|
Post by Panther on Apr 20, 2014 17:58:13 GMT -5
I'm not just talking about Martin's not mentioning his being pushed into recording them because of a publishing deal EMI wanted with Ardmore & Beechwood. I think it's understandable why Martin didn't talk about that.
What I'm thinking of is how G.Martin, even only nine years after the fact, couldn't accurately remember how and what music Brian Epstein played him of The Beatles (Martin's memory of this is completely at odds with every available fact). He's also consistently given an inaccurate description of the first few recording sessions, although again this was probably to protect Ringo.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 22:10:24 GMT -5
I'm not just talking about Martin's not mentioning his being pushed into recording them because of a publishing deal EMI wanted with Ardmore & Beechwood. I think it's understandable why Martin didn't talk about that. What I'm thinking of is how G.Martin, even only nine years after the fact, couldn't accurately remember how and what music Brian Epstein played him of The Beatles (Martin's memory of this is completely at odds with every available fact). He's also consistently given an inaccurate description of the first few recording sessions, although again this was probably to protect Ringo. To be fair, a lot happened in those nine years. How many inaccurate things about that time have the a Beatles themselves said? I would love to know what songs the Beatles presented, and why George Martin didn't like therm.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 20, 2014 23:36:14 GMT -5
Yes, a lot happened in those 9 years, but my point is that if he couldn't get it right in 1971, how likely is it that he's going to get it right in 2014, at age 88?
I of course value the memories and comments of the people who experienced an event, but the historical record is always more trustworthy than human memory. This is why i rate Lewisohn's work, because he doesn't take any commonly accepted story or 'fact' at face value, and investigates everything to try to get closer to what actually happened.
A good example is how he showed the supposed Lennon quote about Ringo not even being the best drummer in The Beatles was never said by John, and was made up in the 80s. And this after many years of respected publishers writing it as fact.
Love to hear George Martin speak -- he's brilliant -- but honestly at this point, at this remove from events, and considering his age, I cannot imagine him giving us any really valuable insight. If he hasn't said it by now, after 20,000 interviews on the subject, he's not going to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 7:57:20 GMT -5
Yes, a lot happened in those 9 years, but my point is that if he couldn't get it right in 1971, how likely is it that he's going to get it right in 2014, at age 88? I of course value the memories and comments of the people who experienced an event, but the historical record is always more trustworthy than human memory. This is why i rate Lewisohn's work, because he doesn't take any commonly accepted story or 'fact' at face value, and investigates everything to try to get closer to what actually happened. A good example is how he showed the supposed Lennon quote about Ringo not even being the best drummer in The Beatles was never said by John, and was made up in the 80s. And this after many years of respected publishers writing it as fact. Love to hear George Martin speak -- he's brilliant -- but honestly at this point, at this remove from events, and considering his age, I cannot imagine him giving us any really valuable insight. If he hasn't said it by now, after 20,000 interviews on the subject, he's not going to. Have you highlighted that so that some of the sites Ringo critics can get some perspective.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 25, 2014 12:09:24 GMT -5
Another little tidbit of news I never knew about while reading the chapter on the week Pete Best was sacked; The day of the Grenada TV taping at the Cavern in Aug. 1962, right after Ringo joined the band, where they played "Some Other Guy"; Pete was in attendance at The Cavern to see and hear Ringo on drums and witnessed the taping. Never knew that before. This is the film where during the applause at the end someone in the club (Pete?) can be heard clearly yelling "We want Pete!" I also didn't know that Paul briefly dated Maureen Cox before Ringo hooked up with her about the time of his joining the band. So both Paul (at the beginning) and George (at the end years later) had the pleasure of intimately being acquainted with Ringo's first wife. Those guys really did share a lot.......
