George Martin biased?
Jen
Making of Sgt. Pepper' I sense that there is a bit of a bias towards Paul
on Martin's part. The overall tone of the book is, IMO, very
pro-Paul(Martin even gives him generous songwriting credit on 'Tomorrow
Never Knows' - claiming the basic concept was John's but the "weird and
wonderfulness" of the song came from Paul because of how much he was
involved in the avant-garde London at the time. And also credits him with
the idea for the orchestral climax on 'A Day in the Life'.) He says in the
book:
"John would probably have ended up as a sort of Lou Reed, or Dylan figure
singing protest songs in one form or another. Paul would probably have
written safe, acceptable, soft, melodic songs lacking the acidity he
absorbed from John.
"The famous hyperbole of The Times newspaper's music critic who likened
the Beatles to Schubert, speaking in glowing terms of 'pan diatonic clusters
' in their music was, I agree, a bit over the top. It was not all that far
off , though. Paul McCartney has a sense of structure in is compositions
that very few popular songwriters have ever had. He instinctively had much
more musicianship in him than any of the others did; Paul had the makings of
a great composer.
"Comparing Paul with someone like Andrew Lloyd Webber, for example, his
qualities were immediately apparent. His basic raw material had a stronger
simplicity than even the songs of that excellent writer. His output was
more varied, and of course, in terms of pure songwriting he has been far
more prolific. Mind you, he did have the advantage of having a pretty good
band around to plug his efforts! I do believe that if Paul had been taught
music and learned more about orchestration he could have ended up writing
even better stage musicals than Lloyd Webber, if that is possible.
"In the early days my role was to tidy things up, musically - to put songs
into some sort of perspective.(I would also give a commercial estimate of
their worth.) I might take a phrase out of the middle of 'Can't Buy Me Love
', for example pointing out that the phrase should have started the song, or
as on 'Please Please Me', say 'Speed it up, mucho; that's all it needs,
really.
"I think John learned from this kind of input. He learned a whole lot
more from Paul, though; musical structure; organization in his song writing;
how to make a song telling. He also learned the value of a good hook - the
catchy bit, for example the guitar riff that starts 'Day Tripper', the
harmonica from 'Love Me Do'. Paul was able to cut through the garbage and
clearly present the essence of a good tune, with good harmonies. Yet he
never fell back upon the conventional cliches of songwriting. He would
forever be coming up with a little musical twist that made a song, or phrase
severely more interesting to listen to."
He also says in the book:
"Of all the Beatles Paul was the most talented musician. When I first met
him he could not play the piano at all. It was a very short time indeed
from then to 'Lady Madonna', which is a very complicated and extremely good
piano track played entirely by Paul, and a measure of his great
musicianship. Paul could play the drums, technically, better than any of
the others, including Ringo (although he could never get anything like the
distinctive sound Ringo got from his kit). So by default Paul took over the
most difficult instrument to play with any originality in a rock 'n' roll
band: the bass guitar."
I'm just curious as to why it appears GM has a bias towards Paul. I can't
necessarily see him making negative comments about Paul (or any of the
others), but from the comments above he seems to be overly lavish in his
praise of Paul. Has GM always felt this way? Or is it maybe a bit of
"revisionist history" on his part?
Jen
Be nice to nerds. You'll probably end up working for one someday.
-Bill Gates
fabella
say this, but as briefly as I can, I'll say that George Martin
was a tough,
well-disciplined producer with plenty of opinions about what
would sell and what wouldn't. It's no surprise to hear him speak
of
Paul's being the most talented musician of the four because he
thinks in Paul's terms, about the making of hit records, an
endless
chain of them, all consistent with the "Beatles" sound and
"Beatle" philosophy. Sweet, nice, never over the top or down to
the nerve.
So aside from the denigration of protest songs (!) and the
imagining John Lennon being a burnt out folkie/guru with a weird
wife
(the between the lines message has always been Yoko's terrible
effect on John), I just think he's become a bitter old man with a
fluttery, confectionary Paul McCartney as his trophy Beatle. He
really had no clue about John's not being interested in spending
the rest of his life as John Beatle, Yoko or no Yoko.
It's sad.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest/timemap
All men should strive to learn before they die, what
they are running from, and to, and why. (James Thurber)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
fabella
And I agree that he could write classical music *if* he would go
to
school and learn music theory and composition. But he will never
do that. He is afraid of the competition. Once he appeared on *
that* playing field, where all the young people were strong and
couldn't care less who the old guy with the pretty eyes was, he
would completely lose it. He is still the Medici prince of pop,
pampered and powdered and spoilt rotten.
