Geoff Emerick book..day 3 after reading

Agreed!

Regards,
Helio

 

I'm a bit torn about these issues myself. While I do have a head full of trivia (a lot of it about The Beatles), I do wonder sometimes at the bits of information that people seem to care about. A good example is the bit of Carson trivia you mentioned... I can't see how it mattered whether Paul or the audience member was right.

Where it could become important, at least to persons interested in the creation of particular recordings or the influences upon the artists in creating these works, is in terms of the actual recording processes, the personnel involved, the equipment they used, and other details relevant to the history of a particular composition. A case in point might be Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, and the debate around whether Lennon took the title from one of Julian's drawings, or whether it was inspired by an acid trip (I'm deliberately skirting the debate here). The fundamental question there could be: did Lennon write songs about drug experiences, or was his writing and composing simply influenced by his (prodigious at the time) drug intake? Probably the latter, and it's little anecdotes that can help us answer these questions. Accuracy here could be quite important indeed. I haven't read the Emerick book, but I would think that if there are inaccuracies about recording processes, then these could lead us to making false inferences about some of The Beatles' recorded work.

There is a lot of discussion about the historical accuracy of Beatle bios - Spitz's came in for particularly heavy criticism here - and some of this has extended to the GE book as well. I've read Spitz's book, and there are errors (the picture captions are the most egregious examples), but overall I enjoyed it, and I liked the way the story was told; it seemed a refreshing angle to me, and I've read a large number of Beatle bios over the years. As I wrote above, sometimes it seems important and relevant to our understanding of their recorded output, but sometimes it just seems like memorising a lot of details as a sort of one-upsmanship (even getting one over on a Beatle in some cases!). I personally don't get terribly exercised about it. One of the main problems inherent in all this is the notorious fallibility of human memory, and the fact that, when relying on memory, we're going to have to accept that there will be errors in people's accounts of events. At that point, it's down to triangulation .

 

The last few posts make my point, Mr. Shears. Reading various books on the Beatles is NOT a zero sum game. Nobody is right, wrong, bad or good. No moral judgments are necessary. Just enjoy the books, or don't read them.
The truth is, 40 some years on, we'll never know the definitive answers to the points being debated here. No condescension intended.
THAT'S reality.

 

Hi Bill,

If you were right I would never have spoken out about Geoff's book. True his thoughts about George and George and John etc. are unprovable ( I was there and I don't agree with a lot of it, but that's certainly not proof ), but everything else I have brought up, all the inaccuracies about the recordings and the bits and pieces about the studio are 100% provable. There are lots more too.

That has been my point all along. If it's so easy to prove, it shouldn't be wrong in a book supposedly written by someone that close to the whole situation. It's just downright sloppy and it has to make one wonder about everything else.

Cheers

 

But Bill, you have to admit knowing some of the real stories behind the scenes would be fascinating. I don't care whether George was grumpy one day, or if John arrived at the studio wearing a pink polka dot shirt....thats trivial and meaningless. BUT, it would be great to get some real first-hand accounts of the Beatles in the studio. Like, George laying down the "backwards guitar parts" hour after hour, for I'm Only Sleeping painstakingly frontwards....in order to get the sounds just right, when mixed backwards. Or how hectic it really was in the studio getting all of Paul's tape loops to work on Tomorrow Never Knows. Or even the recording of Something I brought up earlier. How was it that day in the studio when a closed circuit TV was setup between Studio 1 and 2? How did Harrison manage to run between studios conducting, producing and playing one of his most memorable solos? It's the behind the scenes action that interests me. Not Emerick saying George played live with orchestra (which is NOT true) and saying this showed his growing sense of self-confidence??? I think the idea that he was helping Martin conduct an orchestra, that he produced the actual overdubbing session AND decide to re-record his solo is a much better indication of his fast-growing confidence.

And yes, I realize the "tides of time" make some things difficult to remember, but surely there were instances that must have made a major impact on those in the room while the Beatles were recording. It's almost beyond belief that Emerick would write about Blackbird being recorded outside, or that a stock brass band recording was used on Yellow Submarine...etc...etc... etc.... Ron

 

I have to take some offense at this remark about new members. I don't think it follows that new members should inherently have less knowledge about the Beatles than the regulars. I've read many, many books and articles about the Beatles. I was 14 when the boys were on Ed Sullivan and have followed their careers throughout my life. Certainly I know less than some on this forum about the Beatles, in some cases I think I know a bit more. So, Brainwashed, I thought I'd post again so you might not think me so sad.


