He was not a composer in the Beatles. To be that he'd have had to have written either or the lyrics, or the main melody to their songs. He didn't, therefore he is NOT classed as a writer. Simple.
@@petegilgan6217 True, but without his arrangements, many Beatle songs would be far less. The problem with songwriting credits is, sometimes the arrangement is more import than the actual song? Seems unfair in a way? The Beatles are very lucky that Martin was such a gentleman because I am sure a good lawyer could have made a case for some royalties.
@@Neil-Aspinall The Beatles still had a *huge* hand in their arrangements, it wasn't all Martin. For example with the orchestral scores, John or Paul would often hum what they wanted for Martin to transcribe to the session players. The famous "orchestral freak-out" in "A Day In The Life", for example, was Paul's idea, and Paul even conducted the musicians on that day. The horn solos in "For No One" and "Penny Lane" were also dictated by Paul, not Martin. John is largely responsible for all the weird, semi-obscene vocal chanting at the end of "I Am The Walrus", and it was he who had the idea for the backwards recording on "Rain". Harrison conducted the Indian players on "Love You To", "Within You Without You", and "The Inner Light" (although Martin did write and conduct the string part for "Within You Without You"). Etc. etc. During the White Album, Martin took a one month vacation and the group essentially produced themselves. A lot of people are too quick to give Martin all the credit because they just don't realize how bright and naturally gifted The Beatles were, or just how much they were involved in the production of their songs. Martin certainly deserves some credit and he did a brilliant job, I just get a little peeved when people start talking like he WAS The Beatles or that it wouldn't have turned out any good without him. But if that was the case, the other bands Martin produced like Gerry & The Pacemakers and Billy J. Kramer & The Dakotas should have turned out brilliant music but they didn't, did they?
Great video! I actually got to meet him at the Birchmere musical Hall in Alexandria Virginia in 1999. Me and some friends got him a gift a gold plated pocket watch with the Kennedy half dollar on the face that cost about $200. He was so excited about the gift he could barely contain himself. And just as classy as you would imagine. It was an experience I will never forget. ☺️
It's a brilliant score and an integral part of the work of art that is ER, but don't forget that the concept of that score, and the tone of it, were due to McCartney.
Martin has said the strings on Eleanor Rigby were Paul’s idea and that he and Paul worked for a half day on the score together with Paul describing what he wanted while playing piano and George writing it down and adding suggestions. Much the way Paul did his later classical pieces in the 90’s.
Correction corrected: The instrument Mr. Martin played is called a "harmonium." It is a keyboard instrument that is very like an organ, but its sounds differ from those either of a piano or of ordinary organs.
What IS correct is that it is a sublime result.Martin added that je ne sais quoi, a result of working in comedy and classical that distilled itself into the productions.Genius.
The greatest thing about George Martin was that he kept his ego and check. He could’ve been one of these producers who demanded writing credits or did interviews where he talked about how great he was, and in fact, he verged on that at times, which is why they didn’t use them for the last album they did and the Beatles took him for granted and many ways. When he wasn’t available time for working on Sergeant Pepper McCartney was just gonna go ahead without him. And martin claimed how much it hurt his feelings. He knew they were young men full of ego, and they were going to be on top of the world which would make them almost insufferable, and he managed to hold them accountable and keep the egos from spiraling out of control and kept his ego out of the mix, which would’ve destroyed everything as well. Great amount of respect for the man. A lesser person would have been a sore spot and probably broken up the band
Martin produced Abbey Road, which was the last album they made together. In fact, McCartney had to convince him to come on board after the sour sessions of Let It Be.
99% of demos sound worse than the final cut, Martin has nothing to do with this fact. Sure, Martin was important to the Beatles, but if he'd been as good as you folks are making out it would seem to me that he would have found similar success with other artists.
If you ever heard a Gerry and The Pacemakers demo then listen to the final product you can see what a huge influence George Martin had on their songs too.
@@roberteccles3896 Just giving credit where credit it do. The only reason Mike Leander was used, was Paul was hot to get it recorded and George Martin was away. When George found out, he was very hurt Paul didn't wait to use him.
The Beatles were very lucky to have both George Martin and Brian Epstein to work with at a time when artists were being totally ripped off by management and record labels. They were a hit making team. Without them the Beales probably would have made a few records and drifted off into obscurity.
