lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 9, 2016 11:35:32 GMT -5
The following is just mind-blowing;
"He was considered the most successful music producer ever, cited in the Guinness Book of Records for having more than 50 No. 1 hit records over five decades in the United States and Britain alone."
Let's see some SOB ever top that.......
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 9, 2016 11:56:38 GMT -5
I hope the New York Times allows Allan Kozin to write George' s Obituary in its paper. George deserves that. Agreed! He also deserves a formal State funeral in the U.K. How about re-naming Abbey Road Studios; The Sir George Martin/Abbey Road Studios.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 9, 2016 12:10:04 GMT -5
Giles Martin; "Started out as my dad. Ended as my best friend. Love is all you need X"
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Mar 9, 2016 13:24:46 GMT -5
RIP George.
What a life!
You have only my humble admiration. Those are nice words from Giles and they've brought tears to my eyes for the first time today.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 9, 2016 14:42:06 GMT -5
It was a bit of a shock as I was biting into my cornflakes as daylight was breaking this morning to find George Martin was no longer with us. The tributes were still trickling in as Britain woke up to the news.
Alongside the Beatles he literally changed popular music in less than a decade. His classical music training and fondness for comedy provided the perfect catalyst for the Beatles. They were a sixties 'rock 'n roll' group at the start of the 1960s and by the end of the decade they had taken modern popular music forward in leaps and bounds. The Beatles went from a beat group, through power pop, then to psychedelia and finally developing an 'indie' rock sound in the latter days of the group. He worked with many other artists but he will always be known for his time as the Beatles producer.
It was George who had the idea to change "Please, Please Me" and it became the Beatles first number one record. It was George who thought of adding the string quartet to "Yesterday" and George who thought of changing the speed of different takes of "Strawberry Fields Forever". George Martin also had a lot of input on 'the sound of 1967' with the defining album "Sgt.Pepper" and making the final cut "Abbey Road" sound like it was produced yesterday.
Yep I will miss him very much because George produced, not just the soundtrack of his own life, but a large part of the soundtrack to mine as well.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Mar 9, 2016 14:43:07 GMT -5
He was the perfect producer for the Beatles. Lived a great 90 years. RIP George.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 9, 2016 17:53:17 GMT -5
BBC4 are now showing a great tribute to George Martin "Arena : Produced by George Martin". It's been on before but has a lot more significance now.
It was the last documentary he appeared in (2012) and it's very informal in parts especially with Ringo, Paul and Cilla. Hilarious even on this sad day.
Hope they show it across the pond, down under and everywhere else. Although I think it's available on DVD as well.
|
|
|
Post by theman on Mar 9, 2016 18:22:16 GMT -5
This presents a good opportunity for Paul to start reclaiming percentages of the credit for the production of Beatle records. I'm amending my comment to say I came here to read thoughtful comments on the passing of Sir George Martin and, instead, see crap like this. Wow!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 9, 2016 19:13:37 GMT -5
This presents a good opportunity for Paul to start reclaiming percentages of the credit for the production of Beatle records. It'll be a drag for him to have to wait a week, out of respect, before he can start rewriting another facet of Beatle History Nooo! That's Lewisohn's job.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Mar 9, 2016 19:18:57 GMT -5
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 9, 2016 20:17:02 GMT -5
It'll be a drag for him to have to wait a week, out of respect, before he can start rewriting another facet of Beatle History Nooo! That's Lewisohn's job. You really have it in for Lewisohn considering you never took the time to read his book....
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 9, 2016 20:20:28 GMT -5
This presents a good opportunity for Paul to start reclaiming percentages of the credit for the production of Beatle records. I'm amending my comment to say I came here to read thoughtful comments on the passing of Sir George Martin and, instead, see crap like this. Wow! I agree. Shitting all over Lewisohn as well by another poster who hasn't even read his book. How about putting all this in another thread out of respect for Sir George Martin.... Paul's posted tribute to Sir George was actually quite beautiful and genuine. He's come a long way since John died.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 9, 2016 20:32:36 GMT -5
It'll be a drag for him to have to wait a week, out of respect, before he can start rewriting another facet of Beatle History Nooo! That's Lewisohn's job. How is this joke shitting all over Lewisohn? I thought everyone agreed he was rewriting the history. I've read excerpt and it sure sounds like a history/biography. It's certainly a re-write in comparison to the Complete Beatles, the original Beatle's Biography. If you read more into this and take it as a jab, the jab is in regard to him contradicting Martin's version of signing the Beatles. So if it's a jab, it's a very pro-Martin jab.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 9, 2016 21:25:48 GMT -5
...the jab is in regard to him contradicting Martin's version of signing the Beatles. So if it's a jab, it's a very pro-Martin jab. Are you aware that Lewisohn and Martin got along well, and worked together a few times? They had mutual respect, even if some of Mark's recent revelations didn't sit comfortably with Martin. Don't try to make Lewisohn out to be Albert Goldman or something... esp. when you haven't read his wonderful book. Back to George Martin: He was great. If anything, it's unfortunate that his Beatle-association overshadowed the rest of his life and career. He was hugely respected as a producer, even back in the 60s when producers weren't even credited and no one cared about them. (Fortunately for Martin, people like Lewisohn are around to detail his early life and many successful creative endeavors before he met The Beatles.)
