lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 22, 2016 10:04:43 GMT -5
teamcoco.com/video/serious-jibber-jabber-beatles-biographer-mark-lewisohn?playlist=x%3BeyJ0eXBlIjoiZXRhZyIsImlkIjozOTIwNH0Conan O'Brian, an American TV Comedian Host turns out to be one of the biggest Beatlefans there is. His recent interview here with Mark Lewisohn, which lasts about 1 hr. & 20 min. is one of the best in depth interviews Lewisohn has ever sat down for. The two guys go into great detail about Mark's first part of "Tune In" that was released almost two years ago. Conan clearly is a Beatle expert himself and goes into detail discussing with Lewisohn a lot of the contents of the book. And Mark, sensing how knowledgeable Conan is about The Beatles really perks up and enjoys engaging with him about all things Beatle related. For those of you who have read the book this will be a fascinating interview. If you haven't read it or don't intend to, or disagree with its content, this interview will probably be a waste of your time. Steve posted it online and found it fascinating as did I. Thanks to him for posting it.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 22, 2016 23:52:10 GMT -5
It is a good interview and Conan is definitely a huge Beatles fan. And he still gets in some LOL zingers in his usual dry self!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 7:12:06 GMT -5
Thanks lowbasso, i quite enjoyed that interview, even though it's a long discussion it's very interesting.
I'm still none the wiser about the Beatles being signed to EMI and George Martin's role in that, did he have a role in that ?
Mark discusses it but doesn't really clarify exactly what happened.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 23, 2016 9:48:18 GMT -5
Thanks lowbasso, i quite enjoyed that interview, even though it's a long discussion it's very interesting. I'm still none the wiser about the Beatles being signed to EMI and George Martin's role in that, did he have a role in that ? Mark discusses it but doesn't really clarify exactly what happened. LOL, yeah they don't give any specific answers away so you must buy and read the book.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on May 23, 2016 12:25:53 GMT -5
That was a spectacular interview. Between Mark's answers and Conan's comments, it was brilliant.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 23, 2016 17:48:02 GMT -5
That was a spectacular interview. Between Mark's answers and Conan's comments, it was brilliant. Yes it was!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 23, 2016 18:00:15 GMT -5
Thanks lowbasso, i quite enjoyed that interview, even though it's a long discussion it's very interesting. I'm still none the wiser about the Beatles being signed to EMI and George Martin's role in that, did he have a role in that ? Mark discusses it but doesn't really clarify exactly what happened. LOL, yeah they don't give any specific answers away so you must buy and read the book. That's the idea... Go back and read previous threads on Lewisohn's book here. That story was discussed in detail because some folks here who refused to read the book castigated Lewisohn for his view on the subject. But if you want the complete history from his evidence, at least through 1962 at the moment, then reading the book is essential.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on May 23, 2016 19:22:40 GMT -5
That's the idea... Go back and read previous threads on Lewisohn's book here. That story was discussed in detail because some folks here who refused to read the book castigated Lewisohn for his view on the subject. Oops, that was me. I misunderstood what you do on a discussion site.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 23, 2016 22:25:47 GMT -5
That's the idea... Go back and read previous threads on Lewisohn's book here. That story was discussed in detail because some folks here who refused to read the book castigated Lewisohn for his view on the subject. Oops, that was me. I misunderstood what you do on a discussion site. No, you just form an opinion on a story in a book and its author without reading it first. That happens all the time.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on May 24, 2016 5:13:06 GMT -5
Oops, that was me. I misunderstood what you do on a discussion site. No, you just form an opinion on a story in a book and its author without reading it first. That happens all the time. I didn't comment on the book. I didn't read the book. I commented on what you guys were saying was in the book.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 24, 2016 5:26:30 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this interview. I just watched it and it was really enjoyable, and one of the best I have watched with Mark Lewisohn. I have really come to revere this man for his knowledge and historical value to The Beatles' story. I am reading the TUNE IN book (the abridged version; now I wish to get the full two-volume UK edition) and am up to Brian Epstein just starting to manage their affairs. One of the sobering revelations in TUNE IN (and also discussed in this interview) is to solidify that Paul was something of a dick himself, at least in those early days, where he was a prima donna who Brian had a lot of trouble with. I used to think it was rubbish that Paul was jealous of Pete Best, but I have come to see it's probably a factor. And also that Paul had a dislike for Stu Sutcliffe. So Sir Macca was no charming angel all of the time like he portrays himself to be. As for Conan O'Brien, his appearance has always creeped me out and I never much cared for him. However, now that I can see what a big Beatles fan he is, that cuts him a good deal of slack in my book. I remember seeing him walking down the aisle at a Ringo And The All-Starrs concert I was at it 1995, and at the time I figured he was just there as a courtesy to Ringo, who he'd just interviewed on his TV show.