In 1967 Time magazine published a profile of George Martin which proclaimed him the Svengali-esque mastermind of The Beatles. This irked not only The Beatles but George Martin himself. Martin's unusual background for a pop record producer included a stint as an oboe player in the Sadler's Wells opera orchestra (which performed operas in English translations) and also producing comedy records for groups like Peter Sellers' Goon Squad (precursors of Monty Python), Beyond the Fringe (featuring Dudley Moore) and Flanders and Swann. His skill at creating unique sound effects for these comedy albums proved crucial to The Beatles when their music became more experimental and complex. George Martin was NOT an "auteur producer" the way Phil Spector and Berry Gordy were; he never saw himself as co-equal to The Beatles but was content to work with them and help them achieve their artistic dreams. I've also long thought that both Brian Epstein's and George Martin's background in classical music, in which the composer is considered the true artist and the performer is merely the interpreter, led to one of the most fascinating and far-reaching innovations in music. Before The Beatles, artists who wrote their own songs were considered cheating; many artists actually published their original songs under pseudonyms (like Buddy Holly, who often took his songwriting credits as "Charles Hardin," after the first two words in his real name, Charles Hardin Holley) and RCA Victor actually paid lower royalty rates to artists who wrote their own songs than they paid to professional songwriters. (That's the main reason why, when Johnny Cash left Sun Records, he signed with Columbia instead of going with RCA Victor as Elvis had.) Brian Epstein actively PROMOTED The Beatles as songwriters and said, essentially, that because they wrote their own songs they were more complete artists and therefore you should like them better.
Neither Paul nor John composed the orchestral parts of any Beatles song because they weren't capable. You think they wrote that music out and Martin just performed it? Absurd. Martin was a professional and took his producer credit. He wasn't going to be stupid and ask for songwriting credit. There are tons of producers that add music to songs, but never ask for song writing credit. They know that being the producer is enough and they aren't going to rock the boat over something stupid.
@@stickman1742How were the Beatles going to write out the music, given that none of them could read (let alone write out) any music? They might know what sounded good, but they didn’t know WHY it did.
That's the bottom line. Anyone who even debates the question about someone else being "The Fifth Beatle" (Brian Epstein, Stuart Sutcliffe, Murray the K, Pete Best, Geoff Emerick, blah blah blah) is clueless. George Martin was THE man who put all the pieces together in the studio from 1962-1970. Without him, the Beatles would have been a far different band. Their dramatic beginning might not have happened without Martin's help in landing them a record contract in 1962. His influence on their entire career is immeasurable.
@@Bruce15485 It's interesting to think what The Beatles would have been if Decca Records had signed them instead. They probably would have been forced into a more conventional pop-rock mode and would not have had the chance George Martin gave them to explore different sound effects and styles of music. I remember getting the Beatles' Decca audition bootleg LP in 1979, listening to it with my then-girlfriend, and both of us staring at each other and thinking, "Gee, if THIS is what we'd had to go on, we wouldn't have signed them either!"
@@mgconlanOnly after their success. The 1st few albums were very much raw Beatles. After that the studio(& Martin)would have given them carte blanche when they were so bankable and talented.
@@bluemoon-20Martin was important to their success but not crucial to it. Why wasn't he near as successful with the other artists he worked with? People forget the Beatles gave Martin the platform to become a legend too.
3:26 no it wasn’t a harpsichord solo: he recorded it half speed on piano but sped the tape up double, making it an octave higher and thus sounding like a harpsichord.
It was a marriage of circumstances. The Beatles' talent was not underpinned by musical knowledge in the classical sense -- reading music, etc., so they were limited. Martin's wide grasp of this kind of musical knowledge wasn't wanted or needed in the ordinary course of his job. Each flooded the other with opportunity for creative expression. Together they created music that is wonderful and enduring.
George Martin was the best keyboard player in the band. He also arranged, wrote all the orchestra scores, produced. I've always considered Martin the 5th Beatle. Thanks to Martin, "Yesterday" was the hit that it was. He wrote the string quartet parts. Unheard of in Rock at the time.
Another remarkable thing about George Martin was his accent: completely acquired. He freely admitted that he came from a humble background - his family spoke with cockney accents - but he created an upper middle class persona ( and accent) for himself.
Remarkable, but also sad that people feel that in the UK at least, you have to get rid of a regional accent to rise in the world. So much for the democratic principle.
I spoke to a professionally trained musician and mentioned none of them could read music, the musician said rubbish, someone in that group could read music!-- now I think: yeah, that person was George Martin.
Many great guitarists and songwriters don’t read music, they read chord charts and understand chord progression and patterns. George Martin enhanced that and added classical instrumentation and genius to their music.