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 25, 2014 12:30:39 GMT -5
Other interesting info on the sacking in the book;
No single was chosen or released following the sessions in June, 1962, (this was due to G. Martin's disatisfaction with both the repertoire they recorded AND Pete's drumming). The Beatles had expected something on record to be released in July, but instead got the news that Martin did not like Best, and would replace him on drums at the next sessions, as well as none of the songs they recorded in June were deemed adequate to release. So Martin sent the band a demo of "How Do You Do It" to learn the song and Pete knew this. The band rehearsed the song without Pete present. He knew this. And he knew they were going back to London in Sept. to record it. So he had to know something was up in August leading up to the actual sacking. He has always professed he never had a clue it was coming.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 25, 2014 14:27:08 GMT -5
Other interesting info on the sacking in the book; No single was chosen or released following the sessions in June, 1962, (this was due to G. Martin's disatisfaction with both the repertoire they recorded AND Pete's drumming). The Beatles had expected something on record to be released in July, but instead got the news that Martin did not like Best, and would replace him on drums at the next sessions, as well as none of the songs they recorded in June were deemed adequate to release. So Martin sent the band a demo of "How Do You Do It" to learn the song and Pete knew this. The band rehearsed the song without Pete present. He knew this. And he knew they were going back to London in Sept. to record it. So he had to know something was up in August leading up to the actual sacking. He has always professed he never had a clue it was coming. I'm beginning to wonder how much of the Lewisohn revelations is re-writing history. So Pete has been altering the truth all these years? George Martin too, in the way he's always told his story of signing The Beatles? I'm just getting the impression that Mark is basically saying: "Everything you've all heard about The Beatles up to now has been incorrect; even they got it wrong themselves all these decades -- but here is the 'real' story". Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I just can't help wondering sometimes if this "new" information comes up here and there just to try and be different. And I do like Mark L .
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Apr 25, 2014 15:35:42 GMT -5
I don't think it's re-writing history as such. He's laid this part of the story out in logical fashion answering the questions that have never been answered and bringing all the loose ends together. I presume he's done this by using the paper trail, old and new interviews and interviewing people who were part of the story but have never been interviewed before.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Apr 25, 2014 16:17:23 GMT -5
Thanks for all the interesting tidbits of information. Fascinating stuff.
I haven't purchased this book as yet. I have recently been gifted some Amazon vouchers and the Kindle edition is £10 for the standard Volume 1. Both volumes of the extended edition come to £39 (which is roughly US$65-$70) for Kindle. My vouchers would just about cover that without any further expenditure. And from reviews it seems the extended edition is much more comprehensive.
The hardcover edition is roughly twice that price (£80/US$130 and it seems to be back in stock at Amazon UK). I am not sure I want to spend that much on a book. I can also read the Kindle editions on my phone/tablet anywhere I go. However a hardcover copy is likely to maintain it's value whereas a digital copy won't.
Any advice on whether to go for basic/extended and hardcover/digital editions?
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Apr 25, 2014 16:50:35 GMT -5
Go for the hardback extended. You won't regret it. I don't want to be only one of a handful of fools who did. Feel free to ignore my advice.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 25, 2014 17:17:17 GMT -5
Go for the hardback extended. You won't regret it. I don't want to be only one of a handful of fools who did. Feel free to ignore my advice. I went for the hardback extended version. Best Beatle book out there imo, and best money spent on The Beatles other than The Remasters, and Anthology. And I consider myself no fool. Though others here think I am. In that case, I am a completely contented fool. Money well spent. These books are really something.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Apr 25, 2014 18:24:14 GMT -5
I've just re-read what I wrote and it looks like I could have meant I regretted buying the hardback extended edition. I definitely don't. It's great.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 25, 2014 20:55:45 GMT -5