This is also sad.
Donz5
>He also says in the book:
>"Of all the Beatles Paul was the most talented musician.
Well, that's true; Paul _was_ the most talented musician in the group. But that
detracts nothing from John's accomplishments.
When John was killed, George M. was asked to comment on John. He said, "John
wasn't the world's greatest musician, but he was a great man."
Jeremy Boob
been forthright. I believe his assertions are correct, though the
flowery language they're couched in is a bit much. Surely in that book
he has something good to say about John, obviously we're reading out of
context.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
paramucho
wrote:
Martin chops and changes a bit over time.
But consider this: on his own recent album, which celebrated the end
of his career, he had only two McCartney tracks and it was rumoured
that there was a stage when there was only one track. Lennon was
represented by a half dozen songs or more.
Go figure.
In terms of songwriting it's pretty obvious that Martin is going to
prefer McCartney. He thinks the role of pop music is to charm and to
amuse and his favorite writers are people like Debussy and Gershwin. I
don't think he has ever really recognised the inherent power of rock
to be an art culture within itself and essentially, in the final
analysis, I think he rejects rock as an art form.
Ian
Nyarlathotep
Precisely which claims of Martin's do you take issue with, & why?
Although most of my favorite Beatles songs have Lennon's lyrics &
lead vocals, I have no problem with most of the Martin claims you quote.
Lots of that stuff I already knew, independently of Martin. Paul *was*
the most proficient musician in the band; he *did* have the best knack
for a catchy melody; he *was* the most prolific songwriter, etc.
The only thing I don't agree with is Martin's praise for Andrew
Lloyd Webber.
paramucho
>"Jen" jsn...@email.msn.com wrote:
>
>>He also says in the book:
>
>>"Of all the Beatles Paul was the most talented musician.
>
>Well, that's true; Paul _was_ the most talented musician in the group. But that
>detracts nothing from John's accomplishments.
In terms of pure musicianship, you could find far more talented
individuals outside the Beatles. That wasn't the primary reason for
their greatness. It's what they had to say and how they said that was
of primary importance to me.
I certainly wouldn't call him the most talented composer of the
Beatles.
Ian
robertandrews
>John would probably have ended up as a sort of Lou Reed, or Dylan figure
singing protest songs in one form or another. Paul would probably have
written safe, acceptable, soft, melodic songs lacking the acidity he
absorbed from John.
I think John would have either played blues like Jimmy Reed, or written
poetry like Dylan Thomas. Paul would have developed a skin care line that
enhanced the softness of your face, while maintaining its proper acidity.
jweb
>
> In reading George Martin's book 'With a Little Help From My Friends - The
> Making of Sgt. Pepper' I sense that there is a bit of a bias towards Paul
> on Martin's part.
<snip>
I don't think George Martin was being biased in his assessment of Paul
McCartney. Really, as a producer, the ultimate goal is to concentrate on
making great records. If George was more in favor of McCartney's
contributions, then we wouldn't have the diversity of the "White Album"
(as a prime example), or many of Lennon's other musical gems.
Martin was just being brutally honest, I think, and while his opinion
may not sit well with the Lennon, Harrison, and Ringo fans...I tend to
agree with him.
But disagreeing with what Martin thinks doesn't necessarily mean one is
wrong. It's just his opinion- and although George is an incredibly
gifted producer, his opinion on his likes or dislikes is no different
than someone saying he likes broccoli, and the other saying he doesn't.
There's no "right or wrong" there.
John W.
robertandrews
>Precisely which claims of Martin's do you take issue with, & why?
>John would probably have ended up as a sort of Lou Reed, or Dylan figure
singing protest songs in one form or another.
Lou Reed doesn't sing protest songs, and even Dylan has only written a few
(he stopped his topical songs in '65). I assume Mr. Martin knows little
about either artist, and about protest songs. He has no idea what John
would have done; it's pure speculation.
>Paul would probably have written safe, acceptable, soft, melodic songs
lacking the acidity he absorbed from John.
Nonsense. Paul might have found an even more acerbic collaborator, or he
might have jumped in the Mersey & drowned.
>The famous hyperbole of The Times newspaper's music critic who likened the
Beatles to Schubert, speaking in glowing terms of 'pan diatonic clusters '
in their music was, I agree, a bit over the top. It was not all that far
off , though.
It was complete gibberish, because it had little to do with the Beatles'
music, and the way they wrote & sang their songs.
>Paul McCartney has a sense of structure in is compositions that very few
popular songwriters have ever had.
How about Ellington, Gershwin, Arlen, Kern -- no sense of structure? He
doesn't know much about popular song.
>Paul had the makings of a great composer.
I'm quite happy with what he did. Apparently Martin feels it's not enough
to write And I Love Her & Hey Jude. And more useless speculation.
>Comparing Paul with someone like Andrew Lloyd Webber, for example, his
qualities were immediately apparent. His basic raw material had a stronger
simplicity than even the songs of that excellent writer. His output was
more varied, and of course, in terms of pure songwriting he has been far
more prolific.
Andrew Lloyd Webber is a hack. Why should Paul be compared with him? If
Martin can't see that, he's in trouble.
>I do believe that if Paul had been taught music and learned more about
orchestration he could have ended up writing even better stage musicals than
Lloyd Webber, if that is possible.
As if writing musicals is a higher goal than making rock 'n roll records.
And more speculation. For all we know, Paul would have failed at that &
failed at classical music.
>I think John learned from this kind of input. He learned a whole lot more
from Paul, though; musical structure; organization in his song writing; how
to make a song telling.
According to Martin, Paul taught John how to write songs. Of course Paul
was a huge help, but Lennon had supreme musical gifts on his own.
Structure, organization, song telling (?) -- I'd say John understood all
these elements of songwriting. It was Paul who seemed to have trouble
post-Beatles with writing a complete song, and certainly with his lyrics.
>Of all the Beatles Paul was the most talented musician.
I can't say Paul is more talented than John. They have somewhat different
talents & points of view, as well as much in common.
>When I first met him he could not play the piano at all. It was a very
short time indeed from then to 'Lady Madonna'
From '64-'68, one can learn how to play the piano well enough to play Lady
Madonna, Hey Jude & Let It Be.
>Paul could play the drums, technically, better than any of the others,
including Ringo (although he could never get anything like the distinctive
sound Ringo got from his kit)
And yet, the musicians on RMB don't like his drumming very much. He can't
play as well as Ringo, that's for sure.
>So by default Paul took over the most difficult instrument to play with any
originality in a rock 'n' roll band: the bass guitar
Originality is hard on any instrument, in all types of music.
Now it's time to say Good Night, George.
paramucho
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I think John learned from this kind of input. He learned a whole lot more
>>from Paul, though; musical structure; organization in his song writing; how
>>to make a song telling.
>According to Martin, Paul taught John how to write songs. Of course Paul
>was a huge help, but Lennon had supreme musical gifts on his own.
>Structure, organization, song telling (?) -- I'd say John understood all
>these elements of songwriting. It was Paul who seemed to have trouble
>post-Beatles with writing a complete song, and certainly with his lyrics.
And if Paul taught John how to write songs then why was John the
dominant writer in 1963/1964 and why did Paul take so long to
establish himself as a strong writer of "Beatle" songs?
I'm not sure what the point is of saying what a great composer or what
a great writer of musicals a Beatle might have been. The Beatles
*were* the greatest composers of the last century in the most
effective musical form of the last century. Why should they go around
pretending to be masters of some niche musical forms?
Ian
D 28IF
>"robertandrews"
><robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>I think John learned from this kind of input. He learned a whole lot more
>>>from Paul, though; musical structure; organization in his song writing; how
>>>to make a song telling.
>
>>According to Martin, Paul taught John how to write songs. Of course Paul
>>was a huge help, but Lennon had supreme musical gifts on his own.
>>Structure, organization, song telling (?) -- I'd say John understood all
>>these elements of songwriting. It was Paul who seemed to have trouble
>>post-Beatles with writing a complete song, and certainly with his lyrics.
>
>And if Paul taught John how to write songs then why was John the
>dominant writer in 1963/1964 and why did Paul take so long to
>establish himself as a strong writer of "Beatle" songs?
While I don't recall ever reading Paul teaching John how to write songs, I do
recall John saying in interviews that he hadn't thought of writing songs before
he met Paul, who had already composed some.
With the childhood writings he had done, it would no doubt have been just a
matter of time before John put his music and his poetry together on his own,
though.
