Navigation

    Paul McCartney
    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups

    SOngs George Martin played on

    YESTERDAY
    6
    31
    3339
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • P
      prudence1964 last edited by

      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&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
      • Nancy R
        Nancy R last edited by

        Sir George really was the 5th Beatle!

        Omni, Atlanta, GA May 18, 1976, Feb. 17, 1990

        GA Dome, Atlanta, GA May 1, 1993

        Philips Arena, Atlanta, GA May 12, 2002

        FedEx Forum, Memphis, TN May 26, 2013

        Philips Arena, Atlanta, GA Oct. 15, 2014

        Infinite Energy Center, Duluth, GA July 13, 2017

        Bon Secours Arena, Greenville, SC May 30, 2019

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
        • A
          admin last edited by

          Nancy R:

          Sir George really was the 5th Beatle!

          :

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
          • Nancy R
            Nancy R last edited by

            moptops:

            Nancy R:

            Sir George really was the 5th Beatle!

            :

            Omni, Atlanta, GA May 18, 1976, Feb. 17, 1990

            GA Dome, Atlanta, GA May 1, 1993

            Philips Arena, Atlanta, GA May 12, 2002

            FedEx Forum, Memphis, TN May 26, 2013

            Philips Arena, Atlanta, GA Oct. 15, 2014

            Infinite Energy Center, Duluth, GA July 13, 2017

            Bon Secours Arena, Greenville, SC May 30, 2019

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
            • A
              admin last edited by

              Nancy R:

              moptops:

              Nancy R:

              Sir George really was the 5th Beatle!

              :

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
              • A
                admin last edited by

                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.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                • A
                  admin last edited by

                  Mmmm...

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                  • favoritething
                    favoritething last edited by

                    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&region=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.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                    • beatlesfanrandy
                      beatlesfanrandy last edited by

                      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.

                      Wings Over America - Cow Palace SF - June 1976. New World Tour - Anaheim Stadium - 4/17/93. Driving USA - Oakland Arena - 4/1/2002. US Tour - HP Pavilion - San Jose - 11/08/05. An Evening with Paul McCartney - The Joint at Hard Rock - Las Vegas - 4/19/09. Up & Coming Tour - Hollywood Bowl - 3/31/10. Walk of Fame Star Presentation - Hollywood - Feb. 2012. CBS-TV taping - The Night That Changed America (with Ringo!)  - L.A. Convention Center - Jan. 2014. Out There Tour -Dodger Stadium - Los Angeles - Aug. '14 and Petco Park - San Diego - Sept. '14. Petco Park - San Diego - June 2019.  Got Back Tour - SoFi Stadium - Los Angeles - May 2022

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                      • toris
                        toris last edited by

                        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?

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                        • A
                          admin last edited by

                          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.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                          • A
                            admin last edited by

                            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.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                            • A
                              admin last edited by

                              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.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                              • A
                                admin last edited by

                                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.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                                • A
                                  admin last edited by

                                  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.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                                  • A
                                    admin last edited by

                                    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.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                                    • A
                                      admin last edited by

                                      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?

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                                      • favoritething
                                        favoritething last edited by

                                        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.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                                        • A
                                          admin last edited by

                                          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.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                                          • A
                                            admin last edited by

                                            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.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 1 / 2
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            • TERMS & CONDITIONS
                                            • PRIVACY