoy the song after it's complete.
The point I was trying to make is that even this so-called "long" period to develop something that will endure (in the Beatles' case) for decades is not very long. I'm a muller in my creative process as well. I often have good ideas or insights overnight. I rely on my subconscious process. I love exploring different people's creative processes. I really enjoyed reading about how Paul and John would develop songs. I just get a little weary of George getting knocked because we have such a fascination with quickness in our culture that we can't appreciate any other creative method.
As to your side remark, "Eric also played the solo on Something" -- if Eric did lay down a track, it was not used on the recording. Geoff in his book describes how George laid down a new version of the solo live while the orchestra was playing (they only had one track left to use, so the two instrument pieces had to be recorded simultaneously). In one of Geoff's rare moments of (eventually) appreciating George, he writes (paraphrasing), "Oh, crud, this is going to take all night, the orchestra costs a fortune, he'll screw it up..." yadda yadda yah (Geoff's usual commentary regarding George). To Geoff's surprise, George is completely calm and pulls off this stunningly beautiful solo that is note perfect in time with the orchestra. They did 2 takes, I believe, although I'm not sure which take is used.
See, it's just a different way of working. George developed his solo, practiced it, and went in to do it again. Geoff didn't hear any difference in the notes; he felt that George wanted to redo it simply because he felt he could express more emotion. Considering the success of the song, I'm going to applaud George's intuition on that one. :)
-
I'm not a guitarist, but one thing that has always caught my attention is that George had such "clean"-sounding notes - pure, intense, not like his fingers are half-on / half off the notes. Off the top of my head one of the best examples I can give of this is his solo (right after John's) in Yer Blues. Such control!
Yeah, he wasn't a guitar god in the sense of flash, show, and heroic solos, as one of the above threads mentioned. But I also definitely agree with the above poster that his guitar, understated but melodic and precise, was exactly what the Beatles needed. And he could rock it out ... how about his work on Sgt Pepper reprise - loud, distorted, CLEAN, and exactly what the song wanted!
For another example of not-flashy-but-perfect-for-the-song guitar from George (again, just off the top of my head, I know you guys can come up with better ones) how about his his work on "When I'm 64". It's so smooth it's almost smarmy, sort of like he's actually making fun of Paul by pretending to be a Las Vegas lounge act guitarist!
Of course, all this talk about George's guitaring doesn't address his amazing ability to sing harmony. Yeah, it wasn't the lead, or even the almost as prominent "lower" harmony, but his subtle (again!) middle harmony completed the Beatles vocal sound in the early days - think "This Boy", "All My Loving", and a billion others.
Though I am way over the top regarding John (and then Paul), I definitely have no trouble at all saying - "Go George, go!".
-
I think that George had the same time to develop his guitar part for the song as Ringo or even Paul/John (depending of who was the composer in each ocassion) ... and that they all had to experiment with the song ... Can't Buy Me Love or I'll Be Back are early examples that we know thanks to the Anthology I ...
[...]George wrote many lovely and enjoyable tunes throughout his life, but he gave up on promoting them, so very few people have heard his solo work. It's painful watching these retrospective tributes, because the commentators all struggle to find "hits" from George's later work. His best work isn't top 40 type stuff. [...]
Couldn't agree more, harihead ... the best example could be Gone Troppo: he refused to promote it and it was a failure in sales terms but it includes 3 (out of 10) songs that were good enough to be in his Best of Dark Horse 1976-1989 ... as many songs as Cloud Nine (that it's one of his 4 best albums) ... that has to mean something for sure! 8)
Contributions:
Thirty Three & 1/3 (1 song)
George Harrison (3 songs)
Somewhere in England (2 songs)
Gone Troppo (3 songs)
Cloud Nine (3 songs)
[...]
As to your side remark, "Eric also played the solo on Something" -- if Eric did lay down a track, it was not used on the recording. Geoff in his book describes how George laid down a new version of the solo live while the orchestra was playing (they only had one track left to use, so the two instrument pieces had to be recorded simultaneously). In one of Geoff's rare moments of (eventually) appreciating George, he writes (paraphrasing), "Oh, crud, this is going to take all night, the orchestra costs a fortune, he'll screw it up..." yadda yadda yah (Geoff's usual commentary regarding George). To Geoff's surprise, George is completely calm and pulls off this stunningly beautiful solo that is note perfect in time with the orchestra. They did 2 takes, I believe, although I'm not sure which take is used.
See, it's just a different way of working. George developed his solo, practiced it, and went in to do it again. Geoff didn't hear any difference in the notes; he felt that George wanted to redo it simply because he felt he could express more emotion. Considering the success of the song, I'm going to applaud George's intuition on that one. :)
Thanks for that info, harihead :) ... now I'm confused and interestied, it's not that I believe in that post I copied talking about Eric and Something but I would love to be able to read/listen to that interview where George said that it was Eric ... I'm patient, but I wish I can read/listen to it soon ...
[...]Though I am way over the top regarding John (and then Paul), I definitely have no trouble at all saying - "Go George, go!".
In my case it has to be: Go, John, go!!!! ... and Go, Paul, go!!!! ;D
-
For another example of not-flashy-but-perfect-for-the-song guitar from George (again, just off the top of my head, I know you guys can come up with better ones) how about his his work on "When I'm 64". It's so smooth it's almost smarmy, sort of like he's actually making fun of Paul by pretending to be a Las Vegas lounge act guitarist!
I think George is a great guitarist and was great in the Beatles.
But it's a bit depressing to find out that he didn't do ALL those great solos.
Taxman, for example, but also Good Morning Good Morning.
And the example you give of When I'm 64, according to Ian McDonald, it wasn't George but John!
-
I think George is a great guitarist and was great in the Beatles.
But it's a bit depressing to find out that he didn't do ALL those great solos.
Taxman, for example, but also Good Morning Good Morning.
And the example you give of When I'm 64, according to Ian McDonald, it wasn't George but John!
Oh my goodness, these things are MORE than a bit depressing. Can I just pretend I never read them?
(... though the off-the-cuff comment I made (above) of the solo being a spoof on Paul might actually hold water if it was John doing the solo :) )
-
Sorry, alexis, didn't mean to depress you in that way.
Cheer up.I think your avatar is really good!
-
[...]
Cheer up.I think your avatar is really good!
How? I don't believe you! :P ;D
-
Sorry, alexis, didn't mean to depress you in that way.
Cheer up.I think your avatar is really good!
Thanks for the buck up, zipp :) I'll just go to youtube to watch some early live shows, it'll all be OK!
And thanks for the avatar comment ... right back atcha! :)
-
-
The whole George guitar playing thing in Emerick's book was very interesting. I was surprised at how incompetent he made George seem. But then he also made John look very technically challenged, incredibly moody, and overly eccentric as well. It seemed like John didn't understand how anything worked and had not patience or interest in ever finding out and that he was nasty and inconsiderate one minute and a sweet angel the next. Paul on the other hand seemed to be able to accomplish everything with ease, had all the groundbreaking ideas, and was always friendly and accommodating no matter what the situation. This somehow made me question Emerick's perception on things. He also made Ringo out to be unfriendly and sort of underhanded. Now either Paul is the real genius behind the Beatles and an all around great guy that guided the others in such a way that he alone should be credited with making them the biggest band in the world, or Geoff's opinion on the four guys is somewhat tainted by his friendship with the McCartney. All I'm saying is that I'm not sure his memory of things is totally accurate.
-
Your skepticism puts you in fine company, Sandra. I like how this review sums it up at Amazon.com:
Less remarkable are Emerick's personal recollections of the band members. He concedes the group never really fraternized with him
-
I think most people say the same thing about John and his moods. I think Emerick was probably pretty accurate in describing him in that respect, but I don't think he was as ignorant in the studio as he made him seem. He probably just didn't communicate well in the way Geoff was used to. Lennon was coming from a creative standpoint and Emerick more technical. John obviously knew what he was doing but didn't care to sit there explaining it in a way an engineer could understand it.
-
I think Paul was most interested when it came to studio things. He was willing to learn and might have been to one with whom Geoff had most contact at the time. That could have influenced Geoff's perception of things
-
Interesting, let's see:
John's 3rd solo album: we can consider that it was Sometime In New York City (1972)
Paul's 3rd solo album: we can consider that it was Wild Life (1971)
George's 3rd solo album: we can consider that it was Dark Horse (1974)
... not exactly good examples of their solo career, I think, but which one was the best!!! ::) ... if it's unfair for John's and Paul's why not for George's? They all released better albums before and after that 3rd album!!! :-/
But I agree with Kevin: the 3rd album can be seen as the real test for most of the artists! ;)
Dang. I knew someone would do that. It's not a golden rule of course, but George's situation is a little different. Prior to ATMP he had been a song-here song-there kinda guy. It really was his first real effort as a recording artist, while G & P were already established recording artists. (make sense?).
But I'm sure there are plenty of instances where the 3rd album blues doesn't apply, but you can see their point.
As for which is the best? STINYC for me. It's a musical powerhouse, and the lyrics are OK by me. Poor John - it was supposed to be his maesterwerk wasn't it? I think he just totally misjudged his audience, who wanted nice Beatley songs.
