Beatles - Page 36

**deepsepia** · December 3rd, 2011, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuzzyman927

Trying to compare The Beatles' more "polished" sound/music to the Rolling Stones' rougher bluesy/rhythm & blues sound, to The Who's more driving rock style, or even to Elvis Presley would be like trying to compare Tom Jones to Bob Dylan -- they are completely different styles of music, sound, and performers. Each has their own individual quality and uniqueness.

I always assumed that the Beatles' polished orchestral sound was largely George Martin (and later a bit of Phil Spector)

None of the Beatles had much musical training, and when you get this big lavish arrangements, my impression is that that's much more Martin than any of them.

The string quartet in "Yesterday", the trumpet solo in "Penny Lane" -- that's George Martin . . .

**cuzzyman927** · December 4th, 2011, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepsepia

I always assumed that the Beatles' polished orchestral sound was largely George Martin (and later a bit of Phil Spector)

None of the Beatles had much musical training, and when you get this big lavish arrangements, my impression is that that's much more Martin than any of them.

The string quartet in "Yesterday", the trumpet solo in "Penny Lane" -- that's George Martin . . .

I totally agree, but keep in mind that whenever one of them would write a song or have an idea they would typically play it for the others, usually a rough draft on the piano, which I'm sure for also George Martin.
I'm sure Martin wrote a good deal of the strings/brass music for a number of songs, but I also believe that the guys would play a rough draft of what they thought the strings/brass melody should go like on the piano (or perhaps even hum or whistle it) and then Martin would go to work on the task of orchestrating it.
Its true that The Beatles were very green and inexperienced when first entering the studio and they relied solely on Martin, who was calling all the shots. But, by their 3rd or 4th album they had learned quite a bit rather quickly and were telling Martin what they wanted and began calling the shots.

**victor meldrew** · December 4th, 2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuzzyman927

One thing that can be said about The Beatles is that they were a band like no other, in that, they wanted to show the world that they were not just four talentless long-haired punks from Liverpool who played loud music,.

The Beatles were never loud, they did not have the equipment and you could not hear them for all the screaming.

doubleday · December 6th, 2011, 08:29 AM

Reading Gladwell's Outliers now. He mentioned that in the early days, the Beatles were the house band of some club and they played and practiced an incredible number of hours. His point was that The Beatles were more than just talented, but that they worked really hard to get where they were.

**Warren G** · December 6th, 2011, 09:19 AM

Regarding the Beatles or George Martin's influence, I agree with cuzzy. In the very beginning, they relied on Martin because they were green, and didn't know the ropes. But they knew what they liked, and I'm sure they didn't go along with anything that wasn't in their vision. Anyone who's ever been in a studio can tell you that no matter what managers or producers say, you always have the deciding vote.

We need to see the difference here between a musical director, or technician, or arranger, and a creative artist. The Beatles were creative. They were original. They could come up with the raw, original ideas that could be tamed and polished by the likes of Martin. They may have not had the musical expertise to be able to write scores,or instrumentations, but they had the raw materials, the imagination, the original creativity.

Believe me...that's a lot better. I'm the opposite. If you give me a raw, simple song, I can build on it, I can embellish it, produce it, add instruments, feel, mood, and flavor. I can perfect it. But I can't come up with an original song to save my life. That's something you can't learn, it's a gift . But the opposite is true. The Beatles were able to create the original song, and then learned how to perfect and produce it. They learned a lot from George Martin, but they eventually surpassed him.

**deepsepia** · December 6th, 2011, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren G

Regarding the Beatles or George Martin's influence, I agree with cuzzy. In the very beginning, they relied on Martin because they were green, and didn't know the ropes. But they knew what they liked, and I'm sure they didn't go along with anything that wasn't in their vision. Anyone who's ever been in a studio can tell you that no matter what managers or producers say, you always have the deciding vote.

We need to see the difference here between a musical director, or technician, or arranger, and a creative artist.

