5
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Where do the Beatles end up without George Martin?
Posted on 10/25/26 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 10/25/26 at 2:06 pm
I read a claim recently that Martin was the main genius behind the success of the band, and the actual members of the Beatles were somewhat interchangeable (especially early on).
Posted on 10/25/26 at 2:59 pm to weagle1999
He occasionally added some interesting touches (the piano on "In My Life"), and his knowledge of classical music sometimes came in handy -- Paul had heard an instrument he wanted to use on "Penny Lane", and GM understood he meant piccolo trumpets.
But such contributions were marginal.
GM's greatest contribution was simply in hearing the band's potential -- specifically, the three part harmonies, and the two part harmonies of John and Paul, a rawer version of the Everly Bros.
John always had the rawer (and better) rock & roll voice, Combined w/Paul's smoother croon it made for, as stated, a rougher version of The Everlys. This sound had been prefigured by the obscure R&B duo Don and Dewey (they did the original "I'm Leavin' It Up To You"), who were stars of the L.A. R&B club circuit but never broke nationally (Sonny Bono was one of their producers).
I've never been able to determine if the Beatles had heard D&D. I know they were a major influence on the Righteous Bros.
FWIW, GM supposedly wanted to make Paul the frontman, b/c of his smoother, more conventional pop voice
But such contributions were marginal.
GM's greatest contribution was simply in hearing the band's potential -- specifically, the three part harmonies, and the two part harmonies of John and Paul, a rawer version of the Everly Bros.
quote:False
the actual members of the Beatles were somewhat interchangeable (especially early on)
John always had the rawer (and better) rock & roll voice, Combined w/Paul's smoother croon it made for, as stated, a rougher version of The Everlys. This sound had been prefigured by the obscure R&B duo Don and Dewey (they did the original "I'm Leavin' It Up To You"), who were stars of the L.A. R&B club circuit but never broke nationally (Sonny Bono was one of their producers).
I've never been able to determine if the Beatles had heard D&D. I know they were a major influence on the Righteous Bros.
FWIW, GM supposedly wanted to make Paul the frontman, b/c of his smoother, more conventional pop voice
Posted on 10/25/26 at 4:25 pm to Kafka
GM was the grown up voice the young beatles needed and respected to sort of keep them in check and guide them.
he was basically the arbiter for disagreements in the studio, where epstein was the arbiter of the business side
He also taught them a lot about songwriting, arranging, instrumentation and the pop music business.
He was the principle song arranger with Paul, he scored and conducted most of the orchestral accompaniments, he played some interesting parts as well.
as they got older he became less of a mentor and more of a collaborator and team member
you can see the difference in effect in the beatles tracks GM did and the ones he did not do. notably the beatles had a tight sound with martin, where they had a more heavy rock sound with the glyn jons tracks and of course the wall of sound fiasco with phil spector
the peak of the beatles and GM for me is Abbey Road, where they are and he is at the very peak of their collaborative powers
he was basically the arbiter for disagreements in the studio, where epstein was the arbiter of the business side
He also taught them a lot about songwriting, arranging, instrumentation and the pop music business.
He was the principle song arranger with Paul, he scored and conducted most of the orchestral accompaniments, he played some interesting parts as well.
as they got older he became less of a mentor and more of a collaborator and team member
you can see the difference in effect in the beatles tracks GM did and the ones he did not do. notably the beatles had a tight sound with martin, where they had a more heavy rock sound with the glyn jons tracks and of course the wall of sound fiasco with phil spector
the peak of the beatles and GM for me is Abbey Road, where they are and he is at the very peak of their collaborative powers
Posted on 10/25/26 at 5:17 pm to weagle1999
Interesting question.
He was the one who said they needed to speed up "Please Please Me" which set the template for all of their big hits which followed (She Loves You, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, All My Loving, etc), so he was certainly important. As others have mentioned, his ability to arrange, produce and interpret what the members told him they wanted was critical too.
I've been watching different Bealte videos lately and have come to appreciate the late year contributions of Geoff Emerick who replaced Norman Hurricane Smith as their engineer after Rubber Soul. He too was instrumental in implimenting requests made by the group for certain sounds (like running John's voice through a Leslie speaker on Tommorrow Never Knows).
Bottom line, I don't think they would have enjoyed their breakthrough success without George Martin and without the early success there is no White Album, Revolver, Sgt Pepper or Abbey Road, etc. He was their mentor, instructor, collaborator and occasional uncredited musician. So he certainly deserves any and all accolades that come his way.