I don't think it's re-writing history as such. He's laid this part of the story out in logical fashion answering the questions that have never been answered and bringing all the loose ends together. I presume he's done this by using the paper trail, old and new interviews and interviewing people who were part of the story but have never been interviewed before. I have to agree with this point of view. This book has the most footnotes I have ever seen in a piece of non-fiction. Lewisohn has bent over backwards to document everything he has written about, or clearly says if he cannot substantiate something that has always thought to be true in Beatle Lore.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 25, 2014 21:25:03 GMT -5
Other interesting info on the sacking in the book; No single was chosen or released following the sessions in June, 1962, (this was due to G. Martin's disatisfaction with both the repertoire they recorded AND Pete's drumming). The Beatles had expected something on record to be released in July, but instead got the news that Martin did not like Best, and would replace him on drums at the next sessions, as well as none of the songs they recorded in June were deemed adequate to release. So Martin sent the band a demo of "How Do You Do It" to learn the song and Pete knew this. The band rehearsed the song without Pete present. He knew this. And he knew they were going back to London in Sept. to record it. So he had to know something was up in August leading up to the actual sacking. He has always professed he never had a clue it was coming. I'm beginning to wonder how much of the Lewisohn revelations is re-writing history. So Pete has been altering the truth all these years? George Martin too, in the way he's always told his story of signing The Beatles? I'm just getting the impression that Mark is basically saying: "Everything you've all heard about The Beatles up to now has been incorrect; even they got it wrong themselves all these decades -- but here is the 'real' story". Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I just can't help wondering sometimes if this "new" information comes up here and there just to try and be different. And I do like Mark L . Joe, have you read the book? I haven't noticed anything Athat doesn't ring true here. and Lewisohn has written pieces casting doubt in George Martin's version of events for about ten years now. He has presented Msrtin with his findings and Martin was unable to answer. I'll believe Lewisohn's account until I see evidence to the contrary. It seems plain he wrote this without any agenda, and the work is so very well researched. I for one am glad to read some facts and incidents that hadn't been revealed before.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 26, 2014 2:37:58 GMT -5
I've only read the "short" version, but I endorse everything said about the way it is written. It is immensely readable, but it remains evidence-based journalism rather than sensationalist agenda-driven rewriting of history. Without any doubt, it is probably the single most important book for any new fan to begin their Beatles library with.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Apr 27, 2014 15:46:34 GMT -5
I've just re-read what I wrote and it looks like I could have meant I regretted buying the hardback extended edition. I definitely don't. It's great. Thanks for your advice (and everyone else's) I like the convenience of Kindle but I think I'll go for the physical books in this case.
As a footnote - Amazon give away the mp3 version of most albums these days with a physical CD purchase, it's about time we got a digital book version along with the physical copy these days. I'm sure they are working on it
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 29, 2014 11:39:04 GMT -5
According to Lewisohn on Sept. 4, 1962;
The Beatles are at their second session at EMI, after the initial June session, now with a new drummer (Ringo) to re-record some songs in an attempt to get at least two worthy of releasing as their first 45rpm single; Lewisohn; "Ringo felt pressured to outperform his predecessor and not let down his bandmates; it was his first time in anything like a proper studio, it was his first time in London in two years, his first meeting with George Martin." According to Brian Epstein in a Mersey Beat article; "Ringo was nervous and terrified of the studio, and about to cut a disc for the world's greatest recording organization." "In an uncharacteristic panic, he lost his head and started hitting everything with everything. It did not go unnoticed. During the recording of Please, Please Me, Ringo suddenly had a moment of madness. Ringo; 'I was playing the bass drum and the hi-hat, and I had a tamborine in one hand and a maraca in another, and I was hitting the cymbals as well, like some weird spastic leper, trying to play all these intruments at once.' There are no supportive quotes from the studio staff, but they must have ridiculed such amateurishness; The Beatles' last drummer hadn't uttered a word, this new one was crazy. Five years later, G. Martin conceded; 'I didn't rate Ringo very highly.' The producer discerned that Ringo couldn't play a drum roll. There would be unhappy repercussions."
So is it no wonder when the band returned a week later on Sept. 11, there was a session drummer waiting to join them in the studio? It's also interesting that on Sept. 4, they recorded How Do You Do It (which Martin had given them to learn back in July),besides Love Me Do, and the first attempt at Please, Please Me, which Ringo butchered, in the slow version (which was erased and lost). Martin planned to release How Do You Do It as the A-side single (probably with Love Me Do on the B-Side), but after they finished the session, it was John who climbed up the stairs into the control booth and told Martin to please not release the song, it was not their style of music and that they could do better. Martin then is quoted in the book as saying; If you write something as good as that song, I'll let you record it, otherwise that's the song that is going out." Next day Martin played the acetate of the two songs to Brian. Martin likes How Do You Do It. Brian liked Love Me Do. Within two days, Sid Coleman and Kim Bennett, of Ardmore & Beechwood, the EMI publishers who wanted The Beatles in the first place for their songs, also told Martin they did not want How Do You Do It released, either as an A-side or B-side. They wanted Love Me Do, because it was a L&M song. And Dick James heard it as well, preferring Love Me Do and said How Do You Do It was too good for a B-side. The composer of HDYDI, Mitch Murray was asked if he would allow the song to be a B-side and he said no. He also said he did NOT like The Beatles version. So, within two days, Martin was out-voted on HDYDI, and had to bring the band back into the studio with a session drummer to re-do Love Me Do and get another song for the B-side (which wound up being PS I Love You).
According to Lewisohn; Ringo's comment on returning the next week to hear HDYDI was off consideration for release (The Beatles always thought John had convinced Martin to remove it), and seeing a session drummer in the studio commented; "I thought, that's the end. They're doing a Pete Best on me. I was shattered. If I'm going to be no use for records, I might as well leave. But nobody said anything. What could the others say, or me? We were just lads, we were just being pushed around."
Ringo's version of Love Me Do recorded the first week turned out to be the single version released, so his drumming as we now all hear isn't that bad. And later a faster version of Please, Please Me recorded in November, after Ringo had more time to learn the song properly, turned out to be their first #1. But those first two sessions in London in September must have been pure hell for Ringo, who had only been in the band for two weeks before going down to record.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 29, 2014 12:04:44 GMT -5
I always thought The Beatles recorded "How Do You Do It" after "Love Me Do", at Martin's insistence as a probable second single. Is this "new", the information that The Beatles recorded HDYDI as a contender for their first single?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 29, 2014 13:46:40 GMT -5
I always thought The Beatles recorded "How Do You Do It" after "Love Me Do", at Martin's insistence as a probable second single. Is this "new", the information that The Beatles recorded HDYDI as a contender for their first single? After the June sessions, according to Lewisohn, Martin did not care for Love Me Do (nor Pete Best) nor Besame Mucho, PS I Love You, or Ask Me Why as options for their first single. So no single was released. In July he sent them a demo of HDYDI and told them to learn it and have it ready for the September sessions. They learned it without Pete, then sacked Pete, and Ringo joined. They rehearsed at EMI in the afternoon of Sept. 4 a bunch of songs including HDYDI, Love Me Do, and an early slow version of Please Please Me. After a dinner break, they then recorded HDYDI first, followed by Love Me Do. Martin decided that night HDYDI would be the A-side and Love Me Do would be the B-side of the first single record. That was when John went upstairs to talk with him about not releasing it. In Lewisohn's book The Recording Sessions, the last remark in the Sept. 4 page; George Martin says; "I looked very hard at HDYDI, but in the end I went with Love Me Do." Martin takes all the credit for the decision. In the new book Lewisohn now says that over the two days following the recording sessions; Brian Epstein, the guys at Ardmore, Dick James, and Mitch Murray all heard the acetate of both songs and everyone agreed Love Me Do was the better song, in Murray's case, he felt his song HDYDI was not done well by The Beatles, So everyone liked Love Me Do EXCEPT Martin. So he then changed his mind and decided to go with Love Me Do.They went back into the studio on Sept. 11 to re-record Love Me Do with a session drummer, as he did not care initially for Ringo and find something else to be the B-side, which ended up PS I Love You. Ironically, Ringo's version of Love Me Do, recorded on Sept. 4 ended up initially released as the single. Later versions of the song released in 1963 contained Andy White's version, but Ringo's was released first.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 29, 2014 14:49:44 GMT -5
In Lewisohn's book The Recording Sessions, the last remark in the Sept. 4 page; George Martin says; "I looked very hard at HDYDI, but in the end I went with Love Me Do." Martin takes all the credit for the decision. True. I bought the Recording Sessions book way back when but haven't consulted it in awhile. I just read up and see that yes, HDYDI was recorded early, on 9/4/62 . I don't know why all these years I was thinking they recorded it after "Love Me Do" was released, as a possible 'second' single! Does Lewisohn say where the information about Lennon going upstairs to insist on not releasing HDYDI came from? It always seemed incredibly hard for me to believe at this early stage that The Beatles felt they had enough clout that they could insist on only doing their own material. I would think they were so desperate for a record to actually get released at this stage, that they would be willing to record whatever the "boss" felt was the best idea. And also adding to my doubt is that they were always happy up to this point to always do "cover songs" -- they had done "Besame Mucho" on June 6th, and they had done almost all covers at the January 1st Decca Audition. I do recall later interviews with both John and Paul saying they insisted that they only do their own material and that they really rejected "HDYDI"... so obviously they must have felt that way at the time. It just seems hard for me to conceive. If Martin had absolutely insisted that they record a version of "Toot Toot Tootsie" for their first 45rpm, would they have said "forget it" and quit? (I suppose the main thing here was that George Martin was willing to give in to "Love Me Do", so there was no real confrontation; had Martin insisted "it's HDYDI or the highway!!", I'm sure The Beatles would have allowed HDYDI).
