So how precisely were decisions made about what singles to release in later years of the Beatles?

As someone who was 19 when the single was released, if I may: During the summer of 1968, the very foundation of our society had been rocked to its core, with the assassinations of MLK and RFK fresh in everyone's mind. College campuses were roiled by demonstrations against the war, scandaling the love it or leave it, Silent Majority who were about to bring Tricky Dick back from Elba.The fissures were so great that the President decided to get out and not run for another term, yet Nixon was on his way to election. In short, the political atmosphere here was white-hot.

I like both songs, but, in this environment, what would you release: Revolution, a great song that, Lennon-style, nevertheless cut right to the quick with its unequivocal "count me in" line (which Lennon himself later said he regretted), or Hey Jude, an upbeat, universal anthem of hope that became, in fact, a sensation, even though it has been sullied by Paul's subsequent inability NOT to sing it on every occasion, including while standing in line for coffee at the St. John's Wood Starbucks. Given the tinderbox atmosphere on college campuses, our willingness to view the Beatles as gods and anything they advocated as gospel (ask Sharon Tate's survivors), putting that version of Revolution on the B-side was absolutely the responsible and correct decision. To do otherwise would have literally poured gasoline on the smoldering embers.

Both sides got plenty of attention and radio play. That, and the fact that Revolution nevertheless made it on the White Album and an acoustic version of Hey Jude didn't should please our outraged little friend from the land of Walmart, who should finally give it a rest.

 

You cited that Lennon said that in the 1970 RS interviews. Read post 180, which refutes your assertion.

I made the truthful claim that one of a record producer's jobs (probably their most important job) is to maximize profits for the company who hired him, by supplying them with the most commercial end product "singles" possible. Why is that bit of truth in dispute? If GM was so expendable, then why did EMI pay his ransom to come in as a hired gun independent producer? They could have saved a hell of a lot of money by having the band produce themselves, which they essentially did do during GM's several weeks long vacation during the White Album sessions, although GM did place his protege Chris Thomas in his place during that time to nominally "produce", but as Thomas admitted, the Beatles produced themselves during the sessions for which his name was listed as producer (or "recording manager" or whatever the official paperwork said).

I wonder if GM just put Thomas there simply as a way to honour the terms of his contract in his absence. By that I mean, its possible that maybe "technically" it was AIR that was contracted to produce the Beatles during the White Album sessions, and not necessarily GM directly. That way AIR/Martin get their full fee for the project whether the producer supplied to EMI/The Beatles was GM or not.

But anyway.....

My original post said "the logical assumption is..." how is that an assertion of fact?

You are the only one making assertions here, which is strange since you are accusing ME of doing so.

Where is YOUR evidence?

For instance - how does your first paragraph "prove" anything about the nature of GM/Beatles working relationship? What we know for sure about their relationship is that in the first year at least (or maybe even two years) GM was 100% in charge of choosing singles. Those are the facts we have to go on. That was his job, given to him by EMI.

My assumption is it became "unofficially" his CO-Job with the band as time went on, but still his "official" job (and responsibility) as far as the EMI brass was concerned.

Your assertion seems to be that his authority in that area (as far as the brass at EMI was concerned at least) just magically poofed out of existence at some point in time.

Speaking of assertions - how do you claim to KNOW that EMI didnt want him and only hired him at the band's request? It was a winning partership whose dissolution could possibly have negatively affected (or possibly even ended) the band's career. I'm not saying that's a likelihood, but rather a likely worry for the EMI brass.

I'm sure if the Beatles specifically requested GM's removal by EMI, he would have been removed, but the fact that he was retained by EMI, says nothing about WHO made the decision to retain him. That's another of your assertions. Its possible that the Beatles didnt even know he had left EMI to start his own company. The transition may have been seamless to them - by that I mean they may have been left in the dark about the ongoing GM/EMI/AIR turmoil (either by design, or more likely, it just never came up - and why would it have come up, necessarily?) that whenever they were scheduled to start recording the next album/single GM was just always in the booth. Where's your evidence that that wasn't the case?

Count YOUR number of "assertions" compared to mine.

My only assertion is that from the beginning (a fact) to the end (an assumption at least?, yes - an assertion? - not until I was forced to defend it as such) the EMI brass considered him to be the man in charge, who was the sole holder of the responsibilty of being the conduit/midpoint between ART (The Beatles) and COMMERCE (the label).

 

You heard it in a commercial 20 years after the fact. A large part of Revolution's commercial appeal in the 1980s involved playing to boomer nostalgia and a wish to associate a brand (Nike) with a band that nearly everyone likes. The Beatles (and Revolution) were a known quantity at that point, safely viewed from the future. In 1968 it was all current - none of those factors contributed to making Revolution commercial at that time.