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 24, 2016 19:26:55 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this interview. I just watched it and it was really enjoyable, and one of the best I have watched with Mark Lewisohn. I have really come to revere this man for his knowledge and historical value to The Beatles' story. I am reading the TUNE IN book (the abridged version; now I wish to get the full two-volume UK edition) and am up to Brian Epstein just starting to manage their affairs. One of the sobering revelations in TUNE IN (and also discussed in this interview) is to solidify that Paul was something of a dick himself, at least in those early days, where he was a prima donna who Brian had a lot of trouble with. I used to think it was rubbish that Paul was jealous of Pete Best, but I have come to see it's probably a factor. And also that Paul had a dislike for Stu Sutcliffe. So Sir Macca was no charming angel all of the time like he portrays himself to be. As for Conan O'Brien, his appearance has always creeped me out and I never much cared for him. However, now that I can see what a big Beatles fan he is, that cuts him a good deal of slack in my book. I remember seeing him walking down the aisle at a Ringo And The All-Starrs concert I was at it 1995, and at the time I figured he was just there as a courtesy to Ringo, who he'd just interviewed on his TV show. Glad you are enjoying the Lewisohn book Joe. I have the full version so hard to know how much was cut out in the abridged version. Yea, Paul really always was a pain in the ass to everyone in the band and Brian at one point or another throughout the band's history. Not showing up for an early meeting of the band with Brian because he felt like taking a bath. It is no wonder George Harrison finally got fed up with Paul's "holier than thou" attitude over the years and steered clear of him most of the post Beatle decades. Who knew Conan was such a rabid fan!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 24, 2016 19:35:29 GMT -5
No, you just form an opinion on a story in a book and its author without reading it first. That happens all the time. I didn't comment on the book. I didn't read the book. I commented on what you guys were saying was in the book. You are as good at changing history as Paul is about it when taking credit for L&M songs. Re-read your old posts. You dumped on Lewisohn in your comments when we were discussing the revelations he was making in the book. How could it be anything else? I wasn't making up the revelations! It doesn't matter. You chose not to read it so it is your loss not to know its contents or consider the sources listed in the book that back up its contents. There are other Beatle fans just as stubborn and refuse to believe Lewisohn's conclusions. Even Paul seems to feel just like you. Doesn't buy a lot of Lewisohn's conclusions either. So you are in good company! But the book through its sources does seem to stand up to the scrutiny thrown at it, even with Paul's criticism that comes out even in his songs (Early Days).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 24, 2016 20:44:59 GMT -5
I didn't comment on the book. I didn't read the book. I commented on what you guys were saying was in the book. You are as good at changing history as Paul is about it when taking credit for L&M songs. Re-read your old posts. You dumped on Lewisohn in your comments when we were discussing the revelations he was making in the book. How could it be anything else? I wasn't making up the revelations! It doesn't matter. You chose not to read it so it is your loss not to know its contents or consider the sources listed in the book that back up its contents. There are other Beatle fans just as stubborn and refuse to believe Lewisohn's conclusions. Even Paul seems to feel just like you. Doesn't buy a lot of Lewisohn's conclusions either. So you are in good company! But the book through its sources does seem to stand up to the scrutiny thrown at it, even with Paul's criticism that comes out even in his songs (Early Days). As much as I like and respect Mark Lewisohn - and revere him, actually - I sometimes wonder if it's a certainty that things went the way Kim Bennett (spelling?) related in his interview. They may have truthfully been that way, or may not have. What I mean is, Kim was silent for decades... and then all of a sudden he claims in one very later interview that EMI actually signed The Beatles because they wanted the publishing rights to "Like Dreamers Do", and now that is forever to be the way "the true story" is? I actually PREFER the idea that The Beatles gained their contract due to an actual original Beatles composition.. it's certainly more complimentary to the band than George Martin only taking a gamble on them due to their charming personalities ... but is that really accurate or not, or is it even something else? There's that tantalizing story about Mark learning through actual documents that The Beatles were already signed when they went to George Martin; that it was not a supposed "audition" as traditional history had always believed. And then a marvelous follow-up where, in 1991/92, Lewisohn confronted Martin about these documents when both were working on THE MAKING OF SGT PEPPER, and George Martin was totally confused and had no idea why he'd signed them without hearing them first.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on May 24, 2016 21:58:14 GMT -5
I didn't comment on the book. I didn't read the book. I commented on what you guys were saying was in the book. You are as good at changing history as Paul is about it when taking credit for L&M songs. Re-read your old posts. You dumped on Lewisohn in your comments when we were discussing the revelations he was making in the book. How could it be anything else? I wasn't making up the revelations! It doesn't matter. You chose not to read it so it is your loss not to know its contents or consider the sources listed in the book that back up its contents. There are other Beatle fans just as stubborn and refuse to believe Lewisohn's conclusions. Even Paul seems to feel just like you. Doesn't buy a lot of Lewisohn's conclusions either. So you are in good company! But the book through its sources does seem to stand up to the scrutiny thrown at it, even with Paul's criticism that comes out even in his songs (Early Days). So if you say Lewisohn's writes that the Beatles used to rob banks in Hamburg in the early days and I say Lewisohn's believes everything he is told regardless of the facts that have been known forever, that's me slamming a book I haven't even read? Or if you say George was pressured into signing the Beatles so that EMI could have the rights to Like Dreamers Do and I say that that doesn't even make sense since they don't even record Like Dreamers Do for EMI, that's me slamming Lewisohn? (My facts may be off here because I didn't go back and read everything again. Too much to read over. And I didn't by the US book because I wanted the longer UK version? Okay, I don't make sense either. I'll give you that.)