@@CharlesHoward-ud6qv Bingo. Just because a musician isn't proficient at reading or writing traditional music notation does not mean they don't understand music theory. The Beatles all advanced in musicianship and songwriting skills as the band matured at a phenomenal pace. Paul certainly, in my opinion, made the most dramatic advances of the group.
@@StellarFella I think he's talking about from an artistic perspective, not commercial. The other acts Martin produced in the 60s were embarrassingly straight and square, and had little or no evolution in their music. If Martin was such a genius, Gerry would have made his "Pepper" and Cilla her "Abbey Road", right? Or at least *something* interesting. That didn't happen. In the 70s Martin did hook up with America, but their music was already good before Martin (he came for their 4th album) and he didn't do very much to change their sound, as it was. He added some nice string arrangements, but nothing out of the box like what happened with The Beatles.
Very similar to how none of the Beatles solo careers matched the synergy of their time together. It was a place and time, a combination of personalities, a changing world, and talent that created an other worldly magic. Wouldn’t have happened without any of the five involved.
.....YES my friend, BUT you have literally ANSWERED your OWN question here, BUT from the REVERSE point of view !!!!!.....from the album Please Please Me (1963) to the Let It Be album (1970) and including every single released by The Beatles during this same timeline, WHY then (if as musicians and writers they were so good) did NONE of The Beatles ever act as, take control as the lone PRODUCER(S) on any of their released albums and singles ?????, that is the REAL question here, YES.....
Lucky enough to have met the legend once, getting to thank him for the wonderful productions with the greatest band ever - The Action! He took that very well, almost agreeing with me… 😊
I tell ya even the casual fan will tell you he had lots of creative influence. Made his career obviously...perfect sound man. George loved those lads...must of been so satisfying
Totally the fifth Beatle. His arrangements were genius and as stated added so much to many of their songs. One of the best was Strawberry Fields. Recorded in two different keys, one with orchestration and one without. John told George Martin he liked both and could he use the version without in the beginning and add the other version for the rest of the song. Martin explained that they were in two different keys and the story goes that John said you can work it out and went on his way. With relative primitive technology he pulled it off. Put headphones on and really listen, maybe a few times. The orchestra arrangement with strings and horns is amazing. The cello lines are superb. There is also an Indian instrument that connects sections, then you think the song ends and it doesn’t.
This tier list considers 23: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T4E91nT7GWw.html Strangely with so many contenders nobody is ever claimed as the sixth Beatle.
I don't go for the "fifth Beatle" stuff. He said it himself, "at the beginning I taught them things and then they ended up teaching me" and "don't forget the talent they had." Slightly paraphrased, but be said it. But he did what he needed to do perfectly and this is a great example of what a producer and engineer should be doing, getting the best out of the artist they are assisting. This is usual practice, trust me because I know about these things.
Well, quite a few people have been acclaimed as the 5th Beatle over the years, but the only person who can legitimately be considered that way is Martin. His influence on the development of their music was profound. That's the singular thing about their music: how quickly it developed and how it took the rest of the music industry along with them.
@@sentimentalbloke185 - I don't want to minimise what Martin did because he did it very well. But was his role of a producer that different from others who were charged with the same responsibilities. He worked for bosses above him, he was part of a business. Note that in later videos of him and The Beatles at work, it is very clear at this point who was in charge. As for the fifth Beatle, how about Billy Preston? Or was there a sixth Beatle? And was Clapton a seventh Beatle on the My Guitar Weeps track. Where do you draw the line. No, it's simple, and it's the same today. you have the main artist and you bring in whatever you need. Martin did that, sometimes himself, sometimes others, sometime The Beatles themselves. George did it with Clapton. But this was about The Beatles as the featured artist and the name that appeared on the front of the artwork. It is exactly the same today. That is all that I am saying. Martin was great for The Beatles, but a fifth Beatle? Hardly!
@@D800Lover Disagree. Martin was a producer who had the technical capability to turn their musical ideas into reality & was a collaborator for their entire recording career. Most Beatles tracks you hear have some of his influence somewhere. All at the Beatles' initiation, of course, but they were smart enough to heed his advice & acknowledge his contribution. In the Beatles story, outside the four themselves, he's the most important individual. The 5th Beatle thing is a load of bollocks but the most serendipitous thing that occurred was Martin guiding their recording from the beginning.