He was the one who said they needed to speed up "Please Please Me" which set the template for all of their big hits which followed (She Loves You, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, All My Loving, etc), so he was certainly important. As others have mentioned, his ability to arrange, produce and interpret what the members told him they wanted was critical too.
I've been watching different Bealte videos lately and have come to appreciate the late year contributions of Geoff Emerick who replaced Norman Hurricane Smith as their engineer after Rubber Soul. He too was instrumental in implimenting requests made by the group for certain sounds (like running John's voice through a Leslie speaker on Tommorrow Never Knows).
Bottom line, I don't think they would have enjoyed their breakthrough success without George Martin and without the early success there is no White Album, Revolver, Sgt Pepper or Abbey Road, etc. He was their mentor, instructor, collaborator and occasional uncredited musician. So he certainly deserves any and all accolades that come his way.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 11:31 pm to weagle1999
quote:We have a Beatles master thread and this 0/10 attempted troll is certainly not worthy of a new one.
I read a claim recently that Martin was the main genius behind the success of the band, and the actual members of the Beatles were somewhat interchangeable (especially early on).
What an utterly preposterous thing that "you read". Yes, 2 (arguably 3) of the greatest musical geniuses of the past 100 years were "somewhat interchangeable". Dolt.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 2:27 am to weagle1999
Not far.
Most Beatles fans refuse to admit that Martin was the only real musician on those early recordings.
They all learned a great deal from him. Not only about production but about musicianship.
Most Beatles fans refuse to admit that Martin was the only real musician on those early recordings.
They all learned a great deal from him. Not only about production but about musicianship.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 7:45 am to weagle1999
George Martin was brilliant. He really held them together in the studio. He had a trained ear.
His son's not too bad as well.
His son's not too bad as well.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 2:27 pm to geauxbrown
quote:Everyone knows Martin was extremely relevant - likely crucial to the overall enterprise, particularly early on.
Most Beatles fans refuse to admit that Martin was the only real musician on those early recordings.
They all learned a great deal from him. Not only about production but about musicianship.
But the claim that the various members were "interchangeable" is insane.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 3:47 pm to Big Scrub TX
Agreed, they were all quite different and unique.
Each member brought distinct musical talents, songwriting, different vocals, and personality traits that shaped the band's unique dynamics.
Ever sit, watch and isolate Ringo's playing?
He was so simple and effective. ...as compared with other popular drummers.
Each member brought distinct musical talents, songwriting, different vocals, and personality traits that shaped the band's unique dynamics.
Ever sit, watch and isolate Ringo's playing?
He was so simple and effective. ...as compared with other popular drummers.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 6:37 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
But the claim that the various members were "interchangeable" is insane.
Agreed, with the exception of Ringo.
Yes, Ringo brought a certain musical style to the party but the band actually worked live dates without Ringo. That couldn’t have happened without John, Paul or George.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 7:08 pm to geauxbrown
The Beatles had almost 1,000 live gigs under their belt when they auditioned for George Martin. They were talented musicians and budding songwriters. I think Martin accelerated their growth quite a bit by advocating for replacing Best w/ Starr, polishing their songwriting, and providing studio/engineering help. However, I can't imagine those four talents (all three original members wanted Best out as well as did Martin) not getting signed somewhere eventually and having break out sucess.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 7:11 pm to rebelrouser
quote:
However, I can't imagine those four talents (all three original members wanted Best out as well as did Martin) not getting signed somewhere eventually and having break out sucess.
There have been thousands of talented musicians and bands who were never signed for one reason or another. I agree though that the musical climate, location and their talents would have made the Beatles a sure thing regardless.
The Beatles wanted to move away from the sappy pop pretty quickly, and that’s where Martin really worked his magic.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 7:12 pm to geauxbrown
quote:"There would never have been Beatlemania without Ringo." - John Lennonquote:Agreed, with the exception of Ringo.
But the claim that the various members were "interchangeable" is insane.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 7:14 pm to Kafka
quote:
There would never have been Beatlemania without Ringo." - John Lennon
Okay
Posted on 10/26/26 at 7:18 pm to geauxbrown
quote:Alright
Okay
Posted on 10/26/26 at 7:55 pm to geauxbrown
John missed a gig in 1963 due to illness. Paul, George and Ringo played the shows.
Posted on 10/26/26 at 8:15 pm to supatigah
well stated
Posted on 10/26/26 at 8:46 pm to Kafka
quote:
OkayAlright
Cheers!
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News