SOngs George Martin played on
-
moptops:
RMartinez:
moptops:
RMartinez:
BTW, George Martin never claimed to be the genius behind the Beatles and always gave them their due credit. But I agree with what Ian Macdonald wrote: "...there was no other producer on either side of the Atlantic then capable of handling The Beatles without damaging them - let alone of cultivating and catering to them with the gracious, open-minded adeptness for which George Martinis universally respected in the British pop industry." He was crucial in giving them their big break and in shaping their sound for recording, for how we listened to The Beatles and continue to do so.
This is common knowledge. I do disagree though that GM "never claimed to be the genius behind The Beatles." I'd also dispute the word "gracious" applied to GM in any sense.
Really? Based on what?
Just the way he's always hogged as much credit as he could. The man had a massive ego. Ron Richards and Norman Smith especially disregarded. Interviewed at a LOVE rehearsal once I think it was, when Smith's name was brought up, GM deadpanned, "I thought he was dead." Richard Lush (privately) tells stories that would have your jaw drop and eyebrows raised. There are numerous folks who worked with him who never even were mentioned or aknowledged by him: then or later. While his brilliance is not questioned his eagerness to take credit for as much as he could get away with is well known: by everyone who worked with him; even Geoff Emerick, perhaps his closest work partner. As a side issue much of what Emerick wrote in his book has been challenged by Ken Scott...but that's another story. GM's contribution was immense, but the others were just as innovative in the studio ...things like mic'ing intruments, studio set up, etc. Also if you revisit Lewisohn's Tune In, you'll find truths there that challenge GM's version of history apropos 1962 and EMI studios. I acknowledge GM's brilliance, his arrangements were flawless, he made possible the things The Beatles couldn't quite articulate in musical terms and he was the anchor who kept things sane in the studio. Without him there things got a bit chaotic (in an unproductive, not a productive way). Having a huge ego is not a crime. I just can't get past his refusal to share credit with his crew from 62 through 69.
Uh, ok Mops! There is always a team behind ANY successful artist or band, including a producer, engineers, roadies, promoters, managers, and so many more. The stardust makes it look like the artist just shows up and creates magic, which isn't the case, not even with the Beatles. Brian Epstein APPEARED to be quiet and humble, but to manage an act like the Beatles, likely had an ego and could hold his own with them. George Harrison may seem like the quiet one, and Ringo the affable one, but both had egos to almost match John and Paul and likely could handle either and did many times in a disagreement. Creative people tend to have exaggerated egos. You HAVE to in order to put your stuff out there for the world to criticize. No one is canonizing Martin. But he was crucial to the Beatles success, as were many people. Without Epstein and Martin, it is unlikely the Beatles would have been more than a Liverpool bar band that broke up in 1963. To that, if not for the Beatles, we would not know the names Brian Epstein or George Martin today.
-
RMartinez:
Uh, ok Mops! There is always a team behind ANY successful artist or band, including a producer, engineers, roadies, promoters, managers, and so many more. The stardust makes it look like the artist just shows up and creates magic, which isn't the case, not even with the Beatles. Brian Epstein APPEARED to be quiet and humble, but to manage an act like the Beatles, likely had an ego and could hold his own with them. George Harrison may seem like the quiet one, and Ringo the affable one, but both had egos to almost match John and Paul and likely could handle either and did many times in a disagreement. Creative people tend to have exaggerated egos. You HAVE to in order to put your stuff out there for the world to criticize. No one is canonizing Martin. But he was crucial to the Beatles success, as were many people. Without Epstein and Martin, it is unlikely the Beatles would have been more than a Liverpool bar band that broke up in 1963. To that, if not for the Beatles, we would not know the names Brian Epstein or George Martin today.
-
RMartinez:
favoritething:
RMartinez:
moptops:
RMartinez:
BTW, George Martin never claimed to be the genius behind the Beatles and always gave them their due credit. But I agree with what Ian Macdonald wrote: "...there was no other producer on either side of the Atlantic then capable of handling The Beatles without damaging them - let alone of cultivating and catering to them with the gracious, open-minded adeptness for which George Martinis universally respected in the British pop industry." He was crucial in giving them their big break and in shaping their sound for recording, for how we listened to The Beatles and continue to do so.
This is common knowledge. I do disagree though that GM "never claimed to be the genius behind The Beatles." I'd also dispute the word "gracious" applied to GM in any sense.