@@sentimentalbloke185 - OK, yet you don't seem to know how the system works. But I am not surprised, most are not familiar how it does. I know several producers and engineers who do the job that Martin did. One is at about the top and even co-writes songs and music, does arrangements and plays keyboard and more. If a musician is required which he will bring in, like adding a suitable solo, and even writing that too, a bridge even. In some cases even more than what George Martin did. I won't mention his name, but he produced an album by Leo Sayer, and if he saw this he would know who I am because I made the central piece of equipment that was used in the recording process. But my friend did what it took, to make it work. Including string arrangements used. But he knows where the line is drawn. And George Martin did as well, and rightly denied that he was any fifth Beatle. His role was well defined to him - as it is with many others. The fact this was The Beatles does not matter, know matter how well he helped them getting the job right. By all means praise what Martin did, he performed well above average. He was needed. But he was not the artist, he was the producer. Different job. We should all be happy, even ecstatic. Did he make a difference? Early on, he did. Later not to the same degree. "A Day In The Life" he helped Paul figure out what the orchestra player needed and the Paul did it. The Players didn't understand Paul's instruction. Martin chimed in and got that fixed. We now all know the result, but who wrote it and who had the artist's vision? It was Paul. I have many other examples I can point to. Not wanting to pick a fight with you, but having spent many hours in recording studios and even having a part, I am just trying to be informative. Cheers from Sydney Australia.
@@D800Lover Martin was very much an artist in that what he did was revolutionary & he also played instruments on the recordings. Indeed, the sound they produced for the records was not reproducible on stage at that time & not having to perform the songs live freed them up to explore new soundscapes. Without Martin, that couldn't happen. No one would claim that Billy Preston wasn't an artist when he collaborated on Let It Be & that was recognized when he was later given a credit for Get Back.
I knew most of this before, but it was good to put it all into one video, and to get quotes from different sources (Ringo, George, .. etc...). Good job!
90%of the information on this video is completely wrong, whoever researched it is a absolute moron. It is the worst job of putting George Martins contribution to the Beatles I’ve ever seen.
None.The songwriters are those who write: 1. The lyrics. 2 The melodies. All else is arranging/scoring/producing - which was GM's role within their music.
And he wrote the music, for instance, that he played on the piano on "In My Life". Arranging is the life blood of a hit. "Please Please Me" sounded like a Roy Orbison song until Martin arranged it into the hit we know now. I would give him songwriting credit for that.
@@harvey1954 Not at all. If he didn't write the lyrics (which he didn't) or the main tune (melody) which he didn't - then he is not the composer and therefore does not receive a songwriting credit. George Martin was the producer/arranger/additional musician - that's it.
Exactly. Without words, melody and chords, there is nothing to produce or arrange. Nashville's town motto is "It all starts with a song". The Beatle wrote words, melodies and chords.
@@harvey1954 All Martin told the Beatles with "Please Please Me" was to simply speed up the tempo. That's not an earth-shattering revelation of genius (nor does it have anything to do with the composition of the song); indeed, it's quite probable the group would have figured to speed it up themselves, anyway. That doesn't erase that it was Martin who told them, he still deserves credit as producer, but it certainly doesn't mean he deserves any songwriting credit. Yes, he did help polish their songs and make them the best that they could be but the songs were already genius, and the group were still responsible for the bulk of the arranging of their songs. It was the group themselves that insisted on experimenting with the sitar, the Moog synthesizer, backwards tape loops, the orchestral "freak out" in "A Day In The Life", etc.
@@spiritof6663 He did more than that. The beginning of Please Please Me was pushed into the back of the song at Martin's suggestion. You are quick to discount his importance. They were always his students.
This is the most reckless RU-vid video I have ever seen. George Martin did not write one song for The Beatles. He didn't Co w r i t e one song for The Beatles. Songs are lyrics melodies and chords. True, some of George Martin's arrangements are melodically memorable but they are secondary to the song and to say George Martin was a writer on dozens of Beatles songs is simply not true. The more I think about it the more pissed off I get thinking about the irresponsibility and the misrepresentation offered in this video.
As a listener, as at least 99% of us are, what you experience when listening to music is the WHOLE SOUND. As someone who writes, plays and produces my own music I KNOW that what you hear in the end is the result of ALL OF THE PARTS. You are correct that from a publishing perspective most (but not the written orchestrated parts) of the Beatles music is indeed the work of Lennon /McCartney/Harrison but what we hear (and therefor consume) is the product of writing, arranging, recording and finally producing a song /record. In that George Martin is the 4th Beatle in terms of musical input. Just some obvious examples, neither Eleanor Rigby, I am the Walrus or A day in the Life could even exist, as we know them, without George Martin's creative input as opposed to any other mere 'producer'.
