lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 3, 2015 12:06:16 GMT -5
A huge thank you to Steve for posting the latest interview w/Mark Lewisohn on his trilogy book project. It is in two parts amounting to about 1 hour of Q/A from the audience on many subjects from his first released volume, upcoming second volume, unfortunately not slated to be published until 2020 at the earliest, and also a little bit about next year's big Beatle project coming out; Ron Howard's documentary film on the Beatles concert years. Subjects discussed; The George Martin signing of The Beatles in June 1962 revelations - apparently George Martin and his wife are not pleased with Lewisohn's version of what really happened around that event,and have made that clear to Mark. The Pete Best sacking, The relationship between Dick James and John & Paul that apparently deteriorated in the mid-60's to the point that James chose to sell his shares of the L&M Catalogue to ATV without informing John & Paul. Discussions about recording the first album before Love Me Do had even started charting, and how quickly Martin turned from being forced to sign the group to really embracing them wholeheartedly in the space of 5 months. All in all,a great 1 hour interview packed with great stories and information. The interview is in two parts. The end of Part 1 will guide you to the second part if you watch it on Youtube. Thanks again Steve!! www.examiner.com/article/mark-lewisohn-captures-liverpool-audience-with-beatle-week-book-talk
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2015 1:18:51 GMT -5
Great interviews. Thanks
Mark Lewisohn has a lot of work in front of him just to get Volume 2 out in 2020.
I'd be very surprised if there was anyone left, from the whole Beatles story, to confirm Mark's data by the time book 3 is ready for print in about 2025 or whenever it might be.
All of the people who had an association with the Beatles story would be in their 80's by 2025. Be tough for them to remember what they had for breakfast, let alone the 1960's.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 8, 2015 4:15:49 GMT -5
Even though Lewisohn is probably getting a bit big-headed now, and seems to be developing a 'hero complex' in his mission to tell the real, true Beatles story, I am REALLY grateful for his work. It's been clear for many years (if there were ever any doubt) that the principals in The Beatles' story have no idea what happened to them or why, and that many of them (George Martin in particular, sorry to say) have been blowing smoke up people's asses for 40 years. It's been equally clear for decades that no writer -- most of whom, in any case, lacked anything approaching objectivity -- was willing to put in the required work to reveal essential historical details.
Fortunately, Lewisohn is primarily a historian and is obsessive about accurate details. He also mistrusts a lot of the B.S. spun by a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 8, 2015 10:17:01 GMT -5
Fortunately, Lewisohn is primarily a historian and is obsessive about accurate details. He also mistrusts a lot of the B.S. spun by a lot of people. Any concerns I had about Mark Lewisohn's objectivity evaporated instantly when I read or observed through the media Paul McCartney's huffy response to Lewisohn's first volume release, including his sentiments stated in the song "Early Days" from the album New. My take on it is that if Paul can't control the writer then Paul gets huffy, challenges how the writing can be accurate because the writer wasn't there 50 to 65 years ago and claims not to read the work(although Linda admitted that they burned Peter Brown's book and filmed doing so, page by page, kind of a creepy response) . I thought it interesting in this video when Mark Lewisohn says he doesn't know if Paul and Ringo read Volume I but if they did they might be surprised at how close they came to not being signed by a record label, how precarious their ultimate fame was!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 8, 2015 18:04:02 GMT -5
"Any concerns I had about Mark Lewisohn's objectivity evaporated instantly when I read or observed through the media Paul McCartney's huffy response to Lewisohn's first volume release, including his sentiments stated in the song "Early Days" from the album New."
I became concerned about Lewisohn's objectivity when I heard that Paul was not supporting and contributing to the book. Lewisohn apparently would rather take the salacious hearsay of the sewing circuit than the words of the ones actually involved. Paul's memory may be failing him at 73. What about the memories of the nosey gossipers who were peeking around the corners, trying to follow the action. These guys were probably at least as old as Martin.
But then again, what will sell more books, salacious allegations or history that has already been well documented .