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on May 25, 2016 3:15:16 GMT -5
The Beatles ROBBED BANKS? What next? Wow!
(I must stop skimming...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 4:26:50 GMT -5
The Beatles ROBBED BANKS? What next? Wow! (I must stop skimming...) They were good at everything they did.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 25, 2016 7:46:18 GMT -5
You are as good at changing history as Paul is about it when taking credit for L&M songs. Re-read your old posts. You dumped on Lewisohn in your comments when we were discussing the revelations he was making in the book. How could it be anything else? I wasn't making up the revelations! It doesn't matter. You chose not to read it so it is your loss not to know its contents or consider the sources listed in the book that back up its contents. There are other Beatle fans just as stubborn and refuse to believe Lewisohn's conclusions. Even Paul seems to feel just like you. Doesn't buy a lot of Lewisohn's conclusions either. So you are in good company! But the book through its sources does seem to stand up to the scrutiny thrown at it, even with Paul's criticism that comes out even in his songs (Early Days). As much as I like and respect Mark Lewisohn - and revere him, actually - I sometimes wonder if it's a certainty that things went the way Kim Bennett (spelling?) related in his interview. They may have truthfully been that way, or may not have. What I mean is, Kim was silent for decades... and then all of a sudden he claims in one very later interview that EMI actually signed The Beatles because they wanted the publishing rights to "Like Dreamers Do", and now that is forever to be the way "the true story" is? I actually PREFER the idea that The Beatles gained their contract due to an actual original Beatles composition.. it's certainly more complimentary to the band than George Martin only taking a gamble on them due to their charming personalities ... but is that really accurate or not, or is it even something else? There's that tantalizing story about Mark learning through actual documents that The Beatles were already signed when they went to George Martin; that it was not a supposed "audition" as traditional history had always believed. And then a marvelous follow-up where, in 1991/92, Lewisohn confronted Martin about these documents when both were working on THE MAKING OF SGT PEPPER, and George Martin was totally confused and had no idea why he'd signed them without hearing them first. What I took from the story is that Sir George had nothing to do with "signing" them at all. His boss decided they were going to record at EMI based on Kim Bennett's desire to get the publishing rights to LDD. Sir George was simply "ordered" by his boss to do a recording session with the band to decide what songs would be issued as a record. I don't think Brian or any of the Fabs knew they were "signed" when they were asked to come to London and do the June '62 sessions. Martin didn't care for the Decca Demo he had heard of the group, and thus he was not even present at the beginning of the first session in June. He only shows up when his subordinate (Ron Richards I think?) tells him that he really should come to the studio and hear them, because they really aren't too bad and worth his time. So Martin finally shows up to hear them live for himself and talk with them. Then he decides he will work with them, though he is not impressed with Pete Best and he will choose a song for them to return and record in Sept. with a session drummer hired by EMI. The Beatles and Brian only find out AFTER the June sessions that they are indeed going to return and actually make a record, though it will be without Pete on drums and a song of Martin's choosing. I can see where Martin could say it was his decision to have the band return in Sept. to make their first record, since he was put in charge by his boss over getting a record done by the band. But in reality he was simply following orders from his boss to do so. So it became an assumption on Brian and The Beatles part that Martin made the decision to record them since he was their contact at EMI and then as the band became successful and world famous it was said George Martin had recorded them first so he got the credit for "signing" them. Did Bennett know about the order Martin got from his boss to definitely record them? Or did Bennett just assume Martin was asked to hear them and he made the decision to record them? I don't think even Bennett knew the real reason Martin was told to record them - ie. as retribution for George having an affair with his boss'es secretary. Bennett may have always believed Martin made the decision to record them on his own so he would never have spoken up about taking credit for the signing due to his request to his boss to sign them so he could get the publishing rights to their song. That is how it was until Lewisohn put two & two together and decided to interview Bennett on what exactly his role was during that time around the first EMI sessions in June of '62. It was Lewisohn who finally put all the facts involving that period together thru his interviews that put a light on who did what when to come to a conclusion on who actually decided The Beatles would record at EMI and everyone involved in the whole affair only discovered what actually happened. Unfortunately Brian, John, George, and Bennett were gone by this time and Sir George was so old as to being confused himself when presented with Lewisohn's conclusions. That is my take based on my reading of the story in the book.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 25, 2016 18:20:51 GMT -5
As much as I like and respect Mark Lewisohn - and revere him, actually - I sometimes wonder if it's a certainty that things went the way Kim Bennett (spelling?) related in his interview. They may have truthfully been that way, or may not have. What I mean is, Kim was silent for decades... and then all of a sudden he claims in one very later interview that EMI actually signed The Beatles because they wanted the publishing rights to "Like Dreamers Do", and now that is forever to be the way "the true story" is? I actually PREFER the idea that The Beatles gained their contract due to an actual original Beatles composition.. it's certainly more complimentary to the band than George Martin only taking a gamble on them due to their charming personalities ... but is that really accurate or not, or is it even something else? There's that tantalizing story about Mark learning through actual documents that The Beatles were already signed when they went to George Martin; that it was not a supposed "audition" as traditional