@@vladdrakul7851 Those three songs would clearly not sound "as we know them" with another producer, but we ought not to assume that they would be greatly diminished without reflecting that in each case the *ideas* for those arrangements owed a lot to Lennon and McCartney themselves. For ER, Paul himself conceived a backing of rhythmic string chord stabs inspired by Vivaldi, and sat with George Martin at the piano to sketch out the score, specifying a strident sound with minimal vibrato. For IATW, John came up with quite a bit of the arrengement, including the avant garde idea of mixing in the live radio broadcast. According to Paul McCartney, “John worked with George Martin on the orchestration, and did some very exciting things with The Mike Sammes Singers ... John got them doing all sorts of swoops and phonetic noises. It was a fascinating session. That was John’s baby, great one, a really good one." For ADITL, both men worked out that arrangement together at Paul's house, including the idea for cacophanous crescendi linking the sections, before going into the studio. Lennon: "We arranged it and rehearsed it, which we don't often do, the afternoon before. So we knew what we were playing," and you can hear the dissonant crescendi are there in placeholder form on Take One. The orchestration of these parts was their idea, too, not Martin's. So it would be fascinating to step into an alternate reality where these arrangements were scored by, say, Mike Leander (who did She's Leaving Home at Paul's request). They would surely sound different. But would they sound so much diminished that the idea of calling Leander "the 5th Beatle" would never occur to anybody? I'm not sure about that. Of course, having George Martin around since Please Please Me could be said to have encouraged in them the creative confidence they needed in order to have these ideas in the first place. But have the ideas, they did.
@@vladdrakul7851 Why didn't you use She's Leaving Home as an example of George Martin's great string arrangements? Cause some other guy did it! Mike Leander! Paul wouldn't even wait for George Martin to be available so he went ahead with someone else who did one of the most memorable Beatle arrangements ever! George Martin is not the only guy in the world who can produce and arrange a song. I stand my claim that yours is the most reckless thing I have ever seen on RU-vid.
@@strathman7501 Brilliant response. Most people do not know that John and Paul usually worked with Martin on the arrangements, humming the parts they wanted to him or sitting down at the piano together to explore different options. It's why The Beatles' scores are so much more adventurous and avant-garde than anything Martin had ever scored up to that point, because John and Paul actually had input. In any case they also had a zillion different brilliant songs that had no orchestration on them at all (in fact, I think there's outside orchestration on just 34 of the 210 songs they recorded).
George Martin could be considered a co-writer to Eleanor Rigby, I am the Walrus, and many others. He turned Please Please Me into a much better song with his tempo suggestions. Of course I also think George and Ringo could be credited as co-writers of many of the Lennon/McCartney songs, as they added musical parts not originally envisioned in the "song". But Martin was clearly a major factor in sound, composition, and arrangement of the band's music - something that other "5th Beatle" claimants often don't have.
I always wondered how much George M. contributed to the writing of their music. I knew he played the solo on, In My Life. If it wasn’t for producers a lot of bands wouldn’t even be that well known. ✌🏼
George Martin did more than just produce. He arranged vocals, wrote really effective orchestral scores and many key interludes and postludes for a number of Beatles songs. Martin was essentially a classical musician and composer who found his best fit as a musician in the context of the Beatles. He's part of the magic to be sure. IMO one of his strengths was finding way to include classical touches without over orchestrating. Much of his style as an arranger involved a lean apporach to orchestral color, something that worked well for a pop and rock texture. Compare his work on something like Strawberry Fields, I Am The Walrus, Eleanor Ribgy or Glass Onion to the syrup that Phil Spector poured all over Let It Be, Long and Winding Road and Across The Universe.
He wouldn't have been near the legend he became without the Beatles either. He worked with plenty of other artists who never reached the Beatles success.
Listening to those old interviews with George Martin talking about first meeting the Beatles is key. In this video we hear him say, "...they weren't very good" and, "...they had no great songs...." That's quite telling. In another interview, Martin stated, "I thought their music was rubbish. Paul and John told me they had written over one hundred songs between them, but none of them were any good. So, I settled on Please, Please Me, which had to be re-done, essentially." Then there is a very telling article which appeared in a 1962 Mersey Beat magazine article. The article talks about Ringo replacing Pete Best on drums and states, "The Beatles will fly to London to make recordings at EMI Studios. They will be recording numbers that have been specifically written for the group, which they have received from their recording manager, George Martin (Parlophone)." If the Beatles, and specifically Lennon & McCartney, were such great songwriters then why did songs have to be "specifically written" for them?
George Martin played harpsichord or piano on "Hard Day's Night" doubling George Harrison's 12 string lead and giving it definition-like "In My Live, it was recorded half speed. It's very easy to hear. The lead is different and the keyboard is missing from the version on Anthology 1.
