Entertainment For Lively Minds
George Martin
Posted by torrential1 on 26 August 2009 - 1:59pm.
First of all I need to say that I'm not a Beatles fan, I can see why they are important in the grand scheme of things, but I never liked Lennon or Macca's voices and tend to adhere to the theory that the 'Dark Horse' was the real talent.
However, the question which bugs me is 'how good would The Beatles of been without George Martin?'.
It seems that whenever the Fab 4 are being (endlessly) analysed, Uncle George doesn't get the kind accolades he surely deserves.
I'll hand the argument over to the myriad of Beatles fans on the forum to discuss......
- More from torrential1.
- Login or register to post comments
-
I ventured to say much the same
on a recent thread about producers, but basically got told/shouted down that GM was a mere presser of studio buttons.
That is obviously unreasonable, Mikhail
but the issue is that there are those (I know one personally) who have got it into their heads that George Martin wrote the stuff and cannot get to grips with the exponential (for want of a better word) growth that the Beatles made within a few years, from RnB Covers and their own rock anthems to a more lyrical style, with a wider vocabulary not just of words and concepts, but of sounds and effects.
GM was undoubtedly a fine arranger, amongst his other gifts and this contributed greatly to the Beatles success.
However, to assume that 4 lads from Liverpool could not express themselves in ever-improving ways and produce great music is wrong-headed and probably a bit snobbish too.
Just think of the number and variety of other musicians they met, jammed with (as was the norm in those days) and the cross-fertilisation of ideas. They were bound to break out.
George Martin is either
George Martin is either hugely overrated or hugely underrated. Overrated at the time by people who refused to believe songs could be written by the working class, so Martin must have written all of it. Underrated later, as a button presser. Even Lennon had a go at him in that silly Jann Wenner interview everyone treats like Gospel. To quote "them people, like George Martin, who think they made us. And they didn't. I'd like to hear..George Martin's music please, just play me some"
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LL_M__820rcC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=%22geo...
Oh alright
And this was the pigs ear of a result when Lennon told him "we don't any of your production shit, this is going to be an honest album"
George Martin is also a hugely underrated figure in comedy history. His Peter Sellers albums were a huge influence on Spinal Tap and the more naturalistic style of comedy that was to follow. Christopher Guest says he based Nigel Tufnell on the dim Tommy Steele like popstar Sellers plays in the Trumpet Volunteer sketch from 1958.
They'd be nohing without the Goons
I once read that Martin was the ideal producer because he cut his teeth on comedy recordings. Because he was used to dealing with sounds effects he was open to using any method available to get the right sound for the recording once the Fabs started using tape loops and other (then) unusual techniques.
This may all be bobbins and I'm prepared to be told so but it makes perfect sense to me.
By all accounts they sounded
By all accounts they sounded pretty good in Hamburg.
I've praised GM across this site...
Watch 'Anthology' read 'Revolution in the Head' - he's bloody important.
All those amazing string arrangements...
My favourite Beatle.
George Martin was a world class producer.
And the Beatles would have sounded a different and lesser band without him.
He was the project manager for all the recordings keeping them on track and with a sense of perspective as to how good each take was and how the song was developing. The Beatles themselves were pretty good self-editors (at least pre & post 68) but George added another level of perspective with his fantastic pair of ears.
Perhaps the most important role of a producer is as a diplomat, man managing the band and keeping a lid on (or occassionally taking it off) the tensions therein, and also managing the expectations of management and the label. George is an extremely intelligent and diplomatic person, but he masks it by being laid back and with a very dry sense of humour. He is fun to be around and that would have set the tone for the earliest sessions at least. He can also in his way crack the whip and suffers no fools. I'm sure his understated tough streak contributed to the boys making an album in 12 hours. Similarly his good sense led to him backing down over the choice of the second single.
clearly from an early age he recognised that The Beatles were something special.
He was also the musical guy in studio 2, orchestrating many songs and more importantly translating the musical visions of the band into reality He had a musical background far wider than the band.
The other understated heroes of the Beatles sound were the recording and technical engineers (particularly Ken Townsend) who took the Beatles vision of a musical soundscape, as translated for them by George Martin, scratched their heads and then went ahead and invented the basis of modern recording technology in their pokey workshops. Without George and without the Abbey Road culture and backroom boys the Beatles would have sounded different and less good. The songs and perhaps the performances would have shone through without them (although George probably had a significant subtle impact on the early performances at least) but the wonderful sound, arrangement and general sonic landscape would have been different. And part of the love that you can hear in those records - it came from George.
Just a presser of studio buttons, my arse!
