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

We obviously aren't on the same page or in the same book.

 

We aren't, you're so argumentative you don't even seem to read my posts.

 

The burden of proof is on me to explain something I never said? I'm not sure how that makes sense.

I never said Martin offered no input about what songs to release as singles in their later years. To the contrary, I said it was likely that they discussed it with him and valued his opinion. What I did say was that it's unlikely that they gave him the power to make the final decision about what song to put on the a-side.

If they went by majority rule, how did they break a tie? I don't know. I'm not claiming to know. Perhaps they flipped a coin. I don't have any evidence to back up that theory, but I've yet to see you cite any evidence to back up your theory that George Martin was the final arbiter, either. That's one of my points. We are discussing theories here, yet you are claiming your theory is fact, without citing any evidence.

To summarize: you've claimed that they gave George Martin the "final say" in what songs to release as single a-sides... not just when they could not agree among themselves, but in all instances. I am skeptical of that theory, for reasons I cited above (Lennon's 1970 comments about his frustration in the single selection process). I've asked if you have any evidence to support your theory, and you've cited generalities ("someone has to be in charge or it would be unprofessional"). You've provided no evidence. So, I remain skeptical of your theory.

 

After reading and hearing many interviews with John, I can believe that John thought most of Paul's songs were, as he put it, "rubbish" (except for Hey Jude), but I don't believe that John was a complete fool. He knew that many of Paul's songs were what attracted the mainstream audiences to the Beatles' albums and what got more than the hardcore fans to buy them. John was certainly not against making money, and plus that he seemed to give more of an effort to contribute musically to Paul's songs (at the same time, was not putting his best into George's songs).
Back in the heyday of singles in the US, being on the b-side was at times, just as good as being the A-side, Yesterday was an example of that. I think also as far as the buying public was for Beatles singles, gave the b-side a listen. Even though I am the Walrus did not chart as high as Hello Goodbye, everyone that bought the single bought both songs.

 

Care to name a blues shuffle that gave Hey Jude a run for it's money in the US in 1968?

 

The Beatles also did Paperback Writer and Rain on Top of the Pops six months after Day Tripper/We Can Work it Out. It was their first (and only) live appearance on Top of the Pops. They even wore black suits white shirts and black ties, not characteristic of their usual 1966 attire.

 

John had the idea for it, back in 1965, and his initial draft for 'In My Life' reads just like 'Penny Lane'. He abandoned that idea, but in 1966 attempted a 'Liverpool childhood' song again, only to have the verse "in the town where I was born lived a man who sailed to sea" used in 'Yellow Submarine'. His next attempt was 'Strawberry Fields Forever' which he wrote in Spain in October 1966 and which, when he heard it, prompted Paul to come up with 'Penny Lane' as we know it. The Beatles intended to have all the songs on their next LP follow this theme, but the two songs were released as a single by EMI's urging. (The only other two songs that were finished or nearly finished at that point were 'When I'm 64' and 'A Day in The Life' which would have been less commercial but a lot wilder!) The custom sleeve (the first time The Beatles had such a sleeve in the UK) was a remnant of the initial concept album idea, reduced to a concept single!

 

What theory am I claiming is fact - that the person put in charge by the company actually IS in charge? Yeah - that's quite a stretch, isn't it?

The Beatles didn't need to give him final say - only EMI did. He worked for EMI, not for the Beatles. He worked WITH the Beatles - not FOR them.

Your claim seems to be that the person put in charge by the company has no authority. How does that make sense?

To summarize - YOU are claiming that the person EMI put in charge DIDN'T have final say to agree or disagree with the band's choices. A record producer is analagous to a movie director. Do movie directors not have final say over for example editing? Should the actors have final say? How about the cameramen? The screenwriter? Should they all be free to overrule him, even though its his responsibility, and its largely his head on a chopping block if the movie fails.

Lets say Martin had no final say, like you seem to be saying, and the Beatles started putting out crap like I dunno - All Together Now/Don't Pass Me By.