And I tend to agree that Martin favours Paul. It's probably because he writes
the kind of music Martin prefers, as opposed to John's. It may be because they
continued to work together after the Beatles, and John at times criticised
Martin in interviews. But I always got a distinct impression that GM leaned
more towards Paul.
paramucho
>>From: i...@beathoven.com (paramucho)
> But I always got a distinct impression that GM leaned more towards Paul.
So did I. However, if you read his book about making Pepper it is
clear that he leans towards John's songs.
And on his own album IN MY LIFE, McCartney is so underrepresented. I
saw him asked about this in an interview and he was kind of cute. He
said that Paul had noticed this as well and mentioned it to Martin.
Martin was asked what he did about it.
I'm not sure how he phrased it, but he put on a totally George-Martin
raised-eyebrow look and said something like, that was when he decided
to put a second track of Paul's on the album. It was a very funny
moment.
George loved them all. Nothing is clearer to me than that. IN MY LIFE
is his goodbye to them and his personal goodbye to the one that fell,
finishing as it does with the tune he wrote after hearing the tragic
news and with Sean Connery's recitation of the lyric of IN MY LIFE.
Ian
Michael Davis
> The only thing I don't agree with is Martin's praise for Andrew
> Lloyd Webber.
That's the same Andrew Lloyd Webber who had to take musical ideas from Roger
"I still can't tune my bass after thirty years" Waters, right? Just
checking...
Mike Davis
******************************************************************************
"I like kids, I used to be one."
--Ringo Starr, 1998
davi...@pilot.msu.edu, dav...@pa.msu.edu
http://www.pa.msu.edu/~davism -- Now with "Girl"!
******************************************************************************
Chewbop
anyone else in the group, including Ringo. I've always shared
that view.
As an unbiased observer, Martin should know, but I wonder if
Ringo agrees.
Jeremy Boob
and offbeat. He can play drums, no doubt, but he's not a drummer.
jenni...@my-deja.com
Jeremy Boob <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> As a drummer, I don't agree. Paul was always rather awkward ,stilted,
> and offbeat. He can play drums, no doubt, but he's not a drummer.
>
but a drummer? No way
Anders Viberg
Chewbop <
> I like the part where Martin says Paul is a better drummer than
> anyone else in the group, including Ringo. I've always shared
> that view.
>
> As an unbiased observer, Martin should know, but I wonder if
> Ringo agrees.
He's at it again...
Taking words out of context, the full quote is;
"Paul could play the drums, technically, better than any of
the others, including Ringo (although he could never get anything like the
distinctive sound Ringo got from his kit)."
I don't see that Martin agrees with your view when reading the *FULL* quote.
He doesn't say Paul is a better drummer, more than technically. (Although I
doubt it too, look at Paul in the video "In The World Tonight" from 1997, he
sits by the drums and shows his abilities, and there he admits he can't play
a simple shuffle, so I see his technique isn't really that good, Ringo by
the way has a tremendous feel for shuffle)
And if you know anything about musicianship in rock, technique means nothing
compared to feel which is what Martin implies here.
You know you can never win Chewbop.
/Anders
DavisK
John's songs sounded incomplete or not fully realized, whereas Paul's were
much more neatly packaged. You can't blame John though - I think Paul had
more musical training growing up than did John.
jweb wrote in message <397CDE...@netzero.net>...
R4949
DavisK <dav...@globalserve.net> wrote in message
news:SFnf5.2115$43.1...@news1.tor.primus.ca...
> Agreed. Just look at John's solo career music compared to Paul's - a lot
of
> John's songs sounded incomplete or not fully realized, whereas Paul's were
> much more neatly packaged. You can't blame John though - I think Paul had
> more musical training growing up than did John.
I think you've hit the Beatle nail on the head - although somewhat biased
towards Paul :o)
Together they edited each other - mostly by vying for vinyl space - as solo
artistes no competition - so the weaker stuff got through... (Mary Had a
Little Lamb - do me a flavour... RASPBERRY)
R4949
Anders Viberg
fabella <
> Paul's being the most talented musician of the four because he
> thinks in Paul's terms, about the making of hit records, an
> endless
> chain of them, all consistent with the "Beatles" sound and
> "Beatle" philosophy. Sweet, nice, never over the top or down to
> the nerve.
So you say Beatles, produced by George Martin, were known for being a dull,
boring mainstream band writing middle-of-the-road "sweet, nice songs".
"Never over the top or down the nerve". I figure "A Day In The Life" and
that record Sgt. Pepper must have been performed by another band than the
one I thought of then...
/Anders
chewbop
"Anders Viberg" <anders...@zeta.telenordia.se> wrote in message
news:8lkpsr$b6e$4...@cubacola.tninet.se...
> He's at it again...
> Taking words out of context, the full quote is;
>
> "Paul could play the drums, technically, better than any of
> the others, including Ringo (although he could never get anything like the
> distinctive sound Ringo got from his kit)."
>
> I don't see that Martin agrees with your view when reading the *FULL*
quote.
> He doesn't say Paul is a better drummer, more than technically. (Although
I
> doubt it too, look at Paul in the video "In The World Tonight" from 1997,
he
> sits by the drums and shows his abilities, and there he admits he can't
play
> a simple shuffle, so I see his technique isn't really that good, Ringo by
> the way has a tremendous feel for shuffle)
> And if you know anything about musicianship in rock, technique means
nothing
> compared to feel which is what Martin implies here.
>
> You know you can never win Chewbop.
>
> /Anders
Excuse me, but you appear to know not of whence you speak....again. First
you accuse me of taking Martin's quote out of context, then YOU proceed to
change his quote to fit your own agenda.
Martin did indeed say that Paul was a better drummer technically than anyone
in the group, including (and especially) Ringo. But what good is a drummer
if he can't master the technical aspects of drumming. Good Lord, my 8-year
old can bang on a drum and he certainly has a very distinctive
style....LOL!! But technically, he's a beginner....as is Ringo. And that's
according to George Martin, not just me. Martin said once that when he
first heard Ringo play, he couldn't even do a simple drum roll, for God's
sake!! And guess what? HE STILL CAN'T!! LOL!!
Even Lennon once said that not only was Ringo not the best drummer in the
universe (as you seem to believe), but he wasn't even the best drummer in
the Beatles. The difference, of course, is that Lennon didn't qualify his
statement by saying "technically". Fair enough?
Oh, and one more thing. When are you going to comment on Ringo's
preposterous statement that George Martin never gave him a chance to play on
Love Me Do?? Is Ringo a liar?... or is he in a state of total denial?....or
is he in early stages of Alzheimer's? Which is it? We await your reply.
webCOMBO - America's Free Internet Access Provider
http://www.webcombo.net
robertandrews
>But what good is a drummer if he can't master the technical aspects of
drumming.
Is George Martin technically a better piano player than Paul, and why?
fabella
admire the point by point argument, which you clearly won.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest/timemap
All men should strive to learn before they die, what
they are running from, and to, and why. (James Thurber)
-----------------------------------------------------------
chewbop
"fabella" <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:24d20080...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com...
> Anders, not only do I agree with you 100% about Ringo, I really
> admire the point by point argument, which you clearly won.
>
> Francie
>
Francie, I love your book, and I've always liked you. Why must you ALWAYS
disagree with me?????
chewbop
couldn't....answer. I expected no less.
OK, this one is for Anders and Francie....let's see who actually wins this
argument.
My question to Anders is this: If Ringo has such a friggin' "distinctive,"
"unique," and "original" drumming style....as you keep telling us ad
nauseam....how come you weren't able to tell instantly which of Ringo's
White Album drum tracks Paul overdubbed and which ones he didn't?? And
don't try to tell us you did, because you had to do some research before you
made your silly pronouncements about Ringo supposedly being on vacation
during this track and that track, blah, blah, blah.....
I look forward to your reply. We all do.
fabella
>
>"fabella" <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:24d20080...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com...
>> Anders, not only do I agree with you 100% about Ringo, I
really
>> admire the point by point argument, which you clearly won.
>>
>> Francie
>>
>
>Francie, I love your book, and I've always liked you. Why must
you ALWAYS
>disagree with me?????
>
>
Woowoo! Didn't know... maybe it's because you're a Paul person
and I'm a John person.
New Yorker had an article years ago about the differences. And
the NY Times (always the best Beatle fan among the print media)
also had a second generation story about a mom with a 6 year old
who decided not to be friends with another child because she
was a Paul...
Actually, one can believe George to be the hottest Fab and still
be a John person musically.
Thanks, chewby.
f.
NEW TODAY: http://sites.netscape.net/fabest/timemap
chewbop
"paramucho" <i...@beathoven.com> wrote in message
news:39853644...@news.remarq.com...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:27:42 -0400, "chewbop" <che...@webcombo.net>
> wrote:
>
> This is a ridiculous debate. Ringo Starr is the most successful
> drummer of the last century. The Beatles would *never* have produced
> the albums they did from 1966 on without his creative input.
