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

I can't quite imagine EMI chairman Sir Joseph Lockwood saying 'WTF' nor indeed 'calling the band in'. He would most likely pick up the phone and speak to either John or Paul. Remember he had a very cordial relationship with John, who spoke directly to Sir Joe about his solo albums in 1968/9. George Martin, by 1968, was also not likely to be 'called in' as he was an outside producer. Again, a phonecall would suffice between Sir George and Sir Joe, and Sir Joe is more than likely to have said "whatever The Beatles want, they shall have." The guiding hands on the tiller were the four Beatles, to varying degrees over the course of 1967/8/9, and as ever, Paul was the one most willing to attend to the business of being The Beatles.

 

How old is Fourth Grade? Is that like 9 or what? We didn't do it that way here. Our 'Year 4' is 6 or 7 years of age. And why 'Grade'? Why not 'year'?

 

Fourth grade would be 9/10 as we enter first grade at six. Grade is the word used over here, first grade to 12th grade.
If you go to Community College after High School, it's 13th grade.

 

When did I ever deny that he was employed by EMI to work WITH the Beatles (is your "assist" meant to emply that he worked "under" The Beatles?)

As far as your bracketed assertion of who ultimately made EMI's business decisions for them - what's your evidence?

Why MUST the band and Epstein have been the ones to make that decision, and not EMI?

 

Yeah - THAT'S the crux of my argument

 

You make it sound like he wasn't HIRED by EMI on a project by project basis to do the same job as he had done before leaving their full-time employ.

Why is that?

Are you saying that EMI or GM specifically stipulated in the contract that his responsibilities as producer were to be substantially reduced once he became a contracted producer rather than a staff producer?

How would that serve either of their interests?

Why would EMI hire/contract GM to do the same job he did while on staff and then go out of their way to tie his hands?

 

This discussion began because you said "The commercially stronger of the two resultant finished recordings gets the A-side and the other one gets the B-side, with final say on the matter resting in the hands of George Martin." What we are discussing is whether that statement is true, not what EMI's perception of George Martin's role was.

Martin's role evolved gradually. As time went on, the Beatles asked for and were given more autonomy and freedom to do as they wished. Martin's role and authority diminished. Emerick says so in the comment I quoted. There are other accounts that describe this. As slane noted, Martin took a much less active role in many of the 1968-69 recordings. It's not something that was contractually stipulated, it is just the way things evolved.

 

No - this discussion began because you turned my "the logical assumption is..." statement into a ridiculous strawman argument accusing ME of making unsubstantiated (and implicitly false) statements of FACT.

 

wildstar, what evidence we have is piling up against your assertion of fact: Emerick's testimony; the way in which the various Beatles have discussed single selection over the years (in which single release decisions in the later years, good or bad, have been credited to other band members, but never to George Martin); and the Beatles overriding Martin on at least one extremely major release decision - making the White Album a double. If you actually have any concrete evidence for your assertion, beyond your blustering "but this is how I think this sort of thing works!", now would be a good time to bring it out!

And if we're just going by gut feelings, 'common sense' and a sense of commercial realities, it seems much more logical to me that if George Martin ever did try to have a 'final say' that the band didn't agree with, EMI would have overruled Martin in an instant. They were rolling over backwards to keep their golden geese happy, and if the band ever said, "we're really not happy with George" he would have been disappeared before you could say "Phil Spector".

 

What assertion if fact? I made only statements of logic, NOT statements of fact. How is it illogical to assume a company who hires a manager, expects them to act as manager, and places the onus/resposibility on him rather than those he manages in a conflict? If EMI said he was in charge, then he was in charge - how is THAT illogical?

Is it possible that they hired him to specifically NOT be in charge, sure, but how is THAT a logical assumption?

Yep EMI was rolling over backwards to keep the golden geese happy so much that they continued to pay them a relative pittance in record royalties compared to many of their contemporaries (most notably, the Stones) and compared to what EMI was pulling in from the sales of Beatles records - that is until Klein got involved after which they got a substantial raise, which still paled compared to what other top tier bands of the era received.

 

Unwatching this thread now....

 

Okay, so reading between the shouty lines, I guess the answer to my question "do you have any actual evidence for your assertions" is NO. Bye!

 

How is it logical to suggest a scenario which is not supported by evidence, and which contradicts the testimony of at least one person who was directly involved?

 

Very interesting - I've long susepcted this exists, but never hear a first hand account of a post-66 viewing before. Would you be able to share the circumstances of how you came to see it?

 

How is it illogical to assume an employee would be responsible to fulfill the duties assigned to them by their employer? They hired GM to do a job - jobs have responsibilities - so unless your assertion is that GM shirked his responsibilities, I really don't understand your point and why you can't let this go!

BTW this is getting ridiculous - its getting to the point where it seems like I'm being pressured by you to defend my RIGHT to HAVE an opinion, rather than what my opinion actually is....

Is THAT really your point, let alone that of the OP or even the SHF forums?

 

Oh so that's the problem. You see, if you actually read the lines I wrote rather than trying to read between them..........

Umm..........Buh-bye?

 

My gawd, some members of this forum sure do love arguing just for the sake of arguing...one of the big turn offs about this site.

 

Yeah, this thread in particular quickly devolved into The Battle of the Beatles Experts. I gave up sometime over the weekend.

 

My point was that there seems to be a discrepancy between what you say his duties and responsibilities were, and what they actually were.

But I certainly don't question your right to have an opinion. I thought we were having a discussion here. You stated an opinion. I asked you what the basis of your opinion was, and upon hearing it, stated my disagreement and the reasons why. Then you responded in kind. The whole discussion has been permutations of that. I find that type of discussion interesting, but perhaps you don't. It also seems we've taken this particular discussion about as far as it can go, and based on some of the other comments here, let it go on too long (it takes two to not let something go). So anyway, at this point I will let it go and not say anything more about this particular topic.

 

....and MY closing statement is, you accused me of claiming that my opinion was FACT, which I never did (pretty much all my statement came with a "the logical assumption is..." caveat - either plainly stated or implied) then after I explained the reasons I held the opinion, that explanation seemed to be ignored by you because it was further challenged multiple times - the EXACT SAME POINT, so that I had to keep re-explaining it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and.......

That doesn't make for an interesting discussion, that makes for a tedious, annoying and ridiculous waste of time.

Maybe instead of wasting my own time restating the exact same point to you that you kept re-challenging over and over and over and over again, I should have just said "re-read my previous post again" each time instead of going to the trouble of re-typing the exact same point over and over and over and over and over again, so "my bad" there, I suppose.....

But my growing annoyance at this mind-numbing clusterf*** of a "conversation" (in quotes because a true conversation is two - or more - people volleying ideas back and forth and building on the foundation of each previous point which advances the dialogue) really boils down to the fact that it has essentially been little more than me throwing a ball against a wall, it just came right back at me over and over and over again - the exact same point kept getting re-challenged by you, over and over and over again.....

 

Anyway, here are two puppeteers with The Beatles. (Click image to see video)

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=632389483537261

 

I saw it at a TV collector's convention. It really was very very very poor. They also showed Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix and Kinks appearances on Top of The Pops which have since come up on YouTube in much better quality (though not perfect). So, there's always hope. I believe it was supposed to be included in Anthology but the VHS they managed to source didn't have sufficient picture information to be played.

 

Arm wrestling. Duh.

 

This is absolutely amazing! You should post this on every Beatles-related thread. People would get a kick out of it.

I've never seen anything like that. WOW!