|
28 Nov 06 - 07:20 AM (#1894471) Subject: The Beatles/George Martin From: Dazbo Watched a re-run (More4, Sunday PM) of Howard Goodall's 20th Centuary Greats about The Beatles. He was very complementary about their writing (use of modes, modulation etc) and how they saved modern classical music (i.e. it was okay for modern classical composers to write tunes again:-)). He stated that one reason for their musical adventurousness was that during their time in Hamburg they had to play all sorts of music (show tunes, rock and roll etc etc.) the role of George Martin was scarcely mentioned. This lead me to thinking up this question. How much of the success and musical innovation was down to (or at least co-authored) George Martin? |
|
28 Nov 06 - 08:40 AM (#1894532) Subject: RE: The Beatles/George Martin From: GUEST,Johnmc This is, of course, a question which all Beatles fans have mulled over, and, until the opening up of the secrets of the recordings in the 90's, it wasn't easily resolved. However, anyone acquainted with George Martin's utterances and with the Anthology series will now accept that Martin himself has no illusions about the genius for melody displayed by the group. Yes, they would have made it without him, but the recordings and arrangements would have been less brilliant. |
|
28 Nov 06 - 01:10 PM (#1894779) Subject: RE: The Beatles/George Martin From: Pauline L He made a very substantial contribution. They had tremendous talent, but it was raw talent. He is sometimes called the Fifth Beatle -- with good reason. |
|
28 Nov 06 - 07:47 PM (#1895135) Subject: RE: The Beatles/George Martin From: Bill Hahn//\\ Which,by the way, was a question on Jeopardy the other day. The 5th Beatle. Bill Hahn |
|
29 Nov 06 - 05:17 AM (#1895362) Subject: RE: The Beatles/George Martin From: Scrump I thought the 5th Beatle was Stuart Sutcliffe? George Martin must've been the 6th Beatle. :-) |
|
29 Nov 06 - 08:51 AM (#1895495) Subject: RE: The Beatles/George Martin From: Snuffy Or the 7th. What about Pete Best? |
|
29 Nov 06 - 10:12 AM (#1895582) Subject: RE: The Beatles/George Martin From: Scrump True, Snuffy. I believe there were 5 Beatles at one time - Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Best and Sutcliffe. Sutcliffe departed, leaving the band as a quartet, which they remained for the rest of their career as a band. Sutcliffe was usually referred to as the "5th Beatle" in the days before Pete Best was replaced by Ringo Starr (which happened in 1962 at about the time they signed for EMI). The "5th Beatle" tag sometimes applied to George Martin has only been done retrospectively AFAIK - slightly confusing for those who remember Stuart Sutcliffe being referred to thus, e.g. if you had a pub quiz question "Who was known as the 5th Beatle?" many would answer George Martin without being aware of Sutcliffe. |
|
29 Nov 06 - 02:49 PM (#1895825) Subject: RE: The Beatles/George Martin From: Peter T. Without George Martin, the Beatles would have been just another pop group. He is the one who gave them permission and space to develop. It is hard to imagine anyone else at that time -- remember this was before the Beatles!! -- combining classical music training, working on Peter Sellers' records (the crucial Indian music sounds), Goon shows, and so on. Martin latched on to both their rock background and their "songster" background (complex songs like Besame Mucho as part of their staple act) and ensured they could combine them both. After a while, once they had the idea and were rolling, they needed him less. But he was their oxygen at an early stage. George Martin is being typically modest. yours, Peter T. |