Beatles without George Martin

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Sear, May 14, 2022.

  1. DTK

    DTK Forum Resident

    Location:
    Europe
    Really? On this forum the emphasis seems to be on claiming that Paul did everything. Oh Paaaaaaaauuul. Paaaaaauuuul.
     
    ARK and andy749 like this.
  2. intv7

    intv7 Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    Because there would have been no Beatles at all without Lennon & McCartney. By default that makes them the most essential ingredients to the stew. That doesn't mean that George Martin wasn't equally important to the record making process later on. Maybe if you weren't so hung up on being pedantic and more focused on understanding how The Beatles' records were made, you would get it.
     
  3. 7solqs4iago

    7solqs4iago Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto
    we better free our minds instead

    and then our ass will follow
     
  4. idreamofpikas

    idreamofpikas Forum Resident

    Location:
    england
    He's been knighted by the Queen, was a multi-millionaire and along with Phil Spector and Quincy Jones is the most famous producer of the last century and is commonly named the 5th Beatles despite there actually being 5th and 6th Beatles.

    What more credit do you think George should have got?
     
  5. intv7

    intv7 Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    The fact that there are still people out there who don't understand how integral he actually was tells me he doesn't get enough credit.
     
    ARK likes this.
  6. HfxBob

    HfxBob Forum Resident

    Well, I found your statement that "Without him, we never would've heard of them" followed by an "End of story" just a bit heavy-handed.

    Obviously he had an impact on their sound and their success. But to suggest that they never would have made it without him is ridiculous.
     
  7. intv7

    intv7 Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    No more ridiculous than a statement saying that we would have heard of them, honestly. It's all understood to be hypothetical.
     
  8. Pianoman99

    Pianoman99 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Frankfurt
    True, but his influence in putting their ideas into reality, inspiring them, showing them many possibilities in instrumentation, arrangement etc. was huge. Not to mention his great team around Geoff Emerick etc., that had a huge influence on the Beatles sound. But I agree with you that he didn't compose - apart from his soundtrack stuff. So of course the band as such is more important than George Martin. But still I think he and his team were a very important ingredient in order to achieve that sound.
     
    DK Pete likes this.
  9. idreamofpikas

    idreamofpikas Forum Resident

    Location:
    england
    There are people out there who could not tell you who sung or wrote Something. More of those people exist than people who are not aware that George Martin was the Producer of the Beatles.

    I will ask again and maybe this time you can actually offer a real answer rather some vague suggestion of what you think should happen.


    He's been knighted by the Queen, was a multi-millionaire and along with Phil Spector and Quincy Jones is the most famous producer of the last century and is commonly named the 5th Beatles despite there actually being 5th and 6th Beatles.

    What more credit do you think George should have got?
     
  10. HfxBob

    HfxBob Forum Resident

    You're the one who made the extremely hypothetical statement that we'd never have heard of the Beatles without Martin, and felt you had to hammer home your certainty about it with the words "End of story".
     
  11. intv7

    intv7 Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    I'm not sure that his having been rich and famous, as you pointed out, necessarily hammers home how integral he was to the proceedings. Hence my ignoring it the first time.

    There are people ON THIS FORUM who CAN tell you who wrote "Something", and STILL feel that George Martin's importance to The Beatles is exaggerated.

    So, I will tell you again -- and offer a real answer, as I did before. As long as those people, who really should know better, are making ridiculous statements like that, then he is being underrated.
     
  12. intv7

    intv7 Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    THE WHOLE THREAD IS HYPOTHETICAL.
     
    ARK and andy749 like this.
  13. HfxBob

    HfxBob Forum Resident

    I get that, but some people state their views more strongly than others. Yours were especially strong and jumped out at me. Do you really believe these statements?

    Without him, we never would've heard of them. Without him, none of what they accomplished would have been possible.
     
  14. intv7

    intv7 Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    Perhaps I was being slightly hyperbolic -- but in essence, yes, I do believe those statements.

    What we know about their music prior to June 1962 is really all we have to go on. Everything else that happened after that is completely impossible to gauge how it would've been in an alternate universe. And I don't hear anything prior to joining up with George Martin that indicates to me that they would've been on the path to changing the course of music history and having rippling effects on popular culture for generations. Don't know what else to tell you. I know what happened in actuality, and to change that trajectory throws the whole thing into uncertainty.
     
