Here we go again-the street cred brigade having a bash at Sir George......
Evie McCreevie wrote:AAAAAAAAAAAAGH! I know - it’s HERESY! But please hear me out...
Yes, we all know he did great, ground-breaking work with The Beatles. But am I really the only person who finds a lot of his contributions a bit sugary - twee, even?
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but so what? That's the way he wrote, and he wrote the book on sympathetic and enhancing arrangements for bands, and has been much emulated by others over the years. If I had one hundredth of his talent I'd be very happy.
While some of the stuff is great, I would prefer to hear the songs (Penny Lane for instance) played by the band, without all the strings and brass. Lennon himself tired of it, telling Martin he didn’t want any of his “production crap” when recording Let it Be.
Not true. It was John Lennon himself who asked George for string and brass charts (most notably on Strawberry Fields) and the band wanted to extend their tonal palette via the studio now that they were free from the merry go round of touring. Lennon telling George that he didn't want any production crap on 'Let it be' occurred much later when he wanted to get back to his roots and publicly dissed all the classic Beatles tracks. He much later (late 70s)admitted to George that he was wrong, but it might have been the drugs talking at the time......
Also, it’s not as though the Beatles themselves were without any talent - they may well have been successful without Martin (though I acknowledge he did sign them), and they all (except Ringo maybe) went on to make great solo records without him.
Yes, BUT... almost certainly no other producer would have given them the freedom to blossom in the way that they did. They wanted to experiment, George gave them that freedom. Other labels and producers at the time would have been hidebound with the 'we've always done it this way' mentality. If your argument was true, they'd have turned out more like Cliff and the Shadows. If you look at 'The Beatles Complete Recording Sessions' you'll see a complete catalogue of the groundbreaking work that they did in the studio precisely because George Martin had cut his teeth recording projects that other companies wouldn't touch with a barge pole. In fact (and you can find this out in his autobiography All you Need is Ears) he turned around Parlophone from the joke label of the EMI conglomerate to possibly its most successful arm.
As for successful solo albums without him after the end of the Beatles -chicken and egg, surely? They wouldn't have been so well known, they wouldn't have made such groundbreakihg records. In fact we wouldn't be here today in recording without Sir George's work, input and inspiration.
Then, in the 70s - a golden age with T Rex, Roxy Music, Stevie Wonder, Led Zep, Bowie, Steely Dan, disco, punk etc , who did Martin produce? Stackridge, America and Jeff Beck. Yeah.
Again, so what? Stackridge were a quintessentially English group and ideal for George to assist with his unique talents on productions, arrangemtn and orchestration. The resulting album 'The Man in the Bowler Hat' is certainly one of their best sounding and most focussed albums. Tne follow up produced by Tony Ashton, is a mess by comparison.
America were a fine easy listening act -not my personal cup of tea, but that's fine. No producer wants to work with acts they can't relate to. Then there's the story of the famous rock producer with million selling albums to his credit who's total contribution was to get sh*t faced in the studio and tell the bands 'Yeah, brilliant!' to everything. No, I haven't found out who he was, but it's supposed to be true.
And Jeff Beck (who knows a thing or two) hads nothing but the highest praise for Sir George's work on his albums, which coincidentally won awards for the best fusion albums of the year, as well as selling quite healthily. All the other acts you mentioned had seasoned producers, excellent in their own right, but different. You're suggesting that Sir George should have produced them all? The only guy who would stand comparison is Quincy Jones, who has a similarly versatile background.
It’s worse in the 80s, with Cheap Trick, UFO and Ultravox. Finally there’s the nadir of 1997 with Celine Dion’s ‘Let’s Talk About Love’.
Again, why? Realise that by that time Sir George was in his 50s/60s. Just those four acts alone show his versatility, and Midge Ure speaks glowingly about Sir George's whole approach to the Ultravox album and how he contributed not only in the recording and production, but also the musical input.
Then there’s his attitude to punk - he just didn’t / doesn’t get it - and thought it was the end of the world. If he had his way, we’d still be listening to The Moody Blues. Or maybe The Moody Blues featuring Celine Dion.
Now you're really taking the piss. Why should he 'get' punk?
Why should he get rave/techno/country and western/anything else you care to mention?
Remember, this is a guy who started off with the Parlophone label recording classical pieces, jazz (including the recently departed Humphrey Lyttleton), Jimmy Shand and his scottish country dance band, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore in Beyond the Fringe, Peter Sellers comedy records (where his Goon Show techniques on sound effects stood him in good stead for Sgt Pepper) and a whole bunch more acts, including all the other 60s groups that he recorded. He was the guy who could do it all: record, produce, arrange and conduct the ochestras. Name one producer today who can be that versatile, and we're nearly 50 years down the line.
George Martin is routinely referred to as “The Greatest Producer of all Time”. How about “Arranger who got lucky with The Beatles, then did jack sh*t for 35 years”? Discuss.
I just did, and your latter postulate doesn't stand up.
He is the greatest producer (not just an arranger) of all time who has had an influence on recording and music that simply cannot be denied or over rated. His gong was long overdue, and I fear we'll never see his like again.
And besides, how the hell are you going to follow an act like the Beatles?
The simple fact is, you can't.
Dave