Early Days spoke Paul's mind quite elegantly.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 8, 2015 18:41:40 GMT -5
"Any concerns I had about Mark Lewisohn's objectivity evaporated instantly when I read or observed through the media Paul McCartney's huffy response to Lewisohn's first volume release, including his sentiments stated in the song "Early Days" from the album New." I became concerned about Lewisohn's objectivity when I heard that Paul was not supporting and contributing to the book. Lewisohn apparently would rather take the salacious hearsay of the sewing circuit than the words of the ones actually involved. Paul's memory may be failing him at 73. What about the memories of the nosey gossipers who were peeking around the corners, trying to follow the action. These guys were probably at least as old as Martin. But then again, what will sell more books, salacious allegations or history that has already been well documented . Early Days spoke Paul's mind quite elegantly. Did you read the first volume? Either the short version or preferably the extended version?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 8, 2015 18:45:55 GMT -5
"Any concerns I had about Mark Lewisohn's objectivity evaporated instantly when I read or observed through the media Paul McCartney's huffy response to Lewisohn's first volume release, including his sentiments stated in the song "Early Days" from the album New." I became concerned about Lewisohn's objectivity when I heard that Paul was not supporting and contributing to the book. Lewisohn apparently would rather take the salacious hearsay of the sewing circuit than the words of the ones actually involved. Paul's memory may be failing him at 73. What about the memories of the nosey gossipers who were peeking around the corners, trying to follow the action. These guys were probably at least as old as Martin. But then again, what will sell more books, salacious allegations or history that has already been well documented. Early Days spoke Paul's mind quite elegantly. Did you read the first volume? Either the short version or preferably the extended version? [!!!CAUGHT!!!] No. No I didn't read the book. Why'd you ask me that?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 8, 2015 19:14:09 GMT -5
Did you read the first volume? Either the short version or preferably the extended version? [!!!CAUGHT!!!] No. No I didn't read the book. Why'd you ask me that? I would be careful to criticize a book you didn't read. The Lewisohn book is crammed full of footnotes, found at the back of the book that back up up just about every fact he presents in every chapter. Your quote; "Lewisohn apparently would rather take the salacious hearsay of the sewing circuit than the words of the ones actually involved. Paul's memory may be failing him at 73. What about the memories of the nosey gossipers who were peeking around the corners, trying to follow the action." Lewisohn's book does not contain salacious hearsay of the sewing circuit, or memories of nosy gossipers peeking around corners. It contains more than 10 years of research and countless interviews and quotes by individuals who were there when these events occurred. The irony of his book is that certain events occurred that even The Beatles could not have been aware of at the time they occurred, so it would be to both Paul, Ringo, and Pete Best's advantage to read the book and discover for themselves some of these historical gems that affected them at critical moments of their history as Beatles. Like the reason George Martin was forced to sign them to a recording contract in order to keep his job. This book is probably the most important factual book to ever come out on the history of this band. You appear to be a very devoted fan of the band. I fail to understand how you are passing on reading this incredible story of The Beatles beginnings through the end of 1962. Or how you could belittle it without having read it just because you think Paul has decided to ignore it. I have a very strong feeling that despite what Paul has said publicly, he has read it. I would suggest you do likewise. Then offer your opinion on it.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 8, 2015 19:23:33 GMT -5
PS I like the song Early Days as well. But if it was directed at Lewisohn, it shows Paul had yet to read the book before he wrote the song. If it is directed at most of the other books out there on The Beatles, he was correct to point that out in his lyrics.