  15. idreamofpikas

    idreamofpikas Forum Resident

    Location:
    england


    Being knighted and being rich are both rewards for his contributions. What rewards do you think he's missed out on?

    Global recognition? Critical acclaim? Financial reward? Respect from his peers?

    He has all of those. What exactly is he missing out on. The fact that you can't even answer this question is pretty telling. You are complaining for the sake of complaining.


    Yeah, that is not necessarily true. They earned their record contract without George Martin's help. It seems their early songs were destined to be hits and there is hardly much studio magic on them.

    If Martin and the Beatles had parted ways after their first hit pretty sure there is a far greater chance that they would have still gone onto better things in the 60's and 70's than Martin would have.
     
  16. brettster808

    brettster808 Forum Resident

    I'm tempted to start a new thread, "The Beatles Without Julian Lennon" but I wont.

    What would their legacy look like without "Hey Jude?"
     
    intv7 likes this.
  17. intv7

    intv7 Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    I've answered you. And I've then explained it for you in simpler terms. Having global recognition, critical acclaim, financial reward, and respect from one's peers does not mean your contributions are accurately valued. There is no other way I can explain this to you.

    They earned their record contract "without George Martin's help"? Who signed them to EMI then?

    Who selected the material that went on that record? Do you think that those recordings would have essentially sounded the same with Shel Talmy producing?? And do you think that simply having a recording contract means that a record is going to be a hit? :confused:
     
    ronbow and ARK like this.
  18. intv7

    intv7 Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    I'm thinking of starting "What if George Harrison was a Nine-Brained Octopus?". :laugh:
     
    brettster808 likes this.
  19. HfxBob

    HfxBob Forum Resident

    For me it's not about what they did prior to joining up with GM. I just think their innate talent was later proven by the songs that they wrote.

    Anyway, I do appreciate your civil responses and I'm sorry if I got a little prickly myself.
     
    intv7 likes this.
  20. intv7

    intv7 Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    It's all good -- likewise. I like the banter, however I should probably learn not to engage in a hypothetical debate that I feel this strongly about. :laugh:

    It's impossible to know what they'd have written without GM involved in close proximity. I'd like to think they had those songs in them...but who knows for sure. I think the four Beatles plus George Martin were the perfect storm. Those five people creating was lightning in a bottle.
     
    HfxBob likes this.
  21. goldtop

    goldtop Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Melbourne, AU
    I've tried to imagine what would have happened if, say, Please Please Me didn't hit the charts and they ended up in Joe Meek's apartment. Blows my mind.
     
  22. Lexhibit

    Lexhibit Forum Resident

    The best thing about George Martin was he knew what was bad and what was good and he wasn't a "yes man" to the boys, imagine if he was in charge of red rose speedway, dark horse, or sometime in nyc they may have not been released. No one had the guts to tell them
     
    ARK and DK Pete like this.
  23. DK Pete

    DK Pete Forum Resident

    Location:
    Levittown. NY
    John once made the post-breakup comment that now-to paraphrase/we’d have four times as much music to listen to. And that, in fact, turned out to be the problem; four albums by the four individuals didn’t add up to one album by the collective four.
     
    ARK, All Down The Line and Biff1 like this.
  24. Biff1

    Biff1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Fair Oaks, CA
    I agree with your argument that The Beatles brought out the best in George Martin, but it should be emphasized that Martin was a highly capable and successful music producer throughout his career. He worked with many Beatles contemporaries in the early 60's and charted a number of huge hits with some of them. The records he produced for America sound great and were commercially successful, and Martin certainly can't be faulted for that band not being on the same musical level as The Beatles. And everyone knows the James Bond movie themes he produced, which made truckloads of money and added tremendous value to the film franchise.
     
    Rob Hughes and DK Pete like this.
  25. idreamofpikas

    idreamofpikas Forum Resident

    Location:
    england
    Not always. He thought the early Beatles material was not good enough for the charts and wanted them to sing other people's songs. It is only when the early Beatle songs became hits did he have faith in their material.




    He produced Pipes of Peace and Give My Regards to Broad Street. Why did he not speak up then?

    Martin's produced quite a few average albums over his career. He had 6 albums with America in the 70's and could not get them back to their peak on the two albums they made without him.

    He's paid to do a job. Dark Horse, STINY and RRS would all be released with or without George as producer. Maybe they'd be a little better, but a producer is limited to the judgement of the artist, especially when the artist is pretty big.
     
    Rob Hughes likes this.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine