|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 17, 2014 16:43:44 GMT -5
I have been wrestling with this for some time. It's the new revelation from Mark Lewisohn's new TUNE IN book, that George Martin did not actually sign The Beatles "because he thought they were charming and interesting as people" (as history has always had it), but rather because he was actually having an affair and was FORCED into it... (sigh)...
I really love George Martin. I consider him the true "Fifth Beatle", and I have always considered him to be a gentleman of the highest caliber. It really shakes my feeling about Sir George, to learn of his affair; I mean, we all have our faults and human weaknesses, but somehow with this particular gentleman this information tarnishes who I felt George Martin truly was. And of course, even worse for us fans is that we learn that possibly Martin has been LYING all these past five decades about how he managed to sign The Beatles.
I would love to find out that this was an untrue revelation about George Martin; okay, so he had this affair -- but did he really get FORCED into signing The Beatles? Although I have Lewisohn's new book, I haven't read that far yet. Is the source credible for this information? Because this is one "new revelation" that I feel really hurts the fairytale-like origin of The Beatles...
It's sad that this "news" comes out while Martin is still alive. If true, he's managed to keep it secret up to his 88th birthday. I wonder if he's heard about this, and I would really wish for him to be asked about it and to comment on Lewisohn's findings. I don't think I can bear much more shatterings of our happy myths.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 17, 2014 19:53:24 GMT -5
Like I said, I won't believe this story until somebody else comes forth and takes credit for signing the Beatles. If George didn't do it then who did? I have a hard time believing that person would be so shy about taking the credit all these years.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 17, 2014 20:41:58 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand Joe's position. What's the difference if Martin wanted to sign The Beatles initially or not? His fictionalizing this period may have been to hide his (soon-to-be no longer a secret) affair with Judy Lockhard, Parlophone receptionist, just like his fudging the truth of the 'Ringo drumming on Love Me Do' was to hide hurt feelings. Fine and dandy. The truth generally comes out eventually, and Martin had his reasons to tell events his way.
Lewisohn's take is this: Ardmore & Beechwood were fans of a couple of Lennon/McCartney Beatle songs they'd heard via Brian Epstein ('Ask Me Why' was one; can't remember the other), and, looking for new songwriters to publish, they blackmailed George Martin into recording a single with The Beatles so that they could get the publishing (which they did). Martin relented, but didn't particularly like 'Love Me Do' or 'Ask Me Why' or 'PS I Love You', and his initial strategy was (as we know) 'How Do You Do It' on the A-side and a Lennon/McCartney song on the B-side. But at some point either Ardmore & Beechwood pressured him to release TWO Lennon/McCartney songs, or George Martin had a change of heart after The Beatles talked it over with him (the former would seem more plausible to me). Martin issued 'Love Me Do'/'PS I Love You' not expecting it to sell at all, but it sold a lot. He then convinced Brian Epstein to find a new publisher for Lennon/McCartney songs (they went with Dick James) partly out of spite for Ardmore & Beechwood, whom Martin disliked.
What I found more interesting than this is that after 'Love Me Do' was a big-seller, and even after Martin had got the Beatle-camp away from Ardmore & Beechwood, he seemed to change totally and suddenly supported The Beatles with considerable interest. (That is, even though no one could blackmail him anymore, he started to like The Beatles.) In fact, as Lewisohn shows, Martin told Brian Epstein that he wanted to make an album with them in late 1962, well before the second single ('Please Please Me') had even been recorded, let alone released.
