|
Post by coachbk on Jan 28, 2014 14:25:50 GMT -5
I finally made it through all 4 pages! First of all, when I saw the original post I was not that far along in the Lewisohn book so I stopped partway through JoeK's post. Now I'm at that part of the book. It appears Ace has not read the book and is making some assumptions that are not correct. The book does not say George Martin wasn't the one who signed the Beatles. It merely talks about some factors that went into it. I don't think it is that big of a deal. And on the side threads: sacking Pete was the right choice and they had wanted to do it for a while. The way it was done and the timing wasn't ideal, but it worked out. Lastly, Ringo's solo career was better then one could have expected. RINGO makes my list of 100 essential albums!
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 28, 2014 16:02:38 GMT -5
It appears Ace has not read the book and is making some assumptions that are not correct. The book does not say George Martin wasn't the one who signed the Beatles. It merely talks about some factors that went into it. I don't think it is that big of a deal. Thanks for clearing that up. And yes I was going by the "assumptions" of the comments posted here and not from reading the book. Which, unfortunately, I can't afford. And I felt from the beginning their was something fishy about the assumption that George Martin didn't sign the Beatles. An assumption never accepted by me, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 28, 2014 20:10:06 GMT -5
I don't really think it's of any importance who signed The Beatles (albeit it's very interesting). But it's of tremendous importance that George Martin produced their recordings.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 28, 2014 22:17:18 GMT -5
Yeah I probably over-reacted. In part from Joe's opening salvo. Which maybe I misinterpretted. Which gave the impression that George M had been less than honest and was unduly taking credit... What can I say. I'm a huge George Martin fan. And was reacting to percieved slights..... (We Beatles fans are a breed apart. Ha ha.)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 29, 2014 7:08:20 GMT -5
Yeah I probably over-reacted. In part from Joe's opening salvo. Which maybe I misinterpretted. Which gave the impression that George M had been less than honest and was unduly taking credit... What can I say. I'm a huge George Martin fan. And was reacting to percieved slights..... (We Beatles fans are a breed apart. Ha ha.) I am a huge George Martin fan too, as I said in my opening post. That's why it does upset me to learn that Martin was telling a fabricated story for five decades, if we are to now embrace Mark Lewisohn's new account as the true history. (And I say this as someone who is also a fan of Lewisohn, and thinks he's a terrific writer and historian). To further summarize - I am also concerned that, if Martin skewed the details on how he came to The Beatles, and if Martin also skewed the bits about why Ringo did not drum on "Love Me Do"... then it naturally makes me wonder how many of his other oft-told tales about how he worked on certain Beatles songs, or came up with so many of the ideas behind them, or improvised so many ideas in the recordings of them, may also be re-written? Because I certainly have always respected Martin and consider him the one and only legitimate "Fifth Beatle".
|
|