history had always believed. And then a marvelous follow-up where, in 1991/92, Lewisohn confronted Martin about these documents when both were working on THE MAKING OF SGT PEPPER, and George Martin was totally confused and had no idea why he'd signed them without hearing them first. What I took from the story is that Sir George had nothing to do with "signing" them at all. His boss decided they were going to record at EMI based on Kim Bennett's desire to get the publishing rights to LDD. Sir George was simply "ordered" by his boss to do a recording session with the band to decide what songs would be issued as a record. I don't think Brian or any of the Fabs knew they were "signed" when they were asked to come to London and do the June '62 sessions. Martin didn't care for the Decca Demo he had heard of the group, and thus he was not even present at the beginning of the first session in June. He only shows up when his subordinate (Ron Richards I think?) tells him that he really should come to the studio and hear them, because they really aren't too bad and worth his time. So Martin finally shows up to hear them live for himself and talk with them. Then he decides he will work with them, though he is not impressed with Pete Best and he will choose a song for them to return and record in Sept. with a session drummer hired by EMI. The Beatles and Brian only find out AFTER the June sessions that they are indeed going to return and actually make a record, though it will be without Pete on drums and a song of Martin's choosing. I can see where Martin could say it was his decision to have the band return in Sept. to make their first record, since he was put in charge by his boss over getting a record done by the band. But in reality he was simply following orders from his boss to do so. So it became an assumption on Brian and The Beatles part that Martin made the decision to record them since he was their contact at EMI and then as the band became successful and world famous it was said George Martin had recorded them first so he got the credit for "signing" them. Did Bennett know about the order Martin got from his boss to definitely record them? Or did Bennett just assume Martin was asked to hear them and he made the decision to record them? I don't think even Bennett knew the real reason Martin was told to record them - ie. as retribution for George having an affair with his boss'es secretary. Bennett may have always believed Martin made the decision to record them on his own so he would never have spoken up about taking credit for the signing due to his request to his boss to sign them so he could get the publishing rights to their song. That is how it was until Lewisohn put two & two together and decided to interview Bennett on what exactly his role was during that time around the first EMI sessions in June of '62. It was Lewisohn who finally put all the facts involving that period together thru his interviews that put a light on who did what when to come to a conclusion on who actually decided The Beatles would record at EMI and everyone involved in the whole affair only discovered what actually happened. Unfortunately Brian, John, George, and Bennett were gone by this time and Sir George was so old as to being confused himself when presented with Lewisohn's conclusions. That is my take based on my reading of the story in the book. I still am not sure that Lewisohn's putting the puzzle together is anything but pure conjecture on his part.We know that Bennett provided the information about wanting the publishing to LIKE DREAMERS DO. But the crucial question is ... so then why didn't they record LDD?? It couldn't be that George Martin didn't like it enough, I wouldn't think... if he was indeed being "ordered" to do things. I would think the first order of business would be to make a record of LDD.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 25, 2016 22:28:34 GMT -5
so then why didn't they record LDD?? It couldn't be that George Martin didn't like it enough, I wouldn't think... if he was indeed being "ordered" to do things. I would think the first order of business would be to make a record of LDD. Bennett was representing the interests of publishers Ardmore & Beechwood. The first order of business, as you put it, was simply to publish a Lennon & McCartney song on an A-side, and for Ardmore & Beechwood to own the song in copyright. The songs ended up being 'Love Me Do' and 'PS I Love You', but the song publishers didn't care as long as they were Lennon/McCartney songs that they would publish and own. This also partly explains the eternally inexplicable question of why George Martin allowed the Beatles to have TWO of their own songs (none of which he thought was strong enough to be an A-side) on the first single. His hand was forced into doing it since they had to put out songs for Ardmore & Beechwood to publish. If George Martin had had his way, 'How Do You Do It' would have been the first Beatles' A-side, but he was pressured into putting out an original song as the A-side. It still strikes me as odd, though, that when Martin/Richards decided to bring Brian and The Beatles back to EMI a week later to cut a B-side that they allowed them to do an original, 'PS I Love You'. (This was the infamous Andy White session, with Ringo relegated.) There's no reason George Martin couldn't have forced some hack songwriters' tune on them for the B-side, but I guess with time of the essence and Martin having already heard their repertoire, they decided a B-side wasn't important enough to bother with further, and they just wanted to be done with the Beatles' single. So the fastest thing was to just let them do another of their own tunes, since they already knew it and had played it for him before. There's always going to be a bit of mystery about those first two or three recording sessions. Brian and The Beatles likely had no idea what was going on behind the scenes (e.g, whether they were actually in a recording session or a test session), Martin delegated the early work to Ron Richards, and nobody at EMI considered them sessions of any importance. Those weeks The Beatles showed up, George Martin probably had about 8 other things on his schedule that were bigger priorities than The Beatles, and he probably only made any attempt to remember what happened many years later, at which point the details were way out of his long-term memory banks. You are quite right (I mean Joe) to question people's comments in books, but it's not like Lewisohn just accepts anybody's words and writes it verbatim. He's said there were numerous people he interviewed -- first-hand people, who witnessed key events -- where he just garbaged what they