I'd suggest there are more facts in my posts than you've noticed. But facts aside it's your opinion that Revolution should have been a single, I'm not sure why you object to discussing opinions.

 

I agree (and liked) your post. Only one item - and I'm sure you already know this, but perhaps some others don't) The "count me out/in" line was only in the slower album version. On the single (which is the discussion here) he only says count me out.

Regardless of that - what you say about the times is spot on. One of the things I get frustrated about is people continually posting and looking at and judging things through 21st century glasses. The times that these recordings occurred in is very relevant. The single was released in late August - the very same time as the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. When you actually listen to the words to Revolution (the single version), it is really saying it is going to be "alright". We all want to change the world, but don't carry pictures of Mao, count out the violence. Yes, there are bad problems, but some of the protestors and violence is not the way to solve those problems. But John didn't title the song - No Revolution, or No Violence or No Communism (Chairman Mao), he called it Revolution. So to many people, it was a song about Revolution.

Hey Jude was a much more pleasant and "acceptable" song to the masses. And it was the right choice for the A-side too!

 

I'm glad you pointed out the "count me out" correction. I read that post three times trying to see if I misread. A lot of leftists became enraged at Lennon for that line. They would've been happy as a clam if he'd said "count me in". But he didn't. And, yes, it is the single that is being discussed.

 

I think these decisions were made in the way that all these decisions are made: $

 

John called it one of Paul's masterpieces and obviously loved the song

You are so right. I'm not sure anyone who wasn't there can understand how poisonous the atmosphere was at the time. I was graduating from HS that spring. The King (April) and Kennedy (June) assassinations were horrific. So was the Democratic convention that summer (up against the wall, mf'ers, remember?) I started college at the end of that summer. Hey Jude was everywhere. At my first ever college class (8am Mon morning) a young English professor made it the subject of his lecture, making the connection to St Jude being the patron saint of lost causes as others have done. Hey Jude isn't just a song. It was a phenomenon. That period was seared into my brain and Hey Jude along with it. Nothing can ever ruin it for me.

 

I don't object at all to dissenting opinions, it's just surprising that some of you feel your opinion about something we'll never know the answer about is etched in stone based on what did occur. It's not. You can believe it but it's certainly not a guarantee.

 

John never said Hey Jude was better than Revolution. Meanwhile, based on some of these suppositions, Buffalo Springfield shouldn't have released For What It's Worth either!

 

For What It's Worth was about the LA police imposing a curfew on teenagers so they couldn't hang out on Sunset Strip. On the other hand, people were rioting in the cities and on college campuses over the war and racial issues, resulting in substantial damage and loss of life.
How old were you when Hey Jude came out?

 

You're right. I could swear I remember an interview in which Lennon talked more at length about singles, expressing dissatisfaction that "I Am the Walrus" was not an a-side and noting that he had backed George in getting two b-sides in the later years. But it wasn't the 1970 RS interview, and I can't find it at present, so I could well be misremembering. I'll have to concede that point.

You suggested that I do not know what the job description of a record producer is. Then you made several absolute generalizations about the role of a record producer (ie, a record producer is analogous to a movie director, and has "the final say"). The purpose of my paragraph about other artists was to illustrate that a producer's role can vary, and that your generalizations about what a producer does are not universally correct. Since a producer does not always have the dominant role you described, you can't conclude that Martin was in charge or had the final say simply because he was the producer.

At any rate, the reason I responded to you in the first place is because I disagreed with your suggestion that George Martin was given "the final say" in deciding what songs were chosen as single a-sides during the band's later years. Buick6 has since come up with the quotation from Emerick which says that Martin did not have such authority, but rather it was the band who made the "final call." That would seem to resolve this particular debate, since no one has cited any evidence to the contrary.

 

I didn't say a word about what shouldn't have been released. Someone jogged my memory of what that period was like and I spoke about my memory of it and Hey Jude was part of that.

Just because John never said the words "Hey Jude is better than Revolution" doesn't mean it's unreasonable for people to infer that he believed that based on things that he did say. Do we know for sure? Does it matter? I would say no, but that's me.

 

It just seems strange that some of you think it's a given that Revolution isn't commercial because it was rebellious in a sense.

 

But Lennon isn't necessarily opting out of the revolution in that line... He's just opposing the idea of violent revolution ("if you talk about destruction"), which a whole bunch of other leftists would have agreed with.