-
Half of the album is credited to ... Yoko!!!(except in 4, she's included in all of the tracks credits ... John and Yoko copying Paul and Linda?) :P
Woman Is The black person (Lennon-Ono)
Sisters O Sisters (Ono)
Attica State (Lennon-Ono)
Born In A Prison (Ono)
New York City (Lennon)
Sunday Bloody Sunday (Lennon-Ono)
The Luck Of The Irish (Lennon-Ono)
John Sinclair (Lennon)
Angela (Lennon-Ono)
We're All Water (Ono)
Cold Turkey (Lennon)
Don't Worry Kyoko (Ono)
Well ... (Baby, Please Don't Go) (Ward)
Jamrag (Lennon-Ono)
Scumbag (Lennon-Ono-Zappa)
Au (Lennon-Ono)
Anyway, the "3rd album" rule, with these three? artists, only makes clear which are their worst mainstream works ever! ;D
-
I don't think [John] was as ignorant in the studio as he made him seem. He probably just didn't communicate well in the way Geoff was used to. Lennon was coming from a creative standpoint and Emerick more technical. John obviously knew what he was doing but didn't care to sit there explaining it in a way an engineer could understand it.
I'm agreeing with Sandra and Bobber about this. I think Paul really was more interested in techy stuff. As he and George were both producing other artists, it served them to learn the lingo. John just didn't care to learn that particular part of it. He would say, "Make me sound like the Dalai Lama singing from a mountaintop," as opposed to, "Let's distort that by 47 microdecibels and retard the applification curve, all right?" ;D
-
It's amazing how George couldn't play a note in the studio.....
Huh? I hope, in some way, I am taking this out of context.
-
Interesting discussion. I think Paul was definately the techy one. There are many more pictures of Paul behind the mixing desk. And even when they're all there, Paul's the one looking interested. I don't think George was a great guitarist, and I never have. He was competent, but I don't think he ever really progressed much technically, which is maybe why he developed his slide style more after the break up. John was a better musician than many people give him credit for. He even played lead on many songs that people think is George. And I have to say, I'm more a George fan than a John fan!
-
[...]He was competent, but I don't think he ever really progressed much technically, which is maybe why he developed his slide style more after the break up. [...]
George discovered slide guitar in December 1969 (or that it was he usualley said) ... above I posted three links from one 1990 interview and where he told how it all was at that time: sitar-guitar-slide ... and a lot about their famous guitars and songs too ... quite interesting, in my opinion!!!:
[...]
These other three are interesting links too (in the 3rd one George explains that he was into sitar and tried to bet back to the guitar when there were a lot of guitar heroes)
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q7Z6VzSjuI[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJgineevJDA&mode=related&search=[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIip0blvNAo&mode=related&search=[/url]
[...]
[...]And I have to say, I'm more a George fan than a John fan!
Yep, I usualley try to be fair to them and I can agree with you here! :P
-
Off-topic somehow but harihead, what does Leng's book says about the inspiration for Isn't It A Pity?
[...]
These other three are interesting links too (in the 3rd one George explains that he was into sitar and tried to bet back to the guitar when there were a lot of guitar heroes)
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q7Z6VzSjuI[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJgineevJDA&mode=related&search=[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIip0blvNAo&mode=related&search=[/url]
[...]
In the 3rd link, George said tht he somehow composed it because of Patti (amazing moment when Eric was asked about his songs about Patti!!!)
-
I think George is totally underrated as a guitarist--he was doing a pretty good Eddie Cochran/Chet Atkins licks in England when very few of the natives had mastered that sound (and coming up with original parts for original songs--when you watch the Sullivan shows there's as much applause for George's solos as the Little Richard "woooos").
Technical expertise on an instrument is one thing. Thinking melodically can be another. George was no shredder, but the little flamenco run on The White Album ain't no amateur. George is really nice in coming up with contrapuntal stuff on the guitar parts/chord patterns.
And Your Bird Can Sing is an amazing part--was in 1966, is today. Maybe it took him a couple takes to record it, but I'd take it over all the noodley mush you hear people rave about.
I think Geoff Emerick was a good engineer, but no producer. I know he's got grammies and worked with Nelly McKay, but he's bland if you ask me. He produced Elvis Costello's "Imperial Bedroom" which is an almost great album, but too "overlush" for my taste. I wonder how George Martin would have done it. With a lot more taste?
If you look at Geoff's recording career, he's worked mostly with lightweight "pop" groups, not serious artists like John Lennon. I wonder if he ever really got Lennon, or George for that matter.
And if Ringo don't like you, mate, maybe there's something with you.
-
I really enjoyed reading about how Paul and John would develop songs. I just get a little weary of George getting knocked because we have such a fascination with quickness in our culture that we can't appreciate any other creative method.
I don't think Emerick ever "knocks" George because of the amount of time he took creating and playing his solos. He simply reports that it often did take quite a bit of time (at least in the early days) and that this would sometimes provoke some eye-rolling from Paul (who was always ready to show up GH in the studio), John (who was always impatient, period), and George Martin (who was always cognizant of the clock ticking and, in the early days at least, how much money it was costing for studio time). I think a lot of people are mistaking Emerick's dispassionate commentary and (from his perspective) truthful reporting of Harrison's abilities and demeanor as "knocking." If you read his book closely, you will se that he actually rarely expresses a negative opinion of Harrison at all, other than to state that he found him to be "furtive" and "suspicious"... and to admit honestly that, as a result, the two of them never had good chemistry together. GH mellowed out tremendously after he discovered Indian music and the Beatles decided to stop touring, which he hated, and Emerick points this out too. To me, one of the most interesting things about the book is that it allows us to witness, up close, the maturing of Harrison, from a wet-behind-the-ears 19-year old kid learning his craft to a seasoned, talented songwriter and guitarist... and the way he wins Geoff over as those talents blossom and his personality mellows.
...Geoff in his book describes how George laid down a new version of the solo live while the orchestra was playing (they only had one track left to use, so the two instrument pieces had to be recorded simultaneously). In one of Geoff's rare moments of (eventually) appreciating George, he writes (paraphrasing), "Oh, crud, this is going to take all night, the orchestra costs a fortune, he'll screw it up..." yadda yadda yah (Geoff's usual commentary regarding George). To Geoff's surprise, George is completely calm and pulls off this stunningly beautiful solo that is note perfect in time with the orchestra.
That is a completely inaccurate characterization. He doesn't write anything such thing, even in paraphrase. Here is EXACTLY what Emerick says, in total, about George's playing on that session:
"The only hitch came when George Harrison announced that he wanted to redo the guitar solo on 'Something.' We were perfectly willing to accommodate him, but the problem was that there was only one track available, and we needed to use it for the orchestra. The only solution was for him to play it live, right along with the orchestra, so we could record them simultaneously. I was enormously impressed when he nonchalantly said, 'Okay, let's do that' -- it took a lot of nerve and self-confidence to be willing to put himself under that kind of pressure. George had to play the solo correctly all the way through, without punch-ins, because the sound coming from his guitar amp would leak onto the other mics, and he wouldn't get a lot of whacks at it because it was costing quite a lot to have that orchestra there. But he managed to play the intricate solo with ease, and by the end of the long night both his songs were completed and ready to be mixed."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't a single negative characterization there, only sheer admiration.
-
The whole George guitar playing thing in Emerick's book was very interesting. I was surprised at how incompetent he made George seem. But then he also made John look very technically challenged, incredibly moody, and overly eccentric as well. It seemed like John didn't understand how anything worked and had not patience or interest in ever finding out and that he was nasty and inconsiderate one minute and a sweet angel the next. Paul on the other hand seemed to be able to accomplish everything with ease, had all the groundbreaking ideas, and was always friendly and accommodating no matter what the situation. This somehow made me question Emerick's perception on things. He also made Ringo out to be unfriendly and sort of underhanded. Now either Paul is the real genius behind the Beatles and an all around great guy that guided the others in such a way that he alone should be credited with making them the biggest band in the world, or Geoff's opinion on the four guys is somewhat tainted by his friendship with the McCartney. All I'm saying is that I'm not sure his memory of things is totally accurate.
Or perhaps his opinion was simply formed by a professional admiration for Paul's skills in the studio and his unquestioned ability as their chief arranger and the bandmember most interested in the recording process. I honestly don't think their friendship had all that much to do with Emerick's view on things... unless you're suggesting that authors never say anything nice about people unless they are friends with them. Emerick has plenty of positive things to say about all the Beatles, and George Martin, and Linda McCartney, and even Yoko, in his book but he never claims to have been friends with all of them.
That having been said, of course nobody's memory of things is always totally accurate, especially of events that occurred decades before. But I noted that most if not all of Emerick's assistant engineers were interviewed for the book, which makes me think that his version of events is probably a collective recollection, and therefore probably pretty darn close.
-
I think George is totally underrated as a guitarist... George was no shredder, but the little flamenco run on The White Album ain't no amateur.
Actually, that little flamenco run wasn't played by any of the Beatles -- it's a single note on the mellotron, one of their stock tapes.
And Your Bird Can Sing is an amazing part--was in 1966, is today. Maybe it took him a couple takes to record it, but I'd take it over all the noodley mush you hear people rave about.
Actually, those guitar parts were played simultaneously by John and George, and since it's his song, I'd be willing to wager that it was Lennon who came up with it. That said, I agree with your assessment -- it's a great part and it's superbly played by the two of them.
I think Geoff Emerick was a good engineer, but no producer. I know he's got grammies and worked with Nelly McKay, but he's bland if you ask me. He produced Elvis Costello's "Imperial Bedroom" which is an almost great album, but too "overlush" for my taste. I wonder how George Martin would have done it. With a lot more taste?.
