|
Post by scousette on Jan 18, 2014 19:26:51 GMT -5
I think it helps to read the book and see the many, many notes Lewisohn provides. You can't have a direct quote for everything.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 18, 2014 20:16:11 GMT -5
I think it helps to read the book and see the many, many notes Lewisohn provides. You can't have a direct quote for everything. Well thats my point. If someone else, not Martin, deserves the credit for signing the Beatles then where is the direct quote where THEY take the credit? Wouldnt YOU, wouldnt ANYBODY, take the credit if they had signed the Beatles??? It completely strains credulity (in my opinion) that someone would sign the Beatles and never get around to mentioning it to anybody. Plus, I cant afford to buy Lewisohn's book so I'm plying you guys for details. PS. I always wanted to get away with using "credulity" in a sentence. Ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jan 18, 2014 20:57:48 GMT -5
OK, I've been going back through the text, using the index and the notes.
I'll correct myself: Len Wood ordered George Martin to sign the Beatles. It was not a matter of Martin being delighted by their charm and deciding to sign them up. Martin was forced to do it. It worked out in the end.
Congrats on getting to use 'credulity" in a sentence. I like to sneak posh words into my sentences too.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 19, 2014 1:08:20 GMT -5
Scousette. Youre a cool cat.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 19, 2014 1:20:21 GMT -5
I admit Im reeeeeeallly drunk right now. But credulity is a word that I think is derived from credible. Which is derived from the more common word incredible.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 19, 2014 1:59:32 GMT -5
I apologize for being drunk and babbling at 11:56PM on a Saturday night in time and space and speculating on the gramnatical roots of "credulity." I lack street cred. Its credulous.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 19, 2014 5:37:55 GMT -5
Dunno about that, but I am incredulous. And uncreditworthy.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 19, 2014 7:25:49 GMT -5
I apologize for being drunk and babbling Seems like I've heard this before. And before that, and before that.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 19, 2014 7:35:12 GMT -5
OK, I've been going back through the text, using the index and the notes. I'll correct myself: Len Wood ordered George Martin to sign the Beatles. It was not a matter of Martin being delighted by their charm and deciding to sign them up. Martin was forced to do it. It worked out in the end.. I think it's time to remind people to use a grain of salt whenever it comes to "new books" that allege to "tell all" about The Beatles. Because once anything gets stated in some book, then forevermore fans start declaring this or that occurrence as though it is now a brand new fact, and that history has been changed forever -- all because Mark Lewisohn is the latest author to write something in a book on The Beatles. That is why I have always been dubious about such books . As much as I may not like this new origin which Lewisohn has conjured up for Beatle History, I will grudgingly ACCEPT it, but only if it can be proven that it did indeed occur this way. I want to know the exact source(s), and it has to be more than just that some one person said this or that. From what I have heard of Mark Lewisohn in several interviews, he sounds like the type of writer/investigator who we can rely on, and I would have more faith in his credibility than other writers. Still, show me the actual sources.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 19, 2014 12:30:24 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. Personally I am glad George is still with us to comment on this. It takes nothing away from what he brought to all the Beatles recordings in the 60's. He was the right man for the job and he will always be the 5th Beatle due to what he brought to the recordings. He is as indispensible to the legacy of the band as any of the Fabs.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 19, 2014 12:33:58 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 made the right decision to replace Pete with Ringo, no matter what the initial reason for it was.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 19, 2014 12:48:23 GMT -5
I apologize for being drunk and babbling Seems like I've heard this before. And before that, and before that. Yeah. At least when I get drunk at a party I wake up the next morning and I dont remember most of what I did. But with the internet, theres every word I said staring me in the face the next morning. UGH. I did manage to quit smoking as one of my New Years resolutions. And I think next I gotta get a grip on the booze. Its like being stuck in a loop.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 19, 2014 13:02:16 GMT -5
Yeah. At least when I get drunk at a party I wake up the next morning and I dont remember most of what I did. But with the internet, theres every word I said staring me in the face the next morning. UGH. I did manage to quit smoking as one of my New Years resolutions. And I think next I gotta get a grip on the booze. Its like being stu k in a loop. Congratulations on the no smoking. I have eight years now. I smoked about three packs a day for thirty years. On the drinking, I found it easier to just start later each night and go to bed at the same time. I got down to three or four beers a night. When your drinking that little, you can take it or leave it.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 20, 2014 0:06:51 GMT -5
My feeling on this is...who cares? If there was a seedy like side to what made the Beatles/Martin connection happen, it doesn't take a damn thing away from history. In fact, George Martin deserves a lot of credit for not going into the thing with a shit attitude about being pressured from his boss. He could hate copped a terrible attitude toward the Beatles and not had his heart in it. But that certainly doesn't seem to be the case.