If Paul has read the book by now, he is stuck with having to decide to admit it publicly and react to it which would mean even he had something to learn about his band that he never knew before. That might be hard to swallow after all the time that has passed. Especially if G. Martin never told him why they really got their recording contract.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 8, 2015 21:28:28 GMT -5
I would be careful to criticize a book you didn't read. The Lewisohn book is crammed full of footnotes, found at the back of the book that back up up just about every fact he presents in every chapter. Your quote; "Lewisohn apparently would rather take the salacious hearsay of the sewing circuit than the words of the ones actually involved. Paul's memory may be failing him at 73. What about the memories of the nosey gossipers who were peeking around the corners, trying to follow the action." Lewisohn's book does not contain salacious hearsay of the sewing circuit, or memories of nosy gossipers peeking around corners. It contains more than 10 years of research and countless interviews and quotes by individuals who were there when these events occurred. The irony of his book is that certain events occurred that even The Beatles could not have been aware of at the time they occurred, so it would be to both Paul, Ringo, and Pete Best's advantage to read the book and discover for themselves some of these historical gems that affected them at critical moments of their history as Beatles. Like the reason George Martin was forced to sign them to a recording contract in order to keep his job. This book is probably the most important factual book to ever come out on the history of this band. You appear to be a very devoted fan of the band. I fail to understand how you are passing on reading this incredible story of The Beatles beginnings through the end of 1962. Or how you could belittle it without having read it just because you think Paul has decided to ignore it. I have a very strong feeling that despite what Paul has said publicly, he has read it. I would suggest you do likewise. Then offer your opinion on it. I didn't criticize the book. I criticized Lewisohn. I'm judging what he has done with the book by what you guys have said here, mostly about Martin signing the Beatles. The story that you mention. If Martin says the reason he ultimately signed the Beatles was because of their charm, I believe him. Why believe what 80+ year old people say now over what he said in 1962? Could these people think that maybe they have got their 15 minutes at last? And there was a story going around at the time. Maybe George was going to tell these people to f off, but by golly, he liked the Beatles and he signed them. I didn't buy the book because I wanted the unabridged version and couldn't get it domestically. I figured it will eventually come out in the states. I've only heard good things about it. But should I get a copy, I would be concerned about Lewisohn's objectivity. I've heard that Paul was not supporting and contributing to the book. From your comment, apparently Lewisohn would rather take the salacious hearsay of the sewing circuit than the words of the ones actually involved. Paul's memory may be failing him at 73. What about the memories of the nosey gossipers who were peeking around the corners, trying to follow the action. These guys were probably at least as old as Martin. Ya dig?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 8, 2015 22:06:19 GMT -5
Until you get a copy of the book and read it, no point in continuing this debate.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 8, 2015 22:50:31 GMT -5
Yeah. I'm just going by what you guy have said here. To tell you the truth I was hoping to hear a little more here but you guys kind of got this "don't want to spoil it for you, buy the book" attitude.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 8, 2015 23:42:32 GMT -5
Even though Lewisohn is probably getting a bit big-headed now, and seems to be developing a 'hero complex' in his mission to tell the real, true Beatles story, I am REALLY grateful for his work. It's been clear for many years (if there were ever any doubt) that the principals in The Beatles' story have no idea what happened to them or why, and that many of them (George Martin in particular, sorry to say) have been blowing smoke up people's asses for 40 years. It's been equally clear for decades that no writer -- most of whom, in any case, lacked anything approaching objectivity -- was willing to put in the required work to reveal essential historical details. Fortunately, Lewisohn is primarily a historian and is obsessive about accurate details. He also mistrusts a lot of the B.S. spun by a lot of people. I am playing devils advocate with lowbasso but what flipped me on the anti-Lewisohn campaign are comments like your "George Martin... blowing smoke". George's leaving out a somewhat shady affair of his is perfectly understandable. So him not even showing up for the first demo that Pete Best played on because he wasn't sold on them makes sense. It doesn't negate