Emerick's never done much production, which is, I am sure, by choice. But obviously Elvis Costello was extremely pleased with the job Emerick did on "Imperial Bedroom" -- he says as much in the sleeve notes and in the Foreword he wrote for Geoff's book -- and the proof is that Emerick was invited to produce a second EC album, "All This Useless Beauty." So I guess his work was done to Elvis's taste, if not yours. :)
If you look at Geoff's recording career, he's worked mostly with lightweight "pop" groups, not serious artists like John Lennon. I wonder if he ever really got Lennon, or George for that matter.
Ummm, I guess you don't consider Jeff Beck a "serious artist"? Or the Mahavishnu Orchestra? Or Elvis Costello? Or Nellie McKay?
And if Ringo don't like you, mate, maybe there's something with you.
I presume you mean something wrong with you. Where did you hear that Ringo doesn't like Emerick? He hired him to record his first solo album, and then hired him again years later to mix "Vertical Man," and has worked with him (quite happily, from all accounts) on various McCartney solo projects and on the Threetles releases "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love."
I know I'm a new member here, and I don't mean to be butting in (I actually really love this board, and have a lot of respect for its members), but I believe in setting the record straight and I don't believe in false rumors or mischaracterizations. Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion of Emerick's book (personally, like many of you here, I loved it) or anything else but if you're going to be telling us you dislike something for whatever reason, at least get your facts straight.
-
Damn you, jt10824, you've got me because you've obviously read the book and I haven't! ;D
Seriously, though, I appreciate your point-by-point critique. Very enlightening. I didn't realize that was a mellotron on the white album.
I guess my problem with Imperial Bedroom is as much with some of the songs as the production (that seem Toby-Mug Paul: "And in Every Home" and "Boy with a Problem" compared to classics like "A Man out of Time" and "Beyond Belief"). I've got All This Useless Beauty, and have forced myself to listen to it, but it just hasn't stuck with me.
As far as facts go, I've found they are seldom straight. Somebody's subjective memory has to record them one way or another. But as Gertrude Stein once wrote a mellotron is a mellotron is a mellotron.
-
Actually, that little flamenco run wasn't played by any of the Beatles -- it's a single note on the mellotron, one of their stock tapes.
[...]
Seems to be so ...
http://www.beatletracks.com/barchive/bungalow.html
Welcome to the forums, jt10824 ... hope you'll enjoy them! :)
-
I always thought it wasn't any of The Beatles playing that.
-
But as Gertrude Stein once wrote a mellotron is a mellotron is a mellotron.
Was that Gertrude Stein? I always thought it was Noel Coward. ;D
-
No, I believe Noel was the one who originally wrote an obscure cha-cha "She Loves You (Yes, Yes, Yes)" which the thieving Beatles made a hit out of.
-
No, I believe Noel was the one who originally wrote an obscure cha-cha "She Loves You (Yes, Yes, Yes)" which the thieving Beatles made a hit out of.
Did he write that too? I knew he wrote "I'll Get You" (I'll get you / in the end) for the Fabs.
-
I've heard that Noel was considered as a replacement for John after John said he was quitting in "69." Paul thought they could just stick a beatle wig on the clever wordsmith--plus some granny glasses--and the world wouldn't know the difference. They had a whole "When I'm 64" song and dance gag routine worked out.
Now that's entertainment!
In fact, you can hear the reference in "Let it Be" to Charles Hawtrey, Noel's mentor on the British stage. Lennon was so drugged up by this time that Noel was there off camera, feeding him lines.
Paul, in fact, was so enamored of the quick-witted and quicker-writing Noel that he even considered making his first solo album to be a Noel Coward tribute, featuring the George Martin Paul McCartney Orchestra. But the whole thing was scotched when an exasperated Noel insisted that Liverpool Paul take lessons in proper English pronunciation. In fact, a conniption fit probably led to Coward's death in 1973. Heartbroken, Paul wrote the elegaic "Live and Let Die" as a tribute.
Paul later did complete a song for a 1980s Coward tribute. But the world has only a glimpse of what might have "been" (rhymes with "seen").
-
The Geoff Emerick book has just been released in paperback! :) Only about ten bucks on Amazon...
http://www.macca-central.com/macca-news/morenews.php?id=2382
-
Didn't get it for Xmas...Thats me finally convinced...Just ordered thanks JT
-
Gotta look into this. Thanx!!!!!!!!!! ;)
-
8)
George discovered slide guitar in December 1969 (or that it was he usualley said) ... above I posted three links from one 1990 interview and where he told how it all was at that time: sitar-guitar-slide ... and a lot about their famous guitars and songs too ... quite interesting, in my opinion!!!:
Yep, I usualley try to be fair to them and I can agree with you here! :P
George is Very Underrated as a Slide guitarist,imo. No Ry Cooder, but Great. .
-
To me, one of the most interesting things about the book is that it allows us to witness, up close, the maturing of Harrison, from a wet-behind-the-ears 19-year old kid learning his craft to a seasoned, talented songwriter and guitarist... and the way he wins Geoff over as those talents blossom and his personality mellows.
Hi, JT. What a lovely response! Thanks to your tip, I have just ordered the book from Amazon. My memory does vary from yours in how Geoff presents certain incidents. After the book arrives, I'll review the part about the Something solo and see if I can pinpoint what it was that struck me in that passage. My usual habit is to read the book from the library first, and if I like it, then order it. So I didn't have the book handy when I wrote my post. I hope my impressions will be more favorable the second time around. I did enjoy the book, and found it to be one of the most readable ever published on the Beatles.
Welcome to the forums! I'm quite new myself, and I really enjoy it here. I find you can have actual discussions as opposed to one-line responses, which appeals to me. Sorry for the late reply, but I was traveling and only recently returned home. I'm still catching up. Cheers!
-
OT:
Off-topic somehow but harihead, what does Leng's book says about the inspiration for Isn't It A Pity?
In the 3rd link, George said tht he somehow composed it because of Patti (amazing moment when Eric was asked about his songs about Patti!!!)
Hi, Raxo! Sorry for the late response (see note to JT above). Leng does not speculate as to the inspiration here. He describes the song as George's "very personal reaction to emotional stress" and "a shared sigh." No speculations as to origin; sorry!
-
OT:
Hi, Raxo! Sorry for the late response (see note to JT above). Leng does not speculate as to the inspiration here. He describes the song as George's "very personal reaction to emotional stress" and "a shared sigh." No speculations as to origin; sorry!
Have you taken a look at the clip where George says Patti could have been the inspiration for Isn't It A Pity? I think those 3 links (interview) is quite funny and interesting: look at George's face when Eric is asked about Patti, it's priceless!!! ;D
-
Book finally arrived like 2 minutes ago...Also bought the deal off Amazon where you get 'All You Need is Ears.' Got some fun reading for a while. ;)
-
My Geoff book is still in the mail. :( I have an assignment to reread it as quickly as possible to brush up my comments on this thread!
Ah, An Apple Beatle, you fell for the 'All You Need is Ears' deal. Good for you! I hovered over that deal for minutes, and finally decided against it, mostly because it didn't seem I would save any money through it, and I hadn't read Martin's book yet. Would you be kind enough to tell me how well you like the Ears book? If it's really a must-have, I shall have to acquire it on some future shopping trip. Cheers!
OT to Raxo: I saw the Japan interview with Eric and George before and really enjoyed it, but it's hard to find a Harrison interview I don't enjoy. I particularly liked the discussion of guitars at the end. Cheers!
-
My Geoff book is still in the mail. :( I have an assignment to reread it as quickly as possible to brush up my comments on this thread!
Ah, An Apple Beatle, you fell for the 'All You Need is Ears' deal. Good for you! I hovered over that deal for minutes, and finally decided against it, mostly because it didn't seem I would save any money through it, and I hadn't read Martin's book yet. Would you be kind enough to tell me how well you like the Ears book? If it's really a must-have, I shall have to acquire it on some future shopping trip. Cheers!
Just read the first chapter of All You Need Is Ears and i feel like George Martin is talking to me! heheh
So far so good. Will keep you posted...thought I'd read THE masters words before the engineers. lol
...
-
I read "All You Need Is Ears" years ago and I really enjoyed it. Actually, I think both books are terrific, and it's really cool to see the two (really only very slightly) different points of view from two of the key guys in the studio with the Beatles. Emerick's book goes into considerably more detail and I think is more engrossing but I'll bet you'll like reading both of them. BTW, Sir George goes out of his way to say some very nice things about Geoff in the new issue of MOJO.
-
Thanks, guys! Good on Sir George. :)
-
I read the book, and enjoyed it. I thought it was a little slanted, though, because Geoff had a good friendship with Paul, so he sings the praises for him. He didn't get along with George Harrison, therefore George was a bumbling idiot.
I took everything he said about George with a grain of salt, mainly because I know George was a lot better than Geoff gave him credit for.
-
^I cannay argue with that comment. Very interesting read though and comes good on his comments about George by the end...To the point where he suggests George H as the finest producer of all Beatles, towards the end and in the immediate years after The Beatles split.
I really liked reading Emericks career path and landing the job of a lifetime...It's a fresh perspective to read and helps tie in the pockets of knowledge stored up in the ol grey matter from other sources. Also, because I get to play the tunes quite a bit myself, I really enjoy confirming or correcting my thoughts on songs constructions and the other many factors that caused their existence.
Both books were good. Theres a funny story where Paul was threatened by Fela Kuti in Africa when recording at an 'AIR' studio. Fela was protecting his style from commercialism. lol
-
My Uncle is giving me his copy. He reads a book and is done, I on the other hand have a small library of books. So, I can't wait to read this one. My Uncle said as some of you have said, he says Geoff seems to favor Paul. Looking forward to getting it.