Also - if Lewisohn has actually unearthed this "dirt" on the reason Martin first singed them that's one thing. But to say that George didn't find them talented and charming seems a bit ballsy to me. But it'll sell books huh Mark. George Martin CLEARLY took to the band right away (or maybe the second day if you like). The proof is there. George Martin's legacy is safe with me.
Has McCartney commented yet?
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jan 20, 2014 0:29:14 GMT -5
Snook, I think what has people up in arms is that the conventional wisdom has George Martin being so charmed by the Beatles that he decided to sign them despite their questionable marketability. Once Martin met them and worked with them in the studio, he was charmed. But the "charm" was not why they were signed. It was a corporate decision at a higher level, forced on Martin.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 20, 2014 7:46:12 GMT -5
My feeling on this is...who cares? If there was a seedy like side to what made the Beatles/Martin connection happen, it doesn't take a damn thing away from history. I don't think it takes anything away from the music, but it does change the history, and an important part of it -- what lead to The Beatles getting their biggest break. Then as I suggested before, if it winds up that George Martin had altered truths about both how he came to mentor The Beatles and also why Ringo did not play on LOVE ME DO, then the possibility is that perhaps other long-held "factoids" by Martin may not be legit. But isn't part of this new revelation supposedly also that The Beatles were already signed, sealed, and delivered even BEFORE Martin got to them? (And their historic meeting with George was just a formality after they'd already been locked in?). Do I have this part accurate (according to Mark L.) ? I'm pretty sure not. From what I've heard he wants nothing to do with the book.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 20, 2014 9:05:59 GMT -5
I think what we have here is a case of Joe trying to stir shit where there is just salty soup. Much ado about nothing. But isn't part of this new revelation supposedly also that The Beatles were already signed, sealed, and delivered even BEFORE Martin got to them? (And their historic meeting with George was just a formality after they'd already been locked in?). Do I have this part accurate (according to Mark L.) ? No, you don't. First of all, Lewisohn isn't a hack treating the results of his research as a "revelation"; he simply states plainly what he learned from 10 years of work. According to Lewisohn and his voluminous sources (and as already noted, above), Brian was in London shopping around the Decca audition tapes, when he went to the HMV to get a 78rpm demo-disc acetate cut. The disc cutter, Jim Foy, liked the sound of it and was surprised to hear that the group themselves had written some of their own songs (this being highly unusual). He asked Brian if he'd like to meet general manager (of publishing for EMI), Sid Colman? Brian of course said 'yes'. Sid Colman (aged 56) liked the 3 original songs on the tape, too. Brian and Colman sat down to talk about getting the Lennon/McCartney songs published. Colman (and EMI) had an interest in Ardmore & Beechwood publishing them. Brian was fine with that, but, he told Colman, what he really wanted was a recording contract for The Beatles -- i.e., he wanted the songwriters to cut their own record of their songs (also unusual at the time). Colman said he'd try to help, and he and Brian reached an agreement that if Colman helped with the recording contract, Brian would guarantee Ardmore & Beechwood the publishing (which was in EMI -- and Colman's -- interests). The jump from here to George Martin is tricky, however, as Lewisohn points out. There are conflicting stories, and no one can be sure exactly how Brian got to George Martin later. Martin's story, years later, is that Colman phoned him, raving about The Beatles, and he agreed to meet Brian right away. But Colman's right-hand man, present at the time, insists this would never have happened because Colman strongly disliked George Martin (as Martin disliked Ardmore & Beechwood). In any case, however it transpired, Martin and Epstein met at EMI offices on Feb. 13, 1962. EMI had actually already rejected The Beatles once (just like Decca), but that was on the strength of the Tony Sheridan tapes, which weren't up to much. Lewisohn figures Brian must have been hoping EMI would have forgotten! Lewisohn also points out that 2 of George Martin's 3 A&R colleagues were away on holiday that very week, and it may have simply transpired that Brian was introduced to George Martin because he was the only person available that day. According to Brian, he played George the new acetate, with "Hello Little Girl" on one side and "'Til There Was You" (not a Len/Mac song, obviously) on the other. (At this point, Brian referred to each track as being by "John Lennon and The Beatles" and "Paul McCartney and The Beatles" -- groups of equals in pop music being largely unheard of). Two years later, in the raw transcript of interviews for "his" book, Epstein said that "George liked 'Hello Little Girl (and) ''Til There Was You'. Liked George on guitar. Thought Paul was the one