I think maybe George Martin doesn't like to admit that he had a tin-ear as regards The Beatles when he first heard them. There was something great about their records and first few published songs that many people responded to (like Ardmore & Beechwood), but Martin didn't. He later changed, however.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 17, 2014 20:50:13 GMT -5
EMI had a music publishing division at the time The Beatles were looking for a record company to sign them in 1962. It was called Ardmore & Beechwood. A guy named Sid Coleman was it's manager. Coleman had heard and liked the Lennon/McCartney song "Like Dreamers Do" and thought it had potential so he pressured Len Wood, EMI's headmaster, to sign The Beatles to a recording contract just so he could get the publishing rights to the song. Coleman knew Brian Epstein was looking for someone to sign The Beatles. He didn't necessarily want them to get a record contract but in order to get the publishing rights to the song, he convinced Wood to sign them. Wood told G. Martin, as punishment for his affair with his future wife who was on the EMI staff, to hear the audition and sign them no matter what. Martin was not all that infatuated with the band at the audition but he had to do what they said in order to keep his job. This is the way it is described in the Lewisohn book Pgs. 1176-1181 in the extended edition. Would love to hear G. Martin's reaction to this story. If true, then it is the song "Like Dreamers Do" that got The Beatles in the door at EMI and on their way to a recording career. Just happenstance that G. Martin was ordered to oversee the audition, and accept them, thanks to his amorous indiscretion. Lucky for him he decided to screw his female partner at EMI and get "punished" for it by hearing the Beatles audition. The rest is history. Amazing how Fate works, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 17, 2014 21:49:12 GMT -5
"Really sorry, Andy. I didn't know she was your wife. I'll make it up to you. This other thing happened and I got this band coming in. They've got a drummer, but I'll get him ditched and we'll put you in."
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 17, 2014 23:15:15 GMT -5
I repeat: If someone else signed the Beatles then why aren't they screaming it from the top of the mountain and taking full credit for one of the all time great show biz coups?
And why hasn't this person disputed George's version all these years?
Please, somebody clear up this confusion for me. These are very obvious question I'm asking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 3:42:56 GMT -5
It doesn't rock my boat too much if old George Martin has been telling porkies about how the Beatles were signed to Parlophone.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 18, 2014 4:19:26 GMT -5
The truth is the truth, no matter how unpalatable. And this, to me, really isn't all that unpalatable. It shows George Martin to be human, with flaws. A bit like his protegees, really.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 18, 2014 7:24:15 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand Joe's position. What's the difference if Martin wanted to sign The Beatles initially or not? His fictionalizing this period may have been to hide his (soon-to-be no longer a secret) affair with Judy Lockhard, Parlophone receptionist, just like his fudging the truth of the 'Ringo drumming on Love Me Do' was to hide hurt feelings. Fine and dandy. The truth generally comes out eventually, and Martin had his reasons to tell events his way. Well, if true then it's a huge lie by George Martin, and one which has been covered up for over 50 years. Martin has adamantly stuck to his deceptive version of this story for all that time, in scores of documentaries, interviews, and biographies. It means that we can not trust ANYTHING Martin has ever said, if you really think about it. If he lied about how the Beatles got their contract, and if he lied about Ringo as the drummer, then how much ELSE has he fudged the facts on? I'm saying that I have always had a tremendous amount of admiration an respect for Sir George, but this revelation -- if accurate -- has naturally skewed my view of him. And that really upsets me, as I've always greatly respected this man. Hold on a moment. I always thought the whole 'How Do You Do It' idea was for the Beatle' SECOND single? Or now do we have to figure this was ANOTHER fabrication by Honest George? Okay, but I think it's awful to learn that Martin allegedly wanted nothing to do with The Beatles initially. When you've grown up for 50 years hearing this wonderful "fairytale" about how The Beatles appealed to George Martin as charming and funny people and he immediately liked them, so he took a gamble and signed them himself intentionally just based on their character, --- and now you discover it was all a deceptive lie because Martin had been porking his secretary and was blackmailed into it -- that makes The Beatles' Origin Story come tumbling down like a house of cards. It is now actually a HORRIBLE and rather sleazy origin story. Perhaps. but this is still a HUGE deception, because it is the actual account of "How The Beatles Made It", so to speak. This is not a little white lie as to who had an idea for some song or something; this is the very foundation of How The Beatles Got Their Contract. But at least Martin always has maintained that he did not think their music was any good at the beginning... he has always stuck to that.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 18, 2014 7:34:07 GMT -5
Like I said, I won't believe this story until somebody else comes forth and takes credit for signing the Beatles. If George didn't do it then who did? I have a hard time believing that person would be so shy about taking the credit all these years. I hope it is untrue. I would like to know what evidence Mark Lewisohn has for this basis? Has Mark said how he got this information? I think George Martin really needs to be confronted and asked about this, and see how he reacts. But I feel sorry that the man is 88 years old now. Still, this is a crucial factoid that must be nailed down properly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 7:39:44 GMT -5
It's only a huge deception to those that choose to get bogged down by it, the rest couldn't give a fark..