Really? Based on what?
I'd say he epitomizes grace. He was gracious in nearly every interview I've seen with him.
I agree.
More pomposity than grace I reckon.
-
RMartinez:
moptops:
RMartinez:
moptops:
RMartinez:
BTW, George Martin never claimed to be the genius behind the Beatles and always gave them their due credit. But I agree with what Ian Macdonald wrote: "...there was no other producer on either side of the Atlantic then capable of handling The Beatles without damaging them - let alone of cultivating and catering to them with the gracious, open-minded adeptness for which George Martinis universally respected in the British pop industry." He was crucial in giving them their big break and in shaping their sound for recording, for how we listened to The Beatles and continue to do so.
This is common knowledge. I do disagree though that GM "never claimed to be the genius behind The Beatles." I'd also dispute the word "gracious" applied to GM in any sense.
Really? Based on what?
Just the way he's always hogged as much credit as he could. The man had a massive ego. Ron Richards and Norman Smith especially disregarded. Interviewed at a LOVE rehearsal once I think it was, when Smith's name was brought up, GM deadpanned, "I thought he was dead." Richard Lush (privately) tells stories that would have your jaw drop and eyebrows raised. There are numerous folks who worked with him who never even were mentioned or aknowledged by him: then or later. While his brilliance is not questioned his eagerness to take credit for as much as he could get away with is well known: by everyone who worked with him; even Geoff Emerick, perhaps his closest work partner. As a side issue much of what Emerick wrote in his book has been challenged by Ken Scott...but that's another story. GM's contribution was immense, but the others were just as innovative in the studio ...things like mic'ing intruments, studio set up, etc. Also if you revisit Lewisohn's Tune In, you'll find truths there that challenge GM's version of history apropos 1962 and EMI studios. I acknowledge GM's brilliance, his arrangements were flawless, he made possible the things The Beatles couldn't quite articulate in musical terms and he was the anchor who kept things sane in the studio. Without him there things got a bit chaotic (in an unproductive, not a productive way). Having a huge ego is not a crime. I just can't get past his refusal to share credit with his crew from 62 through 69.
Uh, ok Mops! There is always a team behind ANY successful artist or band, including a producer, engineers, roadies, promoters, managers, and so many more. The stardust makes it look like the artist just shows up and creates magic, which isn't the case, not even with the Beatles. Brian Epstein APPEARED to be quiet and humble, but to manage an act like the Beatles, likely had an ego and could hold his own with them. George Harrison may seem like the quiet one, and Ringo the affable one, but both had egos to almost match John and Paul and likely could handle either and did many times in a disagreement. Creative people tend to have exaggerated egos. You HAVE to in order to put your stuff out there for the world to criticize. No one is canonizing Martin. But he was crucial to the Beatles success, as were many people. Without Epstein and Martin, it is unlikely the Beatles would have been more than a Liverpool bar band that broke up in 1963. To that, if not for the Beatles, we would not know the names Brian Epstein or George Martin today.
Well, most would probably be aware of George Martin even without The Beatles. His work prior to them would have guaranteed prominence (certainly in England and Australia). The vast populace might not have known his name but music nerds (of which I am one) still would have known of him and his work. Probably not in the USA. I do think folks are tending to canonizing GM. I tend to think the majority have a perception GM rocked in, took care of everything, every aspect, like a wizard waving his magic baton! And I think GM perpetuated that, orchestrated it (pun intentended) and revelled in it. Other than that there's nothing in the above reply I disagree with. The irony is his contribution to all the countless other acts he's produced were PROBABLY more directly one on one: producer to artist. The Fabs had a vast crew of folks (yes, under GM's auspices) DIRECTLY and REGULARLY assisting them HELPING TO SHAPE THE SOUND WE HEAR ON RECORD never given credit and yet we all know Brian, George Martin, Neil, Mal and Derek...and even Alf!!!
-
moptops:
RMartinez:
moptops:
RMartinez:
moptops:
RMartinez:
BTW, George Martin never claimed to be the genius behind the Beatles and always gave them their due credit. But I agree with what Ian Macdonald wrote: "...there was no other producer on either side of the Atlantic then capable of handling The Beatles without damaging them - let alone of cultivating and catering to them with the gracious, open-minded adeptness for which George Martinis universally respected in the British pop industry." He was crucial in giving them their big break and in shaping their sound for recording, for how we listened to The Beatles and continue to do so.