him saying "what sold me on them was their charm". He may have signed them but still not put any real effort into recording them until he got to know them better. Or he may have bucked the threats completely. He had a record of success at EMI. He was an asset with the company. He may have had other offers. Yet, according to the comments here, Lewisohn seems to be saying Martin's story is "completely smoke, not true. Here's the real story". It may help that I haven't read the book. I don't have that "fly on the wall, I 'm getting the inside story, just the facts" vibe you get by reading Lewisohn's book,. He seems biased to me. It may very well be that he is telling facts that George didn't want out, so George is not talking to him. Not telling him "Well that is true, but t his is what I was thinking at the time". I'll have to confess too, though. I haven't watched the Lewisohnn videos yet either.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Sept 9, 2015 0:13:59 GMT -5
A huge thank you to Steve for posting the latest interview w/Mark Lewisohn on his trilogy book project. It is in two parts amounting to about 1 hour of Q/A from the audience on many subjects from his first released volume, upcoming second volume, unfortunately not slated to be published until 2020 at the earliest, and also a little bit about next year's big Beatle project coming out; Ron Howard's documentary film on the Beatles concert years. Subjects discussed; The George Martin signing of The Beatles in June 1962 revelations - apparently George Martin and his wife are not pleased with Lewisohn's version of what really happened around that event,and have made that clear to Mark. The Pete Best sacking, The relationship between Dick James and John & Paul that apparently deteriorated in the mid-60's to the point that James chose to sell his shares of the L&M Catalogue to ATV without informing John & Paul. Discussions about recording the first album before Love Me Do had even started charting, and how quickly Martin turned from being forced to sign the group to really embracing them wholeheartedly in the space of 5 months. All in all,a great 1 hour interview packed with great stories and information. The interview is in two parts. The end of Part 1 will guide you to the second part if you watch it on Youtube. Thanks again Steve!! www.examiner.com/article/mark-lewisohn-captures-liverpool-audience-with-beatle-week-book-talkYou're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 9, 2015 4:34:21 GMT -5
...what flipped me on the anti-Lewisohn campaign are comments like your "George Martin... blowing smoke". George's leaving out a somewhat shady affair of his is perfectly understandable. I was not referring specifically to the matter of George Martin's affair. I was referring to a few different things that have become evident over the years -- for example, Martin's stories about not knowing Ringo was coming to the 1962 single sessions and bringing Andy White, when it's obvious now that Martin first heard Ringo and then decided he didn't want him on the single. Etc. There are a few things like this, which Martin has clearly either forgotten or (more likely) has bended the truth around in order not to hurt interested parties and his relationships with them. I don't hold it against Martin, but if you want to know the truth of historical events, the principal people involved are often the last people you should trust.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 9, 2015 6:46:49 GMT -5
I have come to like the idea that the (now supposed) real reason The Beatles were actually signed was because the publishers wanted their songs... it's much more complimentary to John and Paul's talents than George Martin's oft-told tale of how he thought they were terrible, but he liked their charm, so he took a gamble.
But here's my issue. How do we know for certain how it happened? We've had Martin sticking to his story for 50 years now... and suddenly, all these decades later, someone is interviewed and claims to Mark Lewisohn that the publishers wanted the Lennon/McCartney songs -- so now we have to alter the entire history just based on this one guy?? So what is the truth? Could it be possible that this interviewee (I apologize because I don't have the name) just wanted his moment to shine? If what he said is the truth, then why wait for over 50 years to say anything?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 9, 2015 7:14:08 GMT -5
Joe; Not home in NJ at the moment to access my copy of Lewisohn book to go over his footnotes on how many sources and comments were uncovered to back up this particular episode, so will defer an opinion until able to do so next week.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Sept 9, 2015 7:14:40 GMT -5
Didn't you start a thread on this before Joe?
Might be worth a search.
I'm pretty sure the paper trail that Mark had, along with the recollection of Kim Bennett(?) and many others that didn't fit with George Martin's memory, led him to this conclusion. I don't recall the ins and outs but everyone on the forum was happy with what they read in the book.
