SOngs George Martin played on
-
Someone posted this link on another forum, and I thought it was a really cool chart http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/15/arts/music/george-martin-fifth-beatle.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
-
Sir George really was the 5th Beatle!
-
Nancy R:
Sir George really was the 5th Beatle!
: -
moptops:
Nancy R:
Sir George really was the 5th Beatle!
:
-
Nancy R:
moptops:
Nancy R:
Sir George really was the 5th Beatle!
:
-
Sir George Martin would have clearly been justified in having his name as a co songwriter with Lennon McCartney and Harrison. But he was so classy he did not do that. Much of what he did was help write the songs.
-
Mmmm...
-
prudence1964:
Someone posted this link on another forum, and I thought it was a really cool chart http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/15/arts/music/george-martin-fifth-beatle.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Fantastic! Thanks for sharing this! Also lays out pretty clearly how much he added to a lot of their rock 'n' roll covers, with his pounding, rollicking piano on songs like "Money" and "Slow Down" and "Rock And Roll Music" and many others.
-
RMartinez:
Sir George Martin would have clearly been justified in having his name as a co songwriter with Lennon McCartney and Harrison. But he was so classy he did not do that. Much of what he did was help write the songs.
That is totally wrong and John Lennon talked about it in interviews. George Martin did not write ANY Beatles' music. The only thing he did would be to occasionally transcribe music that John or Paul hummed to him for other musicians to play. Even if he suggested an arrangement they still created the music.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
RMartinez:
Sir George Martin would have clearly been justified in having his name as a co songwriter with Lennon McCartney and Harrison. But he was so classy he did not do that. Much of what he did was help write the songs.
That is totally wrong and John Lennon talked about it in interviews. George Martin did not write ANY Beatles' music. The only thing he did would be to occasionally transcribe music that John or Paul hummed to him for other musicians to play. Even if he suggested an arrangement they still created the music.
This would be consistent with much of what it is in the written Anthology. Paul would talk how he would humm what he wanted, and then George M would get it done.... Such was George M's brilliance..... But the songwriting process always intrigues me.... I often think the guitarist who didn't write the song, but came up with the definitive riff, gets hard done by..... the songwriter comes in and plays it in its simplicity on guitar or piano, and then the lead guitarist can on occasion come up with a riff that actually ends up defining the song... but often ends up with no songwriting credit..... I find that intriguing. Where is the fine line between doing the job to "value-add" as the lead guitarist and get a credit for actually coming up with something that enriches the song, makes it come alive?
-
George Martin's myth is a balloon that needs to be pricked. He was brilliant (and he'd be the first one to tell you), but he was NOT solely responsible for the production. To think otherwise is a nonsense. However it's a nonsense that has gained traction over the last decade or so. There are many who still aren't properly credited for their significant contributions.
-
He basically executed their ideas; however, his instincts as a producer kicked in when needed. For example, it was Martin's idea to open "Can't Buy me Love" with the chorus.
-
Sorry, folks, but George Martin did much more than just translate their ideas. The score on Eleanor Rigby was much more him than Paul, same with Yesterday. Those two songs alone could be considered almost co written. That is what producers do. The orchestration on I Am The Walrus was Martin, not Lennon, or McCartney. My point is, producers in that time period often would put their names on the songs to collect royalties for producing. Norm Petty is a perfect example. Whether they were justified is irrelevant. It happened. George Martin was a class act and did not do that, even though he could have. That has been written about. It's not just my idea.
-
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.
-
RMartinez:
Sorry, folks, but George Martin did much more than just translate their ideas. The score on Eleanor Rigby was much more him than Paul, same with Yesterday. Those two songs alone could be considered almost co written. That is what producers do...
I don't disagree with that.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