told him because the people were clearly misremembering and/or selling agendas. He also says he went through a vigorous process of pulling out people's memories and subtly checking them to see if they matched up with reality, and so forth. One of the best aspects of his historical work is how he doesn't add up questionable evidence and then just decide which angle suits his agenda, and publish it as "fact". He actually tells us when the historical evidence is inconclusive, and then often writes the most likely scenario, given what's known. If he believed Bennett, it would be because Bennett supplied enough factually-correct and consistent evidence to convince Lewisohn (often over a period of several years, with many of his interviews). In any case, for decades it's been clear that there was some kind of 'missing link' between Brian shopping The Beatles around and George Martin agreeing to hear them, since George (by his own admission) didn't rate them at first. So, obviously, something happened to put A and B together, and it stands to reason that a song-publisher pushing them through the door makes perfect sense, even if Bennett didn't supply his memories and the details. (The bit about George Martin and his relationship with Sir Joseph's daughter is kind of neither here nor there for me... I think, whatever, the important point is that George was assigned care of "the beat group" for some reason or other, and he had to get them to record an A-side for Ardmore & Beechwood.) It's all just trivia in the end. Once The Beatles were accepted to make a record at EMI (which apparently happened when Pete Best was still in the group, as per that first visit in spring '62), they were always going to "make it", regardless of whether George Martin loved them or not. The details would have been very different, but any Beatle-record released in 1962 was going to impress EMI with its sales on Merseyside, even if it had been 'How Do You Do It'. And at some point, even the most cloth-eared 'recording engineer' was bound to hear hit potential with their originals. So much gets made of small things that weren't really that important. For example, the Ringo relegation. It's a big story in Ringo's life, of course, but in the grand scheme of all things Beatles it's really just trivia. The purpose of that session was not to cut 'Love Me Do', but to cut a B-side (any B-side, basically), and since they had only one short evening session booked as a last-attempt to nail it, and since Ron Richards loved to relegate drummers for studio drummers (he admitted he loved to do this), and since The Beatles were a low priority for George Martin who basically couldn't care less, he went along and they cut the B-side with a session drummer. But in the final analysis, when the single was issued -- the single that would make or break their career with EMI, as Lewisohn has now proven with a paper-trail -- it was the Ringo recording that was issued and that sold a lot of copies. So, really, much ado about nothing. (Not to mention, at the very next session, Ringo was in and there was no question of a session drummer. How is that explainable, given that Ron Richard and/or Martin relegated him so casually before?) All a bit odd. In any case, it does seem to have been a unique and fortuitous set of circumstances that allowed both the A- and B-side of that first single to be Lennon-McCartney songs (although they were supposed to have been listed as 'McCartney-Lennon'). I don't fault Joe for asking questions, though. There are still weird things about 1962 that don't add up to me. For example, I still can't quite get my head around why George Martin so abruptly offered to make an album with The Beatles. (Lewisohn addresses this, of course, but it still doesn't all add up to me.) There will always be unanswerable questions.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 25, 2016 23:12:13 GMT -5
so then why didn't they record LDD?? It couldn't be that George Martin didn't like it enough, I wouldn't think... if he was indeed being "ordered" to do things. I would think the first order of business would be to make a record of LDD. Bennett was representing the interests of publishers Ardmore & Beechwood. The first order of business, as you put it, was simply to publish a Lennon & McCartney song on an A-side, and for Ardmore & Beechwood to own the song in copyright. The songs ended up being 'Love Me Do' and 'PS I Love You', but the song publishers didn't care as long as they were Lennon/McCartney songs that they would publish and own. This also partly explains the eternally inexplicable question of why George Martin allowed the Beatles to have TWO of their own songs (none of which he thought was strong enough to be an A-side) on the first single. His hand was forced into doing it since they had to put out songs for Ardmore & Beechwood to publish. If George Martin had had his way, 'How Do You Do It' would have been the first Beatles' A-side, but he was pressured into putting out an original song as the A-side. It still strikes me as odd, though, that when Martin/Richards decided to bring Brian and The Beatles back to EMI a week later to cut a B-side that they allowed them to do an original, 'PS I Love You'. (This was the infamous Andy White session, with Ringo relegated.) There's no reason George Martin couldn't have forced some hack songwriters' tune on them for the B-side, but I guess with time of the essence and Martin having already heard their repertoire, they decided a B-side wasn't important enough to bother with further, and they just wanted to be done with the Beatles' single. So the fastest thing was to just let them do another of their own tunes, since they already knew it and had played it for him before. There's always going to be a bit of mystery about those first two or three recording sessions. Brian and The Beatles likely had no idea what was going on behind the scenes (e.g, whether they were actually in a recording session or a test session), Martin delegated the early work to Ron Richards, and nobody at EMI considered them sessions of any importance. Those weeks The Beatles showed up, George Martin probably had about 8 other things on his schedule that were bigger priorities than The Beatles, and he probably only made any attempt to remember what happened many years later, at which point the details were way out of his long-term memory banks. You are quite right (I mean Joe) to question people's comments in books, but it's not like Lewisohn just accepts anybody's words and writes it verbatim. He's said there were numerous people he interviewed -- first-hand people, who witnessed key events -- where he just garbaged what they told him because