John Lennon on George Martin - (c) BBC 1975 

Seemed pretty clean too,likely only grass. Always loved John wore hats-(caps). Great story he said, during "Mania" times. He walked in the shop where he bought all his caps, up to and during the HELP MOVIE and said " I come for me comission".

No yoko maybe

@@grapefruitjuice9473 Rock and roll never works when the spouses are around

@@RideAcrossTheRiver Or when they are totally clean.

@@ALF782 What's worse for bad music? A jealous spouse or substance abuse?

I also like how his voice of the band sounds like George Harrison.

Based on your personal experience working with Martin? Always amazes me how fans of any celebrity think they actual know and understand the inner workings, feelings, and motivations of their heroes.

@@generalyellor8188 don’t be an asshole. I was offering an opinion based on what I heard in the interview, plus based on interviews I’ve heard with George Martin.

@@generalyellor8188his voice nimrod.

Even someone as distant as Brian Wilson and Bob Dylan, who were also influences and visa versa.

with all those great people in the right place at the right time, ironically you also end up with a bunch of not-so-great people on the other side of the coin who were at the wrong place at the wrong time in the same story...Yoko Ono, Allen Klein, Mark Chapman...

Geoff Emerick came to the rescue many times as well.

@@AkyovNorthWest magic alex

Ringo was (became) available at the right time.

Most people place Eppy (Brian Epstein) as the 5th Beatle. Even the Beatle's said it. John said that after they lost him he knew the band would not last.

What you say is true but Sir George made a unique and important musical contribution which helped to define the sound of The Beatles on record and so he gets my vote over Brian Epstein as being deserving of the title 'The 5th Beatle'

I agree.

junaid1 No disrespect, but I don’t think most do. Epstein went above and beyond as a manager, which is really to be expected for a band as above and beyond as The Beatles. The creativity is what drove everything. I would argue that Martin had more to do with the band’s success than George or Ringo did. Paul and John are #1 and 2 (whichever order you like), George Martin is #3, Harrison #4, Ringo #5 (all were/are incredible)

I'd completely agree with that although I'd add that changed in the years they were producing albums. Initially Lennon would be number one because he primarily wrote the early hits and had the most unique voice. Later McCartney took over being number one and it became more his band. Lennon's output lessened and Harrison's quality dramatically increased in both his song writing, playing and tone. Ringo was an amazing "melodic" drummer for the Beatles who came into his own with each passing album. So I think your assessment is completely correct until the last few albums where I'd label McCartney as 1, Lennon as 2, Harrison 3, Ringo 4 and Martin 5 as I feel, as their studio prowess grew, Martin's role had gone from mentor/teacher/interpreter to a job many producers could have done (on the final few albums). But then that's just my humble opinion on what I hear musically and have read. I personally enjoy Lennon's music the most.

The interviews I've heard John was upset by people giving George Martin too much credit. Ans yes it was right around the break-up. Childhood friends who changed the world were breaking out on their own. I'm sure there was a lot of emotion and disagreements, etc. John did apologize which is something he didn't do very often.

He was a miserable bastard about George Martin in the early 70's indeed. And about Paul, and many other people. It's bizarre really. I'm not sure it can be ecplained by something other than some mental issue. Look how different his attitude is here...

George Martin in the later years had too much control and output when Paul, john, and George were peeking at there songwriting abilities. Their last 3 albums could of been way better if they had more control over the albums

Good point, but reading the Beatles Anthology there wasn't an abundance of energy being given by George or John towards being a part of the band which opened the door for someone with Paul's work, work work ethics to take over

...evidence of this please...and...George Martin didn't produce 'Let It Be' so can't be held accountable for that shambles...

Yeah - but you can tell he was reluctant! Through gritted teeth......

@@alexz4752 If you didn't aware of, John in the 70s made loads of ruckus with anyone related to the Beatles, i.e., he was being an animous dickhead. So, it was rather a surprise that he *actually* complimented someone of the Beatles without any bitterness at all

that i can confirm is his record time

John was always complimentary after about 72 i.e. when he wasn't coming of smack.

Yes Michael, I agree with you entirely: GM did sense greatness in them, was inspired, and fervently helped to realise their nascent, raw potential - and his.

You weren't really listening, we're you? Martin was merely a technical facilitator. The Beatles were the creative driving force.

You can't blame Decca for turning them down in the audition. Have you heard their tracks auditioning for the Decca most of the songs were cover songs, guitar sounded poorly, Pete Best drumming wasn't a rock n roll type of drumming more like a "lounge" drummer and then they sent him packing. And George Martin heard potential and tweaked them into as we all came to know as the Beatles.