-
My Uncle said as some of you have said, he says Geoff seems to favor Paul.
"seems" is too mild a word. Geoff adores Paul. That's fine, but he goes out of his way to diss the other Beatles, which gets very wearing. I have to say, I enjoyed the book on first reading. It was lovely to get a fresh viewpoint. His story about recording "She Loves You" is worth the price of the book.
-
I've read it a few times and it gets better each and every time.
-
So nobody was put off by the constant errors and made-up stories? I winced through the part in which he fabricated a microphone being wrapped in a condom for underwater recording (Ken Scott has a whole anti-Emerick's-book dissertation on his website -- I've pasted his comments below -- and he maintains that it was a plastic bag, as all other accounts have it), and suffered with a mere laugh through the erroneous "memory" of Paul screwing up the vocals in "Hey, Jude" and yelling "F#@kin' hell!" for all to hear on one of the low backing tracks (we actually hear John swearing -- this is in the final verse, before the big "nah" section). But I finally gave up and threw the book in the trash in a disgust I reserve for opportunists when I encountered the bit with the invented story about recording Paul outside Abbey Road for the master take of "Blackbird" and managing by sheer luck to capture a nearby bird's chirping. Give us a break, Emerick.
To recommend an alternative, a good "producing the Beatles" book is All You Need Is Ears by George Martin. Also, http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/ will blow your mind (and possibly hurt your wallet; you've been warned!).
Speaking of warnings, below are Ken Scott's comments (grammatically edited). You might want to skip them if you don't want to be bummed about Emerick's book, as I don't wish to burst any pleasure bubbles if you're not as picky as some of us.
--------------------
Being one of the few who got to see the Beatles record, up close and personal, I have always been bothered by the many people who disseminate false stories, always for a fast buck or some kind of ego boost. I have been waiting for someone with credentials - like Geoff Emerick - to come out, finally, with the true story. When his Here, There and Everywhere was announced, I was so happy. The truth would be told, finally.
I was in for a big disappointment. I was one of the people interviewed for Geoff's book, as were many other former Abbey Road employees. We all came to understand that these interviews were arranged because he had very little recall of those days, and his co-author would use our memories to become Geoff's stories.
Now, after reading his book, I KNOW how little he remembers. It appears that we, the interviewees, didn't give enough, because much of the book is based on clearly fabricated stories -- things he made up to fill out the book. A good example is the detailed recollection of the overdub session he worked on for "Misery." However, in an interview in 2003, with Ken Michaels, Geoff was quoted as saying: "I was informed the other day, and couldn't remember it, that 'Misery' was the first track that I was actually present on." Amongst these stories are many things that could be proven untrue by astute Beatles fans, and things easily shown to be false by those who were there.
Taken as single points, it is easy to say "so what"; but when one turns into two, two turns into one hundred, etc., the veracity of everything comes into question. Unlike any other band, the Beatles are now part of history -- and it is my feeling that their history should be told correctly. As part of that history, Geoff did AMAZING work recording them; but if one can't remember or take the time to double-check the facts, DON'T WRITE A BOOK.
There are many errors in this book, some small, others not; so I offer the following examples only as an insider's starting point:
1) The book claims, on Page 108, that Geoff was the first engineer to be given the job before the age of 40. Amongst our teachers/mentors were Peter Bown, Stuart Eltham, Malcolm Addey and Peter Vince. These four pop engineers were ALL promoted before they were 40.
2) It claims that he was the first engineer to record a sitar at Abbey Road, on Page 137. However, it was not Geoff who recorded "Norwegian Wood," done the year before he first recorded the Beatles.
3) On Page 257, it states how early on John wanted a rawer sound for the White Album, and yet on Page 264, it says that they came up with that idea as an -excuse- for the roughness much later.
4) The story is told about how they recorded "Blackbird" OUTSIDE the EMI studio at night, with birds chirping in the background. When mixing this song, the only bird sounds present were from an EMI sound effects tape (Paul and I put the sounds there) -- and, interestingly, there were no traffic noises, plane sounds or any other sound one would expect recording outside on a "soft summer eve."
5) Paul's middle section on "A Day In Life" was there from Take 1. It was not edited in later, as is claimed on Page 149.
6) On 31st July, 1968, "Hey Jude" was recorded at Trident Studios: at that time, the only studio in London to have an eight-track machine, which was the very reason the Beatles chose to go to a virtually unknown and untested studio rather than one of the more well known studios. "Every major studio" certainly did not have an eight-track in 1967, as is claimed on Page 199.
7) Page 11 states that John showed he accepted Geoff by asking if he had heard the new Tiny Tim record - before it had been recorded and at least a year before it was released.
8 ) Supposedly, according to Page 300, George recorded the "Something" solo at the same time, and on the same tracks, as the strings. Then why is it that on the track lineup, it shows orchestra on tracks 3 & 4 and main guitar solo on track 1 ? Also, if isolated, the solo on the 5.1 version has no sign of an orchestra.
9) And last but not least, page 218: Many times over the years, I have told the story of how Keith Moon was leaving the studio car park, after playing tympani on "Old Man River" on the first Jeff Beck Group album, Truth -- and when confronted by an elderly St. Johns Wood resident walking her dog, he used his car's built in P.A. system to tell her to "F*#! off." Complaints to the studio ensued. This is the first I have heard that such a surprisingly similar incident occurred with John!
Again, these are but a few of the MANY problems. Since copies of this book leaked out, there has been a movement from fans and EMI employees past and present; all are shocked at what Geoff is purported to say in this book, as SO much of it is untrue. There are long lists of factual errors being compiled around the world to be released when the book is published. (The last list I saw was well over 100 errors, and climbing as more people have read the book.)
In his defense, I must say it is likely that Geoff did not write much of this book at all; it is a creation of co-author Howard Massey. Much of it is misleading "creative" writing (such as his word-for-word recreations of something said casually over 40 years ago?) and elaborations on Mark Lewisohn's Sessions book, all done to "fill in" the memory of Geoff Emerick.
I cannot bring this missive to an end without mentioning the book's relentless tirade against George Harrison. As a second engineer, I was on more Beatles sessions than Geoff, and saw none of the problems talked about constantly. Sadly, George is not in a position to defend himself today. I think I know what his reaction would have been anyway. Mine is utter disgust.
This book is NOT accurate, it is not the truth, and does not deserve to be supported. It is very damaging to the good reputations of such people as George Harrison, George Martin, John Lennon, Chris Thomas, Ringo Starr, Phil McDonald and the list goes on.
-
Thanks for that Chris. The Blackbird story is outrageous, it couldn't possibly be true. How does he expect to get away with stuff like that, when the recording sessions have been so well documented? It's a shame that a man of his past standing feels that he has to resort to fiction in order to enhance his reputation.
-
Chris, thank you so much for that post. I was deeply troubled by some of the things in Geoff's book because it didn't seem to match what I was hearing on record or reading in other accounts that I considered reliable, but I thought, "Geoff was there, he must have some special insight." So it's helpful to know that his special insight was other people's memories and a ghost writer. Do you know where I can find the complete list of errors that has been compiled about this book? I'd really like to see it.
Cheers, and thanks again!
-
d threw the book in the trash in a disgust I reserve for opportunists when I encountered the bit with the invented story about recording Paul outside Abbey Road for the master take of "Blackbird" and managing by sheer luck to capture a nearby bird's chirping. Give us a break, Emerick.
To recommend an alternative, a good "producing the Beatles" book is All You Need Is Ears by George Martin. Also, [url]http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/[/url] will blow your mind (and possibly hurt your wallet; you've been warned!).
O got both quite cheap on a combined deal at Amazon. Thanks for the extra insight though. legacies....lol
-
I've just ordered this & i can't wait to read it! :o :)
-
Thanks for taking all that in the spirit of accuracy; I was worried that I might bum everyone out and come off as a spoilsport, especially considering that I'm new here.
I've done a few searches, and any list of errors I've found matches Ken's essay, so I suppose those are the only truly significant ones. I can't find a separate "complete list of factual mistakes" online. Perhaps the book's an enjoyable read once you know what not to believe. :)
-
Taking everything with a grain of salt is required for reading any book about famous people. As the Beatles themselves once said: nothing is real. Okay, I wouldn't go that far, but you get the point.
-
Go to the window.
-
How is it that Ken Scott must be correct, and Emerick must be wrong? I don't understand why some people take what Scott is saying as gospel, when it's just as likely (probably even more likely) that it's HIS memories that are inaccurate -- in fact, he's admitted frequently that he's got a bad memory, and cites that as the reason why he himself hasn't written a book. So if his memory is that poor, how can he possibly know what really happened better than Emerick does?
Personally, I see his public attacks on his former colleague as the rantings of someone who's bitter that Emerick wrote a book and is finally getting some of the recognition he's been denied all these years. Nobody else from Abbey Road -- not George Martin, not Norman Smith, not any of Geoff's former assistants, have registered any complaints about Emerick's book. And many of Scott's gripes are in fact untrue -- for example, the book never says that Emerick was the first engineer over 40 to be promoted. And just because the story about the mic in the condom has been cleaned up to become a "mic in a plastic bag" over the years doesn't mean it didn't happen exactly the way Emerick described. I loved the fact that he was willing to tell the truth!