Certainly Emerick has some controversial things to say about everybody involved in the Beatles recording sessions. He seems to feel that he did not get enough credit for what he did and clearly has some scores to settle. Still, I'll repeat what I originally said, this is one hell of an entertaining book. I'd love to have Ken Scott point out all the errors and have Emerick refute them point by point. Until then, I'll just enjoy the book.

 

That's not what Brainwashed said at all. He said that some people came here and registered specifically to defend Emerick's book, and not much else.

 

Sorry Bill I respectfully disagree.
Dates, times, personnel, locations, equpiment used. etc etc are all entirely provable. They were in many cases documented on work-sheets. If you choose not to be interested by such technical minutie then thats cool.

I personally don't really care about how George, or John or whoever was acting in the studio, whether they were grumpy or sullen or happy as Larry. If it was documented on film or tape then it may be entertaining but truth be told anysuch behaviour out of context is misleading.

The facts.

For those who enjoy the historical nature of such information it is annoying to see sloppy editing and poor judgement made during the research process.

Just as it may be important to know who scored the winning goal in the 1966 world cup final, or what date
King Harold copped the arrow, or where Kennedy was shot, or what kind of paint Warhol preferred,
it may be important to some how exactly the song Blackbird was recorded for the White album.
If you think its silly to be interested in such specific detail of a northern english beat combo then fine, don't worry about it, enjoy A Hard Days Night as a documentary and all will be fine.

But it shouldn't stop those who ARE into the minutiae of the Beatles history from having expectations that books published about the group will be thorough, well researched and acknowledge the existing data which
clearly verifies specific events from that story.

But always, hopefully, it all comes back to the wonderful music

 

If this is what Brainwashed meant, then I misinterpreted his post and I apologise.

 

Believe me, so would I.

Cheers

 

I can understand Geoff feeling sensitive that day - first day as balance engineer for THE BEATLES, ready to record REVOLVER, at what 22 years old? But at the same time, IMO Geoff should understand where George was coming from. Norman recorded every session they had at Abbey Road up until that time, and I understand they all liked him. Then all of a sudden without warning, Norman isn't there. If I were George, or any of them, I think I'd like to know where Norman was too! I think I'd be a little upset if such a thing happened so abruptly as well.

 

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in". Or something like that. They used the line in the earlier seasons of The Sopranos quite a bit, as an impersonation of it being said in Godfather Part III.

 

How could you possibly think I said, or inferred such a thing. I clearly said I was dismayed that some new members seemed to have joined the forum only to support Emerick's book and slam those who point out the inaccuracies in it. Ron

 

What's troubling about Emerick's assertion on this day, is that it's never been raised before. No other book, including George Martin's, mention how sullen or upset George, or the other's might have been on this date, when Emerick replaced Norman Smith. Though truth be told....Geoff was only 20 years old, and if he was greeted with skepticism or even anger is this not understandable? It's the typical EMI way too....Not even telling the Beatles about this major shake-up of their production team? Rather amazing if you ask me. Ron

 

Didn't Paul talk about Norman's "disappearance"? I can't remember exactly where - wasn't it in Many Years From Now or the interview with Paul in Lewisohn's Recording Sessions?

 

Ron, I already apologised. See post#84.

 

Reading all these post about and around the Beatles I have a crazy idea:
what we need is a kind of wikipedia about our favorite subject. A Day by day analysis on the net from April 1956 (when John started his first skiffle band) to December 31, 1970 (Paul takes the other to court). A page a day. Everything John, Paul, George, Ringo and all the others did and said on that particular day. Anyone can add and correct. The facts in bold.

Perhaps then the "truth" will be known....

 

"But always, hopefully, it all comes back to the wonderful music."

I couldn't agree more.

 

Somebody clear this up for me... why all the drama? I read Emerick's book cover to cover, and while I note as many here do a number of factual inaccuracies, I'm not of the opinion that they call into question his recollections of his personal experiences.