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 29, 2014 18:12:14 GMT -5
In Lewisohn's book The Recording Sessions, the last remark in the Sept. 4 page; George Martin says; "I looked very hard at HDYDI, but in the end I went with Love Me Do." Martin takes all the credit for the decision. True. I bought the Recording Sessions book way back when but haven't consulted it in awhile. I just read up and see that yes, HDYDI was recorded early, on 9/4/62 . I don't know why all these years I was thinking they recorded it after "Love Me Do" was released, as a possible 'second' single! Does Lewisohn say where the information about Lennon going upstairs to insist on not releasing HDYDI came from? It always seemed incredibly hard for me to believe at this early stage that The Beatles felt they had enough clout that they could insist on only doing their own material. I would think they were so desperate for a record to actually get released at this stage, that they would be willing to record whatever the "boss" felt was the best idea. And also adding to my doubt is that they were always happy up to this point to always do "cover songs" -- they had done "Besame Mucho" on June 6th, and they had done almost all covers at the January 1st Decca Audition. I do recall later interviews with both John and Paul saying they insisted that they only do their own material and that they really rejected "HDYDI"... so obviously they must have felt that way at the time. It just seems hard for me to conceive. If Martin had absolutely insisted that they record a version of "Toot Toot Tootsie" for their first 45rpm, would they have said "forget it" and quit? (I suppose the main thing here was that George Martin was willing to give in to "Love Me Do", so there was no real confrontation; had Martin insisted "it's HDYDI or the highway!!", I'm sure The Beatles would have allowed HDYDI). Pg. 1331 of the Lewisohn book (unabridged long version); "George Martin is sure only one of them did the talking (protesting). It wasn't Paul or George, or Ringo. They were four-square behind John as he took the twenty steps up to the control room." 'When the dirty work came, I had to be the leader,' John knew. 'Whatever the scene was, when it came to the nitty-gritty, I had to do the speaking.' This quote is footnoted from Jann Wenner Interview of Dec. 8, 1970 in Rolling Stone. "As George Martin would describe it; 'John came to me and pleaded with me. He said, 'Look, I think we can do better than this." This quote is footnoted from interview with Richard Wiliams in Melody maker on Aug. 21, 1971. In an interview with Robert Morgan on US Radio circa 1982; George Martin said again it was John who went to see him. "John himself remembered the moment in an interview with Paul Drew on US Radio in April, 1975 (saying 'we' throughout); 'They forced us to do a version of HDYDI. We wouldn't let 'em put it out. We said we'd sooner have no contract than put that crap out - all the tantrums bit. We thought it was rubbish compared with love, love me do. We thought ours had more meaning.' Ironically, it seems John always thought it was his protestations that convinced Martin to scrap HDYDI. But in reality, it was Brian, Dick James, the two guys at Ardmore, and Mitch Murray who protested over the next three days that convinced Martin to drop the song. Not John, nor the band. So there it is. The Lewisohn book is so chock full of footnotes everytime something comes up that conflicts with what has been the accepted history of the Beatles story. One has to give Lewisohn credit for backing up everything he has to say that is controversial with what is the older accepted versions. Even events The Beatles themselves either apparently remembered wrong, or were not aware of at all until now. That is why it is so important that Paul and Ringo, (and Pete) read this book as well. There are incidents recounted in it even they were not aware of, or thought otherwise of. For example the L&M song (Like Dreamers Do) that got the publishers at EMI interested in their music and thereby forced George Martin to sign them. The Beatles and Brian had no way of ever knowing that since it appears they were never told about it. None of them ever recalled anything about it in the Anthology. That is what makes this book so priceless regarding the accuracy of Beatles history. And frustrates fans who since birth had been told other versions were the truth, and find it hard to accept Lewisohn's conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 29, 2014 18:43:51 GMT -5