If sales started to suffer, EMI might choose to drop the band, but I think its MUCH more likely they'd change the producer first. Its HIS job to make money for EMI. Its HIS a$$ that's on the front line, not the band's.

AGAIN - (why do I need to keep repeating this?) I NEVER said he was heavy handed, overruling them all of the time - but he had the authority to do so, given to him by his employer, EMI.

Why do you dispute this so adamently?

Geez - do you not know what a record producer is? Like the actual job description?

Again, YOU seem to be arguing that the person hired by EMI to be "in charge" in fact wasn't in charge. This makes sense to you?

 

I think Mark Lewisohn better start writing quicker. I don't want to wait until the year 2020 just to find out that the A-sides to the Beatles singles were picked by the Parlophone secretaries on their tea breaks.

Arnie

 

Certainly by 67 the beatles did have a final say in everything. They were managing themselves (after Brian died). Now that does not mean they weren't listening to what their associates were advicing, but they had "final cut" so to speak.

 

There is a scene from the "Get back" movie out takes.
The Beatles and assistants are listening to the playbacks of the song "Get Back" and George Harrison says to Paul
"That should be the next single" Paul looks suitably happy and they all continue listening.
From what I have read, in the later years all the Beatles made the decisions about what was going to be released as singles.
If they couldn't all agree it didn't happen (at least until after Abbey Road was released)
Also the people around them, their friends etc would be listening to the songs before release and give the band an idea of what
was commercial.
One last point, the Beatles recording schedule was dictated by the fact they needed a lot of product to fulfill the contact
with EMI and they always knew that there would be a single coming up so that meant the most radio friendly song would be the front runner.

 

So now Revolution is reduced to being labeled a generic blues shuffle, wow.

 

This isn't detailed but these are a few quotes I remember seeing on this, there may be more in other books that I don't recall.

In the early days, George Martin had picked the songs that would comprise the A-side and B-side of a Beatles single. But by this point in their career, it would be the group’s decision; George might offer some input or suggestions, but it was their final call. Apparently, John and Paul had been arguing for some time about what would be the next A-side. John was pushing hard for “Revolution 1,” but Paul resisted, telling John he thought it was too slow; eventually he brought George Martin in as an ally. Personally, I think Paul felt that the song simply wasn’t all that good, and he was using its slow tempo as an excuse not to have it released as a single, but John had defiantly taken him up on the challenge and so was insisting that they cut it again, faster. (It would all become a moot point a few weeks later when Paul came in with “Hey Jude,” which was obviously a much more commercial song. As competitive as they were, they both always wanted the strongest track for the A-side, no matter who had written it, because their royalties were split fifty-fifty regardless. The whole point was to maximize record sales, which translated into cash.) -Here, There and Everywhere - My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles - Geoff Emerick and Howard Massey

I guess Revolution was a swimming pool but Hey Jude was the whole property so to speak.

And from Barry Miles MYFN

The song, just called "Revolution", which was used as the B side of "Hey Jude", was faster than the doo-wop version and recorded with maximum volume and distortion with all the VU meters jammed over in the red. It was originally planned as the A side of their first Apple Records release,
but, much to John's chagrin, "Hey Jude" was voted more likely to succeed.

And from the Lennon Remembers Interview

John Lennon: "When George and Paul and all of them were on holiday, I made “Revolution” which is on the LP and “Revolution #9.” I wanted to put it out as a single, I had it all prepared, but they came by, and said it wasn’t good enough. And we put out what? “Hello Goodbye” or some **** like that? No, we put out “Hey Jude,” which was worth it–I’m sorry–but we could have had both."


It is clear, as Ash1 said, that John had no issue wih Hey Jude being an A side so the question isn't how A sides were selected as that seems to have been by consensus in the case of Hey Jude at any rate, but instead how the number of singles to realease was decided, and someone indicated earlier it was down to the record label? I don't know perhaps it was.

 

They didn't wear ties on that 1966 TOTP, did they, nik?; just buttoned-up shirt collars.