Only 5 more years, at the earliest, for the next volume. :-)
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 9, 2015 10:33:59 GMT -5
I don't hold it against Martin, but if you want to know the truth of historical events, the principal people involved are often the last people you should trust. I agree with this 100%. A good historian relies on many sources in trying to get to the truth of the past. Paul's recollections, if given to ML for this book, would have been a very important source of information, maybe the most important single source since John and George are gone, but the telling of the story would not stop there. It is only human to have errors in memory and to embellish one's own role in events. If a historian on the American Civil War would only go by the writings of Major General George B. McClellan, that historian might conclude that the Confederate Army was invincible, that President Abraham Lincoln was a moron and that only McClellan himself really knew how to save the Union, none of which were true yet McClellan was there and his writings could still give that historian invaluable information. But it couldn't stand alone in the telling of the story. Same with The Beatles. Lewisohn's methods of research seem exhaustive and thorough to me.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 14, 2015 12:24:43 GMT -5
I have come to like the idea that the (now supposed) real reason The Beatles were actually signed was because the publishers wanted their songs... it's much more complimentary to John and Paul's talents than George Martin's oft-told tale of how he thought they were terrible, but he liked their charm, so he took a gamble. But here's my issue. How do we know for certain how it happened? We've had Martin sticking to his story for 50 years now... and suddenly, all these decades later, someone is interviewed and claims to Mark Lewisohn that the publishers wanted the Lennon/McCartney songs -- so now we have to alter the entire history just based on this one guy?? So what is the truth? Could it be possible that this interviewee (I apologize because I don't have the name) just wanted his moment to shine? If what he said is the truth, then why wait for over 50 years to say anything? Ok, here is an interview on 12/27/2013 with Lewisohn by Allan Kozinn, former New York Times reporter and now a partner with with Steve on their program, where he talks about the G. Martin Controversy that he uncovered for his book involving why The Beatles received a recording contract at EMI in June, 1962; Q. One of the biggest surprises in the book concerns how and why George Martin, the Beatles’ producer, signed them to his label, Parlophone. The story was always that when everyone else turned them down, he saw a spark or originality. But it turns out to have been a far more byzantine transaction. Lewisohn; When I wrote the “Recording Sessions” book, I found very little paperwork about their first session, on June 6, 1962, and people who were involved remembered it differently. That was thought to have been an audition. But in 1991 I gained access to another archive within EMI, where I found the studio booking forms, and those showed that at the time of that session, they were already under contract. It was not an audition, or an artist test, or any test at all — it was a proper session, under a contract. This created a mystery: it meant that George Martin had signed them without having heard them perform live. In 1992, I laid all these documents out in front of him, and I said: “George, can you explain this to me? You appear to have signed them before you saw them.” And he appeared genuinely befuddled by it. He said, “Why would I have done that?” We never resolved it, but I knew there had to be more to it. Q. The key was someone else who had never been interviewed, Kim Bennett, who worked for EMI’s in-house publisher, Ardmore & Beechwood, which published the Beatles’ first songs. Ardmore & Beechwood pushed EMI to sign the Beatles because it wanted to publish their music, and EMI, after first resisting the idea, agreed because the company saw it as a way to punish George Martin for various indiscretions. Lewisohn; I had been looking for Kim Bennett to talk about the early publishing, but unbeknownst to me, he had been trying for years to get people to listen to his story about how the Beatles got signed, and nobody wanted to know. I interviewed him extensively over two days, and I grilled him — to the point where he lost his temper, a bit — because I wanted to be sure I understood this properly, and that it stood up. And the story was that for a combination of reasons, George Martin had his arm twisted to sign the Beatles. Q. How did you corroborate Kim Bennett’s story? Lewisohn; I went to Ron Richards and to Norman Smith [George Martin’s assistant and principal engineer, respectively, at the time the Beatles were signed]. I didn’t say what I knew, I just opened the door a little, and they confirmed the rest. I tried to go to George Martin. I’ve known George a long time, and been to his house many times, and I kept saying, “I don’t want to do this on the phone; I really want to see you.” But he was very old and very frail by then, and I genuinely think he doesn’t remember it anymore. He’s told the story so many times the other way, that for him, it’s what the story is. In Lewisohn's book; unabridged edition, Pgs. 1177-1180, is the story of this moment in Beatles