Let me see if I understand your latest preposterous pronouncement from on
high. You're suggesting that without Ringo, the Beatles would never have
produced Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and Abbey Road? Is that really what you're
trying to say? You'll notice I left out the White Album because...for the
most part...Ringo didn't play on it. Yet in spite of that (or perhaps
because of it), the album was one of the Beatles' most successful. But do
you realize the sheer absurdity of what you're saying??? PLEASE think
before you speak.
>
> Art is not physics and no musician in his/her right mind plays like a
> metronome. If you want skilled virtuosos, then go to music schools,
> they breed them on a production line basis. They can play stuff at age
> six that no Beatle would ever approach. So what? When was technique
> ever the criteria for measuring a pop artist?
No one is suggesting that Ringo should have gone to drumming school,
although it certainly wouldn't have hurt him any. The fact remains that
when George Martin...a skilled musician in his own right...first heard Ringo
play at the Love Me Do sessions on Sept. 4, 1962, he quickly dismissed the
Beatles, got on the phone to Andy White, called the Beatles back to London,
and put Ringo on maracas or tambourine or something equally innocuous....in
order to basically get him out of the way. You cannot deny that no matter
how much you sing Ringo's praises. And Ringo can't deny it no matter how
much he tries to rewrite history in his old age.
> What Ringo Starr had was impeccable taste
Oh really? Do you remember how he looked during his Yassar Arafat stage??
Have you ever seen a rock star...other than maybe Frank Zappa...who went to
such great lengths to make himself look ugly and unappealing? Don't get me
wrong. Ringo was not a bad-looking guy, but I've never seen anyone go to
such lengths to purposely make himself so physically unappealing.
Impeccable taste? My ass.
>and I know no other drummer
> who can transmit the passion he does when simply playing eight hi hat
> strokes in a bar. Each stroke that he plays means something.
HUH?? Please pick a specific song and interpret for us each and every one
of his "strokes in a bar" for us. Please don't evade this request.
>His creativity on the drum kit was a match for the most creative band in
> history. That's how I measure a pop artist.
Buddy Rich, one of the greatest drummers in history, was once asked some
question about Ringo's drumming on a talk show. He never answered because
he didn't hear the entire question. And the reason he didn't hear it is
because he was laughing so hard.
'Nuff said.
chewbop
quotes when you refer to Ringo quitting the group in summer 1968? Just
curious.
> Well, it's well documented that Ringo went on a "vacation" during the
> recordings and which
> songs J,P and G recorded without him. Blah, blah, blah....
> Francie might help you with more details there.
Anders Viberg
chewbop <
>
> Excuse me, but you appear to know not of whence you speak....again. First
> you accuse me of taking Martin's quote out of context, then YOU proceed to
> change his quote to fit your own agenda.
???
Where did I change the quote?
You did clearly.
>
> Martin did indeed say that Paul was a better drummer technically than
anyone
> in the group, including (and especially) Ringo.
You don't change the quote, er?
Do George Martin "indeed" say "especially Ringo"?
>But what good is a drummer
> if he can't master the technical aspects of drumming.
Who says that, Martin?
> Good Lord, my 8-year
> old can bang on a drum and he certainly has a very distinctive
> style....LOL!!
Very funny.
Twisting and turning again.
> But technically, he's a beginner....as is Ringo.
Ringo played drums for what, nearly 50 years. He's a beginner?
>And that's
> according to George Martin, not just me. Martin said once that when he
> first heard Ringo play, he couldn't even do a simple drum roll, for God's
> sake!! And guess what? HE STILL CAN'T!! LOL!!
Doing a proper drum roll isn't 'that' easy.
And I don't see how the Beatles' music should have been better if Ringo
threw in these annoying drum rolls that Pete Best had the bad habit to use.
It's irrelevant anyway. If a guitarist can't do a simple fingerpicking style
does that mean he can't play a good solo and rhythm and slide or whatever.
Maybe he knows thousands of chords and plays faster than Malmsteen but he
can't play the fingerpicking, sorry, no good...
It doesn't say anything about him keeping a good beat just because he can't
do the rolls.
> Even Lennon once said that not only was Ringo not the best drummer in the
> universe (as you seem to believe), but he wasn't even the best drummer in
> the Beatles. The difference, of course, is that Lennon didn't qualify his
> statement by saying "technically". Fair enough?