Why, because it doesn't alter the main fact of the Beatles story = the music.
They, the Beatles wouldn't have cared who got them onto vinyl, as long as some farquar did. i don't think George would care if he was recognised as a farquar, as long as there was a way out.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 18, 2014 7:41:29 GMT -5
Wood told G. Martin, as punishment for his affair with his future wife who was on the EMI staff, when the word "affair" is used here, was Martin cheating on his first wife, or had they already been apart? (Sorry but I haven't gotten up to speed on Martin's personal life here). Was Martin a single man at the time in 1962, or had he been cheating on his then-wife? Because if he wasn't cheating (as I gleaned from the word "affair") then at least that keeps his dignity intact. As I said before, if true then it is a sleazy and horrible "Origin Story" to be revealed after all these decades.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 18, 2014 7:45:46 GMT -5
It's only a huge deception to those that choose to get bogged down by it, the rest couldn't give a fark.. Why, because it doesn't alter the main fact of the Beatles story = the music. It's the Beatles ORIGIN, for cryin' out loud. How they got where they got. Of course I know that ultimately it was the great music they went on to record that is the main point... however, I maintain that for me, this really tarnishes the "magical good fortune" aspect of their story. Of course they wouldn't have cared themselves, however they got the contract. . But that's not the point. After hearing all these grandiose magical destiny stories over the years and then hearing how ugly it actually went down... "I" care.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 18, 2014 7:49:22 GMT -5
I repeat: If someone else signed the Beatles then why aren't they screaming it from the top of the mountain and taking full credit for one of the all time great show biz coups? And why hasn't this person disputed George's version all these years? Please, somebody clear up this confusion for me. These are very obvious question I'm asking. I'm with you, Ace. This needs to get addressed and cleared up. At the very least, drill Lewisohn and ask him where this all came from. Is it some hearsay by someone else? I will be seeing Leiwsohn at the Beatlefest next month and I will be sure to approach him with this.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 18, 2014 7:53:12 GMT -5
The truth is the truth, no matter how unpalatable. And this, to me, really isn't all that unpalatable. It shows George Martin to be human, with flaws. A bit like his protegees, really. I don't know how you can excuse Martin if indeed he was telling some very tall tales to us for all these decades. All of his other stories -- how many of them were lies? Did he really have as much input on as many Beatles songs as he's always claimed? This is what tends to be wondered once it is revealed that someone has told lies just to make themselves look better. (And my apologies to Martin if this origin story is not true; I should give him the benefit of the doubt until something else gives it more weight) .