the people were clearly misremembering and/or selling agendas. He also says he went through a vigorous process of pulling out people's memories and subtly checking them to see if they matched up with reality, and so forth. One of the best aspects of his historical work is how he doesn't add up questionable evidence and then just decide which angle suits his agenda, and publish it as "fact". He actually tells us when the historical evidence is inconclusive, and then often writes the most likely scenario, given what's known. If he believed Bennett, it would be because Bennett supplied enough factually-correct and consistent evidence to convince Lewisohn (often over a period of several years, with many of his interviews). In any case, for decades it's been clear that there was some kind of 'missing link' between Brian shopping The Beatles around and George Martin agreeing to hear them, since George (by his own admission) didn't rate them at first. So, obviously, something happened to put A and B together, and it stands to reason that a song-publisher pushing them through the door makes perfect sense, even if Bennett didn't supply his memories and the details. (The bit about George Martin and his relationship with Sir Joseph's daughter is kind of neither here nor there for me... I think, whatever, the important point is that George was assigned care of "the beat group" for some reason or other, and he had to get them to record an A-side for Ardmore & Beechwood.) It's all just trivia in the end. Once The Beatles were accepted to make a record at EMI (which apparently happened when Pete Best was still in the group, as per that first visit in spring '62), they were always going to "make it", regardless of whether George Martin loved them or not. The details would have been very different, but any Beatle-record released in 1962 was going to impress EMI with its sales on Merseyside, even if it had been 'How Do You Do It'. And at some point, even the most cloth-eared 'recording engineer' was bound to hear hit potential with their originals. So much gets made of small things that weren't really that important. For example, the Ringo relegation. It's a big story in Ringo's life, of course, but in the grand scheme of all things Beatles it's really just trivia. The purpose of that session was not to cut 'Love Me Do', but to cut a B-side (any B-side, basically), and since they had only one short evening session booked as a last-attempt to nail it, and since Ron Richards loved to relegate drummers for studio drummers (he admitted he loved to do this), and since The Beatles were a low priority for George Martin who basically couldn't care less, he went along and they cut the B-side with a session drummer. But in the final analysis, when the single was issued -- the single that would make or break their career with EMI, as Lewisohn has now proven with a paper-trail -- it was the Ringo recording that was issued and that sold a lot of copies. So, really, much ado about nothing. (Not to mention, at the very next session, Ringo was in and there was no question of a session drummer. How is that explainable, given that Ron Richard and/or Martin relegated him so casually before?) All a bit odd. In any case, it does seem to have been a unique and fortuitous set of circumstances that allowed both the A- and B-side of that first single to be Lennon-McCartney songs (although they were supposed to have been listed as 'McCartney-Lennon'). I don't fault Joe for asking questions, though. There are still weird things about 1962 that don't add up to me. For example, I still can't quite get my head around why George Martin so abruptly offered to make an album with The Beatles. (Lewisohn addresses this, of course, but it still doesn't all add up to me.) There will always be unanswerable questions. Judy was Lockwood's secretary, not his daughter I believe. And she is now Sir George's widow.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 25, 2016 23:27:28 GMT -5
What I took from the story is that Sir George had nothing to do with "signing" them at all. His boss decided they were going to record at EMI based on Kim Bennett's desire to get the publishing rights to LDD. Sir George was simply "ordered" by his boss to do a recording session with the band to decide what songs would be issued as a record. I don't think Brian or any of the Fabs knew they were "signed" when they were asked to come to London and do the June '62 sessions. Martin didn't care for the Decca Demo he had heard of the group, and thus he was not even present at the beginning of the first session in June. He only shows up when his subordinate (Ron Richards I think?) tells him that he really should come to the studio and hear them, because they really aren't too bad and worth his time. So Martin finally shows up to hear them live for himself and talk with them. Then he decides he will work with them, though he is not impressed with Pete Best and he will choose a song for them to return and record in Sept. with a session drummer hired by EMI. The Beatles and Brian only find out AFTER the June sessions that they are indeed going to return and actually make a record, though it will be without Pete on drums and a song of Martin's choosing. I can see where Martin could say it was his decision to have the band return in Sept. to make their first record, since he was put in charge by his boss over getting a record done by the band. But in reality he was simply following orders from his boss to do so. So it became an assumption on Brian and The Beatles part that Martin made the decision to record them since he was their contact at EMI and then as the band became successful and world famous it was said George Martin had recorded them first so he got the credit for "signing" them. Did Bennett know about the order Martin got from his boss to definitely record them? Or did Bennett just assume Martin was asked to hear them and he made the decision to record them? I don't think even Bennett knew the real reason Martin was told to record them - ie. as retribution for George having an affair with his boss'es secretary. Bennett may have always believed Martin made the decision to record them on his own so he would never have spoken up about taking credit for the signing due to his request to his boss to sign them so he could get the publishing rights to their song. That is how it was until Lewisohn put two & two together and decided to interview Bennett on what exactly his role was during that time around the first EMI sessions in June of '62. It was Lewisohn who finally put all the facts involving that period together thru his interviews that put a light on who did what when to come to a conclusion