Mark Lewisohn's excellent "Recording Sessions" book fully documents which Abbey Road engineers were on which sessions, and if you look at it you'll see that Geoff Emerick engineered many, many more Beatles sessions than Ken Scott ever did. In fact, the only albums Ken Scott ever engineered were part of the White Album and part of Magical Mystery Tour, so I would think that Emerick has much greater insight into how the band worked than Scott does. Emerick also worked with them over a longer period of time -- from 1962 right up to the end in 1969 -- while Scott only ever had contact with them for three years, and only ever engineered for them for a year. Add to that the fact that the Beatles asked Emerick back to record Abbey Road (and not Ken Scott) and I definitely smell the odor of sour grapes. It's no surprise to me that Scott's "list of 100 errors" was never published anywhere -- I doubt it ever existed.
Regarding the Blackbird story, it's worth noting that Emerick recorded the track, while Scott only mixed it. Emerick never says in his book that the take he recorded outside with Paul was the master take, and even if it was (which, since he didn't mix it, he wouldn't have any way of knowing), he never makes the claim that all, or even most, of the bird noises came from that live recording -- in fact, he specifically says that Paul and Ken Scott overdubbed them afterwards.
My opinion is that Ken Scott is full of hot air. And even if there are some errors in Emerick's book -- like every book ever published -- who cares? I thought it was a great read and provided great insights from someone who was actually there, and actually there for most of their career, not just one or two albums.
-
Hi, JT. I don't think anyone is taking what Ken Scott says as "gospel". It is true that every personal accounting should be taken with a grain of salt, and intelligent readers do that.
Take a look at Ken's blog and form your own opinion of his veracity and motives:
http://komosproductions.com/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=47&m=200603
He can state his own argument for you to mull at your leisure. He also says somewhere that a number of errors were corrected in the paperback version (which is the one that I own), so if you own that version, that might be why you don't find some of the errors that were originally on the list. Cheers!
-
One thing is for sure.Emerick says he was there when George Martin told Paul to sing lead vocal on Love Me Do instead of John who was busy on the harmonica.
If you listen to the Anthology version of this song you can already hear Paul's vocal.Unfortunately for Emerick this early version is from June 62 and he says himself that he wasn't at that session.So he couldn't have been there when Martin made his suggestion!
I'm not saying the book is all wrong, but it sure ain't all right!
-
Any book like that needs to go into some detail in order for it to become interesting for the reader. Now, unless you keep a fairly detailed diary, how the hell is anyone going to remember something from 5 years ago, let alone 45! These 'facts' can only be substantiated by others that were present at the time, and as they all seem to disagree with each other I can't really take any of them seriously.
Personally, I'm not interested in wasting my time reading something that may, or may not be true. These books are meant to be factual, but if I can't be sure whether Ken's version of events is more accurate than Geoff's, then what's the point? I'm none the wiser, at the end of the day.
-
I have read Ken Scott's blog, and that's where I formed the opinion that he's a bitter man with ulterior motives -- jealousy, mostly -- and full of hot air. In his rant, he takes the position that he, and only he, knows the truth about what happened during Beatles sessions (even, supposedly, those that occurred long before he started working at Abbey Road, and long after the group canned him), and that's nonsense. Again, nobody else from those days has challenged the veracity of Emerick's book. IMO, the vicious way that Scott attacked a respected former colleague in public was incredibly distasteful, and I can well understand why the group chose never to work with him again after the White Album (though he did work on some of Harrison's solo work after they split up). As I said, Mark Lewisohn's book proves that Ken Scott had a whole lot less to do with the Beatles than Geoff Emerick did. That's why I mostly believe Emerick over Scott.
Of course, every memoir (in fact, every work of non-fiction) should be taken with a grain of salt -- that goes without saying. No one can remember with complete objective accuracy what happened yesterday, much less forty-plus years ago. But to argue that you won't "waste your time" reading a book that isn't 100% accurate -- and no book is, not even Mark Lewisohn's -- is to argue that nobody should ever read ANY book, period, which is a pretty silly position to take.
As a Beatle fan, I got a lot out of Emerick's book -- a lot of insight into how these four guys worked together and interacted with one another, as seen through Emerick's eyes. And beyond the fact that it was a great read, I think Emerick was a lot more forthcoming about them -- showing them as human beings, warts and all -- than many other similar books, so it was a valuable use of my time, making me indeed "wiser, at the end of the day."
We mustn't forget that all of these issues and stories are in shades of gray, not black and white. For example, the Love Me Do story cited by zipp. Yes, Emerick does tell an anecdote about George Martin suggesting that Paul sing the lead at the September session, and the Anthology release does show that Paul sang lead on at least one take at the June session. But that doesn't prove that Emerick was wrong. I think it's just as possible that in the intervening three months, the Beatles went back to having John sing lead (he was, after all, the most assertive in the band and it's entirely plausible that he instructed the others to ignore Martin's suggestion as soon as they left the confines of the studio) and that that's the way they again presented the song in September. I'm not saying that's the way it happened, just that it's the way it COULD have happened. So Emerick might be right about that, just as he might be right about many of the other stories in the book that some fans are so adamant he is wrong about.
-
Of course, every memoir (in fact, every work of non-fiction) should be taken with a grain of salt -- that goes without saying. No one can remember with complete objective accuracy what happened yesterday, much less forty-plus years ago. But to argue that you won't "waste your time" reading a book that isn't 100% accurate -- and no book is, not even Mark Lewisohn's -- is to argue that nobody should ever read ANY book, period, which is a pretty silly position to take.
The difference with Lewisohn's books being that any factual errors are accidents, and not put there to enhance his reputation. I haven't read George Martins' book, but I would rather read that than two books by people who just seem to want to outdo each other
-
Rather than taking Ken's personal opinions as "gospel," what he wrote correlated with all of the relevant information that was published before Here, There and Everywhere -- whereas a lot of things that Geoff put in his book did not. I think Ken was questioning the motives of hiring a ghost writer, rather than personally attacking anyone. In fact, he takes pains to compliment Geoff's involvement with recording history at large.
I suppose the clearest way of approaching it would be somewhere between our over-pedantism and jt10824's over-rationalizing...as I said, perhaps the book's more fun to read once you begin with a wariness about factual accuracy. I'll never know, but just because I'm not interested doesn't mean I'd recommend that others think like I do. It should be added, however, that not only Ken criticized the factual aspects of Geoff's book. There were so many irked Beatles fans that a list of errors was compiled. Where that list is, I don't know....Ken doesn't offer a link, which is perhaps his concession to manners.
-
The difference with Lewisohn's books being that any factual errors are accidents, and not put there to enhance his reputation. I haven't read George Martins' book, but I would rather read that than two books by people who just seem to want to outdo each other
1. How do you know that any factual errors in Emerick's book were put there to "enhance his reputation" and were not accidents also? Why is it that Mark Lewisohn gets the benefit of the doubt but Geoff Emerick doesn't? This is exactly what I'm talking about: the idea that Ken Scott (and all the people who buy his nonsense without questioning it) has to be right and Emerick has to be wrong. I don't get it.
2. What two books are you talking about? Emerick is the only Beatles engineer who's taken the trouble to write one and share his reminiscences with us fans. Ken Scott says he won't write a book because his memory is too poor. Why are we supposed to believe the memories of someone with a poor memory, as opposed to someone who says his memories of Beatles sessions are "vivid"?
-
Rather than taking Ken's personal opinions as "gospel," what he wrote correlated with all of the relevant information that was published before Here, There and Everywhere -- whereas a lot of things that Geoff put in his book did not. I think Ken was questioning the motives of hiring a ghost writer, rather than personally attacking anyone. In fact, he takes pains to compliment Geoff's involvement with recording history at large.
I suppose the clearest way of approaching it would be somewhere between our over-pedantism and jt10824's over-rationalizing...as I said, perhaps the book's more fun to read once you begin with a wariness about factual accuracy. I'll never know, but just because I'm not interested doesn't mean I'd recommend that others think like I do. It should be added, however, that not only Ken criticized the factual aspects of Geoff's book. There were so many irked Beatles fans that a list of errors was compiled. Where that list is, I don't know....Ken doesn't offer a link, which is perhaps his concession to manners.
So it isn't possible that Emerick may be shedding new light on sessions he personally was part of, versus accounts given by people who weren't there? Isn't it possible that some of the "relevant information that was published before Here, There, and Everywhere" was incorrect? Mark Lewisohn's book corrected a lot of previously held misconceptions and people by and large accepted those as objective truth, although he himself wasn't at the sessions -- all he had to go on were tape boxes, session sheets, and the enviable opportunity to listen to the tapes. Much of what Lewisohn presents in his book in fact is supposition based on those limited resources... which doesn't make it any less of a valuable addition to the wealth of Beatles knowledge.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not knocking Mark Lewisohn or his fantastic book, but as he himself has admitted, he was reliant on very limited resources and second-hand memories from various people... including Geoff Emerick. In fact, if you read the two books, you'll find a lot of correlation between the two, raising the odds that both Lewisohn and Emerick are giving us the facts. The difference is that Emerick was able to adorn the facts with personal anecdotes, since he was actually there for a lot of these recordings.
Once again, I'm not saying Ken Scott was the ONLY person on the planet who had complaints about Emerick's book. What I am saying is that he was the only Abbey Road employee or member of the Beatle's inner or outer circle who complained about it -- loudly and publicly. That indicates to me that his attacks were personally motivated, borne of jealousy, and are therefore to be dismissed.
And once again, there was no such list of errors compiled, at least not that I've been ever able to find, other than Ken Scott's rantings. You can be sure that if there was such a list, he would be the first person to post it on his website... which tells me there never was such a list. Perhaps you are confusing things with the Bob Spitz book, where there were so many obvious and egregious errors that lists were indeed published and disseminated widely online. Spitz was also graceless enough to attack Beatles fans for their actions, something I personally find unforgiveable. Emerick, in contrast, did no such thing... in fact, he was such a gentleman that he refused to even attack Ken Scott, even to the point where he said that if Ken ever did write a book, he would defend Scott's right to share his memories as he recalls them.