Bull, there's that statement that's been around here but;
1) We haven't seen the full quote of that.
2) The bit that's been around says nothing about John saying that Ringo
isn't the "best drummer in the Universe"
3) The explanation that's been given by those who knows where it comes from
says it was a jokey slur at Paul.
4) I can see why you swallow this as gospel...
5) I can't see why you're looking for quotes from J,P,G and Martin where
they would say that Ringo isn't a good drummer. You will not find any. If
you had the chance to ask them I know what their answers would be...
There's a reason he wasn't kicked out like Pete was.
> Oh, and one more thing. When are you going to comment on Ringo's
> preposterous statement that George Martin never gave him a chance to play
on
> Love Me Do?? Is Ringo a liar?... or is he in a state of total
denial?....or
> is he in early stages of Alzheimer's? Which is it? We await your reply.
I have been commenting on that. I wrote a long post about that maybe 2
months go. (Loaded with facts)
Ringo forgot.
He obviously mixed up in what order the events happened. He says he and the
group did a remake for the album, he was mistaken, what's the big deal?
It's human, being through what Beatles were through I don't think that's
strange, I do find it strange though that nobody told him (or George Martin)
the real story, especially when they were doing the Anthology series, we
will see what's gonna be in the book that comes out soon.
But it is very rude accusing someone having a serious disease, or accusing
him of being a liar or being "in a state of total denial".
It doesn't help your case.
/Anders
p.s.
How can you not love a drummer who says;
"I hate drum solos! I really do"
paramucho
wrote:
This is a ridiculous debate. Ringo Starr is the most successful
drummer of the last century. The Beatles would *never* have produced
the albums they did from 1966 on without his creative input.
Art is not physics and no musician in his/her right mind plays like a
metronome. If you want skilled virtuosos, then go to music schools,
they breed them on a production line basis. They can play stuff at age
six that no Beatle would ever approach. So what? When was technique
ever the criteria for measuring a pop artist?
What Ringo Starr had was impeccable taste and I know no other drummer
who can transmit the passion he does when simply playing eight hi hat
strokes in a bar. Each stroke that he plays means something. His
creativity on the drum kit was a match for the most creative band in
history. That's how I measure a pop artist.
Here are the comments collected at one of the best Starr websites:
http://web2.airmail.net/~gshultz/drumpage.html, which I recommend.
=============================
40 COMMENTS ON RINGO'S DRUMMING
Paul McCartney
"P aul has been recently quoted as saying that Ringo Starr is still
his favorite drummer, much to the amazement of the drumming community
and the world at large. McCartney's worked with Steve Gadd, Jeff
Porcaro- he can have the pick of anyone, just about, but he still
loves Ringo." --- Deborah Parisi, writing for Rhythm magazine(1990)
Ringo Starr
"F irst and foremost I am a drummer. After that, I'm other things.
...But I didn't play drums to make money. I played drums because I
loved them. ...My soul is that of a drummer....It came to where I had
to make a decision -- I was going to be a drummer. Everything else
goes now. I play drums. It was a conscious moment in my life when I
said the rest of things were getting in the way. I didn't do it to be
come rich and famous, I did it because it was the love of my life." --
quoted in The Big Beat by Max Weinberg(1984)
Ringo Starr
"When we first started, they basically went John and Paul's way
because they were the writers and they would say, "This is the song,"
and I would play as creatively as I could. Sometimes I would have
three people telling me how to do it. They were saying playing this
like on that track. I'm saying, "For Christ's sake, there are two
drummers there." They could never hear that, you know. You'd have to
have four arms to do half the stuff they wanted me to do." -- from an
interview in Viva magazine (1978)
John Lennon
"Ringo's a damn good drummer. He was always a good drummer. He's not
technically good, but I think Ringo's drumming is underrated the same
way Paul's base-playing is underrated. Paul and Ringo stand up
anywhere with any of the rock musicians." -- from a Playboy magazine
interview (1980)
John Lennon
"In spite of all things, the Beatles could really play music together
when they weren't up tight, and if I get things going Ringo knows
where to go just like that and he does well." -- from Lennon Remembers
(1971)
George Harrison
"Ringo's got the best back beat I've ever heard and he can play great
24-hours a day." -- from a 1974 interview
George Harrison
"Ringo could be the best rock ''n'' roll drummer -- or at least one of
the best rock and roll drummers ... He does fills which crack up
people like Jim Keltner. He's just amazed because Ringo starts them in
the wrong place and all of that, but that is brilliance, that's pure
feel." -- from an interview in Guitar magazine (1987)
Paul McCartney
"We always gave Ringo direction on every single number. It was usually
very controlled. Whoever had written the song, John for instance,
would say, "I want this." Obviously, a lot of things came out of what
Ringo was playing, but we would always control it." -- from a 1980s
interview record
Paul McCartney
"Ringo is right down the center, never overplays." -- from an
interview in Musician magazine (Feb. 1988)
Kenny Arnoff -- "I consider him one of the greatest innovators of rock
drumming and believe that he has been one of the greatest influences
on rock drumming today... Ringo has influenced drummers more than they
will ever realize or admit. Ringo laid down the fundamental rock beat
that drummers are playing today and they probably don't even realize
it. (Modern Drummer,Oct. 1987) . . Ringo always approached the song
more like a songwriter than a drummer. He always served the music."