I disagree about the part with Harrison. Harrison pretty consistently didn't get the respect (and more importantly, the studio time) that Lennon-McCartney had. Harrison's songs sound like they were a bit rushed and underdeveloped in the studio, and Harrison didn't benefit from the creative feedback that Lennon / McCartney got from each other.

@@darrylmata4025 “most of the songs were cover songs...” that was Epstein’s idea since they weren’t famous songwriters then.

Agree. A lot depended on the mood he was in on any given day. A very volatile personality.

Actually apart from the first few years after the Beatles John was always v reasonable.

@@piscesman54 A v special personality

@@paulhallatt4313 nope

Uhh, Two guitars and a Bass.

@@JB19504 And those early records were far more sophisticated than I used to give them credit for! The harmonies, the creativity, etc.

@@JB19504 bass guitars are just guitars with big ole strings

@@JB19504 that would be a lead guitar, a rhythm guitar and a bass, jeffy boy.

@@us-Bahn Guitars are guitars. How they are played in the context of the music is another thing. And one doesn't have to be playing lead, and the other rhythm. Look at Duane and Dickey, they both played lead simultaneously sometimes, US-Bhanny boy.

Indeed, almost as if they were all sent from "above" to meet up here on the 3rd Stone from the Sun.

JOHN JUST "NAILED IT"

Two Georges

I'm not convinced he 'learned as much from them as they did from him' to be fair!

Without a doubt.

And an essential member of the Gerry & The Pacemakers,Billy Kramer and The Dakotas,The Fourmost and others.

Both george harrison and george martin

Yeah. John would be caustic when he wasn't in a good place, mentally. When he wass, he was like you see him here. The difference between what he says in this interview and the 1970 RS interview is really striking.

a bit caustic? John was the nastiest person ever at times

@@red-eyedmagister1595 Was he f*ck. He got scolded by the press after his 'bigger than janus' comments from which he developed a deep mistrust of the press. At the end of the 60s he dabbled with heroin and that was at the time that the Beatles split, so yeah he wanted to turn his back on the whole Beatles thing, as did Paul with Wings. He then went to the USA where he spent several years trying to fight his deportation... no wonder he got pissed at times. In his last interviews he sounded buoyant once again. After his death, the media then tried to create rifts between Paul and George when reality is they were like bros.

I’ve seen Ringo say, “We didn’t know anything about proper recording work. George didn’t know anything about rock and roll music. We just all learned together.”

“ . . . a bit caustic” is a mild way to put it. ;-)

Moms always preferred Paul’s songs. Melodic and generally more cheerful.

Ha! My parents were born in the 1920s and despised the Beatles. "Just too gimmicky." They eventually admitted that they had "some talent," but were never fans. My dad, who had a great appreciation for most all kinds of music (Big Band Era, Classical, some country), loved Procol Harum's "Whaling Stories," but never really liked the Beatles.

@Juan Perez Well, 100 percent of your output is rubbish.

There's no doubt George Martin added a lot, but we shouldn't overstate his importance. Martin worked with a shit-ton of other bands and singers, and none of them came close to being as good as the Beatles. It's not like the Beatles were an air-headed boy band that George Martin controlled like a Svengali. I think it's fair to call him "the fifth Beatle."

He was also a concert pianist who fought in the skies during the Battle of Britain.

Great point. George Martin’s music knowledge and the Beatles natural musicality were an awesome combo that really broadened the rock genre.

according to all, they learned from and grew along with each other. you can't quantify creative collaboration. John Oates anyone?

They were more rough the primitive. They were the most talented band of that type around.

George AND Brian. 50 50 on wbo was 5th or 6th

Yeah, I was thinking about how pleasant his demeanor was, which wasn't like this in most of the interviews he did in the 70's that I saw.

Yeah John Flowing Cool - maybe , he's had a bag o harlem hero weenie

This was when he was with May Pang. No Yoko. Shortly after, he went back to the Dragon Lady.

Absolutely right . John and Paul were both so endearing and so alike the way they recounted stories with various accents.

The Beatles music was astoundingly original and creative--and a huge part of the credit for the unique sounds, instrumentation and arrangements on many of the songs belongs to Martin.

George Martin also did that on "Misery" from their first album as well, though it's less obvious that the piano is sped up. I read he did it while they were touring after their big session, so they may not have known until the record came out that George had done that...