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 18, 2014 8:12:48 GMT -5
Next thing you know they are going to say there was no flaming pie.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jan 18, 2014 8:47:52 GMT -5
I thought there had always been confusion over the signing because the paperwork suggested that they were already signed on the June 62 session. It was a different type of session (can't remember the name difference)than one in which they would have done had they been testing out to be signed.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 18, 2014 10:14:58 GMT -5
The story I always heard -- tin ear or not -- one of Martin's primary motives for signing the Beatles was he was tired of making comedy records. Which took a lot of time to record and were diffucult to produce. He was jealous of other producers who would get a pop group and crank out a hit in 2 hours.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 18, 2014 10:24:08 GMT -5
And I repeat: If Ardmore and Beechwood were the ones with the eagle eyes who spotted the Beatles first before the rest of the world -- and put their money where their mouths were....... Why havent they loudly taken credt for this great feat? Wouldn't YOU? Can anybody dig up direct quotes where they take the credit?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 18, 2014 10:45:07 GMT -5
Affair shmair. My gosh, it's not like he took Beatle songs and got people like Goldie Hawn or Robin Williams or Jim Carrey to .... Uh, oh. Nevermind.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 18, 2014 12:14:33 GMT -5
And I repeat: If Ardmore and Beechwood were the ones with the eagle eyes who spotted the Beatles first before the rest of the world -- and put their money where their mouths were....... Why havent they loudly taken credt for this great feat? Wouldn't YOU? Can anybody dig up direct quotes where they take the credit? Very true. How about it?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 18, 2014 14:11:21 GMT -5
And I repeat: If Ardmore and Beechwood were the ones with the eagle eyes who spotted the Beatles first before the rest of the world -- and put their money where their mouths were....... Why havent they loudly taken credt for this great feat? Wouldn't YOU? Can anybody dig up direct quotes where they take the credit? Very true. How about it? If you read the Lewisohn book, he has a number of footnotes in this chapter to source the interviews he had with some of the people who were at Ardmore & Beechwood. There are direct quotes in the book from sources Lewisohn either interviewed or found records of. Then it is up to you to believe him or not. Clearly the subject conflicts with what George Martin has said up until now about it. Luckily we still have George with us, so now it is up to him to either refute it or not. Most likely even The Beatles, and Brian Epstein may have had no clue as to why they got the audition at EMI, nor why they were accepted other than what G. Martin implied in comments he made; up until now. Might be interesting to get Paul's views on this other angle to the story. After all, according to Lewisohn, it was his and John's song, "Like Dreamer's Do" that apparently caught the ears of the publishing arm of EMI and got them the recording contract they so fervently desired back then. Not the June '62 audition they did for Martin, which was a mere formality. How do you think Pete Best might feel now, knowing even though Martin didn't care for his drumming at the audition, that his job may not have been in jeopardy. But the other 3 may have felt they had to replace him for fear that they might lose the contract at EMI because they worried Martin didn't approve of him. Had they kept him, it may have made absolutely no difference at all to the powers at EMI. Martin may not have had the power to permanently keep him off any future recordings. But The Beatles didn't know that. As I said; Fate moves in mysterious ways...
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 18, 2014 14:23:23 GMT -5
It should be pointed out that no matter what the true story is behind their signing with EMI, once G. Martin and the band got together in the studio and started recording, the talents of both fused together to make 8 years of some of the best pop/rock recordings of all time. The band liked Martin, and he understood and recognized their songwriting abilities, their musicianship, and how to bring out the best aurally, in what they had to offer. None of that is disputed.
Fate brought them together, whatever the reasons were, and they all capitalized on it and made history. Martin is still the undisputed 5th Beatle, and always will be. This "new" version of how it all came about takes nothing away from the result.