on who actually decided The Beatles would record at EMI and everyone involved in the whole affair only discovered what actually happened. Unfortunately Brian, John, George, and Bennett were gone by this time and Sir George was so old as to being confused himself when presented with Lewisohn's conclusions. That is my take based on my reading of the story in the book. I still am not sure that Lewisohn's putting the puzzle together is anything but pure conjecture on his part.We know that Bennett provided the information about wanting the publishing to LIKE DREAMERS DO. But the crucial question is ... so then why didn't they record LDD?? It couldn't be that George Martin didn't like it enough, I wouldn't think... if he was indeed being "ordered" to do things. I would think the first order of business would be to make a record of LDD. Did Bennett want a recording of LLD or just the publishng rights? I took Lewisohn's telling of the story to imply Bennett didn't need a recording of that song specifically, just the publishing rights which he would get no matter what The Beatles recorded for EMI because the deal to record included a deal with Ardmore to gain publishing rights for all L&M songs recorded? Maybe Lockwood never even mentioned to George Martin that he wanted him to specifically record a version of LDD. Just said to him get a record made with the band, specifically with original material so they could also lock up publishing rights on whatever L&M song was recorded. So George asked them down to London in June to see what other original material they might have that would sell a record. And Brian simply assumed it was a test session. George never told him it was anything else. Had George even heard LDD off the Decca audition tape when Brian played it for him earlier in 1962 when they first met? If he had he probably didn't like it. But if Lockwood didn't mention it to him specifically he may not have remembered that specific song, just that he hadn't cared for the band based on the Decca tape he heard.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 26, 2016 5:36:14 GMT -5
Did Bennett want a recording of LDD or just the publishng rights? I took Lewisohn's telling of the story to imply Bennett didn't need a recording of that song specifically, just the publishing rights which he would get no matter what The Beatles recorded for EMI because the deal to record included a deal with Ardmore to gain publishing rights for all L&M songs recorded? True. But then what stumps me is how Bennett thought there was any bankability on a mediocre-sounding group like The Beatles (judging solely by their failed Decca audition tapes), simply because he thought one original composition ("Like Dreamers Do") was promising. Could Bennett tell that there was something special there, just as Brian Epstein could sense it? It seems incredible to me that Bennett could actually think The Beatles were worth it, just based on LDD. Yes, but then I wonder why George was so intent on The Beatles recording Mitch Murray's "How Do You Do It"? If the whole idea was to get an original Beatles composition on wax, it makes no sense that Martin would opt for some other writer's song. The way history has always been written was that The Beatles from the start were so insistent and defiant in being adamant about only doing their own material, even from first meeting up with George Martin. If the truth was that Martin was ordered to get an original Lennon/McCartney record made, then this also hurts the oft-told gem of a story that The Beatles had balls right from the start in sticking to their guns about refusing to do others' songs!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 26, 2016 5:57:47 GMT -5
This also partly explains the eternally inexplicable question of why George Martin allowed the Beatles to have TWO of their own songs (none of which he thought was strong enough to be an A-side) on the first single. His hand was forced into doing it since they had to put out songs for Ardmore & Beechwood to publish. If George Martin had had his way, 'How Do You Do It' would have been the first Beatles' A-side, but he was pressured into putting out an original song as the A-side. Maybe you read the post I just wrote to lowbasso --- what is kind of confusing to me is why George Martin was so intent on having The Beatles record Mitch Murray's "How Do You Do It", if in truth the whole plan from the start was to have The Beatles record Lennon & McCartney original compositions? And supposedly Martin went back to Mitch Murray's song AGAIN even for the second single, which instead became "Please Please Me" once Martin became convinced PPM was as good a song or better a choice than HDYDI . Maybe this reinforces the story about the cheeky and defiant Beatles insisting on doing their own material even right from the very beginning. Because as I was just saying to lowbasso, I was getting concerned that the old historical story of The Beatles being rebels and ballsy even from when they first met George Martin, is now a myth if indeed the only reason Martin allowed them to do their own originals was because it was ordained that the company wanted L&M publishing. (And not because The Beatles had any kind of ballsy influence). Yes, I agree. I have heard Lewisohn talking many times about not just accepting any old stories as facts, unless his investigation concluded it was all true enough to be written in his book. Except that Martin seemed obsessed with them recording Mitch Murray's composition... even again for the second single! That's what stumps me. I must disagree that it's 'just trivia', because here we are talking about how the Beatles actually got a recording contract, and also what their first record choice was, and so forth. This to me is pretty big (if it had just been why they chose to do "We Can Work It Out" or something farther down the line, then it would have been just trivia, IMO). I think Martin's story of his loving their personalities is true once he came to see them, but probably just not that he signed them purely on the strength of this. Which still makes me wonder if Martin blatantly lied all those decades, or honestly had his facts mixed up. I think perhaps Martin knew after the modest success of "Love Me Do" that he "had a hit group on his hands" (as he often said) and set about then getting an album readied quickly, to capitalize on it. I think that part makes sense.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 26, 2016 7:27:16 GMT -5