Martin actually played the solo on In My Life.

Which is one of the maybe five songs that John points to as great or legitimate songs he wrote (Help, SFF etc). And that solo really makes the song

The piano solos for “Good Day Sunshine” and “Lovely Rita” were performed slower then sped up as well… I don’t believe John was thinking about any song(s) in particular, he was just making a point.

I actually hate that part of the song, it’s still one of my fav songs though, I just find that part annoying

Agreed. John was flinging muck all over the place, and for a good while.

John was in a really bad place then. Best to listen to him from about 73 onward. That's the real Winston O'Boogie.

SellMe YourSoul and without yoko :p

Where did you see that?

When he died 5 years later he looked emaciated. Like an old man. He looks healthy here.

@@m.e.d.7997 On Yoko’s macrobiotic diet it would be difficult for anyone not to look like a prisoner of war.

Also the interview works because Yoko isn’t there to constantly interrupt and impede the flow of the conversation.

I agree. John was either bitter or very aprehensive in most of his interviews (specially the ones not much after The Beatles' breakup). He was in very good mood here and came to terms with his former band. Somehow, George Harrison could never overcome the causes of the breakup and remained bitter until his last days. Cheers and Happy Holidays.

Well said. I knew it also. Altough i wonder how that concurrence thing fits in the friendship.

For John, I think it was really more of a creative relationship with Paul, centered in the work. Ringo was actually his closest 'friend' in the Beatles. I mean he would hang out with Ringo and go on vacations together. He rarely did that with Paul in downtime (during the active years.) Paul does revise history regularly and Ringo and George commented about this many times. He's always been the PR guy and as such, can't resist putting a spin on things (usually to make himself look better).

@@timothysullysullivan2571 John and Paul were very close when they were young and discovered a mutual interest in songwriting. They even went off on holiday together with the money John got from relatives in Edinburgh for his 21st. Sure John had other friends too, but Lennon and McCartney's friendship ran far deeper than simply a creative relationship.

@@catherinewilson3880 how much time did he spend with Paul after the beatles broke up?

@@timothysullysullivan2571 The Beatles went through a lot in the sixties and they were confined to one anothers company a lot of the time. John met Yoko, Paul met Linda and they grew apart. It happens, I have friends from my teens and twenties who I now never see, but we do keep in touch from time to time. John was murdered over forty years ago so we'll never know where their relationship may have gone had he survived. Anyway, I'm talking about the period between 1957 - 1969, so what they did after that time is pretty much irrelevant to my point.

It may be the case that Ringo and Paul were given the chance to. John was taken early in his life, he may well have surpassed both of them but we will never know unfortunately. What a shame, incredible man.

@@maxwellhaddow-mendes2703 exactly

Nataša Stojanović 💛

Yes well put it was a magical relationship that could be only expressed through the sound of music

Decca wouldn’t have allowed the Beatles to blossom like they did, not even sure Decca had a producer with George Martin’s credentials.

Very well put. They were sort of like an English Garden. Structure and Chaos coming together. Someone too steeped in the classical tradition isn't likely to bust through conventions. Someone too ignorant of musical theory won't know how to make it happen and won't impose useful boundaries.

Absolutely. So much of the Beatles greatest music is nearly unimaginable without George Martin’s influence and expertise.

Fully agree. Perhaps the greatest contribution Martin made to the Beatles was steering them gently without being overbearing or stifling the creative force they were. To the contrary, he helped them blossom. Another producer would've attempted to bully them into submission, which was the standard practice in those days. Perhaps they would've gotten 3 or 4 successful guitar albums out of them and that would've been it. Being a very down-to-earth kind of guy, he was still sensitive enough to know real talent when he saw it.

Well said.

For example, the Let It Be album...

Exactly of only badfinger cross his path with these gentlemans Martín and epstein

@@angelicaquirarte ??

And why dont we say Martin was the fourth member of América.? And hear his work with Gerry & The Pacemakers,Billy Kramer & The Dakotas or The Fourmost.

You can't have one without the other you might say . A miracle none the less.......

Where did you get that information on McCartney and Martin’s input on “A Day in the Life”?

@@hw343434Yeah, I thought that was John's song. I know Paul did the Woke up, got out of bed" part

Iconic, yes ;) You, me and countless others agree that Sir George Martin was, in practice, the fifth Beatle. Having said that, he wasn't an ingredient in Lennon/McCartney's creative crucible - a crucible which spawned musical genius. He was undoubtedly a big influence, and as Lennon says here, he educated the band in musical forms, instruments, they'd had little knowledge of. It was a serendipitous confluence of talent, the likes of which has never been seen since in my opinion.