I think the input of the producer varies greatly. Some folks, Rick Rubin comes to mind, seem to function mostly at the level of helping the artist be the best, most honest artist they can be.

But others, I'm thinking of Brian Eno and Phil Spector in particular, really are part of the music.

This comes up with the Beatles in the issue of "taking Phil out" of their recordings . . . before he died, George remastered "All things must pass" to strip out the Phil Spector orchestrations.

Simply, it doesn't work. . . . "Isn't it a Pity" is one of my very favorite songs, lavish and sonically deep as a well, layer after layer. I've heard it that way for forty years now, and you "take out the Phil" and the doesn't remain the same. . . .

I gather the issue of Phil's input became contentious on Let it Be, and that different mixes are floating around

lvblvb · February 28th, 2012, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norbert84

Sorry if I offend any hardcore Beatles fan but they were not really talented. I think what made them so popular worldwide was the role they were playing in many aspects for young people. They were the voice of a generation and liberation. But besides that, they were just an average heart-breaking group. The band members made better music after the split-up.

Yes, timing was a key factor in the explosion that happened, and the Beatles were lucky to hook up with George Martin at the start. But I think they were far better than average in their musical creativity. They were always a couple of steps ahead of everyone else and made pop/rock into a new art form that seemed to have unlimited possibilities at the time. I like hearing your opinion, though because it stimulates thought about a band that's been discussed endlessly.

**otokonomidori** · February 28th, 2012, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lvblvb

and the Beatles were lucky to hook up with George Martin at the start.

Not as lucky as George Martin was when he hooked up with the Beatles - how come he didn't think of any of these wonderful arrangements and tunes before he started working with the Beatles.?

**tygrkhat40** · February 28th, 2012, 03:52 PM

If I remember correctly, although a musician himself, Sir George had been producing comedy albums before hooking up with the Beatles.

MaxJoker · February 28th, 2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tygrkhat40

If I remember correctly, although a musician himself, Sir George had been producing comedy albums before hooking up with the Beatles.

Some might say even once he signed them up he never stopped doing so

February 28th, 2012, 03:52 PM	#359
tygrkhat40 Long Suffering Bills Fan Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: The City of Good Neighbors Posts: 9,669 Thanks: 304,243 Thanked 152,638 Times in 9,629 Posts	If I remember correctly, although a musician himself, Sir George had been producing comedy albums before hooking up with the Beatles. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

December 6th, 2011, 08:29 AM	#354
doubleday Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 81 Thanks: 456 Thanked 683 Times in 81 Posts	Reading Gladwell's Outliers now. He mentioned that in the early days, the Beatles were the house band of some club and they played and practiced an incredible number of hours. His point was that The Beatles were more than just talented, but that they worked really hard to get where they were.

December 6th, 2011, 09:19 AM	#355
Warren G Vintage Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,473 Thanks: 5,632 Thanked 32,250 Times in 1,479 Posts	Regarding the Beatles or George Martin's influence, I agree with cuzzy. In the very beginning, they relied on Martin because they were green, and didn't know the ropes. But they knew what they liked, and I'm sure they didn't go along with anything that wasn't in their vision. Anyone who's ever been in a studio can tell you that no matter what managers or producers say, you always have the deciding vote. We need to see the difference here between a musical director, or technician, or arranger, and a creative artist. The Beatles were creative. They were original. They could come up with the raw, original ideas that could be tamed and polished by the likes of Martin. They may have not had the musical expertise to be able to write scores,or instrumentations, but they had the raw materials, the imagination, the original creativity. Believe me...that's a lot better. I'm the opposite. If you give me a raw, simple song, I can build on it, I can embellish it, produce it, add instruments, feel, mood, and flavor. I can perfect it. But I can't come up with an original song to save my life. That's something you can't learn, it's a gift . But the opposite is true. The Beatles were able to create the original song, and then learned how to perfect and produce it. They learned a lot from George Martin, but they eventually surpassed him.