I work in TV, and to me the book felt like the biography of Geoff Emerick and that the Beatles were some VERY interesting co-workers. His descriptions of the Beatles were refreshing in their frankness -- they may not jive with what some other folks have had to say about them as individuals, but they feel familiar to me personally in that my co-workers and I often say similar things about the "talent" we find ourselves around during work. Bear this in mind -- the way I see a news-anchor is not the way his family or friends see him. That doesn't make my opinion wrong, or based in bitterness or whatever... it simply comes from somebody with a different perspective than somebody else's. And, frankly, I think in many ways it may have more value.

Emerick's opinions about John, Paul, George and Ringo are just that -- opinions. The man talks about his impressions of the Beatles and George Martin as people. Some of those impressions are favorable and some less so. The fact that Emerick feels Harrison had trouble figuring out guitar parts, or that Ringo spent lots of time reading comics is just fine. That's how he remembers them.

And none of US were there. We may not like what he has to say, but he knows better than us what it was actually like to be there. No question about that.

So, dates aside, what song was recorded in what order... all that petty research-based stuff that you can get anywhere (and FWIW, pick the version that gives you the most comfort) - does anybody here have any rational, fact-based criticism of Emerick's personal observations. As far as I can tell, we're all just fans with IMPRESSIONS of who the Beatles were. We don't really KNOW them.

BTW - I've spent countless hours for decades reading about these guys... I am NOT AT ALL new to this topic. My opinion is that MOST books about the Beatles are only reliable to a limited degree, and it that respect Emerick's book fits in like most of the others. I'm just at a loss as to why people are exhibiting such a visceral reaction to it when it offers, for the first time, something that no other book has -- the personal observations of somebody who talked to and worked with the Beatles directly on their recordings. I respect the work of Philip Norman and researchers like Mark Lewisohn, but their work -- for all of detail -- cannot put you in the room as a fly on the wall. Their work cannot tell you how a room "felt." Their work cannot account for real experience.

Don't dismiss this book out of hand.

It is a fascinating read, and will give you more of a sense of what these guys were like to be around than most other books of their kind. You will learn more about the Abbey Road lp sessions than ever before -- it was like these sessions never happened in the "Anthology Universe."

And it is NOT some inflated hatchet-job -- Peter Brown shared all sorts of gossip in his book years back. This book talks "out of school," but about what the author saw or experienced. It doesn't make an effort to tell stories that are outside of Emerick's involvement - so again it is essentially HIS autobiography.

-mk

 

Hi there,
i'm getting towards the 3/4 of the book.
I can tell you what the fuzz is all about.
I think that's one of the rarest books that do not bash Paul in the history of the Beatles .
Actually, I didn't go for this book on the matter of their personal attitudes, but on the tech side of the recording sessions. Although I think Geoff put a little bit George down for my tastes, I'd give a 4.5 out of 5 for this book. And I haven't finished reading it.
Claudio



Emerick's opinions about John, Paul, George and Ringo are just that -- opinions. The man talks about his impressions of the Beatles and George Martin as people. Some of those impressions are favorable and some less so. The fact that Emerick feels Harrison had trouble figuring out guitar parts, or that Ringo spent lots of time reading comics is just fine. That's how he remembers them.

 

I have yet to see this book in any Vancouver bookstores. Has it not been published in Canada? (Though after the past 2 weeks on this forum I don't know that I ever want to read the word "Beatles" again)

 

Now it seems to have reared it's ugly head again I'm putting up a post I recently put up on my website.

<I really hate to belabor the point but I just came across this quote, made around the time “Brainwashed” was released, on foxnews.com.

“People don’t realize, it but George had a great sense of humor,” Emerick recalled. “He was also such a gifted musician. On “Taxman,” from the Revolver album, I can remember him writing the guitar parts backwards to get the effect. He could do anything. At first, John and Paul didn’t realize how well he could write songs. But then they saw what he could do.”

Would the real George Harrison please stand up.>

Any comments ?

Cheers

 

interesting! I saw emerick+co-writer speak and got my copy signed by him and his co-author a couple of days before (was also showed a vol 2 box afterwards!)

one of the most interesting stories (for me) in the book was early on, where he details an exchange between paul & george very similar to the infamous one on the let it be film - "get back" indeed!

I've read a lot of criticism about the book saying how hard he was on george, but I don't think he was, particularly - at first, I thought he was "hardest" on ringo but now I think he was hardest on george martin

what do you think?

 

Ron, in which thread of the Forum does Scott talk about the innacuracies of Emerick's book ?