Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[harihead]

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!

[zipp]

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!

[BlueMeanie]

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.

[jt10824]

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.

[BlueMeanie]

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

[Chris]

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.

[jt10824]

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"?  

[jt10824]

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.

[Chris]

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.

[jt10824]

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.

[jt10824]

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.

[zipp]

  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.

[jt10824]

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.

[zipp]

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.

[BlueMeanie]

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.

[jt10824]

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.  
  

[zipp]

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.

[jt10824]

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.

[zipp]

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.

[nimrod]

Just got round to reading this (Im slow when it comes to books) 

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