He was the producer of the Beatles, not one of the writers. Period. The writer of a 'song' is the person (or persons) responsible for composing the top line melody and the lyrics.
He may have written parts within the song and helped with arrangements, key changes, bridges, etc. but the core of the songs were Lennon and McCartney.
George Martin didn’t “write” any Beatles songs…..he arranged their songs until they took over that for themselves around 1965. He also scored string and brass parts for some tracks. He was instrumental in giving them their big break for sure…..but he didn’t write any of their songs.
The title card for this video says "The 5th Beatle" in reference to George Martin. He really wasn't.... The Beatles themselves always considered their road manager, best friend, fixer, body guard, occasional uncredited musician and actor in 4 out of 5 of their movies, Mal Evans to be the 5th Beatle. He was with them from the Cavern Club in '62 to their break up in 1970.
Roughly 45 years ago, I remember hearing early to mid Beatles demos for the first time. I knew then it was George Martin that made them and their sound. Yes, all four of them had charisma but had they had to do a Brian Wilson thing (write, arrange, produce), they'd never been signed. Parlaphone would have been just another of many rejections.
Correction: George Martin and Paul McCartney collaborated on the string arrangements of "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby". Martin is on record complementing McCartney's contributions, including a relative seventh played on the cello and the "crying" violin on the final verse.
@@Neil-Aspinall You see, this is the problem with the credit that Martin gets for these things. People assume when they hear an orchestral score that Martin was 100% responsible but in the case of The Beatles, it simply isn't the case. In this case, Martin and Lennon worked out the score together, as recounted by Paul himself in his autobiography "Many Years From Now". Just as Martin and McCartney had together worked out the string and horn scores for "Yesterday", "Got To Get You Into My Life", "Penny Lane", the "Abbey Road" suite, etc.
@@spiritof6663 You do realize that John and Paul started to resent Martin after 1967 due to the reverence of his treatments of SF, PL, I am TW etc. Of course, Paul the great history revisionist was going to say something like that. John it has been reported would just give a vague directive to Martin and expect him to understand. To almost prove this point, Lennon later was very disparaging to what Martin had done to said songs. Why would he put down his own arrangements? (yes, I know Lennon was also fickle at times also)
@@Neil-AspinallHe didn't, he directed the orchestra. Paul wrote the melodies most of the time. Same with 'A day in the life'. The orchestra melodies were originally composed by Paul/John and given to Martin to arrange the orchestra. Only in specifically played solos by Martin on e.g. 'In my life' was he given complete melodic control.
I truly believe George Martin was more aligned with Paul who liked mainstream and top 40. It was a major contributor of the band splitting up in 1970, happens to a lot of bands. John hated commercial music and Ob-La-Di stuck in his craw. They were in the studio and everyone not named Paul was really tired of the Obladi takes. It needed a intro and John came up with one (desperation) and they had their take. I think Paul/John and George Martin all learned from each other. Martin had never been around rock n roll while the Beatles had never been in a studio but they all outgrew each other as time marched on.
I think more like glue for the left overs. If EMI hadn't paid George Martin to get a product out of the Beatles then they would have self destructed earlier. That's how important George Martin was as a producer, and why ultimately he stopped and they sought Phil Spector's help.
Lots of groups have great producers but the Beatles recognized his musical knowledge and talent and were willing to accept his suggestions and input. They realized how lucky they were to have him in their corner. Compare that to a man like Paul Simon who only navigated by his own star.
I totally agree with your argument and I enjoyed your presentation very much. But I have to account for the view of John Lennon when he said he wished he could record everything over again. Yes, even Strawberry Fields Forever. I think John may have resented the direction some of his inspiration went in. Especially his idea that became Yellow Submarine. It came from a painful place and became a cartoon. Don't get me wrong, I love them all, especially Paul in his emotional intelligence, but John brought a kind of magic that can't even be described in words.
McCartney wrote prettier melodies, but Lennon took music where it had never been before. Paul could never have written "I Am The Walrus." What irks me about him is now that John and George are dead, he's taking partial credit for many songs John wrote by himself. He can do that knowing that while George would have called bullshit, Ringo will never contradict him.
Without George Martin and Brian Epstein, not only wouldn't we know who the Beatles were, but without George, they wouldn't have grown past where they were in 1962 when he met them. George brought out the best in them - and, possibly, they brought out the best in him.
@@ericbgordon1575 That's not a question that can be answered "true or false". Martin was responsible for much of the Beatles progession. Especially early on, but they wrote the songs, and after they learned their way around the studio they had many ideas. They advanced as producers and songwriters.