for discs." Here, Lewisohn -- one of the few humans to have actually seen this 78rpm acetate, which still exists, and has Epstein's handwriting on it -- pauses to rightly point out how unlikely this scenario (above) seems, in light of the fact that "Til There Was You" featured a crap Paul vocal (Lennon said he "sounded like a woman"), Pete Best's timing was off, and George Harrison played one of his worst guitar solos ever (though 'Hello Little Girl's' was good). Further complicating matters of this historic meeting is that, in 1971 (just after the Beatles broke up), George Martin recalled the meeting very differently. He specifically mentioned "Your Feet's Too Big" being on the tape, which was clearly wrong if he heard the acetate Brian made. Even weirder, his comments about the recordings was this: "I wasn't knocked out at all -- it was a pretty lousy tape, recorded in a back room, very badly balanced, not very good songs and a rather raw group." As Lewisohn says, this comment in itself suggests that George Martin may even have heard a completely different recording from the acetate Brian made in London that week. (Or, more likely, George Martin was just mis-remembering the whole thing.) In any case, George did apparently get the acetate (though it's not what he remembered hearing), and told Brian he might get in touch with him later -- which effectively meant 'screw off'. That would have been the end of it... but then suddenly former singer, and then-current record plugger Kim Bennett (born: Thomas Whippey) came on board. He was then (in 1962) working as a plugger for EMI and Sid Colman, pushing songs towards Ardmore & Beechwood, amongst others. Colman called in Bennett (the very day Brian had been there to make the acetate) and played him "Like Dreamers Do" (a Paul song). Bennett was keen to publish this song, and Colman agreed. Bennett remembers Colman taking the song over to EMI (yet again) and then being rejected by all the A&R men there again (including, probably, George Martin). His intention here was to get some artist -- not The Beatles -- to record the song, and for him to arrange the publication. Bennett said Colman's actual words, on his return, were "Nobody there wants to know." Anyway, Bennett was persistent, and then came up with the idea of having the original group -- The Beatles -- record the song themselves at EMI's expense, not an A&R man's -- even better, since the group was a "beat combo" and could record it cheaply, in two hours, it was a tiny cost for EMI and any A&R men would potentially benefit from it, etc., etc. Still nothing happened for a while, but eventually, maybe a few weeks later, George Martin's managing director -- an older man of Victorian values (Len Wood) -- discovered George's long-term affair with his secretary; he was pissed. Shortly thereafter, this manager had a meeting that involved Sid Colman. Colman brought up "the Liverpool beat combo" idea again, and wondered why nothing had happened. According to Colman and (especially) Bennett, Len Wood basically commanded George Martin to make the record, and sign the band to the paltry terms all new acts got, as a sop to Sid Colman. Just to 'punish' George a bit. Aside from punishing George Martin, the motivation was not really to give the band a recording contract, but more specifically to get the copyright of "Like Dreamers Do" to Ardmore & Beechwood. They couldn't have cared less who recorded the song(s), but they suggested The Beatles because it was a cost-effective way of pushing EMI into doing it, with little risk. Thus, Martin's hand was forced into recording at least one side of a single with The Beatles that was written by the Lennon/McCartney team (to give the publishing to Ardmore & Beechwood). Of course, it ended up not being "Like Dreamers Do", but "Love Me Do" and "PS I Love You" that were recorded. As for the various sources, you'll have to buy the book. The two chapters I've summarized from have, between them, 117 citations. So, as you can see, Joe, as early as 1971, George Martin was already in print (Melody Maker) saying that he didn't like The Beatles when he first heard them, that their songs weren't good, and that the tape of them was "lousy". (Quoted:) Has McCartney commented yet? I'm pretty sure not. From what I've heard he wants nothing to do with the book. I doubt that. Lewisohn has worked with McCartney before, and Paul answered his emails during the writing of this book.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 20, 2014 10:12:12 GMT -5
Interesting chronology. Panther. And yet I still remain skeptical. Lem Wood wanted to "punish" Martin by forcing the Beatles on him? Some punishment. It just doesn't make sense on many levels. If thats what Wood thought, he obviously didn't think the Beatles had much in the way of commercial potential. Othewise he wouldn't have inlicted this "punishment" -- this golden goose -- on Martin in the first place..... Secondly, it hardly sounds like punishment at all. Considering the difficult assignments Martin had been doing -- recording comedy records, which are extremely difficult and time-consuming to pull off -- it hardly seems like "punishment" to force Martin to spend a day sticking a microphone in front of a pop band and basically recording their live act.