And, btw, there was no "ghost writer" on Emerick's book, as Ken Scott likes to claim. Emerick's co-writer (Howard Massey) is clearly credited, right on the front cover, and he's someone with impeccable journalistic credentials. Massey's previous book "Behind The Glass" is an industry staple, a book that is required reading in most recording schools, which lends it (and him) even more credibility.
-
So it isn't possible that Emerick may be shedding new light on sessions he personally was part of, versus accounts given by people who weren't there?
Sure. Anything's possible. Possible doesn't mean likely, so one defines his own yardsticks regarding how to judge something that's been called into question. In this case, it's only a book; none of us were there at the time, so each new offering to the canon offers a choice between accepting it or eschewing it. Nobody's calling you "wrong" because you like the book, but by the same token, their own reasons for not liking it shouldn't automatically be attacked. We're all different.
Isn't it possible that some of the "relevant information that was published before Here, There, and Everywhere" was incorrect?
Certainly, but in the cases in which other Abbey Road employees (and even Beatles themselves) have offered relevant quotes, as opposed to third-party authors, wouldn't you consider those among the most weighty? The "Blackbird" sound-effects tape usage, for instance, was corroborated by Paul himself (in Many Years From Now). So Paul + Ken seems to be a paradigm in support of the sound-effects tape, whereas Geoff's story about the live bird outside the studio represented the first appearance -- ever -- of such an idea. Further logical weight is added to Ken's words when he asks why there isn't any traffic noise, etc. These criteria are the sorts by which some have judged Geoff's book unreliable. Would you call these people "personally motivated attackers"?
And once again, there was no such list of errors compiled, at least not that I've been ever able to find, other than Ken Scott's rantings.
I'd love evidence of this. It would help my future comments, if I were called upon to make any.
And, btw, there was no "ghost writer" on Emerick's book, as Ken Scott likes to claim.
I'd also appreciate hearing your criteria for turning this theory into fact. Mark's book and Geoff's share a lot of dates because Howard took a lot of information from Mark's book, so it's no wonder they match up. This is a theory of many, and I'd be interested to hear how you feel that your theory holds more water than that one. As I said, everyone's approach is different, and everyone's entitled to his own way of looking at new additions to the Beatles story. I do appreciate your thoughtful comments.
-
Nobody's calling you "wrong" because you like the book, but by the same token, their own reasons for not liking it shouldn't automatically be attacked.
I am most certainly not attacking anyone for not liking the book. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. What I am attacking is the idea that anything Ken Scott says in opposition to Geoff Emerick must be automatically correct, and that Emerick must be automatically wrong. To me, Scott's motivations are obvious... and they're pretty nasty.
The "Blackbird" sound-effects tape usage, for instance, was corroborated by Paul himself (in Many Years From Now). So Paul + Ken seems to be a paradigm in support of the sound-effects tape, whereas Geoff's story about the live bird outside the studio represented the first appearance -- ever -- of such an idea. Further logical weight is added to Ken's words when he asks why there isn't any traffic noise, etc. These criteria are the sorts by which some have judged Geoff's book unreliable. Would you call these people "personally motivated attackers"?
Again, what you (and Ken Scott) keep conveniently leaving out is the fact that Emerick specifically says in his book that most of the bird noises were added on afterwards by Paul and Ken, taken from a library tape (or record). And, again, Emerick never claims that the live take he did with Paul outside, in the alleyway by the echo chamber, was the master take -- he wouldn't have any way of knowing that. Even if it was, do I choose to believe the words of someone who admittedly has a "poor memory" when he says there was no traffic noise on the tape? Ken Scott hasn't heard that tape since he mixed it in 1968. Are we supposed to believe that he remembers clearly exactly what ambient noises were on the tape? Personally, I think that's stretching it.
I'd love evidence of this. It would help my future comments, if I were called upon to make any.
You'd love evidence of what? You want me to somehow prove to you that no such list was ever published??
I'd also appreciate hearing your criteria for turning this theory into fact.
Turning what theory into fact? Emerick had a co-writer, not a ghost-writer. That's a fact, not a theory. Emerick's book closely correlates with Lewisohn's. That's a fact, not a theory. And why shouldn't they? They're both talking about the same sessions, after all.
-
Nobody's calling you "wrong" because you like the book, but by the same token, their own reasons for not liking it shouldn't automatically be attacked.
I am most certainly not attacking anyone for not liking the book. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. What I am attacking is the idea that anything Ken Scott says in opposition to Geoff Emerick must be automatically correct, and that Emerick must be automatically wrong. To me, Scott's motivations are obvious... and they're pretty nasty.
The "Blackbird" sound-effects tape usage, for instance, was corroborated by Paul himself (in Many Years From Now). So Paul + Ken seems to be a paradigm in support of the sound-effects tape, whereas Geoff's story about the live bird outside the studio represented the first appearance -- ever -- of such an idea. Further logical weight is added to Ken's words when he asks why there isn't any traffic noise, etc. These criteria are the sorts by which some have judged Geoff's book unreliable. Would you call these people "personally motivated attackers"?
Again, what you (and Ken Scott) keep conveniently leaving out is the fact that Emerick specifically says in his book that most of the bird noises were added on afterwards by Paul and Ken, taken from a library tape (or record). And, again, Emerick never claims that the live take he did with Paul outside, in the alleyway by the echo chamber, was the master take -- he wouldn't have any way of knowing that. Even if it was, do I choose to believe the words of someone who admittedly has a "poor memory" when he says there was no traffic noise on the tape? Ken Scott hasn't heard that tape since he mixed it in 1968. Are we supposed to believe that he remembers clearly exactly what ambient noises were on the tape? Personally, I think that's stretching it.
I'd love evidence of this. It would help my future comments, if I were called upon to make any.
You'd love evidence of what? You want me to somehow prove to you that no such list was ever published??
I'd also appreciate hearing your criteria for turning this theory into fact.
Turning what theory into fact? Emerick had a co-writer, not a ghost-writer. That's a fact, not a theory. Emerick's book closely correlates with Lewisohn's. That's a fact, not a theory. And why shouldn't they? They're both talking about the same sessions, after all.
-
For example, the Love Me Do story cited by zipp. Yes, Emerick does tell an anecdote about George Martin suggesting that Paul sing the lead at the September session, and the Anthology release does show that Paul sang lead on at least one take at the June session. But that doesn't prove that Emerick was wrong. I think it's just as possible that in the intervening three months, the Beatles went back to having John sing lead (he was, after all, the most assertive in the band and it's entirely plausible that he instructed the others to ignore Martin's suggestion as soon as they left the confines of the studio) and that that's the way they again presented the song in September. I'm not saying that's the way it happened, just that it's the way it COULD have happened. So Emerick might be right about that, just as he might be right about many of the other stories in the book that some fans are so adamant he is wrong about.
No jt Emerick is making this up.
He says it was the FIRST time they'd played the song to Martin.
And he says the harmonica suggestion came from Martin, so they'd NEVER played harmonica on the song before!
This is obviously nonsense.
Now get me straight.I LIKE Emerick's book because he tells you what it was like to be in the studio with the Beatles.And I'm not intereseted in the Ken Scott debate.
But this and other factual errors are ridiculous.
-
No jt Emerick is making this up.
He says it was the FIRST time they'd played the song to Martin.
And he says the harmonica suggestion came from Martin, so they'd NEVER played harmonica on the song before!
This is obviously nonsense.
Now get me straight.I LIKE Emerick's book because he tells you what it was like to be in the studio with the Beatles.And I'm not intereseted in the Ken Scott debate.
But this and other factual errors are ridiculous.
Sorry, zipp, but this is by no means a definite "factual error," nor is it "obviously nonsense." With all due respect, that's simply your opinion.
First of all, Emerick never says that it was the first time they'd played Love Me Do to George Martin. He couldn't possibly know that, since he hadn't been at the June session (which he readily admits occurred months before he was even hired) and hadn't met either Martin or the group before. Sure, he may have gotten that impression, based on the conversation he recalls occurring between George M and Paul and John, but he never states it as absolute fact.
Secondly, there is considerable debate about just how much time George Martin actually spent in the studio during that first session in June. We do know that the session was "officially" produced by his assistant, Ron Richards, and there seems to be general agreement that Richards started the session in George Martin's absence, but no one seems to know for sure whether George was present at all during the recording, or whether he simply came by afterwards to have a listen to the playback and chat with the band. All we do know for sure -- assuming that the credits on Anthology are correct (and we have no reason to doubt that they are) -- is that Paul sang lead instead of John on at least one take of Love Me Do in June. Maybe it was Ron Richards who originally made that suggestion. None of us will ever know for sure, but I for one think that Emerick's version of how things went down at that September session is as plausible as any.
-
So you're saying George Martin didn't know the Beatles played Love Me Do in June.
He didn't know they played harmonica at that time.
That just by chance he suggested a harmonica on a song they'd already used harmonica on.
And that Paul is lying when he says George Martin asked him to sing the line solo for the first time, since he'd aleady done it in June without George Martin.
That's a lot to take just to accomodate Emerick's dubious version.
PS Would you like a factul error in the book?
Check out how old he says Epstein was when he died.