 

I never said it wasn't commercial. I have always liked it a lot. I just said that, given the times when it was released, it wouldn't have made a good choice for an A-side, but thanks.
In light of your failure to answer my question about your age, I assume you weren't yet around, which explains some of your contentions. Please continue to favor us with them.

 

Yes, I think you are right. But I do know certain groups called him a sell out.

 

Oh yes, I bet there were many who accused him of just sitting on the fence, in particular those in favor of violent action.

 

Check out the Beatles Bible. They quote a book that quotes Lennon saying that McCartney AND Harrison opposed the slow version of Revolution as a single. "So Lennon rose to the challenge"...and they recorded the faster version. In order to be a commercial success.

So, that seems to indicate that the band members, at this time anyway, made these decisions.

 

oh how condescending, "but thanks". I was in 4th grade when it came out. My teacher let some of my classmates play the 45 before class, it was a big deal. I think Revolution was more popular with the 4th graders. Of course they don't see things with such one-sided clarity as Paul groupies.

 

This thread sure has run its course.

 

I have. Outta here.

 

He clearly had that control in the beginning - even you conceded that, so why are you telling me that my assumption that EMI continued to consider him to be the man in charge that he had always been from day one to be incorrect. What's your evidence that (at the very least) the EMI brass DIDN'T consider him to be the man in charge?

What Emerick said (he's a close personal friend to Paul McCartney to this day) is not gospel especially considering it was Paul (according to Emerick) who pushed hard for Emerick's promotion to chief recording engineer, several levels above his then current position as acetate cutter, when Norman Smith left his engineer's position to move into production after the Rubber Soul sessions. It could be argued to a significant degree that Emerick owes his career to Paul. At the very least Paul's lobbying for Emerick's promotion advanced his career a decade.

1 - so he certainly can't be considered immune from bias - for example - "how can I answer this question to show Paul in the best possible light?" (..and before you go back to accusing me of assertions, its not an assertion - its a possibility - are you going to claim that its an IMPOSSIBILITY?

2 - but far more likely - he (to the best of my knowledge) was never inside George Martin's head. Its possible that it appeared that GM didnt have final say because GM agreed with the band's decisions most of the time, the likelihood of which I mentioned several times already. If he agreed with them, why would he choose to say to them, unneccesarily - "OK I agree - I as the big man in charge will allow it." What could possibly be gained by such a stupid attitude? Why not keep his mouth shut until he had an actual objection?

3 - Lets say that EMI had an objection to the choice of single, or at least wanted an explanation as to the justification for the choice of single. Who do you believe the EMI brass would call into the office to answer their questions, and I seriously want an answer to this, not an evasion - GM or the Beatles? and don't say both! Who would they ask FIRST?! I say GM, and the ONLY reason I could imagine they would call the Beatles in is if GM said, "well I agree with you, but the band won't budge."

I can't imagine anything happening after that other than a MASSIVE amount of anger spewed at GM by the EMI brass for "letting the inmates run the asylum" so to speak, and maybe even some accusations of him being too weak to do his job.

THEN - they'd call the band in and of course be far more diplomatic about the situation. Perhaps all the while thinking - "GM can't do his job properly anymore for some reason, and now WE have to deal with these damn long-haired druggies - WTF!!"

Do you disagree with that hypothetical? If so why?

How do YOU imagine such a situation would go down?

 

It's quite possible EMI did consider Martin to be the person in charge. But that isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing who actually made the final decision about singles, who actually had the final say. Not who EMI believed was in charge, nor who EMI would have yelled at if they disagreed with the choice of single.

Geoff Emerick certainly isn't free from bias, nor is he guaranteed to be a reliable source. But in this case, we don't have any evidence to contradict what he says, and what he says seems plausible. I don't think it makes sense to question the report of a primary source if we have no reason to do so.

 

1 - That's what I was discussing, if you re-read all my posts properly, you'll see that.

2 - EMI signed the cheques - if they say he was in charge, then he was in charge. Period.

It was HIS a$$ on the line after all - no-one else's!

 

I don't believe that George Martin was seen to be 'in charge' (either by the band or record company) after his defection from EMI (and particularly after 1967). He was there to 'assist' the band in recording, and employed by EMI to do so (that request must have come from the band and Epstein, not EMI).

Consider that the band themselves (sometimes with the assistance of Chris Thomas) produced several tracks on the White Album. Then they ignored GM's advice to cut it down to a single album. That album was follwed by the Get Back sessions, for which GM was rarely present (sound duties being handled by Glyn Johns). Only on Abbey Road was the Beatles/Martin partnership back to anything like it used to be.

Doesn't really sound like GM was 'in charge' in 1968-9 to me. Why would he be, no longer being an EMI employee?