History. G. Martin had already angered Len Wood, the headmaster at EMI, because he wanted a raise in salary as well as royalty payments on his recordings. American record company producers were getting these terms, but Wood refused Martin's request, and Martin threatened to quit. Wood called him on his threat, but Martin backed down as he could not afford to quit. On top of that Martin was having an affair with Wood's secretary, which also angered Wood. The secretary (Judy) later married George Martin, and is his wife to this day, but at the time Martin was married to his first wife and cheating on her with Judy. Lewisohn never had an opportunity to interview Wood over his involvement in this chapter of Beatles history before he died, but Kim Bennett (Interviewed by Lewisohn on 7/28/2003) confirmed this to Lewisohn and the fact that Wood granted Bennett and Sid Coleman, the two music publishers at Ardmore & Beechwood, EMI's publishing arm, their desire to have EMI sign The Beatles to a recording contract so they could get the publishing rights to "Like Dreamers Do", a Lennon/McCartney song they felt could be a hit. Bennett said Wood only gave The Beatles a recording contract to get the publishing deal done. And Wood forced G. Martin to sign The Beatles in retaliation for Martin's arrogance over his contract renewal and his affair with his secretary. This part of the story is backed up by interviews with Martin's engineer partners Ron Richards (died on 4/30/2009) that Lewisohn did on 8/2/2007 and with Norman Smith (died on 3/3/2008) on 5/16/2005. So both Richards and Smith confirm the reason Martin signed The Beatles. From the interview with Kozinn, it shows that Lewisohn has approached Martin more than once armed with this information to get a quote from Martin. but he has refused to change his story that he chose to sign The Beatles of his own free will after hearing them on tape and the so-called "audition" on June 6, 1962. But interviews with three other participants in this story corroborate the order by Len Wood to Martin to give The Beatles a recording contract regardless of how Martin felt about the band personally. Now that does not take away the fact that The Beatles music and personalities grew on Martin, and by the time he recorded them in Sept. 1962, with Ringo now as their drummer, he honestly did take a liking to the band and the rest was history. But the revelation by Lewisohn takes away Martin's status as the one who "discovered" The Beatles and decided to sign the band based on his impression of them at their audition in June of 1962. That is a lot of ego to "steal" from Martin and his place in Beatles history. This is but one example of how thorough Lewisohn is in his research on Beatles history in his book, and how footnotes play a huge role in backing up his information. And unless G. Martin ever owned up to the true reason for his signing the band privately to anyone other than his wife, Judy, how could Paul, Ringo, Pete, or for that matter, George H., or John, & Brian Epstein have known the facts surrounding their first recording contract until Lewisohn uncovered these facts in his preparation for the book? And as one of our other fellow board members, who hasn't even read the book yet, said about Lewisohn; taking "the salacious hearsay of the sewing circuit (rather) than the words of the ones actually involved." Well, Kim Bennett, Norman Smith, and Ron Richards are hardly the former, and clearly the latter.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 14, 2015 18:00:42 GMT -5
Yet in this interview from the Beatle's Bible www.beatlesbible.com/1962/06/06/the-beatles-first-abbey-road-recording-session/#comments, Norman keeps referring to the session as an artist test. "The Beatles didn't make a very good impression, apart from visually. I mean, we heard nothing of John and Paul's songwriting ability." From the article: Ron Richards was initially in charge of the session - George Martin was only brought in when balance engineer Norman Smith was struck by the quality of Love Me Do. It was unusual for a producer to be present for an artist test. However, on this day Martin stayed for most of the session. Norman: "The control room door opened and in walked George Martin himself. And I thought to myself, 'This must be some kind of special artist test for him to show up.' Because producers didn't normally attend artists test. For the artist test, it was George Martin himself. And there was no question of them them being signed at that time. But, later I began to wonder, 'Were they already signed? Is this why George Martin himself turned up? Was it because this was the first time that he'd seen them? Was there something more attached to the whole thing?'" SO at the time of this interview, he's wondering if maybe the Beatles had already been signed. By the time he talked to Lewisohn, he knew. Well, he is getting old.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 14, 2015 19:54:20 GMT -5
A few things don't ring true to me.
Wood forced Martin sign the Beatles to punish him for asking for a raise and for having an extra-marital affairs with Wood's secretary and to get publishing rights to a song? He assigned him a work project? I hate when that happens. Then George, so intimidated, barely showed up for the audition and never even bothered to record the song. He only showed up after Smith sent word about how great Love Me Do was sounding.