-
1. How do you know that any factual errors in Emerick's book were put there to "enhance his reputation" and were not accidents also? Why is it that Mark Lewisohn gets the benefit of the doubt but Geoff Emerick doesn't? This is exactly what I'm talking about: the idea that Ken Scott (and all the people who buy his nonsense without questioning it) has to be right and Emerick has to be wrong. I don't get it.
I don't know that they were put there to enhance his reputation. If someone is writing from their own memory, I assume it to be correct. Of course, if he's taken his information from someone, or somewhere else, then it could have been incorrect without him realising.
Lewison would have no motive for doing so. His job is as archivist and historian. And as one of, if not the most widely regarded expert on The Beatles recording career, I would assume that he wouldn't want to deliberately missleed.
-
So you're saying George Martin didn't know the Beatles played Love Me Do in June.
He didn't know they played harmonica at that time.
That just by chance he suggested a harmonica on a song they'd already used harmonica on.
And that Paul is lying when he says George Martin asked him to sing the line solo for the first time, since he'd aleady done it in June without George Martin.
That's a lot to take just to accomodate Emerick's dubious version.
PS Would you like a factul error in the book?
Check out how old he says Epstein was when he died.
I don't know exactly what happened, any more than you do. What I'm saying is that it's POSSIBLE that George Martin didn't make the original suggestion to play harmonica and that it's POSSIBLE that he never heard the take with harmonica on it, the one with Paul singing lead. We don't know how many takes they did of the song in June, whether George Martin was present for the recording of any of them, or which takes he heard played back. And it's equally POSSIBLE that when they got back together in the studio three months later, they played it for him without harmonica. Maybe he HAD heard the June take with harmonica and wanted them to do it the same way again, who knows. The point is that it's POSSIBLE that Emerick got it right, meaning that his version of events is not necessarily something to be dismissed as "ridiculous nonsense."
Regarding your example of a "factual error," the book says that Brian Epstein was 37 when he died. According to Wikipedia (not always the best source of objective information), Epstein was actually 36 years, 11 months, and 8 days old when he died. If you want to split hairs and say that made him technically 36, fair enough. Perhaps he (or his co-author) were just rounding up to the nearest year. But 23 days seems close enough to me.
Again, all of this is shades of gray, not black and white.
-
1. Maybe he HAD heard the June take with harmonica and wanted them to do it the same way again, who knows. The point is that it's POSSIBLE that Emerick got it right, meaning that his version of events is not necessarily something to be dismissed as "ridiculous nonsense."
2.Regarding your example of a "factual error," the book says that Brian Epstein was 37 when he died. According to Wikipedia (not always the best source of objective information), Epstein was actually 36 years, 11 months, and 8 days old when he died. If you want to split hairs and say that made him technically 36, fair enough. Perhaps he (or his co-author) were just rounding up to the nearest year.
1.Emerick doesn't say that! He doesn't say "Martin said 'Do it again like in June'."He says he witnessed Martin making the suggestion.
2.Brian Epstein was born 19 september 1934 and died 27 august 1967.
He was 32 years old when he died.
Thus the famous newspaper headline 'EPSTEIN (Prince of Pop) DIES AT 32'.
There are no shades of grey here.It's right or it's wrong and Emerick is wrong.
Not very convincing for a fact he could easily have checked.
-
Fine, okay, he was 32 (or nearly 33).
Doesn't change my opinion of the book as a good read and a valuable addition to any Beatles fan's library.
-
Doesn't change my opinion of the book as a good read and a valuable addition to any Beatles fan's library.
Indeed.
I agree completely.
-
Just got round to reading this (Im slow when it comes to books) ha2ha
Its a good read, he certainly does paint poor old George in a bad light as a guitarist
I never knew Paul played the lead on Sgt Pepper LHCB as apparently George couldnt get it right
anyway I recommend it, couldnt put it down actually
-
anyway I recommend it, couldnt put it down actually
I thought it was very good too. It was a while ago that I read it but one thing that stayed with me was the fact that he never was able to know John that well, despite all the time he worked with him. Social dynamics are an interesting thing. John was an interesting thing. ;)
On an unrelated note, I keep looking at your new avatar and wondering when that kid is finally going to break the vicious cycle that's going on. LOL
-
I thought it was very good too. It was a while ago that I read it but one thing that stayed with me was the fact that he never was able to know John that well, despite all the time he worked with him. Social dynamics are an interesting thing. John was an interesting thing. ;)
On an unrelated note, I keep looking at your new avatar and wondering when that kid is finally going to break the vicious cycle that's going on. LOL
He never learns Kelley ha2ha
As has been said its evident that he took to Paul and makes him the sort of unofficial musical director of the band which Im guessing in the later years was true
What struck me was how he mentioned Rubber Soul as a kind of poor relation LP, it hardly merited a paragraph, I know he didnt work on it, that was Norman Smith but many many Beatle fans have that & Revolver as the best 2
-
What struck me was how he mentioned Rubber Soul as a kind of poor relation LP, it hardly merited a paragraph, I know he didnt work on it, that was Norman Smith but many many Beatle fans have that & Revolver as the best 2
I guess maybe he didn't feel qualified to discuss it?
-
As has been said its evident that he took to Paul and makes him the sort of unofficial musical director of the band which Im guessing in the later years was true
It's interesting how your memory of events can be influenced by who you got along with and who you didn't. As you say, Emerick clearly got along well with Paul but didn't feel the same love from John and George. In Ken Scott's book he clearly got on best with George.
Love the new avatar btw KK
-
It's interesting how your memory of events can be influenced by who you got along with and who you didn't. As you say, Emerick clearly got along well with Paul but didn't feel the same love from John and George. In Ken Scott's book he clearly got on best with George.
Love the new avatar btw KK
haha
Theres no doubt in my mind that Paul was the most naturally gifted musician in the band.............as far as singing & songwriting, I put him and John on a par but in totally different ways, Paul could write the better melodies no doubt, John could write better lyrics and more artistic, groundbreaking stuff.
-
haha
Theres no doubt in my mind that Paul was the most naturally gifted musician in the band.............as far as singing & songwriting, I put him and John on a par but in totally different ways, Paul could write the better melodies no doubt, John could write better lyrics and more artistic, groundbreaking stuff.
Yep I agree. Paul had a natural facility. John was gifted in that weird way that isn't conventional but is more likely the one to come up with novel things. Although John had a natural musicality to him as well. It was rare to hear him slip out of tune in live performances for instance.
-
One of the standout bits in the book for me was when they heard John sing ADITL with that bit of tape echo, Geoff & George were both gobsmacked by how well he sang it, apparently they talked and enthused about it for a day or two
ohh and he states categorically that John sang the ahhh's after Pauls bit
-
ohh and he states categorically that John sang the ahhh's after Pauls bit
Oh god don't let's start that one up again!! 2ch
-
It was Paul
-
John Lennon in Playboy (1980): “I think that is one of George’s best songs, one of my favourites of his. I like the arrangement, the sound and the words. He is clear on that song. You can hear his mind is clear and his music is clear. It’s his innate talent that comes through on that song, that brought that song together. George is responsible for Indian music getting over here. That song is a good example.”
and yet Ive just read in Geoffs book that John & paul really didnt like it and were glancing at each other and doing some 'ok if we have too' noises
They tried to do Northern Song for Pepper but everybody thought it was really weak
Johns above statement makes you wonder if Geoff spouts crap in his book as has been said earlier in this thread, very anti George this book.
-
John Lennon in Playboy (1980): “I think that is one of George’s best songs, one of my favourites of his. I like the arrangement, the sound and the words. He is clear on that song. You can hear his mind is clear and his music is clear. It’s his innate talent that comes through on that song, that brought that song together. George is responsible for Indian music getting over here. That song is a good example.”
and yet Ive just read in Geoffs book that John & paul really didnt like it and were glancing at each other and doing some 'ok if we have too' noises
What song is that? The Inner Light? I read a quote from Paul on that song, saying something like 'forget about the Indian stuff and listen to the melody? Isn't it just lovely?'
They tried to do Northern Song for Pepper but everybody thought it was really weak
They were right.
-
John Lennon in Playboy (1980): “I think that is one of George’s best songs, one of my favourites of his. I like the arrangement, the sound and the words. He is clear on that song. You can hear his mind is clear and his music is clear. It’s his innate talent that comes through on that song, that brought that song together. George is responsible for Indian music getting over here. That song is a good example.”
and yet Ive just read in Geoffs book that John & paul really didnt like it and were glancing at each other and doing some 'ok if we have too' noises
They tried to do Northern Song for Pepper but everybody thought it was really weak
Johns above statement makes you wonder if Geoff spouts crap in his book as has been said earlier in this thread, very anti George this book.
Kev which song was John talking about in the Playboy interview?
It's so hard to tell with John. He blew hot and cold on so much Beatle stuff. Depended how much Yoko was whispering in his ear.
-
Oops sorry guys it was Within You Without You
-
Oops sorry guys it was Within You Without You
Ah ok. Did John and Paul even have any involvement? I thought it was George plus Indian musos
I doubt they were even there to roll their eyes. John usually frequented himself from George songs anyway.
-
Ah ok. Did John and Paul even have any involvement? I thought it was George plus Indian musos
I doubt they were even there to roll their eyes. John usually frequented himself from George songs anyway.