Well put Dolly. GM was not just an influnece on their sound
bringing as he did his own taste refinements and experiments, he also helped the Fabs sturcture some of their songs and influneced them in picking and following their strongest ideas. GM was, as he's said, 'very very lucky to meet them' - and they him. The world mightn't have changed in quite the same way if they hadn't.
Well he produced my
Well he produced my favourite record of all time and I met him once and told him so.
The smile that lit up his face when I told him who it was as he realised it wasnt going to be the Beatles could have lit the way home... It must be tough on him to be known for one thing when his skills and abilities weren't tied to the one act he is known for working with.
and the favourite record?
The Man in the Bowler hat by Stackridge
I've always thought
that the best indication of the importance of the producer's art generally, and GM in particular, is to listen to anything by the Kinks circa 1966-68, and then listen to a Fabs record from the same period. Ray Davies was cearly a songwriter in the Lennon-McCartney league but boy have those records dated. Don't get me wrong, they are still great but are very much of their time, in a way that the Fabs and GM managed to avoid.
Similarly, you can hear the sonic leap that the Stones took when Jimmy Miller came on board for Jumpin' Jack Flash, and beyond.
Good excuse to post this
let's get this straight caller.
The Dark horse,Harrison, had his moments, but he was Nowhere(man) near the skill, intellect & beauty of Messrs L&Mc.He was the Runt that LEARNED real talent.(I love George by the way)
Why is the Rolling Stone interview that John gave to Jann Wenner Silly? What, silly now after thirty-odd years later or silly then?
He was completely candid and intelligent(and informative)
If you're going to get into what George Martin did maybe you'd like to have a word with Geoff Emerick?
Final note.It was and always has been and always will be The Beatles.
If you had to identify
the 'intellect' within the HJHs it was surely Harrison. I suggest you compare his late 60s/early 70s lyrical output with either Macca or Lennon. Particularly the latter whose undoubtedly well-meaning but scatter shot approach to causes and political theorising was shallower Paris Hilton.
Utter tosh. Intellect, in
Utter tosh. Intellect, in the traditional sense, has little relation to musical ability. There are many examples of near or total illiterates changing the course of popular music in quite profound ways. For anyone to suggest that Harrison was the equal or better of Macca/Lennon is just plain daft. On the subject of George Martin, I don't think he is under rated; he is widely acknowledged as playing an important part. Overall GM has benefited greatly from his association with the Beatles, let's not forget that, prior to his association, he was a jobbing producer at best. I think the thing with the Beatles is that people look for explainations apart from the obvious, the simple fact is that they were brilliant and would have succdeeded whoever produced them.
George 'better' than John or Paul ... ?
I don't think I said that, did I? In fact I don't think I referred to musical ability at all. My point was that by the end of the decade George seemed to have a more consistently thought out world view than either Macca or Lennon. The former by then being fairly light-weight in his lyrical concerns while Lennon jumped on (and off) every political bandwagon that happened by.
So, not better ... different ... contemplative maybe. He was taller than Ringo too.
Apologies, reading it back
Apologies, reading it back you did not, but the post was more a general response to an earlier assertion about the 'dark horse' by another poster. Ultimatley Macca/Lennon were far more talened.
"A jobbing producer"
I think not.
The quality of his production work 1950-1962 was astonishingly good and wide ranging, classical through comedy through pop. He also ran the Parlophone label at the same time. So he didn't only produce music but he also made the key A&R decisions including the one that signed The Beatles. And lets not forget that ALL the labels of the day had turned down The Beatles at least once, including EMI on more than one occassion. So it could be argued that without George signing the Beatles to his Parlophone label they might never have succeeded in getting widely heard at all. And there was no option of self publishing in those days.
Having made that major contribution to their success George (and the various Abbey Road engineers) contributed to the structure and sound of The Beatles songs and encouraged their adventuring in a remarkable way. The Beatles would not have developed in the same way nor sounded the same without George and his team.
i personally can't imagine hem sounding better, so I think George must have had a hugely benign effect on The Beatles.
And I know that if you asked Paul today he would agree.
Are you not judging him with
Are you not judging him with the benefit of hindsight? Parlophone was very much a minor label within EMI at the time and comedy records were at the lower end of the food chain. This view is suported by most of the books I have read on the subject. I don't believe that all the labels had turned the Beatles down (only Decca). The simple fact is that if the Beatles did not achieve their amazing success nobody would have heard of George Martin.
I am judging him by the quality of his work
pre-1962 (and indeed post 1962)which is obviously still available to listen to. I also am pretty intimate with the restrictions in terms of equipment that he was dealing with at the time and have spoken to a number of engineers who worked with him including many of those that worked with him on The Beatles and were in the sessions. All, despite having their own axes to grind, agree he was a pretty darned good producer.
