Beatles without George Martin

It seems to me there's a kind of weird thing going with Beatles' fans where everything and everyone connected with their music has to be the greatest, including their producer, even if, perverse as it may seem, that involves downplaying the talent of the actual Beatles themselves. Personally, I think Martin seemed to spend much of his post-Beatles' career burnishing his own legend as their producer and I think he gets far too much credit.

 

George & John's guitars might"ve been turned up. Maybe have same producer as the Yardbirds or the Kinks.

 

I don't think he gets nearly enough credit. His importance cannot be overstated.

 

FWIW, that's not how I see it. George Martin was not the best producer in the world, but he was the best producer for the Beatles. I would say the same thing about Ringo (not the best drummer in the world, but the best for the Beatles - I've heard that quote before many times), and Brian Epstein (certainly not the best manager in the world, but the best for them). It's more of a fascinating (to me) story of the stars all aligning to bring a band that was way more than the sum of their parts. Yes, all four members were very talented, but I think if you take away any part of their early history and The Beatles as we know them would not have existed.

 

As we know them is a long way from "They wouldn't have got anywhere without George Martin". The latter statement is nonsense, in my opinion.

 

This much, I agree with you on

 

George Martin is either directly or indirectly responsible for so much of what they became after 1962. Look at what The Beatles were when they got to EMI. Listen to the band that they were on Please Please Me and on the Star Club tapes. Awesome club band, very charismatic -- Martin didn't do that -- but as a classically trained musician, composer and arranger in his own right, he added things to the mix that elevated them to new levels that no other pop producer of that era would have been able to do for them. The Beatles with Mickey Most or Shel Talmy most likely would have been a few years of "Ask Me Why" and "Misery" type songs. George Martin was among the very few people that brought sophistication to rock/pop in those days.

 

This goes hand in hand with what I’m saying as well; Martin inspired and indirectly encouraged them to to try new paths. This was truly a case of artist and producer both having visionary qualities. I never felt Martin had the same progressive approach with the other Epstein acts he produced in that early period. Listen to a Pacemaker record and a Dakotas record both compared to a Beatle record. The intent speaks for itself.

 

"End of story"...that's always a good one.

 

George Martin did a lot for them, no question. But he did NOT write those riffs and chords and melodies. And he did NOT sing a line.

 

Sure it can. You're proving it.

 

Paul turned up his bass (thankfully) and turned down John's guitar....

 

And you don't think that might be down to the artists (i.e. the Beatles) themselves? Or would Paul McCartney just be Gerry Marsden but for George Martin?

 

I don’t think Martin felt Gerry and the others had the artistic potential he sensed from The Beatles both as a band and certainly in terms of songwriting. This isn’t to imply Paul and John didn’t have the innate talent regardless of who was producing them; but my point is, in the hands if another producer, studio or record company altogether, they may not have been given the chance to flourish within their potential.

 

…but in the hands of another record company/producer they may not have been allowed the chance, time and effort to create those riffs and melodies. At that point in time, most record companies wanted their artists to record, quick, surefire hits mostly supplied by “professional” songwriters (note The Animals). If The Beatles weren’t allowed the chance to record their own material, events may have led to them calling it a day. But Martin did more than “allow” them; he encouraged them and saw that their material received top notch production quality. This practice of a producer increased as time went on but it wasn’t much there in the early sixties where the main priority was to quickly churn out, snappy, profit making hit singles.

 

This place with its counterfactual arguments.

 

Hmm. Doesn't seem like you have a firm grasp on understanding what George Martin's role actually was. I wouldn't say he was even the "fifth Beatle"...more like third, if we're ranking them in terms of importance.

 

it's supposed to be fun, usually is...

 

And there would be an almost infinite number of threads here discussing every aspect of that album, from speculation on what John might have eaten to cause each fart to whether he was wearing boxers or briefs and how his choice would have changed the tone of each fart.

 

i'm not aware of much recent chatter for The Wedding Album, or its ilk.

Hey, a new topic! And you can listen to as much as you can stand for free on youtube.

 

I earlier posted a mildly Martin-skeptical post, alluding to Martin's occasionally schmaltzy production work with other acts (though not at all contesting the unimpeachable excellence of his work with the Beatles). Allow me, though, to amplify some valid points others have raised here, which I do find persuasive, on the merits of Martin.

1. Martin (like Epstein) contributed to one of the Beatles' many strengths: he encouraged them to think of themselves as professionals. Now, they maybe didn't always live up to that, especially post-Epstein. But... I think show-biz offers all kinds of incentives for artists to behave badly and to engage in self-destructive behaviour. In relative terms, though, the Beatles were largely free from much of that for the first 5 years of their professional career -- and I can see that Martin played his role in that: treating them like professionals, requiring that they treat him like a professional. For that matter, Paul, closest to Martin, adopted this ethos most thoroughly and continued to reinforce it through the lifetime of the group, against the late 60s headwinds of John and George H's growing interests in drugs, divorce, and a different kind of image. If Paul was going to be the taskmaster of the post-Epstein Beatles, much of that was just Paul being Paul, of course, especially given the disengagement of John in favour of other interests, and some of it was from Paul stepping into the role of Epstein (despite being arguably less close to Epstein than the others), but some of it was also surely shaped by Paul's impression and adoption of Martin's professionalism. So... thanks George Martin!

2. I do think the comparison with other British acts of the 60s era is telling: I love the Kinks, love the Stones, love the Zombies. But... these other acts did not get the production and engineering TLC of the Beatles, and (tragically) it's easy to tell. Martin was part of a team, sure, but I'm open to the idea that he was the key member of that team who made all the other team-members give their best game for work with this one prize client.

3. And, yeah, Martin's openness to experimentation: the shared sense that the receptivity of the market and the artistic authority of the Beatles might make it both possible and desirable to pursue more experimental sounds than was then widely recognized. But others here have already remarked on this.

Cheers, RH

 

Very good!

Losing Brian made the Fabs quickly realize how much the wolves and time-wasters were kept away by Brian, along with other bad things they didn't even know about.

 

Martin was the 5th Beatle. It's hard to imagine another producer that would have nurtured and complemented them like Martin did. He was like the momma bird who got them to the point where they could fly.

Easily, I would say The Beatles crash and burn, forced to release lame covers like How Do You Do It? w/out Martin in the picture. No Beatlemania, no Ed Sullivan show.

 

Key words - "May not".

It's all in the wonderful land of pure speculation.

 

In your post #121 above you said Martin was equally as important as L & M. In this post you're putting him behind them. How can I give your views any credibility when you contradict yourself so quickly?