Martin's talents were being wasted at Parlaphone. Lucky for him the Beatles came along, and vice versa.

and the 21st so far!

Probably yes when you include the Goon Show of the 50’s . Still one of the cleverest & if you understand it funniest radio shows ever.

Except for She’s Leaving Home and the stuff on Let It Be.

@@thefonzkiss the terrible "heavenly choirs" on let it be album (as Paul put it), which everyone hated? Yup, George Martin wouldn't have ever written that steamy pile 😂🤣

I don’t think this is entirely true. All of the members of the band were well connected to different other top musicians at the time as they networked and socialized together resulting in some collaboration also. Paul was responsible for many of the arrangements too.

@@user-tb5ns7hc5i Orchestral

Just finished George M's book again.. :-). John said to George that he would have liked to record all the Beatles songs again, and George said, "even Strawberry Fields?" and John said "especially Strawberry Fields". George said the first time he heard it, there were a couple of introductory chords on the guitar and they were straight in. George said there was a feeling of luminescence and that he was spellbound and in love. He said he wished he had taken the very first run through on tape and released it like that........but of course John rejected Take 1.

The lennon comment is his very best imo "esp strawberry fields" the final result is light years behind what he had in his head and what he spent months banging away on in almeria.That production worked excellently for Penny lane which is pop perfection but lennon was after something very ethereal, they made a balls of it i think.

I wouldn't have signed them with what was on that Decca tape. Martin admitted he signed them mainly based on their personalities, charisma and humor- not primarily for their music. Also Epstein had dragged him to a Cavern show, so he saw the crowd (girl) reaction. "I figured something would probably come out of them, since they were so fascinating and enjoyable as people." (paraphrasing here)

Its from a bbc radio recording on dec 2 1980. Andy peebles

Thanks, Michael. It took 2 years, but I finally got your info. Much obliged, mate.@@michaelsrowland

it's amazing how not using heroin all day improves one's outlook on life

@@lukeingram7655 - 🤣

BUT---it was Paul, who pushed for the musical break-out, and he's the one who succeeded in it most. I think John was a 'Jealous Guy' over this.He had lost the leadership of the band's direction.

Well, they might sound humble but they were also accurate when talking about their talent. John just used the term "primitive musical ability" and that's largely right. None of the Beatles got close to being virtuosos, yet somehow they made amazing music that changed rock and roll forever and music that still sounds fresh and relevant today. It's one of the things that never fails to amaze me about the Beatles how 4 guys playing fairly basic music in that '62-'66ish period somehow managed to create magic together. Their song writing, voices and later on their experimentation in the studio was what really set them apart from anyone else.

@@ajo3085 Well Said ✌🏻

@@karlmtinsley8297 Thank you. 😊

@@ajo3085 Like wise so well said. It was wonderful to hear John speak so highly of George Martin.

...and not on heroin.

He must have sent Yoko off to do her own thing

@@ElvarMasson Me thinks it was the other way around.

This was the real John. About 73 onwards. No chips on his shoulders and no come downs.

IKR?

Don't be a dick. John went through a period between about 69 and 71 where he slagged everyone off as he came of smack etc. After that he went back to being the John we all know and love.

Sean Lennon is now older than John when he died.

I am about the same age, I knew at the time he was far too young and I feel it more now.

I remember 5th grade, my mom waking me to tell me, let me come down and watch the news. In morning prayers at Catholic school, the nun always asked if we had someone we wanted to pray for. I suggested Lennon and she said no. He was a degenerate. I swear to God, true story.

jackal59 Knock off the blasphemy

jackal59 I know exactly how you feel. :(

I assume many/most Beatles fans are enjoying a greater academic interest in the band. As a result of deeper research, its becoming clearer that the story begins years before Epstein crafted their Fab 4 personae. To summarize, they had played together as a band unit approx 10,000 hours by 1963. That is 8-10 hours every night fueled by alcohol and speed. Sourced material indicates they electrifing audiences with their raw rock n roll act. This rep is why Epstein was interested. Let's not forget that cut their first album in ONE day, over the course of 10 hours. GM himself was amazed at their stamina and tight playing. The more you dig, the more you'll understand these guys were super ambitious and willing to push limits. All other "5th Beatles" were just lucky to have come in contact with them and enjoy the ride.