TS: Norman Smith vs. Geoff Emerick vs. George Martin

not to defend him before reading the book, but being proud of early innovations in close micing doesn't seem unwarranted

martin's role is fairly clear, the 'producer' has always been traditionally more of a tastemaker & coach than one of sound design. he showed them the professional working method in the early days, and when their songs grew into chamber & ensemble instrumentation, martin came in handy -- lennon would ask him to 'play some bach or something' for middle eight of 'in my life' and martin knew what to do, the arrangement was the 'production'. when lennon asked them to 'DO something to my voice' , that was emerick

I'm inclined to call bullshit.

He goes a long way to talk about how much the mid- and late-career Beatles took over the control room, shaped their own sounds, and basically ran their own show, with Martin being increasingly laissez-faire and aloof.

If he means white album forward, then I can see this as being true...but 66/67, I'd bet martin + emerick were key.

That piano solo in the middle of 'In My Life' is almost an act of vandalism.

Keeping in mind The Toys' "Lover's Concerto" came out the same year, the idea was contemporary at the time...and blossomed into the horn solo in Penny Lane for better or worse.

If something doesn't age well...

You guys should really go check out Ken Scott's website too.

On www.brain-damage.co.uk/ they posted that Norman Smith was writing a book. Now that's one I would love to read.

I read this book over the weekend. He doesn't seem particularly self aware, though I can't tell if that's the writing or the personality. He comes across as a douchebag, to be honest. A lot of taking down people above him (except paul! he really does love paul) and marginalizing people below him. Which is about what you'd expect isn't it?

(Just to clarify: I'm talking about Geoff Emerick and his book)

Emerick's book is the biggest pile of shit I've ever read. It's a disgrace to his and their legacy. It basically boils down to "Beatles nothing without McCartney. Harrison completely untalented. Lennon overrated asshole who couldn't write. Starr imbecile. Martin useless." Fuck off.

Useful reading:

Ken Scott's response

Ah, that's the sort of thing I was sure I would find as soon as I closed the book. cheers

they shoulda brought emerick out at that liverpool capital of culture atrocity exhibition. and then opened fucking fire on the entire stage.

another reason to wait for the lewisohn biogs. altho THEY're going to cause a big stink i've no doubt.

so speaking of ken scott, have any musicians hear tried using the "fab four virtual instrument" software he helped develop? it sounds incredibly corny and silly, but i'm dying to know if it's of any use (and if it might be a good gift for a producer friend of mine who's a power-pop freak).

No, but I have the Abbey Road Keys suite for Reason, which I'm sure is way better anyhow, and my band and I are using it extensively live and in the studio.

I don't understand why Emerick does this, although - obviously - he did play an important part in the sound of The Beatles - at least in the case of "Sgt. Pepper".

so speaking of ken scott, have any musicians hear tried using the "fab four virtual instrument" software he helped develop?

Didn't he developed a more general "classic" 60s-sounding VST too?

Anyway, looking forward to future VST's from Ken Scott: The "Ziggy Stardust" and "Supertramp" packages, for instance :)

I got the "Audio" version of the book. Martin Jarvis reads it, and apparently all the beatles sound like John.

GEmerick likes Paul best because he worked with him for a long time, after the beatles split etc.

John Lennon was known to be hard to love in person, so come on! And Harrison is shy/suspicious anyway.

And what of Ringo?

John Lennon was known to be hard to love in person

Lucky Yoko (boom boom)

Why can't multitalented Martin Jarvis make the Beatles sound like they did in the old Halas and Batchelor cartoons, i.e. George = Peter Lorre, John = Rex Harrison &c.?

Looks like Emerick had to WRACK HIS BRAIN thinking of what to say about Ringo and it DIDN'T COME EASY

I'll get me coat

And Harrison is shy/suspicious anyway.

A man of few words indeed. In fact, he hasn't spoken since 2001....

