G. Harrison's "Only A Northern Song": did the other Beatles really sabotage it (random psych noise)?

My impression is that "Only a Northern Song"'s main weakness is that it is too similar to its superior "twin" "If I Needed Someone."

The similarities in the melody of both the main sectionand bridge are hard to overlook. My guess is that was the main reason for its exclusion from Pepper.

Going with "Within you without you" was, IMO, the right choice.

 

I also found it funny that Paul decided to experiment with the fuzz bass on one of George's songs, Think For Yourself, instead of one of his own. It ruins the song for me. Maybe not sabotage, but...

 

My least favorite Beatles track; however, there was no sabatoge.

 

You definitely have a point. I would agree that he also has the right to have some level of animosity towards Harrison or to any other person, for that matter, considering that this is an autobiography.

However, this would not excuse him from not doing his fact-checking properly, because memory can be tricky. I haven't read the book but if he has multiple factual mistakes, as claimed by many, this definitely affects the credibility of the book.

 

One of the Beatles more mediocre songs both lyrically and tune wise, IMO. Sabotage? No way. Conspiracy here we go......

 

I actually like the fuzz bass on this song. If George didn't like it, I doubt it would have been on the song.

 

I've heard the non-psychedelic version on Anthology and it is pretty plodding. I think all the jim crackery was done to goose a weak track. I am a fan of the final version though.

 

This always baffles me... at the age of 13 I really only listened to Side Two of Sgt. Pepper. Within You Without You and A Day in the Life were my favorite songs.

It's Only a Northern Song isn't much. It would have been a low-point of an album that was already in need of some top songs (such as Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane).

 

I agree. It didn't bother me that he expressed some opinions that carried a whiff of grudge. I'm sure if I wrote an autobiography, my past bosses wouldn't all get a phone call from the Vatican announcing their impending sainthood.

Maybe Harrison didn't like Emerick too well, and it's not as if life at Apple would have always been perfect. I mean, ****canning the third Badfinger album and taking-over the production of its replacement, only to hand it over to another producer after completing four songs... that would be reason enough for Emerick to hold a grudge against Harrison.

 

Ah, but I wouldn't say that the melody is simple.

 

Ha! Well played. Damn these contacts and my tablet.

 

I asked, once on another thread, what all the mistakes were and wasn't overwhelmed by the response. As I recall it was pretty minor stuff. One of the criticisms, in fact, was that Emerick had been calling people up to jog his memory! (Yes, fact checking...but it was twisted to show that Emerick didn't have a clear recollection.)

So, I did read the book. I quoted it, in fact, up above. Until I see some real meat in the criticisms, stuff that isn't just a faulty recollection, I'll accept his book as his story. His autobiography.

 

It has the rhythmic complexity of classical Indian music. Nothing to write home about today, but it was novel for its time certainly in Western pop music.

And the arrangements certainly are not "simple" either.

 

Good call. I never realized that...probably because John and Paul's vocals completely cover George's melody vocal on "If I Needed Someone". I'm guessing all of George's songs sound like others he wrote. Kinda like "Within You Without You" and "Blue Jay Way".

 

Ken Scott critiqued the book and pointed them out:

http://www.macca-central.com/news/2100/

 

I still don't see this as some completely off base autobiography. Emerick can call Harrison "dour" if he wants! A plastic bag becomes a condom? That's simply embellishment with the passage of time.

I was telling a story to my daughter today, about battling a raccoon in hand-to-hand combat. Hey, the story has changed quite a bit....and that's only in a couple of years!

 

Wonder if the similarity was intentional given the cynical tone of OANS .. sort of like George's version of 'It's The Same Old Song'.

 

MEOW!!

Sounds like a bit of bad blood in there between those two as well.

Based on what I've read here and in H.T&E, I suspect Emerick is a bit of a crank, though that's just my overall impression.

 

Unfortunately I cannot find the other article which featured Scott's original criticisms, but there were many errors that he pointed out which were more important than the 'condom' story. Maybe someone else can post a link to it?

I just cannot fully trust someone with such an obvious grudge, or someone who feels the need to change stories to make them more exciting.

Now, tell me about that raccoon; did you win?

 

I agree; it does seem like he has a prickly personality.

It is a shame that they had to argue in public, but I can see why Scott felt the need to make corrections, because otherwise they could go down as fact.

 

I'll have to see the list. So far it seems pretty trivial. To me, it just seems like these two guys don't like each other (or, more accurately, Scott doesn't like Emerick...and then the public attack would kinda naturally make Emerick not like Scott! ).

I read Emerick's book and did not come away thinking about how unkikeable Harrison was portrayed. I guess it went right over my head. I just enjoyed the inside look.

Note: yep, I won the hour long battle. The barn kitties were saved!

 

Internet archive version of the dead link in the maccacentral blog linked above - there's a lot more claims of incorrect 'facts' in the section headed 28th February, 2006 (apparently completely wrong about the source of bird sounds for Blackbird + claims of lists being compiled of "over 100 errors", & suggesting most of the book was creative writing by the co-writer & not by Geoff Emmerick )
https://web.archive.org/web/2007101...?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=37

 

Good job, that is exactly what I was trying to find. I personally side with Ken on this, because it does seem that Emerick didn't even write substantial parts of the book, which may have led to the errors that Ken highlighted.

 

I believe Ken spotted well over 100 inaccuracies and/or errors in Geoff's book. Not counting his inane memories of John, George and Ringo being second-class Beatles behind Paul. Errors ranged from "recalling" Blackbird being recorded outdoors with REAL blackbirds singing in the background to being in the studio when he wasn't actually there to making up rules about how closely one could mic a bass drum.... or bass guitar amplifier.

For those interested use the Search Function and check out "Geoff Emerick." One interesting thread is a 1979 interview where he seems almost incapable of remembering any specifics... not 10 years after-the-fact. He says Revolver was their FIRST album recorded with FOUR-TRACK. I mean...sheesh. He was a tape op as early as 1963 and would have been THE person loading the recorders... to say an album recorded in 1966 (more than two years and four albums later) was the first to feature 4-track is just bizarre. He repeatedly says he doesn't remember or is fuzzy with details. NEVER mentions the engineers by name who followed him. Dismisses Magical Mystery Tour (the album and film) without mentioning he quit the group DURING the sessions.... and did so again the following summer when he quit the White Album sessions. He knew damn well that Ken Scott replaced him but just says "another" engineer came on the scene. Ron

PS I think George specifically said Paul's trumpet playing "sabotaged" Only A Northern Song. Probably a "Cranky George" moment said some 25 years after-the-fact. My guess is that it was about as good as Paul could manage having not played the trumpet since he was a school boy. Wonder why they didn't hire a session player, especially if George was unhappy with the playing? You'd think George Martin would have suggested just that.... it's not like Paul played the horns on A Day In The Life or When I'm Sixty-Four.