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 9, 2016 21:48:21 GMT -5
...the jab is in regard to him contradicting Martin's version of signing the Beatles. So if it's a jab, it's a very pro-Martin jab. Are you aware that Lewisohn and Martin got along well, and worked together a few times? They had mutual respect, even if some of Mark's recent revelations didn't sit comfortably with Martin. Don't try to make Lewisohn out to be Albert Goldman or something... esp. when you haven't read his wonderful book. I knew the same was true with Paul and Mark. I got off on a tangent a while back on Mark's take on George Martin and the events around the signing the Beatles. My point was, trusting everything Lewisohn said on the subject (what I read here anyway), George saying he signed the Beatles because he liked their charm, could still be true. Lewisohn apparently seemed to want to throw that out. I don't like the idea of taking his word as the gospel. However, taking all that out of todays discussion, saying it's Mark job to rewrite Beatle history is pretty harmless and certainly in my mind, reads like a joke. I'm not pretending to be peachy clean here but saying I was "shitting on Lewisohn" or being disrespectful of George in this thread is ridiculous. All respect to George Martin at this very sad time. I've always been a fan.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 9, 2016 23:31:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Mar 10, 2016 0:56:14 GMT -5
Yeah, he was talking about it with us (TWST guys) in an email last night. You'd think they'd have kept him on ...
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 10, 2016 2:49:22 GMT -5
George saying he signed the Beatles because he liked their charm, could still be true. Lewisohn apparently seemed to want to throw that out. Lewisohn didn't "throw that out" at all. Read the damn book! Back to Paul's press statement on George Martin: True to form, Paul is manipulating the sad passing of a great man in order to press his agenda of unrecognized genius. It's be nice if his statement had actually been about George Martin. Instead, it's all about Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 10, 2016 5:38:53 GMT -5
Paul's posted tribute to Sir George was actually quite beautiful and genuine. He's come a long way since John died. Yes, particularly when it comes to now having written nearly all of John Lennon's songs.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 10, 2016 5:44:49 GMT -5
Lewisohn didn't "throw that out" at all. Read the damn book! In my case I am presently up to the death of Stuart Sutcliffe in Lewisohn's terrific book. But even without yet having gotten to the chapter where George Martin enters the story, I think I have heard enough from people who HAVE read it all, through Beatles talk circles (and radio shows, etc), to surmise that the source of the fresh new "Martin was forced to sign The Beatles" angle now comes from just one man -- is that accurate? Sorry, his name escapes me at this moment -- but isn't it from just the new memories of one of the participants who had been oddly silent for 50-something years?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 10, 2016 5:55:26 GMT -5
Back to George Martin: He was great. If anything, it's unfortunate that his Beatle-association overshadowed the rest of his life and career. He was hugely respected as a producer, even back in the 60s when producers weren't even credited and no one cared about them. (Fortunately for Martin, people like Lewisohn are around to detail his early life and many successful creative endeavors before he met The Beatles.) I have always sang George Martin's praises, and I recognize him as a genius producer (and the one and only True Fifth Beatle). However, as much as Martin gave The Beatles their career, so too did The Beatles raise Martin from relative obscurity. It was the perfect marriage and they both benefited each other. I don't think anyone would be talking nearly as much about "Sir" George Martin's passing these past couple of days if not for his association with The Beatles. Even in interviews I have heard Martin graciously concede how fortunate he was to have met up with the Fabs.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 10, 2016 7:22:38 GMT -5
I liked Paul's statement. It's nice he took the time to write out such a long heartfelt tribute. I like hearing where he actually tells us more about a song/recording than we usually hear. Just, please don't ask him if it's true he dreamt Yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 10, 2016 9:40:58 GMT -5
...as much as Martin gave The Beatles their career, so too did The Beatles raise Martin from relative obscurity. It was the perfect marriage and they both benefited each other. I don't think anyone would be talking nearly as much about "Sir" George Martin's passing these past couple of days if not for his association with The Beatles. Of course, The Beatles 'made' George Martin famous. That's obvious. His being discussed now, being Knighted, being remembered forever, is all down to the fact that he produced The Beatles. However, being famous isn't a career. Martin had a very successful actual career as 'recording engineer' (producer) -- and, to a lesser extent, as musician and songwriter -- before he met The Beatles. He just wouldn't have become famous (well, probably -- we'll never know) if they hadn't worked together.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 10, 2016 12:23:22 GMT -5
Paul's statement on Sir George did not bother me in the least and I was moved by it although I recognize that the passing of Sir George Martin opens yet another floodgate for the marginalization of John Lennon and George Harrison as to their legacies in the Beatles. George Martin was probably much more in tune with Paul for sure but George Martin respected and appreciated Lennon's musical and lyrical skills and absolute proof of that is when he made Paul promise that John would be an active part of the recording sessions that became Abbey Road before Sir George would sign up for that project. What got my goat was Geoff Emerick's crocodile tears: "The news of the passing of Sir George Martin is sad, however the mark he left on the music world is indisputable. I had the pleasure of sitting and working side by side with him during the creation of the most iconic music of The Beatles. He was a true gentleman, and we had the same sense of humor. He was like a father to me. I’m proud to have shared so many memorable years with him." www.billboard.com/articles/news/6946919/beatles-engineer-geoff-emerick-george-martinWhen remembering Emerick's jaw-droppingly demeaning comments of George Martin in his book, I am stunned this guy has the balls to show his face now! First, notice how he makes it clear that he was right there, side by side with Martin, implying(as he outright stated in his book) that he was the one creating the recorded magic! Second, so there was nothing "iconic" before Revolver, Emerick's beginning with The Beatles!? He also walked out on the White Album probably because he hated John Lennon and even George Harrison reasserting themselves! Emerick was an important and innovative recording engineer but he chose to turn on Sir George in his book and we see his phony praise here!