 

Johnny Marr once said that the Smiths didn't write singles, b-sides or album tracks - when it was time to release a single they took their best songs and put them on a single, with the most commercial on the a-side. Which is how they ended up with How Soon is Now and Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want on the b-side of William It Was Really Nothing.

Revolution is a great song, especially in its electric version, but it was not as commercial as Hey Jude. Period. It's subject matter was not commercial, it's production was not commercial, and it's form - blues shuffle - was not commercial.

So Paul had the a-side. John would have wanted the b-side, even if he resented it. I assume he had some say in what track they used, and Revolution was the best 'other' track they had ready to go.

It also wasn't their style to sit on songs. If they'd hung onto Revolution as an a-side after Hey Jude, it would have been, essentially, their Christmas single. That would have been a bold move, but chances are they would have waited until January 1969, at which point the song would have been over 7 months old.

Anyway their single follow up to Hey Jude was a blues shuffle, Get Back. Personally I like Revolution more than Get Back, but I can see that Get Back is more commercial.

 

Someone mentioned the 1970 RS interview. I just read the entire thing and it doesn't offer any insight at all as to how the A side was chosen. Not a waste of time, as it is always an interesting read...but why (whoever you are) did this get brought up?

Lennon does address Revolution, saying he wanted it as a single, "but "they" came by and said it wasn't good enough."..."we put out 'Hey Jude' which was worth it -- I'm sorry - but we could have had both."

So that interview doesn't shed any insight on this question.

 

Yeah, I'd correct it to AYNIL but phonetically that sounds even worse!

 

The part of the chicken that goes over the fence last.

 

All the publicity shots were of them sans ties but on the actual broadcast they did wear ties. Someone posted a photo on here a while ago. For what it's worth, I did see that Top of The Pops twice- once in 1966, when I noticed nothing amiss, suggesting they wore ties 'as usual', and once in 1990 when the quality of the nth generation dub was so poor I could only tell it was The Beatles when there was a full screen shot of the drumkit logo. Talk about 405 lines, this was a very smudgy, crackly, smeared 5 lines.

 

Lovely story. Thanks.

 

I don't think there's actually any factual information in your post, re: the Beatles. On top of that, I don't see how anyone feels justified saying Revolution is not a commercial song. ****, I've heard it on commercials!

 

and is 1968 "Revolution" was only heard in the kick-ass mono mix:

 

I wasn't aware that the 1966 performance survived at all.

 

Thanks so much for all this. Makes perfect sense, of course. It's sad that the idea was finally scuttled by the simple act of Martin using Strawberry/Lane
as a single, and thereby, in accordance with Beatles policy, excluding it from use on the next album. I had read that Martin felt in retrospect that
using Strawberry/Lane as a single was the greatest single (pun) blunder he made with the Beatles, but in the context you've supplied, it really is a sad, anticlimactic end to a much longer tale than I had been aware of..

 

Contrary to what you are asserting, the job of a record producer does not always entail being "in charge" in the manner you describe. Elvis, for example, had nominal producers (Chet Atkins and Felton Jarvis) but he acted as the de facto producer of his sessions and decided on his own which tracks to release as singles. Bob Johnston makes a point of saying he took an extremely hands-off approach in the studio, and did not even offer Dylan his opinions on anything unless Dylan asked him directly. Otherwise, he just left Dylan alone.

I've already cited interviews with Lennon in which he suggested the Beatles decided themselves which songs to release as singles in their later years. And in case you missed it, Buick6 provided this comment from Geoff Emerick: "In the early days, George Martin had picked the songs that would comprise the A-side and B-side of a Beatles single. But by this point in their career, it would be the group’s decision; George might offer some input or suggestions, but it was their final call."

At that point, George Martin was hired as producer because the Beatles requested him, not because EMI wanted him. If the Beatles had asked to have him replaced, EMI likely would have complied. If the Beatles had insisted on producing themselves, EMI likely would have complied. The band had a proven track record of success, and I suspect would have been allowed any freedom they'd asked for.