Furthermore, according to Philip Norman, Martin wasn't even going to bother to audition the Beatles personally, but had left it up to his assistant, Ron Richards. And it was only after Richards alerted him that there might be "something out of the ordinary" that Martin decided to personally check them out. So from this account (and almost every other account) it hardly appears that Wood, or anybody, is pushing Martin's feet under the fire.
Thirdly, for a so-called "punishment" assignment. If that was the case, you'd assume Martin would resent the assignment and expend the bare minimum of effort to complete this "punishing" chore. When in fact, Martin personally, went out of his way to hunt up what he felt was strong material coming up with "How Do You Do It" (which later went on to be a hit). As well as taking the trouble to personally hire a studio drummer. There's nothing in any accounts I've ever read that gives the impression that Martin felt the Beatles assignment was punishment or a chore inflicted on him.
If the Beatles were just a "busy work" assignment forced on Martin as punishment, why did he go through all the time and trouble of working diligently on the Beatles original songs? Against his own initial judgment. When he could have just taken the easy way out and forced them to hack out "How Do You Do It" and then be done with his punishment. Like I said, there's nothing in Martin's demeanor that indicates he viewed the Beatles assignment as punishment.
For the life of me the story makes no logical sense whatsoever. That EMI would "punish" George by spiting their own face, by wasting their own time and money on some loser band that they were inflicting on poor old George. If I'm not mistaken, George got paid his usual salary for enduring this incredibly "punishing" assignment.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 20, 2014 10:33:57 GMT -5
I think there might be a degree of overemphasis on the word "punish." I think it boils down to Len Wood wanting to get The Beatles recorded as a favour to Syd Coleman at Ardmore & Beechwood and, knowing that they had already been turned down everywhere, using his muscle as line manager to force George Martin to sign them. Not as a punishment as such, just because GM was the one he least gave a shit about (GM was also in Wood's dirty books for being stroppy about recent salary negotiations).
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 20, 2014 10:44:36 GMT -5
No doubt Brian liked the two songs on the acetate. He could have chosen any of the Decca songs for the record.
I think Till There Was You sounds okay. Pete sounds like he's playing something else and George's solo is pretty weak but Paul sounds just fine. I think John might have been a little jealous.
Listening to the song and comparing the different versions, it strikes me that the Capitol version of Till There Was You has the vocals on the left and the 2009 re-masters has the vocals in the center. It will be interesting to see where they are on the new US discs.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 20, 2014 11:05:35 GMT -5
I don't know. Maybe its just me. Something just stinks about this story. George is running Parlophone, his own label within EMI, right? He's presented with the Beatles -- a band he's initially not sure what to do with. Not surprising considering his age and lack of familiarity with rock music. But he (more than anyone at EMI) quickly sees their potential. Makes every right move in how he handles them. Signs them to his label. And the rest is history. The generally accepted story still seems perfectly acceptable to me.
And yet now, 50 years later I'm told Martin doesn't deserve the credit for signing the Beatles??? That they were "forced" on him against his will??? When none of Martin's actions (not his words but his actions) give the slightest indication that the Beatles were "forced" on him.