Lowbasso's summary (above) is wonderful, but I wanted to point out that
"They went back into the studio on Sept. 11 to re-record Love Me Do with a session drummer"
is not exactly accurate, according to Lewisohn. That Sept. 11th session, at which Martin had got Andy White for, was specifically to record the B-SIDE to the first single -- "PS I Love You". Lewisohn says it was a very short session booked (I think 2 hours), and Martin must have worried after the two-drummers-in-two-sessions history -- both drummers having some problems getting stuff done quickly -- and so he brought in Andy White to make sure they got the B-side nailed in record time, which they did. Only after they had "PS I Love You" set in stone did they return to "Love Me Do", with about 20 minutes left in the session (I may be mis-remembering the exact times). Ringo actually is on the Andy White "Love Me Do", shaking the tambourine loudly.
There's also the suggestion in the book that Martin and Richards may have mixed up the two recordings (Ringo's and Andy White's) subsequently, as there's no other explanation for why Ringo's was released first and then Andy's on the album (which Tollie Records then used again for the US single).
Anyway, just to point out that it doesn't seem Andy White was specifically booked to re-record "Love Me Do", but more so to make sure they got the B-side done in time, since the previous session had gone overtime and been problematic.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 29, 2014 19:09:05 GMT -5
Lowbasso's summary (above) is wonderful, but I wanted to point out that "They went back into the studio on Sept. 11 to re-record Love Me Do with a session drummer"
is not exactly accurate, according to Lewisohn. That Sept. 11th session, at which Martin had got Andy White for, was specifically to record the B-SIDE to the first single -- "PS I Love You". Lewisohn says it was a very short session booked (I think 2 hours), and Martin must have worried after the two-drummers-in-two-sessions history -- both drummers having some problems getting stuff done quickly -- and so he brought in Andy White to make sure they got the B-side nailed in record time, which they did. Only after they had "PS I Love You" set in stone did they return to "Love Me Do", with about 20 minutes left in the session (I may be mis-remembering the exact times). Ringo actually is on the Andy White "Love Me Do", shaking the tambourine loudly. There's also the suggestion in the book that Martin and Richards may have mixed up the two recordings (Ringo's and Andy White's) subsequently, as there's no other explanation for why Ringo's was released first and then Andy's on the album (which Tollie Records then used again for the US single). Anyway, just to point out that it doesn't seem Andy White was specifically booked to re-record "Love Me Do", but more so to make sure they got the B-side done in time, since the previous session had gone overtime and been problematic. Yes correct, they started that session with PS I Love You, then moved on to Please Please Me, which John said went so well that night it almost became to B-side to Love Me Do. It is Ron Richards who suggests they try another re-make of Love Me Do, thinking they might improve on the previous week's rendition. Lewisohn does not say whether that idea was Ron's alone or whether Martin might have been in on that idea as well. But Lewisohn does say that there was a note filed at Abbey Road that indicated there were 18 takes of Love Me Do done that night, and the session finished 15 minutes late at 6:45PM. So, yes, it was not specifically that they went back to re-record Love Me Do, but they did decide to take another whack at it, so somebody was not happy that the version with Ringo the week before was good enough to use along with whatever became the B-side. Did Richards decide that on his own or at Martin's suggestion? Lewisohn does not say. Martin did say he was not pleased with, did not support, didn't expect to succeed, and was forced to issue Love Me Do/PS I Love You as the Beatles first single.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 29, 2014 19:57:44 GMT -5