My favorite part of the book was his account of recording Band On The Run in Nigeria, when Fela and his crew demand to hear what McCartney's been recording, certain that Paul's been stealing from Fela (Geoff and Paul had been frequenting Fela's performances). Emerick cues up "Jet," and everyone listens. After a few seconds Fela says, "OK, you're DEFINITELY not stealing from us. See you later."

(I guess the tape of "Mamounia" was kept well hidden)

I think the percussion overdubs weren't done on that one till they got back to London

haha, yeah, the Lagos section of emerick's book is amazingly hilarious. You can really hear the Fela influence on Band On The Run, can't you? but, uhh, just to add in to the conversation, i kinda enjoyed the book overall -- didn't know there were so many factual problems. I'm not a Beatles fanatic by any means, however. Though I have read a lot of books about them ...

It struck me at the time as a 'smoothed out' version of events. So, John Lennon didn't ask him about if he'd heard Tiny Tim's record as a way of treating him as an equal. (This is listed as a discrepancy in Ken's link above)... And some are plain wrong. It's not a reference book but a personal memoir of certain things.

RIP Norm. (As per the HURRICANE SMITH thread)

Heaven needed someone to quit in the middle of a John and George session/punch-up.

Emerick's book is the biggest pile of shit I've ever read. It's a disgrace to his and their legacy. It basically boils down to "Beatles nothing without McCartney. Harrison completely untalented. Lennon overrated asshole who couldn't write. Starr imbecile. Martin useless." Fuck off.

Maybe a bit exaggerated, but also maybe a piece of much needed contrarian voice to the usual "John Lennon great, Paul McCartney wanker" storyline that has become the usual one among "rockers".

Surely John Lennon was the "rebel", with a different growing up and a true working class background, and he wrote rock'n'roll, particularly during the end. Paul McCartney was the nice middle class boy that your mother could like, and he wrote lots of ballads and even some pre-rock influenced stuff. It's easy to see why will win the credibility with the typical "rock" thinking.

But the fact is, McCartney wrote most of the songs on their two most well-known albums, he came up with the concept for "Sgt. Pepper". He was probably the one member in the band participating most eagerly in the production. And his songs are generally the ones covered most and played most on the radio today. So maybe rock history does undermine his part in The Beatles to a certain extent?

OK, done to death bits but:

1) Ringo was the Working Class beatle. John lived in a very affluent area of Lpool (i.e. Mendips) but admittedly had a tuff time losing both parents early. The rest is true enough.

Q: Which two albums? Sgt Pepper, yes. Revolver? Help? Which?

also: When John and George died, they got represented primarily with solo stuff. When Paul goes, they'll be playing Beatle tracks Hey Jude, Let it be, etc. Which is ironic as he's had the longest and most successful solo career.

Q: Which two albums? Sgt Pepper, yes. Revolver? Help? Which?

He also wrote most of the material on "Revolver", although two of the most experimental and influential tracks ("Tomorrow Never Knows" and "She Said She Said") were written by Lennon.

When John and George died, they got represented primarily with solo stuff.

Weird enough in the case of John, as his (pre 1968) Beatles output was sooooooo much better than anything he did as a solo act.

Besides, I am not sure if you are right. Lennon and Harrison are also obviously more famous for what they did with The Beatles, but that material is so well-known and sort of worn to death that when they died it was more interesting to cast some light on their solo work. The same may be the case with McCartney, particularly if he has also just finished one final solo album with fresh material.

RIP Norman Smith

He also wrote most of the material on "Revolver"

Uhhh...

"Taxman" George
"Eleanor Rigby" Paul
"I'm Only Sleeping" – John
"Love You To" George
"Here, There and Everywhere" Paul
"Yellow Submarine" John + Paul
"She Said She Said" John
"Good Day Sunshine" – Paul
"And Your Bird Can Sing" John
"For No One" – Paul
"Doctor Robert" John
"I Want to Tell You" George
"Got to Get You into My Life" Paul
"Tomorrow Never Knows" John

If 5.5/14 means "most" then I guess you're right!