In fact, Martin had been actively scouting around for music acts to record on HIS label. If I'm not mistaken he had signed skiffle groups to Parlophone as early as 1957. And the generally accepted story still seems perfectly acceptable to me. That with his brilliant (proven brilliant) ear for music he quickly and rightly saw the potential of the Beatles. And jumped at the chance to sign them and work with them. As opposed to being "forced."
Certainly its true that the Beatles were intially "pushed" on Martin. You got Epstein, Colman, Ardmore, Wood, and probably others with a little leverage pushing the Beatles Martin's way. But "forced" on Martin? I highly doubt it.
And like I said, I'm still waiting to hear the quote from Wood himself where he takes the credit for "forcing" the Beatles on Martin. Wood himself seems strangely silent in all of this, don't he?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 20, 2014 11:31:13 GMT -5
No one is saying Martin didn't want to work with them! At first, for the first couple of sessions, he was ambivalent about the whole thing, but he WAS charmed by them and liked them as people. No doubt, he heard things he liked, probably to his surprise. Also, once 'Love Me Do' was out and selling, Martin completely changed overnight and wanted to record them again (and make an album), but FIRST he made sure to steer Epstein and The Beatles away from Ardmore & Beechwood. The fact that The Beatles made a first album at all, so early, is entirely down to George Martin's foresight. But the fact remains that Martin, by his own admission (see 1971 quotes, above) wasn't impressed by The Beatles when he heard them and wasn't the force that got them signed. The force that got them signed was Bennett and Colman, and the sales of 'Love Me Do' was what allowed them to make a second single, and so on.
Wood wasn't so much trying to punish George Martin as keep him in line, let him know who was boss. Wood's pal, Colman, wanted to let the beat group record their song and give the publishing to his people, and he pushed Wood to have EMI indulge him. Wood saw a way to show Martin who was boss, so he told him to do it. Of course, they legitimately thought the Beatles' song(s) might be a hit or they wouldn't have bothered.
And by the way, it's a myth that George Martin was only making comedy records until The Beatles turned up. Lewisohn proves that Martin produced several hit singles for musicians in about 1959-1961. In fact, he was on a hot streak when The Beatles arrived.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 20, 2014 12:51:05 GMT -5
In fact I mentioned in my post that Martin had signed a skiffle group as early as 1957.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 20, 2014 12:53:40 GMT -5
I think what we have here is a case of Joe trying to stir shit where there is just salty soup. Much ado about nothing. I really resent this, panther -- I mean, I REALLY do... This was a true and very sincere, legitimate concern for me, one that I have been biting my lip about for some time now, ever since I first heard the new revelation by Mark Lewisohn. I really am NOT "trying to stir shit up", and I think it's very interesting as a topic for discussion here. Suddenly a big historic origin fact which we'd always heard about is now challenged -- how does this not make for compelling discussion on a Beatles Message Board? If you want to keep talking about the greatness of "I Want To Hold Your Hand", or "What Are Our Top Ten Favorite Beatles Tunes", be my guest -- but please don't insult me by calling me a shit-stirrer, when that was never my intent. That is not accurate, nor is it fair. Take it easy. I have praised Mark and have said I like his style and that I feel he is a good writer/researcher. That is the main reason I decided that I DID, in fact, wish to check his book out. And by the way - on Rob Leonard's radio show is where I believe he and Mark pretty much talked about the June 6th "audition" being "basically a formality". Well, there you go -- it's tricky and there are conflicting stories. "Lewisohn 'figures' ..."? "Must have been"... "May have.." ? I already have the book (abridged version). I began reading it but you're right, I should look myself for citations and sources. Just trying to get a jump here from those of you who may already have read it. I already believe this, and have never challenged this. I know that George Martin always said there were no great songs there, and that it wasn't the music which sold him on The Beatles; it was their personal charm. What I am questioning is the whole new revelation of Martin not being the one who decided to take a chance on signing them, like he'd always insisted. Jeez, I am only reacting to what we've been told so far - that Paul has wanted nothing to do with the book. Furthermore, I have listened to several online interviews with Lewisohn, as well as his few appearances on Rob Leonard's show, and "The Fab 4 Free 4 All" podcast with Mark -- and he pretty much said that Paul is not really working with him.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 20, 2014 13:09:52 GMT -5
I know I'm going around in circles here -- and I'll drop out after this post. People are getting immersed in gossipy details and the kind of Machevelian backstage intrigue that goes on in any corporation. And missing the bigger and more obvious picture (in my opinion).