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Mar 10, 2016 14:53:08 GMT -5
I had no issue with Paul's statement . I think his anecdote on Yesterday was appropriate as he highlighted how George Martin could come up with an idea (the strings) yet he was not the type of produce to force it on his artists. Most producers in those days would have said "you WILL do it my way" but George Martin was open minded and treated the young Beatles with respect right from the start.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 10, 2016 16:30:30 GMT -5
Paul's statement on Sir George did not bother me in the least and I was moved by it although I recognize that the passing of Sir George Martin opens yet another floodgate for the marginalization of John Lennon and George Harrison as to their legacies in the Beatles. But you didn't think Paul sort of marginalized George Martin in his account of the way "Yesterday" was scored? I may have to start a new society to protect Sir George from Macca Marginalization!
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Mar 10, 2016 19:25:00 GMT -5
Paul's posted tribute to Sir George was actually quite beautiful and genuine. He's come a long way since John died. Yes, particularly when it comes to now having written nearly all of John Lennon's songs. Paul has never claimed to "have written nearly all of John's songs". Your arguments lose a lot of credibility when you make an exaggeration like that.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Mar 10, 2016 19:26:05 GMT -5
Paul's statement on Sir George did not bother me in the least and I was moved by it although I recognize that the passing of Sir George Martin opens yet another floodgate for the marginalization of John Lennon and George Harrison as to their legacies in the Beatles. But you didn't think Paul sort of marginalized George Martin in his account of the way "Yesterday" was scored? I may have to start a new society to protect Sir George from Macca Marginalization! Can't speak for JSD, but I didn't feel that way.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 10, 2016 19:55:46 GMT -5
Lewisohn didn't "throw that out" at all. Read the damn book! In my case I am presently up to the death of Stuart Sutcliffe in Lewisohn's terrific book. But even without yet having gotten to the chapter where George Martin enters the story, I think I have heard enough from people who HAVE read it all, through Beatles talk circles (and radio shows, etc), to surmise that the source of the fresh new "Martin was forced to sign The Beatles" angle now comes from just one man -- is that accurate? Sorry, his name escapes me at this moment -- but isn't it from just the new memories of one of the participants who had been oddly silent for 50-something years? I am not home at the moment Joe to access the book, but when you get to the story of why Martin was told to sign The Beatles ( this is after he has also heard some of the Decca tapes and was not impressed with what he heard) you will read about the guys at Ardmore & Beechwood who wanted to publish some L& M songs they heard and told Judy Martin's boss that EMI should sign the band so they could get the publishing rights. There are multiple footnotes to denote who said what and when and to whom, including Lewisohn. So it is clear everything Lewisohn says is backed up by interviews. It is not just conjuncture based on rumor but factual evidence. Martin didn't even show up initially for the first "session" not an audition like The Beatles and Brian E. thought it was in June of '62. He sent Ron Richards to hear them But Richards was so impressed he contacted Martin to please come and hear them . Which he did. interestingly enough, Allan Kozinn refers to this episode in his obit of Sir George in today's NY Times. So he is clearly satisfied enough by Lewisohn's account to include it in the obituary. Glad you are enjoying the book Joe!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 10, 2016 22:03:56 GMT -5
I had no issue with Paul's statement . I think his anecdote on Yesterday was appropriate as he highlighted how George Martin could come up with an idea (the strings) yet he was not the type of produce to force it on his artists. Most producers in those days would have said "you WILL do it my way" but George Martin was open minded and treated the young Beatles with respect right from the start. It's not the example Paul brought up, it's the way he words it that I find self-serving and inappropriate. He should have written something just as you describe it, like this: "We (The Beatles) would often bring raw or unusual ideas to George, who, by rights, should have just dismissed them as any producer in the early/mid-1960s would have; however, George always had the grace and generosity to listen to our ideas and work to make them reality. As a result, the magic of The Beatles' recordings occurred because of the recording collaboration between us and him." But no, he had to bring up "my" song, and "my" idea, and of course he randomly chose his most successful song for his example. Funny how he didn't mention 'Ebony and Ivory'.
|
|