Maybe they signed the Beatles without Martin's knowledge? In the Beatles Anthology, Paul says by the September session they were signed. So apparently the Beatle didn't know they were signed by the first recording audition/session either. I doubt they would go along with the proper story, just to boast Martin's version.
Lewisohn laid all of the documents out in front of Martin, yet Martin never would meet with him in person to discuss. I'm not sure how that works.
But I guess if I'd read the book, I'd be snowed, eh, convinced.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 14, 2015 19:58:28 GMT -5
I said: “George, can you explain this to me? You appear to have signed them before you saw them.” And he appeared genuinely befuddled by it. ...he was very old and very frail by then, and I genuinely think he doesn’t remember it anymore. He’s told the story so many times the other way, that for him, it’s what the story is. Good summary, and I think these highlighted parts are really key to why Lewisohn's work is so necessary. Principals in The Beatles' story have a lot of relationships to protect, positions in history to underline, and oft-tales tales to repeat for dramatic effect. It's very true that George Martin (and Paul McCartney, and Ringo, in particular) have told the same stories so many times that they actually believe the falsehoods to be true. The Beatles Anthology turns up countless such examples -- one being Ringo's (and Paul's) claim that he didn't drum on the original "Love Me Do", when Ringo knew very well in 1962 that he had. These guys have told the stories so many times that their main memory is of telling the story, not of what actually happened. George Martin is elderly and probably a bit crochety now (see also: Paul) about Beatles' history and his place in it. Although he's enjoyed a good relationship with Mark Lewisohn over the years, it's only natural that Lewisohn's incessant digging and challenging of memories and facts will begin to grate on Martin in his silver years, especially when a high-profile book discusses (albeit tactfully) Martin's secret relationship in the late 50s/early 60s while he was married to someone else. None of this, by the way, takes anything away from Martin. Although he likely had his arm twisted a bit to record The Beatles for Ardmore & Beechwood's publishing hopes, it's still George Martin who had the switch flipped very quickly in late 1962 and decided to record an album with The Beatles (before they'd had a big hit) and it's George Martin who allowed two sides of the first single to be Lennon/McCartney tunes -- even if this latter point was a concession to Ardmore & Beechwood. Yet it's still George Martin who allowed the second single to be Lennon/McCartney tunes, too. Needless to say, it's George Martin who made The Beatles a great studio band for all those years. So it takes nothing away from Martin to reveal that his arm was twisted a bit in 1962. But he's just a bit old and crochety now, which is fine.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 14, 2015 20:01:20 GMT -5
Again, I'd loved to had gotten the book, I just wanted the long version. I'm just a little leery of saying, okay this is it. This is the definitive version.
Maybe I'd be better off getting a later edition, after things have settled a little. (A few rewrites, an addendum...)
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 14, 2015 21:51:23 GMT -5
Again, I'd loved to had gotten the book, I just wanted the long version. I'm just a little leery of saying, okay this is it. This is the definitive version. Maybe I'd be better off getting a later edition, after things have settled a little. (A few rewrites, an addendum...) www.amazon.com/Beatles-These-Years-Extended-Special/dp/1408704781/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1442284762&sr=8-2&keywords=tune+in+the+beatles+all+these+yearsHere is the extended version for sale on Amazon. It isn't cheap; $166.00. It was around 100 UK Pounds when I bought it a few years ago + shipping from England then, and that price above is about comparable to the exchange rate of 100 Pounds. Maybe you can get someone to get it for you for a birthday or Xmas present. Or there are some other diehard Beatlefans living near you and you could all go in on one copy. You have to read it first before you can decide "this is it" or not. Many fans who have read it have decided it is so. Not sure if any library near you might stock it. Probably not the extended version since it was mainly meant for sale in the UK. It is quickly being accepted as a must for any diehard Beatlefan. Maybe you can borrow Paul's copy. He said he isn't reading it.....