Yes - Parlophone was the little label. His decision to sign The Beatles and other Merseybeat bands and then help them make music changed that. Parlophone were biggest label in the world by 1964. Well done Sir George, I'd say!!
And you may need to re-check your facts on the other labels turning down the Beatles; they all did. Decca was just the famous quote about guitar bands going out of fashion. I have seen the correspondence from EMI to Epstein from 1961.
Agree that if BEatles hadn't been The Beatles and been hugely succesful then Sir G would not have been a knight of the realm. He'd be known in Word-like circles as a cult producer/pioneer from the 60's.
And my point is not to reduce the beatles reputation. I am a true believer. I just happen to know that without Sir G and Abbey Road their records could not have sounded the same. I suspect and believe that they would not have been quite as consistently good.
Your point is well made but
Your point is well made but Parlophone becoming a big label was not purely down do GM, I recall a well known Mersey Beat combo were involved also. When reviewing his past work, I fear, it is impossible to avoid hindsight though?
I didnt say it was all down to Sir G
but he clearly did his bit pretty well.
And who was it that said?
"when it comes to the blog section it seems to be overrun by a jingoistic bunch of trainspotters"
And I don't think Mr Emerick is available for personal questioning.
As for the 'final note' of your missive, it doesn't make any sense - please elaborate.
Holy Shit!
The Rutles was made in response to people like Steven C and torrential 1 & Still they don't get it! Lordy-Lord!
You're quite right of course ...
half the time I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Pardonez Vous
"people like Steven C and torrential1"
You mean people who make some kind of sense in their posts, as opposed to someone who is quite possibly related to Stanley Unwin?
George Martin
is/was very skillfull at wot he did.
George Harrison was a talented man, and certainly in the middle period Beatles (Revolver/Sgt Pepper) was seriously ignored as a songwriter. His skills however, were very important to the "sound" of the Beatles..
BUT
Lennon and Macca were The Beatles, both together and as seperate entities.
Without Martin and Harrison (and Ringo for that matter) they still would have been the greatest, most important musical influence in the history of modern music.
Without each other, (ie, if they had never met and formed The Beatles), individually they would both have had stellar careers.
Would Martin or Harrison?
We are all entitled to our opinions but, torrential1, you are talking utter tosh.
Opinions
Laughable really to say opinions are entitled and that I'm talking 'utter tosh' in the same sentence.
Read my original post and you'll see that the point I'm making is that as a non-Beatles fan, I respect the majority's adulation of them, and was curious if they would of suffered without George Martin.
I find it slightly weird that some, and I stress some Beatles fans can't respect the fact that everyone isn't in awe of them.
Well, your original post
Well, your original post does state that you generally agree with the assertion that the 'dark horse' was the real talent; this is utter tosh. Many opinions are 'tosh' and you are as entitled to hold as we are to disparage them. The Beatles would have been different with GM certainly, better or worse is impossible to say.
Pah!
Ooh, back to the playground..
woodface, your assertion is complete AND utter tosh, and my dad is probably harder than your dad.
I am with Torrential on this
I dont see how Geacher53 can say 'Lennon and McCartney would be the greatest, most important influence in the history of modern music' without Harrison, Starr and indeed George Martin. They made some groundbreaking music but they did so as a unit and the GH/RS detractors are plain wrong to decry their input to the Beatles canon. However George Martins influence should not be dismissed - the late period Beatles success owed a lot to his abilities as a producer. It should be said though that their early R and B records were arguably better and had a more exciting air to them. In my mind George Martin was responsible for taking them to a different level - the real argument is which level was better?
I think we are at cross
I think we are at cross purposes here? I am not saying that GM, RS and GH did not make a contribution; they did and it was significant. But, the original post did state that GH was somehow superior and the real talent, this is blatantly not true.
Mmmm.
I think what you mean is you don't agree.
It is simply my opinion that GH was a major talent, and for me the best thing about the Beatles.
We could argue forever, but you won't change my opinion, and I won't change yours.
I respect your views 'cos you are clearly a fan, but you can't class it as 'the truth' when it's only an opinion.
The original post didnt say that at all.
Nowhere does it suggest GM was the talent - simply that his contribution is perhaps less analysed/acknowledged than it could be.
Agreed
I also think that the early stuff contained the one thing the "Pepper/White/Abbey/Let It be" era lacked, excitement.
Once they started navel-gazing I found it a bit dull, groundbreaking yes, but I liked them better when they were still showing their rock'n'roll/r'n'b/motown influences.