@@michaelharrington75 I believe it to be accurate speculation. Lennon for one would have stayed on track with his '50's' love of music and Paul would have gone too far with his natural love of corny sweet theatre music. Martin and Epstein were as important as any member of the Beatles.
@@Neil-Aspinall The Beatles are the most diverse band ever, and the reason for that is because THEY always listened to all styles of music. They didn't want to keep doing the same thing. John, Paul, and George could have easily kept writing the same style songs the people went literally crazy for, but they didn't. They allowed themselves to be influenced by other artists like Dylan, the Byrds, the Beach Boys, the Band, Jimi Hendrix, Harry Nilsson, and Cream. They always brought new instruments into the studio like the Pianet, Sitar, Clavioline, Mellotron, and Lap steel guitar. They were the ones that chose to use any instruments they saw laying around EMI studios. The Beatles brought in the volume pedals, fuzz box's, tone benders, and moog synthesizers to make sure their songs sounded fresh. The Beatles themselves smoked the pot, dropped the LSD, and did the transcendental meditation that had a direct influence on their music. It was their ideas to use tape loops, have backwards vocals/instruments, and record feedback. It was their idea to record all 30 songs they had in 1968 to make a double album instead of taking the best 14, and making a strong single album. It was the Beatles idea to have artists design their album covers, and make albums a complete piece of art instead of a collection of songs. I could say no one would know who Brian Epstein and George Martin are if it wasn't for the Beatles, but I would never do that. All the pieces had to come together at the perfect time for the Beatles to happen the way it did. Brian and George were key players in the Beatles success, and brilliant men. George Martin taught the Beatles a lot, and even played on, and wrote orchestral parts for their songs. To me, he's the "5th Beatle". But the Beatles wrote the songs, and those songs are why people still love the Beatles.
My take on it, has always been that George saw the Beatles as a project. After his work with all sorts of other creative artists in earlier years, his production and ‘session’ skills were perfectly honed and at that perfect point, could be given free rein with them. Paul and John were raw, brilliant and charismatic talents. George could mould that quality material into helping produce pop masterpieces. It was a collaborative miracle and probably one that could have only happened in the 60’s and only once in history. When the band inevitably atomised after Brian’s death, although still wonderful in their way, they gradually started to neglect George’s invaluable contributions. I lost interest in them at that time.
There were only 4 Beatles, but George Martin by far has the strongest claim to being a "5th Beatle". I've seen other discussions where people acted as if there was some doubt as to who would be a "5th". Brian Epstein? No, he was just a promoter. Billy Preston or Eric Clapton? Nope, they just played on a few tracks. Pete Best or Stu Sutcliffe? Early band members with essentially zero influence on the Fab Four. Murray The K? Laughable in his self-promotion, but he did (probably) originate the term "The Fifth Beatle". Clearly the only serious contender to that title is George Martin.
@@scottandrewbrass1931 and a movie is not a movie without its people that you read in the credits! I love the Beatles with all My heart but I don’t think they could have made it without Martin!
But he wrote iconic parts in their songs, like the orchestras in Strawberry Fields. Probably also helped with sounds effects on tracks like Tomorrow Never Knows, Yellow Submarine, Benefit of Mr Kite and so on
It's more than a bit like asking how many Who hits did Kit Lambert write. Lambert's classical fingerprints are all over " Tommy ". But of course, the gigantic ego calledTownshend barely mentions the creative who has inscribed on his stone; " ... "The Man Who Made Tommy " Or even genius producer Martin Zero ( Hannett ).. and the gold-plating of Joy Division's sound post '78
Other than Harrison's "All Things Must Pass," none of them did anything of much significance after the Beatles, so it does seem that Martin's influence was enormous.
In the studio the Beatles & George Martin shared the goal of putting together music that was interesting and would sell. They had a keen sense of changing or deleting what wasn’t working. Each of their ten albums usually had 3 or 4 classics. Some bands only had 1 good tune on an album. A unique time and combination.
How many songs did Ringo write? E actly teo, with a litle from his friends. There's two other where he has a co-writing credit. George Martin did most of their orchestrations, hd did a lof the technological innovations and in the early days he made numerous suggestions to their songs that really made their songs.
Some people always try to put the Beatles down a little but Geoge Martin would have likely remained a musical nobody without the Beatles. His background was classical, Jazz and comedy and like many in the music business considered Rock & Roll to be a necessary evil. The hugely successful Please, Please Me album was virtually a Beatles live performance and required very little producing.