And they may the right decision to replace Pete with Ringo, no matter what the initial reason for it was.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 18, 2014 14:24:12 GMT -5
If you read the Lewisohn book, he has a number of footnotes in this chapter to source the interviews he had with some of the people who were at Ardmore & Beechwood. There are direct quotes in the book from sources Lewisohn either interviewed or found records of. Then it is up to you to believe him or not. Clearly the subject conflicts with what George Martin has said up until now about it. Luckily we still have George with us, so now it is up to him to either refute it or not. Most likely even The Beatles, and Brian Epstein may have had no clue as to why they got the audition at EMI, nor why they were accepted other than what G. Martin implied in comments he made; up until now. Might be interesting to get Paul's views on this other angle to the story. After all, according to Lewisohn, it was his and John's song, "Like Dreamer's Do" that apparently caught the ears of the publishing arm of EMI and got them the recording contract they so fervently desired back then. Not the June '62 audition they did for Martin, which was a mere formality. How do you think Pete Best might feel now, knowing even though Martin didn't care for his drumming at the audition, that his job may not have been in jeopardy. But the other 3 may have felt they had to replace him for fear that they might lose the contract at EMI because they worried Martin didn't approve of him. Had they kept him, it may have made absolutely no difference at all the the powers at EMI. Martin may not have had the power to permanently keep him off any future recordings. But The Beatles didn't know that. As I said; Fate moves in mysterious ways... Personally? I find it hard to believe. One of the greatest discoveries in the history of show business. And the only source for it are some obscure footnotes in a book that comes out 50 years after the fact? Count me as skeptical.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 18, 2014 14:31:51 GMT -5
PS. If Ardmore and Beechwood were so keen to sign the Beatles -- which seems to be the great new revelation of the day -- then why did they let them slip away and sign with Dick James with apparently narry a whimper?
Like I said: To me this story has no credence until at LEAST I hear a quote from Ardmore and Beechwood themselves taking the credit. Until then, it remains in George's court.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 18, 2014 14:39:50 GMT -5
As an entertaining side note; another humorous incident Lewisohn tells in his book;
In 1958, when things were moving pretty slow for The Quarrymen in the jobs department, John apparently got a part-time job at the Liverpool Airport preparing meals and doing some maintenance work, and among other things, preparing the cheese sandwiches that were served at the cafe at the airport. He told Derek Taylor years later, in 1964, when they were flying thru Liverpool (for the return to their hometown after the Hard Day's Night movie premiere in London?) not to eat the cheese sandwiches at the airport, because when he was working there 6 years earlier, he so hated the job, he used to spit on the sandwiches while he was making them, before they were wrapped and served to the flying public. So you never know what your are getting on your sandwich! Only John would do something like that!!
Ironically, the airport is now known as Liverpool John Lennon Airport, dedicated to his memory and The Beatles. John would probably have been in hysterics over the airport being named for him where he once worked and spit on the food the poor patrons who flew through there ate unknowingly....
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 18, 2014 14:47:04 GMT -5
PS. If Ardmore and Beechwood were so keen to sign the Beatles -- which seems to be the great new revelation of the day -- then why did they let them slip away and sign with Dick James with apparently narry a whimper? Like I said: To me this story has no credence until at LEAST I hear a quote from Ardmore and Beechwood themselves taking the credit. Until then, it remains in George's court. Didn't Dick James have a connection to EMI and this publishing arm of the company? I jumped ahead in the book to read about the Ardmore people initially wanting The Beatles, but there is more on the subject of the publishing of Beatles music in the book and there may be a connection between Dick James and the others at Ardmore. Just haven't gottento all the details yet on that subject which is near the end of the Lewisohn book. Maybe someone else who has finished the book can enlighten. The Lewisohn book is very, very long and detailed. Takes a while to get through it. I am still only in 1959 at the moment. You have to jump back and forth between the chapters and the numerous footnotes listed in the back to get the full picture on everything that is in the book.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 18, 2014 15:54:18 GMT -5
I might be misinterpretting the situation. But I hope somebody asks Lewisohn a very simple question:
"If Ardmoore and Beechwood deserve the credit for signing the Beatles, how come they themselves have never taken the credit for it?"
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jan 18, 2014 18:42:54 GMT -5
Because Len Wood, the EMI executive who wanted to punish George Martin, signed the Beatles. He outranked anyone working for Ardmore and Beechwood, the publishing arm of EMI.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 18, 2014 19:20:31 GMT -5
Because Len Wood, the EMI executive who wanted to punish George Martin, signed the Beatles. He outranked anyone working for Ardmore and Beechwood, the publishing arm of EMI. Well then is there a direct quote from Len Wood where HE takes the credit for signing the Beatles? And where HE disputes Martin's oft repeated claim?
|
|