This is common knowledge. I do disagree though that GM "never claimed to be the genius behind The Beatles." I'd also dispute the word "gracious" applied to GM in any sense.
Really? Based on what?
Just the way he's always hogged as much credit as he could. The man had a massive ego. Ron Richards and Norman Smith especially disregarded. Interviewed at a LOVE rehearsal once I think it was, when Smith's name was brought up, GM deadpanned, "I thought he was dead." Richard Lush (privately) tells stories that would have your jaw drop and eyebrows raised. There are numerous folks who worked with him who never even were mentioned or aknowledged by him: then or later. While his brilliance is not questioned his eagerness to take credit for as much as he could get away with is well known: by everyone who worked with him; even Geoff Emerick, perhaps his closest work partner. As a side issue much of what Emerick wrote in his book has been challenged by Ken Scott...but that's another story. GM's contribution was immense, but the others were just as innovative in the studio ...things like mic'ing intruments, studio set up, etc. Also if you revisit Lewisohn's Tune In, you'll find truths there that challenge GM's version of history apropos 1962 and EMI studios. I acknowledge GM's brilliance, his arrangements were flawless, he made possible the things The Beatles couldn't quite articulate in musical terms and he was the anchor who kept things sane in the studio. Without him there things got a bit chaotic (in an unproductive, not a productive way). Having a huge ego is not a crime. I just can't get past his refusal to share credit with his crew from 62 through 69.
Uh, ok Mops! There is always a team behind ANY successful artist or band, including a producer, engineers, roadies, promoters, managers, and so many more. The stardust makes it look like the artist just shows up and creates magic, which isn't the case, not even with the Beatles. Brian Epstein APPEARED to be quiet and humble, but to manage an act like the Beatles, likely had an ego and could hold his own with them. George Harrison may seem like the quiet one, and Ringo the affable one, but both had egos to almost match John and Paul and likely could handle either and did many times in a disagreement. Creative people tend to have exaggerated egos. You HAVE to in order to put your stuff out there for the world to criticize. No one is canonizing Martin. But he was crucial to the Beatles success, as were many people. Without Epstein and Martin, it is unlikely the Beatles would have been more than a Liverpool bar band that broke up in 1963. To that, if not for the Beatles, we would not know the names Brian Epstein or George Martin today.
Well, most would probably be aware of George Martin even without The Beatles. His work prior to them would have guaranteed prominence (certainly in England and Australia). The vast populace might not have known his name but music nerds (of which I am one) still would have known of him and his work. Probably not in the USA. I do think folks are tending to canonizing GM. I tend to think the majority have a perception GM rocked in, took care of everything, every aspect, like a wizard waving his magic baton! And I think GM perpetuated that, orchestrated it (pun intentended) and revelled in it. Other than that there's nothing in the above reply I disagree with. The irony is his contribution to all the countless other acts he's produced were PROBABLY more directly one on one: producer to artist. The Fabs had a vast crew of folks (yes, under GM's auspices) DIRECTLY and REGULARLY assisting them HELPING TO SHAPE THE SOUND WE HEAR ON RECORD never given credit and yet we all know Brian, George Martin, Neil, Mal and Derek...and even Alf!!!
Fair enough!
-
I had no idea this guy was so crucial to the success of the Beatles!! http://cimg.tvgcdn.net/i/r/2012/08/09/a45fb16a-e10c-452d-8eb4-e7fe001df6e8/crop/660x494+0+0/thumbnail/350x262/c27ced3499ab418ef64ab9dbc8481368/120809alf1.jpg
-
RMartinez:
I had no idea this guy was so crucial to the success of the Beatles!! http://cimg.tvgcdn.net/i/r/2012/08/09/a45fb16a-e10c-452d-8eb4-e7fe001df6e8/crop/660x494+0+0/thumbnail/350x262/c27ced3499ab418ef64ab9dbc8481368/120809alf1.jpg
The truth finally comes out!
-
Oh God...I remember that show.
-
I refer to Alf Bicknell, of course.
-
moptops:
I refer to Alf Bicknell, of course.
We know! Their driver!
-
moptops:
I refer to Alf Bicknell, of course.
I know. I met him at Beatlefest 89 in LA.