"George Martin is sure only one of them did the talking (protesting). It wasn't Paul or George, or Ringo. They were four-square behind John as he took the twenty steps up to the control room." 'When the dirty work came, I had to be the leader,' John knew. 'Whatever the scene was, when it came to the nitty-gritty, I had to do the speaking.' This quote is footnoted from Jann Wenner Interview of Dec. 8, 1970 in Rolling Stone. "As George Martin would describe it; 'John came to me and pleaded with me. He said, 'Look, I think we can do better than this." This quote is footnoted from interview with Richard Wiliams in Melody maker on Aug. 21, 1971. In an interview with Robert Morgan on US Radio circa 1982; George Martin said again it was John who went to see him. OK, but here's the problem ... Mark has gone out of his way to dis-prove certain stories which Martin has long told now. So how do we figure when a George Martin recollection is dead accurate and when it isn't? This is always the problem I have with so many books and so many revisions or 'new discoveries', or 'hearsay' or 're-telling's". Yes, this was one of the John/Paul separate interviews I was referring to earlier when I said both of them had pretty much verified the HDYDI situation. Well, it's reality as of April 2014, at any rate! Lewisohn is a real gentleman and a treasure for Beatles Fans -- I mean that sincerely. However, I then wonder, so why is THIS now account the "accurate" account? Who has told him new things, and have they also possibly mis-remembered? One thing for sure is that with Mark's other "Recording Sessions" book, at least much of the time the information about certain recording dates and times (for instance) are pretty infallible, if they were taken from the actual session notations, and since Mark was able to hear the tapes himself. But Martin and Paul might do the old "we were there, Mark wasn't" routine. One other thing -- here again it is very difficult for me to believe that the EMI publishers were interested in an unknown and unproven entity like Lennon & McCartney at that time... why would they want "Like Dreamers Do", when apparently everyone thought what John and Paul had written up to this time was "rubbish", and even Decca had turned them down? It has been accepted as Beatles History that John and Paul had tons of songs at this time, but none of them particularly good that would wet the appetites of a publishing company. But are they just Lewisohn's "conclusions", or are they his "unshakable facts"? One thing I'd like to make clear, at least for myself, is -- I will gladly accept whatever is true, as long as we know for sure it's accurate and not just "the latest hunch", or some other person "now remembering differently". If it turned out that Mick Jagger actually wrote LOVE ME DO, I would have to accept it. If I found out that the only way the Beatles got a contract was for one or all of them to 'please please' somebody higher up, I would have to accept that too. I just have a hard time with different "evidence" all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 29, 2014 20:28:22 GMT -5
For example --I just broke out my copy of TUNE IN, and went to the whole "How Do You Do It" part. I like very much that Lewisohn is sure to take everything into consideration that has been commented about over the decades, in forming his basis for his various conclusions -- I do believe that is VERY well done indeed...
... but then I read something like [paraphrasing]: "The Beatles left the studio that night, not realizing that the real reason that HDYDI was dropped was not due to George Martin, but rather Sid Colman and Kim Bennett* (and there is an *asterisk to check the footnotes, and I discover that this source is from none other than Kim Bennett himself; from a 2003 interview with our Author)...