"Revolver" was nevertheless the first Beatles album where John hadn't written a considerably majority of the songs.
And wasn't "Yellow Submarine" Paul only? (Not that it's anything to be proud of but...)

boy, i'd be proud of a writing a song that millions and millions of people all over the world know and can sing along to ... but anyway.

no, the lyrics to yellow submarine were mostly john, I believe

OK I see. It's the kind of melody that I'd never possible imagine John Lennon ever composing though. (Well, OK, he did "Bungalow Bill", but still....)

It was pretty much all John, but he gave it to Ringo as it suited him more.

Don't forget the 'long' version on the bside to "Real Love" with more John style doggerell.

Interesting thread here. So much anger and outrage over one man's book and opinions. Personally, I enjoy reading all of the accounts of the Beatles (so much the better when they express different points of view). I then have the freedom (and confidence) to make up my own mind.

Yellow submarine lyrics and melody were mostly paul's, according to Mccartney, lennon and even Harrison. So paul wrote six songs of Revolver album, so he is the main writer on that one.

John said to Playboy in 1980: “Yellow Submarine is Paul's baby. Donovan helped on the lyrics. I helped with the lyrics, too. We virtually made the track comes alive in the studio, but based on Paul's inspiration. Paul’s idea, Paul`s title. So I count it as a “ Paul” Song”.

I think John made very clear who is the principal author.

Paul said in his semi- auto biography Many years from now: “ I was laying in bed in the Ashers' garret, and there's a nice twilight zone just as you're drifting into sleep and as you wake from it; I always find it quite a comfortable zone, you're almost asleep, you've laid your burdens down for the day and there's this little limbo-land just before you slip into sleep. I remember thinking that a children's song would be quite a good idea and I thought of images, and the colour yellow came to me, and a submarine came to me, and I thought, Well, that's kind of nice, like a toy, very childish yellow submarine. I was thinking of it as a song for Ringo, which it eventually turned out to be, so I wrote it as not too rangey in the vocal. I just made up a little tune in my head, then started making a story, sort of an ancient mariner, telling the young kids where he'd lived and how there'd been a place where he had a yellow submarine. It's pretty much my song as I recall, written for Ringo in that little twilight moment. I think John helped out; the lyrics get more and more obscure as it goes on, but the chorus, melody and verses are mine. There were funny little grammatical jokes we used to play. It should have been 'Everyone of us has all he needs' but Ringo turned it into 'everyone of us has all we need.' So that became the lyric. It's wrong, but it's great. We used to love that”.

George said in 1999: "Paul came up with the concept of 'Yellow Submarine.' All I know is just that every time we'd all get around the piano with guitars and start listening to it and arranging it into a record, we'd all fool about. As I said, John's doing the voice that sounds like someone talking down a tube or ship's funnel as they do in the merchant marine. (laughs) And on the final track there's actually that very small party happening! As I seem to remember, there's a few screams and what sounds like small crowd noises in the background."

Interesting thread here. So much anger and outrage over one man's book and opinions. Personally, I enjoy reading all of the accounts of the Beatles (so much the better when they express different points of view). I then have the freedom (and confidence) to make up my own mind.

― georgeptingley, Saturday, January 2, 2010 12:13 PM (1 week ago)

That piano solo in the middle of 'In My Life' is almost an act of vandalism.
crazy talk

Ken Scott's book is out now, Abbey Road To Ziggy Stardust.

Geoff Emerick has passed

https://variety.com/2018/music/news/geoff-emerick-beatles-engineer-dead-1202966681/

Aw, rip.

Curious coincidence that I am currently reading Glyn John's fluffy memoir Sound Man.

Johns is pretty deferential toward George Martin. He doesn't mention Emerick at all, I think.

Afterthought: I began this thread 12 years ago? Gah,

I read a lot of not very good books by record producers. (Ken Callait on Rumors is another trashy pleasure read, BTW). I also watch ALL the documentaries.

Ned on FB:

I quote Michaelangelo Matos: "His first day as full engineer he recorded "Tomorrow Never Knows." BOW DOWN."

Oh man RIP

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.beatles/c/eAIAueWS3K4

https://beatlebioreview.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/the-normal-version-of-beatles-history/