I'm going to comment on this video before watching it. I've heard too much evidence over the last few years that he obviously is not taking credit for some writing that he did for THAT band!
I think many of his contributions to the arrangements of the songs are what make those songs sound most dated now. However, I do think he was a great producer. His production on Lennon tracks on The White Album, for example - like Sexy Sadie, Yer Blues, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Julia, Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey, and Dear Prudence - were brilliant, subtle, poetic balancing acts and I didn’t appreciate that until his son destroyed those tracks through his clunky, insensitive re-productions of them. It was that incredible sensitivity to the balance of sounds in a track’s production that made him great, especially his poetic use of slight sound-distortion on those Lennon tracks. His own musical arrangements were not so great in my opinion. But his sensitivity to the band’s musical alchemy, and his ability to bottle it and not break it, in his production - that was a very special skill set.
If one were to get technical about membership, Stuart Sutcliff was the fifth Beatle when he was in the group as a bad bass player and there were five members. If you don't know who he was, then you're not well read on the Beatles and not a real fan... However, the fifth Beatle thing here is an honorary title to Martin, NOT a membership, so let's all get that straight for crying out loud.
George Martin didn't play harpsichord on "In My Life". He played out the notes slowly and carefully on a piano then sped up the tape. Seriously, research is easy.
This is good but there's so clip of John Lennon going around the socials where he says that the notion that George was the 5th Beatles was wrong, and almost laughs about how people think this.
I believe he was the best producer of all time! At least in the 60s .Brian Wilson thought so to. I Also believe Brian Wilson was an incredible a close 2nd until the drugs and mental illness took him away from that I also believe they were both absolutely better than Phil Spector. I know he did inspire Brian Wilson and others for a few years but he spent so much time and none of his money and driving people nuts recording sessions over and over and lucky to have the wrecking crew play for him. But as time went he was not that great. He ruined let it be. Glyn John’s is awesome too Berry Gordy was amazing as well . George Martin had tinker toy equipment thanks to EMI. He and his staff with Geoff Emerrick invented new recording technology as they went did loops before anyone else and changing Veri track speed, ADT, Flange etc… you get the point. As time moved forward there have a lot great producers to many to name but what George Martin did for the Beatles with all limited Technology was brilliant! He was such a great composer as well! RIP Master George Martin!
Template quotes from utterly blinded fans: 'They were like Brothers.' 'It just took the right ingredients and the right combination to make the whole thing work.' 'They developed incredibly from 1963 to 1966.' No- regardless of my point being from Mike Williams's Beatles programs, it is extremely likely George Martin had a major part in writing the songs, in addition to many session musicians playing on the many albums. The industry is heavily guarded and if anyone speaks up, things happen. Just because it's the entertainment industry doesn't mean it's lighthearted.
If the Beatles began in the 21st century, it's likely Martin would be credited as a band member, particularly once they became a purely studio band. The Beatles had outstanding talent, vision & work ethic but they also had some luck, all great artists need a measure of good luck. The luckiest break they had was the unlikely collaboration with George Martin.
I think George Martin was integral in the recordings made by the Beatles....but make no mistake about it,,,George Martin did not write beatle songs....and in an interview where someone asked him regarding this...he said...that the talent Maccartney, Lennon had and developed...was astounding....together the alchemy made it what it is today......Miraculous When everything comes together...you get MAGIC.
If George Martin was this monumental producer, that was the fifth Beatle and without him, The Beatles would be nothing. Then why didn’t any of the other several musical artist he produced come remotely even close to the Beatles success? Martin was probably the best producer. The Beatles could’ve had because he allowed them to explore their creative tastes and he was able to bring to reality the creative vision of John and Paul. He should get credit for that. But without the Beatles Martin would be average producer from Britain no one in America would ever heard of him.
There is no doubt that George Martin was a key figure in the success of the Beatles, and an excellent producer/arranger but as with all of these types of GM profile, there is an undertone and implication that maybe the Beatles wouldn’t be the Beatles without GM. There is a big argument to make that without the Beatles, GM wouldn’t have “made it”. Even for people with the talent of GM need something to work with and the Beatles compositions gave him that. They were hugely original, with complex chord structures, with brilliant playing, especially from JL and GH. Their contemporaries were doing three chord stuff largely where to my knowledge, the only three chord effort from The Beatles was Hey Jude (might be wrong here). This is, believe me, not a critism in any way of GM, he was brilliant, but without the raw material he had to work with, who knows what would have happened.
How Many Beatles Songs Did George Martin Write? Ah, that would be zero. George Martin was a genius and he was essential to the Beatles, but he wasn't much of a songwriter.