So is Kim Bennett correct? Maybe, But isn't Bennett just another in a looonnng line of "People Who Were There"... who have a certain take on things? This is the type of thing which concerns me. (In this case, "It was Me": Martin; "No, it was Us": Bennett)... I don't mind changing a long-held belief from accepting Martin's Word, to now accepting Bennett's Word. The only thing I'm asking is - so how do we know FOR CERTAIN?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 29, 2014 20:37:23 GMT -5
The footnotes refer to Lewisohn's sources for his facts. If the Interviews with all the people involved cannot be accepted as fact, and that includes the interviews with the four Beatles as well, then there is no way to insure anything is true. Lewisohn has endeavored to exhaust every possible avenue of source for everything he states in his history. What more can he or anyone for that matter do better in the interest of accuracy? The Anthology showed that even The Beatles themselves cannot be 100% accurate about much of what went on. But a third person attempting to write what are the most plausible descriptions of what happened based on all the available evidence out there from either humans who experienced it or recollections from second persons who witnessed them is all there is to go on. The problem that a moment or event was once described in a certain way and accepted as authentic is now questioned or posed as having occurred differently seems to be the most difficult to present as a distinct possibilty. It seems that most of Lewisohn's book is plausible based on its footnotes. I just wish Paul and the others would read it and give us their opinions on its plausibility.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 29, 2014 21:28:41 GMT -5
Is a third person (historian) who gathers multiple sources opinions on a historical fact more likely to draw the most plausible accurate conclusion than one person who was there at the moment but only has their own experience to draw upon to accurately describe what really happened? I've read that historians who do their research are more likely to get to the truth of what happened at a moment in time than a person who actually experienced it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 29, 2014 21:32:11 GMT -5
Is a third person (historian) who gathers multiple sources opinions on a historical fact more likely to draw the most plausible accurate conclusion than one person who was there at the moment but only has their own experience to draw upon to accurately describe what really happened? I've read that historians who do their research are more likely to get to the truth of what happened at a moment in time than a person who actually experienced it. That may indeed be the case often times. However, it doesn't always necessarily work out that way. But anyway, I haven't checked all the sources from the book yet; are there other people who corroborate Bennett's observations?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 29, 2014 21:35:12 GMT -5
The footnotes refer to Lewisohn's sources for his facts. If the Interviews with all the people involved cannot be accepted as fact, and that includes the interviews with the four Beatles as well, then there is no way to insure anything is true. Lewisohn has endeavored to exhaust every possible avenue of source for everything he states in his history. What more can he or anyone for that matter do better in the interest of accuracy? I have already complimented Lewisohn on this accomplishment. Without any doubt, The Beatles OFTEN got their own history incorrect! And well before and after only The Anthology, I might add... I'll agree to that for sure. However, I'm wondering if we have any cases here where one man's "new" recollection (and revelation) is now trumping the recollection of one other from the past... or, perhaps four or five others'? Yes, and George Martin, too. For 50 years Martin has given us accounts of how those first experiences with The Beatles went. Now we may be realizing he was either fabricating, or simply mis-remembering. If the new revelations are largely the memories of Kim Bennett, I would be lead to think one man's word is as good as the next.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 29, 2014 23:28:48 GMT -5
...why would they want "Like Dreamers Do", when apparently everyone thought what John and Paul had written up to this time was "rubbish", and even Decca had turned them down? It has been accepted as Beatles History that John and Paul had tons of songs at this time Just to point out that they did NOT have tons of songs at this time. It wasn't that anyone thought their songs up to 1961/62 were rubbish, it was more so that no bands wrote their own songs back then. A Beatles' concert had almost no original songs then, and would have had none at all but for Brian Epstein pushing them to play their originals. In fact, in the year 1961, according to available evidence, neither John nor Paul completed a single song during this entire calendar year. They had written a bunch of 1/2-finished, teenage song sketches in 1958-1960, and then basically stopped. In 1961 they wrote nothing. At the time of the Decca audition, they played a few originals only because they had no current songs. The only Lennon song they did was 'Hello Little Girl', which was already 3 or 4 years old. When The Beatles got serious about making it, and actually became a professional group with an overseas residency and a respectable salary, they basically quit writing songs. They only got re-started writing after they got a real manager and when a record deal was imminent well after the Decca one. And finally, they were not, as such "rejected" by Decca. The Decca guy (name escapes me now) loved them, went to the Cavern to see them, thought they were great, thought they were ready to record. Even at the audition on Jan.1st 1962, the fact that 14 songs were laid down suggests that, that day, Decca expected to select two songs to release as a single. There were other factors at work that prevented the Beatles' being on Decca, but their being 'rejected' as not-good-enough was not really one.
|
|