No I dont think they did
apparently they were interested in all the Indian muso's when the were in the studio and Rings was playing chess with Mal
These darn books eh, Geoffs book seems accurate when you read it but Ken Scott has rubbished a lot of it, Johns playboy comment seems at odds with Geoffs recollections also
-
No I dont think they did
apparently they were interested in all the Indian muso's when the were in the studio and Rings was playing chess with Mal
These darn books eh, Geoffs book seems accurate when you read it but Ken Scott has rubbished a lot of it, Johns playboy comment seems at odds with Geoffs recollections also
Well. No one in the 60s thought what they were doing was going to be picked over 50 years later. Remembering things in detail decades later must require a lot of revisionism in your own head. If people are treating you like the font of all wisdom you'd probably convince yourself you were certain of things you can barely remember.
-
Well. No one in the 60s thought what they were doing was going to be picked over 50 years later. Remembering things in detail decades later must require a lot of revisionism in your own head. If people are treating you like the font of all wisdom you'd probably convince yourself you were certain of things you can barely remember.
Geoffs book is a good read though, I dont like how he disses George so much , he comes over as having no real talent and the others just put up with him, Ringo comes over as a kind of session guy who has little or no opinion about anything and basically does what Paul tells him.
Paul & John usually give George a few goes at doing a solo and when he makes a mess, one of them does it as they get bored with him, in fact John hated Northern Song so much he didnt even bother turning up to play on it when it was being considered for Pepper, apparently everybody hated it, even Geoff, it just seemed to grate on everyone, take after take trying to make something of it.
-
Geoffs book is a good read though, I dont like how he disses George so much , he comes over as having no real talent and the others just put up with him, Ringo comes over as a kind of session guy who has little or no opinion about anything and basically does what Paul tells him.
Paul & John usually give George a few goes at doing a solo and when he makes a mess, one of them does it as they get bored with him, in fact John hated Northern Song so much he didnt even bother turning up to play on it when it was being considered for Pepper, apparently everybody hated it, even Geoff, it just seemed to grate on everyone, take after take trying to make something of it.
Yeah he seemed to be pretty jaundiced against him. And I think at that stage George still could be a bit clumsy with his leads. He did tend to learn note for note and try to get it perfect. Rather than improvise. But being too dismissive of him seems at odds with others recollections. While johns guitar playing is a bit underrated, I don't think anyone ever claimed he was a match for George on leads. He himself said he never did any leads George couldn't do better. And John wasn't exactly free with compliments. So the idea he'd step in when George couldn't get it seems unlikely. Paul by 66 had developed pretty well that sort of flashy style of solo. I thought his taking over as soloist on a few pepper tracks was more because that style suited some of the songs. And George was going through a disengaged phase trying to learn sitar.
Eric Clapton also clearly had lots of respect for George as a muso. And clappers wasn't easy to please.
I haven't read the book for a while but didn't Geoff acknowledge at one point that George had developed by the late 60s into probably the best producer of the four?
-
Yeah he seemed to be pretty jaundiced against him. And I think at that stage George still could be a bit clumsy with his leads. He did tend to learn note for note and try to get it perfect. Rather than improvise. But being too dismissive of him seems at odds with others recollections. While johns guitar playing is a bit underrated, I don't think anyone ever claimed he was a match for George on leads. He himself said he never did any leads George couldn't do better. And John wasn't exactly free with compliments. So the idea he'd step in when George couldn't get it seems unlikely. Paul by 66 had developed pretty well that sort of flashy style of solo. I thought his taking over as soloist on a few pepper tracks was more because that style suited some of the songs. And George was going through a disengaged phase trying to learn sitar.
Eric Clapton also clearly had lots of respect for George as a muso. And clappers wasn't easy to please.
I haven't read the book for a while but didn't Geoff acknowledge at one point that George had developed by the late 60s into probably the best producer of the four?
I havent got that far yet !
Im only up to Pepper, main points that leap out;
Johns personality has changed, he is now laid back, submissive, aggreable and generally easy to get on with, unlike the earlier impatient John who could bite your head off. (Drugs?)
Paul is the worker bee, it was during Pepper he started adding his bass lines last, so some days after the others left at 1 am or so he would stay to perfect his bass lines till dawn, keeping Geoff and Richard Lush there all night, George Martin would leave around midnight - tired
Paul also took advantage of Johns new attitude and become default Musical director, arranger, artistic developer of idea's and even possible producer.
Ringo sat in the corner with Mal & Neil playing chess and brewing tea
George seemed disinterested in the whole project and only became interested when working on WYAWY
-
ftp://
I havent got that far yet !
Well hurry it up Kev! We like your reviews. party2
-
I havent got that far yet !
Im only up to Pepper, main points that leap out;
Johns personality has changed, he is now laid back, submissive, aggreable and generally easy to get on with, unlike the earlier impatient John who could bite your head off. (Drugs?)
Paul is the worker bee, it was during Pepper he started adding his bass lines last, so some days after the others left at 1 am or so he would stay to perfect his bass lines till dawn, keeping Geoff and Richard Lush there all night, George Martin would leave around midnight - tired
Paul also took advantage of Johns new attitude and become default Musical director, arranger, artistic developer of idea's and even possible producer.
Ringo sat in the corner with Mal & Neil playing chess and brewing tea
George seemed disinterested in the whole project and only became interested when working on WYAWY
That's pretty consistent with stuff from anthology and other bios. John himself admitted he was taking a back seat. Came up with some terrific stuff for it though.
Though the image of him being docilely drugged doesn't always gel with interviews with him around that time. There's that quick one where he's caught going into abbey road. He's friendly lucid and positive. Talking about how he thinks the Beatles get along well and will probably always do stuff together.
The last gasp of pre Yoko John.
-
ftp://
Well hurry it up Kev! We like your reviews. party2
ok seeing as you insist ;D
Im up to the time of Brians death and the time they were working on songs for MMT and YS, incidentally according to Geoff the boys hated the idea of a cartoon film and wanted nothing to do with it, they threw some songs at it that they deemed were not worthy of other releases, thats why Northern Song and All Together Now ended up on there
Johns new song Across The Universe was supposed to be the B side of Lady Madonna but John didnt like his vocal sound so the song was shelved (apart from it being released on a charity album for WWF) Georges The Inner Light made the B side instead (Georges first song on a single)
It appears Geo Martin was very nonplussed with Johns new song Walrus and rolled his eyes when John demo'd it on acoustic, his words were "What do you expect me to do with that ?"
Geoff didnt like the statement and neither did John, it opened up a kind of riff between the boys and GM, they were all keen to work on it (including Geoff) but GM wasnt, he also hated You Know My Name and was dismissive of it
-
ok seeing as you insist ;D
Im up to the time of Brians death and the time they were working on songs for MMT and YS, incidentally according to Geoff the boys hated the idea of a cartoon film and wanted nothing to do with it, they threw some songs at it that they deemed were not worthy of other releases, thats why Northern Song and All Together Now ended up on there
Johns new song Across The Universe was supposed to be the B side of Lady Madonna but John didnt like his vocal sound so the song was shelved (apart from it being released on a charity album for WWF) Georges The Inner Light made the B side instead (Georges first song on a single)
It appears Geo Martin was very nonplussed with Johns new song Walrus and rolled his eyes when John demo'd it on acoustic, his words were "What do you expect me to do with that ?"
Geoff didnt like the statement and neither did John, it opened up a kind of riff between the boys and GM, they were all keen to work on it (including Geoff) but GM wasnt, he also hated You Know My Name and was dismissive of it
George M I think always kept in mind that the Beatles job was to create hit singles. We sometimes forget that, even after their huge success, there were always considerable demands on the Beatles from EMI to keep churning out product. I think GM was always mindful of spending time on things that didn't work toward that goal. I suppose I can see his point with You Know My Name. With I am the Walrus though it turned out to be one of John's best creations. Can't blame George for occasionally getting it wrong.
-
George M I think always kept in mind that the Beatles job was to create hit singles. We sometimes forget that, even after their huge success, there were always considerable demands on the Beatles from EMI to keep churning out product. I think GM was always mindful of spending time on things that didn't work toward that goal. I suppose I can see his point with You Know My Name. With I am the Walrus though it turned out to be one of John's best creations. Can't blame George for occasionally getting it wrong.
Ohh yes I agree, you cant blame him, but the overall outcome here was quite significant, the relationship changed after this, sessions where George wasnt present became more relaxed and even happier, Geoff and Richard were keen to experiment with things like Walrus and things that came after that, I think George made a mistake here, he owed all his mega success to 4 boys from Liverpool (and Brian) and seeing the success they had brought with outlandish stuff like Tomorrow Never Knows he shouldnt have given John short shrift, its interesting that this was a significant day in the relationship, the day John demo'd Walrus.
Its great this book :)
-
Ohh yes I agree, you cant blame him, but the overall outcome here was quite significant, the relationship changed after this, sessions where George wasnt present became more relaxed and even happier, Geoff and Richard were keen to experiment with things like Walrus and things that came after that, I think George made a mistake here, he owed all his mega success to 4 boys from Liverpool (and Brian) and seeing the success they had brought with outlandish stuff like Tomorrow Never Knows he shouldnt have given John short shrift, its interesting that this was a significant day in the relationship, the day John demo'd Walrus.
Its great this book :)
True. It's pretty telling that after the Beatles neither John nor George opted to work with GM again.
-
I've read the book several times, and have forgotten if I've commented on it. I liked it overall, but was very disappointed with how Ringo is treated. The problems GE had with Ringo's personality are fine, that's his experience of it - but he tends to really downplay him as a drummer imo. Ringo didn't even make the cover of the book!
*EDIT* I've been looking over the book again, and perhaps was a bit hasty about GE on Ringo's drumming. Maybe 'really downplay' wasn't the right choice of words, but I still don't think he receives enough credit for his brilliant playing.