Did Bennett want a recording of LDD or just the publishng rights? I took Lewisohn's telling of the story to imply Bennett didn't need a recording of that song specifically, just the publishing rights which he would get no matter what The Beatles recorded for EMI because the deal to record included a deal with Ardmore to gain publishing rights for all L&M songs recorded? True. But then what stumps me is how Bennett thought there was any bankability on a mediocre-sounding group like The Beatles (judging solely by their failed Decca audition tapes), simply because he thought one original composition ("Like Dreamers Do") was promising. Could Bennett tell that there was something special there, just as Brian Epstein could sense it? It seems incredible to me that Bennett could actually think The Beatles were worth it, just based on LDD. Yes, but then I wonder why George was so intent on The Beatles recording Mitch Murray's "How Do You Do It"? If the whole idea was to get an original Beatles composition on wax, it makes no sense that Martin would opt for some other writer's song. The way history has always been written was that The Beatles from the start were so insistent and defiant in being adamant about only doing their own material, even from first meeting up with George Martin. If the truth was that Martin was ordered to get an original Lennon/McCartney record made, then this also hurts the oft-told gem of a story that The Beatles had balls right from the start in sticking to their guns about refusing to do others' songs! I really think after the June sessions, George thought none of the original material he heard was worthy of an A side on a record, so he decided to find a song for them to cover to put on the A side and then stick one of theirs on the B side thereby fullfilling Lockwood's request to have an original song on the record thereby sealing the publishing rights his employee in the Ardmore division (Bennett) was asking for. As to who really gets the credit for actually getting the Beatles their first recording I would say the song LDD on the Decca tape gets credit for piqueing Bennett's interest enough to pursuade his boss Lockwood at EMI to decide to sign up the group. And it was Ron Richards at EMI who was present at the bands very first song being recorded in the studio in June 1962 who responded positively enough to call George Martin and tell him to drop whatever he was doing and come back to the studio they were in and give another listen to what they were hearing in that first session. Otherwise George might never had attended that June session that Lockwood had ordered him to schedule. So how much credit do we give to Richards? So once George finally decided to pay attention to the band as a result of all that above, then the rest was history. As Conan O'Brian said to Lewisohn in their recent interview, " so many moments occurred in Beatle History where it should have ended their ascent toward superstar status, but something unlikely happened that kept moving them up to the next level toward the summit of their eventual success." I paraphrase a bit here.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 26, 2016 8:51:23 GMT -5
Judy was Lockwood's secretary, not his daughter I believe. And she is now Sir George's widow. Yes, of course. My mistake. About the matter of 'How Do You Do It': I think George Martin probably thought he could just stick an original song, for Ardmore & Beechwood, on the B-side, and that would satisfy them. Then, on the A-side, he could go out and get a "professional song" for the Scouser beat-group, which might actually make the charts. I think that was what he was thinking. However, it appears that at some point in September 1962 word came down from the top that the A-side had to be an original, or something to that effect. Or maybe he was a bit pressured into that. And at that same moment, Lennon and the group begged him to let them have their own song be the A-side. With pressure from above and below to have the record be an original song, George Martin probably relented, and then, as Lewisohn puts it, "washed his hands of (them)". He seemed to have expected the record to tank. However, when it instead became a sizable seller, and especially when it started selling well outside Liverpool and around the country, George seemed to abruptly change his mind about them. And then he started getting enthusiastic about them after recording 'Please Please Me'. The old story was that the second single was going to be 'How Do You Do It', but Lewisohn's fact-checking and paper evidence totally disproved that. 'How Do You Do It' was supposed to be their first single (after the Pete Best session much earlier ended unsatisfactorily). Of course, he could still have pushed them to do it for their second single, but my hunch is that he always liked 'Please Please Me' and was aware of its potential. (Years later, Martin told the story of its originally being a slow ballad -- Paul McCartney has picked up that story and run with it -- but the September 1962 rehearsal of it, available now on Anthology, with Andy White on drums, belies that claim as it's very up-tempo.) There's also this odd quote, from an October 1962 interview with The Beatles (a few weeks after 'Love Me Do' came out): PAUL: "We just happened to sort of rearrange 'Love Me Do' and played it to the recording people, and 'P.S. I Love You,' and uhh, they seemed to quite like it. So that's what we recorded."
(INTERVIEWER): "Is there anymore of your own compositions you intend to record?"
JOHN: "Well, we did record another song of our own when we were down there, but it wasn't finished enough. So, you know, we'll take it back next time and see how they like it then."John is surely referring to 'Please Please Me'. So it does seem like they were given word to re-arrange it and improve it (which they did). But what's interesting is Paul's comment that they played 'Love Me Do' to "the recording people" and "they seemed to quite like it". Of course he's probably referring more to Ron Richards.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Jun 6, 2016 19:30:26 GMT -5
That was a spectacular interview. Between Mark's answers and Conan's comments, it was brilliant. I don't think I've seen more than a few minutes of Conan at any one time, and probably not enough if stitched together to make an entire show. I therefore had no way of knowing how much of a fan he was. He tickled me a couple of times when he was telling Mark something that (a) I knew so (b) Mark knew, but in a way to (c) let Mark know that Conan knew. But that's niggling--it was a wonderful interview. That I was able to hear it clearly as opposed to some of the iPhone versions I've seen made it all the more enjoyable (and that's not a knock on anyone posting a video that is hard for ME to hear--it's my 57 year old ears that has a problem in that regard). JcS
|
|