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 14, 2015 22:09:16 GMT -5
A few things don't ring true to me. Wood forced Martin sign the Beatles to punish him for asking for a raise and for having an extra-marital affairs with Wood's secretary and to get publishing rights to a song? He assigned him a work project? I hate when that happens. Then George, so intimidated, barely showed up for the audition and never even bothered to record the song. He only showed up after Smith sent word about how great Love Me Do was sounding. Maybe they signed the Beatles without Martin's knowledge? In the Beatles Anthology, Paul says by the September session they were signed. So apparently the Beatle didn't know they were signed by the first recording audition/session either. I doubt they would go along with the proper story, just to boast Martin's version. Lewisohn laid all of the documents out in front of Martin, yet Martin never would meet with him in person to discuss. I'm not sure how that works. But I guess if I'd read the book, I'd be snowed, eh, convinced. "But I guess if I'd read the book, I'd be snowed, eh, convinced." You are as stubborn and crotchety as George Martin is about this subject...You have Martin's version so imbedded in your mind for all these years you won't open up and consider maybe it didn't go the way dozens of Beatle books, and Paul and Ringo's recollections over many years said it went. It's as if you don't want the story to have a different version now. It doesn't sully George Martin's place in Beatles history. He is still the pivotal man who made The Beatles sound as good as they did on all their albums he produced. Just open your mind to the possible realities of this fantastic story that have yet to be uncovered. Read the book, then make your judgement call!!
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Sept 14, 2015 22:22:09 GMT -5
Hey, debjorgo, I'm even worse than you are. I've had the extended version for a year and still haven't read it.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 14, 2015 22:46:55 GMT -5
I'm just a little leery of saying, okay this is it. This is the definitive version. I don't think anyone is saying this-is-the-definitive-version, including Lewisohn, who said only last week that there is always going to be new information coming up that adds to what we already know. He also said that he's already turned up new and interesting information that updates 'Tune In', but that he isn't going to go back and rewrite anything or update the book -- he's going to continue on with the two follow-up editions. I am tempted to order the extended edition of the book, but I'm afraid it's too otaku of me... Also, it's going to be too heavy to read in the bath... But seriously, you should read the standard edition first. It's, like, 1000 pages of small print, which is say about 2000 pages of normal paperback size. It's long enough.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 14, 2015 22:53:24 GMT -5
Again, I'd loved to had gotten the book, I just wanted the long version. I'm just a little leery of saying, okay this is it. This is the definitive version. Maybe I'd be better off getting a later edition, after things have settled a little. (A few rewrites, an addendum...) www.amazon.com/Beatles-These-Years-Extended-Special/dp/1408704781/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1442284762&sr=8-2&keywords=tune+in+the+beatles+all+these+yearsHere is the extended version for sale on Amazon. It isn't cheap; $166.00. It was around 100 UK Pounds when I bought it a few years ago + shipping from England then, and that price above is about comparable to the exchange rate of 100 Pounds. Maybe you can get someone to get it for you for a birthday or Xmas present. Or there are some other diehard Beatlefans living near you and you could all go in on one copy. You have to read it first before you can decide "this is it" or not. Many fans who have read it have decided it is so. Not sure if any library near you might stock it. Probably not the extended version since it was mainly meant for sale in the UK. It is quickly being accepted as a must for any diehard Beatlefan. Maybe you can borrow Paul's copy. He said he isn't reading it..... Yeah! Yeah! I'll put out a few hints here and there for X-mas. Maybe I'll get this book instead of that pair of socks I was going to get. But with the McCartney Tug of War and Pipes of Peace books (I'm getting the two disc versions too because I like looking at them) and the Beatles 1 pen and key chain that's coming out, I'm a little financially embarrassed. I'm prepared to pay a couple of hundred for that key chain, provided it fits in my Blu-ray player. You know the regular version of Tune In is only like 30 bucks? Is the unabridged version 5 times as long. May they will release a paperback version in a few years.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 14, 2015 23:11:58 GMT -5
... But seriously, you should read the standard edition first. It's, like, 1000 pages of small print, which is say about 2000 pages of normal paperback size. It's long enough. Maybe so. I'll have to see how much the 10, 9, 8, 7 .... cost me.
|
|