Namely: If Wood deserves the credit for signing the Beatles then how come he hasn't TAKEN the credit? And loudly? Wouldn't YOU? Wouldn't ANYBODY?
Until I see a quote from Wood this story has zero legs as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 20, 2014 15:55:51 GMT -5
I took JoeK as being very sincere in starting this Thread. I was touched, I kind of read his first post to be from a heartbroken fan who feels let down by one of his heroes, here George Martin.
I own the extended Lewisohn book but haven't started it yet because life is what happens to us while we're busy making other plans. And Joe has never attacked Mark Lewisohn, Joe has just stated that if he could talk to him at Beatlefest he would like to question him very closely about this story. I agree with those who say Lewisohn is a very careful and thorough researcher so ML might welcome a friendly challenge by Joe!
I tend to think this new revelation is a big deal simply because of the numerous filmed interviews given by Sir George Martin through the years about his earliest connections with The Beatles and now one component of his story has been impeached by Lewisohn. I agree also with those who say Martin is still a huge player in The Beatles' story. That does not change and I don't think JoeK is saying it does.
Nonetheless, a part of Martin's story about his earliest connections to The Beatles has been proven false and it does kind of hurt.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 20, 2014 16:27:31 GMT -5
I took JoeK as being very sincere in starting this Thread. I was touched, I kind of read his first post to be from a heartbroken fan who feels let down by one of his heroes, here George Martin. I own the extended Lewisohn book but haven't started it yet because life is what happens to us while we're busy making other plans. And Joe has never attacked Mark Lewisohn, Joe has just stated that if he could talk to him at Beatlefest he would like to question him very closely about this story. I agree with those who say Lewisohn is a very careful and thorough researcher so ML might welcome a friendly challenge by Joe! I tend to think this new revelation is a big deal simply because of the numerous filmed interviews given by Sir George Martin through the years about his earliest connections with The Beatles and now one component of his story has been impeached by Lewisohn. I agree also with those who say Martin is still a huge player in The Beatles' story. That does not change and I don't think JoeK is saying it does. Nonetheless, a part of Martin's story about his earliest connections to The Beatles has been proven false and it does kind of hurt. And Joe and I will be Beatlefest in 3 weeks and so will Mark Lewisohn. I have some questions for him as I am sure Joe will as well. He better sign my $100+ extended version book as well!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 20, 2014 20:02:11 GMT -5
Well, there you go -- it's tricky and there are conflicting stories. Which is exactly what Lewisohn (not me) says. I'm simply summarizing his points since you're too lazy to read the book. "Must have been"... "May have.." ? Yes. Exactly. When information is sketchy and the path of history vague, Lewisohn states it plainly. This immediately elevates him over hacks like Philip Norman (at least in his 1981 incarnation) who made shit up to suit their version of history. Jeez, I am only reacting to what we've been told so far - that Paul has wanted nothing to do with the book. I'm sure Paul has absolutely nothing to do with the book, but the fact that he's worked with Lewisohn before and that Lewisohn has his email address obviously means that Paul isn't trying to distance himself from it, as you previously implied.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 20, 2014 20:45:10 GMT -5
I'm sure Paul has absolutely nothing to do with the book, but the fact that he's worked with Lewisohn before and that Lewisohn has his email address obviously means that Paul isn't trying to distance himself from it, as you previously implied. I haven't implied anything, I was inferring Paul's attitude from what I've heard related by others. I don't care one way or another if Paul wants to be distanced or not from the book (and I'd rather he did not distance himself). Besides, Paul himself has been making his POV known on these types of "opinions about who did this and who did that when they weren't where it was at", as he stated in his new EARLY DAYS song. Don't shoot the messenger.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 20, 2014 22:03:18 GMT -5
I think the perception that GM was "charmed" right away by them is also being blown out of proportion. He has stated that the recordings he first heard were "ok", but didn't blow him away. Then he went to see the band at the Cavern. Was he forced to do that? I would think that if he was being pressured by his bosses then taking the time to go to a dingy bar would not be necessary. I'd imagine that he wanted to go see them live. maybe Eppey convinced him, but he must have surely thought it was worth checking out in the interest of his work.
|
|