(Modern Drummer, Dec. 1987)
Editor of Modern Drummer magazine, presenting the Editor's Achievement
Award to Ringo -- "What is beyond question is Ringo's impact on an
entire generation of drummers who first became drummers as a direct
result of seeing and hearing him play in the early days of The
Beatles. Literally hundreds of thousands of players -- including some
of the greatest drummers playing today -- cite Ringo as their first
motivating influence."
Max Weinberg -- "D. J. Fontana had introduced me to the power of the
big beat. Ringo convinced me just how powerful that rhythm could be.
Ringo's beat was heard around the world and he drew the spotlight
toward rock and roll drummer. From ;his matched grip style to his
pioneering use of staggered tom tom fills, his influence in rock
drumming was as important and wide spread as Gene Krupa's had been in
jazz." (The Big Beat, 1984)
Jim Keltner -- "I will always be there to support him. He's more than
a dear friend. He's like an idol. He's everything to me. I still think
of him musically every time I sit down and play drums. He's a very
important guy to me. (Discoveries magazine, April 1993)
Phil Collins, drummer for Genesis -- "I think he's vastly underrated.
The drum fills on A Day In The Life are very complex things. You could
take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' They
wouldn't know what to do." (interview for The Making of Sgt. Pepper,
1992)
Alex Van Halen -- " One of the most interesting things about Ringo is
how he manage to maintain a level of self-esteem -- in addition to
being a great player, of course. But he wasn't overshadowed as a human
being by McCartney, Lennon or Harrison. I think he did a wonderful
thing for drums because drummers would see him and think, "Hey, he's
part of it, too." (Modern Drummer magazine, July 1993)
Andy Sturmer, drummer for Jellyfish -- "Ringo is a great guy and
really amazing drummer. He has that feel that's between a shuffle and
straight eights -- Ringo territory that nobody else can do. He played
some amazing stuff on that (Time Takes Time) album." ( Modern Drummer,
Aug. 1993)
Rory Storm -- "During the four or five years Ringo was with us, he
really played the drums. He drove them. He sweated and swung and sung.
Ringo sang about five numbers a night. He even had his own spot. It
was called 'Ringo Starrtime.' " (Beatles Companion by Ted Greenwald)
D. J. Fontana -- "I was playing maracas or something behind him, just
listening to him. I swear he never varied the tempo. He played that
back beat and never got off it. Man, you couldn't have moved him with
a crane. It was amazing. He played a hell of a back beat, Man, and
that's where it's at." (interview for The Big Beat by Max Weinberg)
Don Was -- "As a drummer, he influenced three generations of rock
drummers. It's not very flashy playing, but it's very musical. Instead
of just counting the bars, he's playing the song, and he puts fills in
unusual places that are directed by the vocal." (The St. Louis Post
Dispatch, 1992)
George Martin -- "Ringo always got and still gets a unique sound out
of his drums, as sound as distinctive as his voice. ... Ringo gets a
looser deeper sound out of his drums that is unique. ...This detailed
attention to the tone of his drums is one of the reasons for Ringo's
brilliance. Another is that although Ringo does not keep time with a
metronome accuracy, he has unrivaled feel for a song. If his timing
fluctuates, it invariably does so in the right place at the right
time, keep the right atmosphere going on the track and give it a rock
solid foundation. This held true for every single Beatles number
Richie played ... Ringo also was a great tom tom player." ( Summer of
Love, 1994)
Mike Finkelstein -- "If you have ever been in a band where you had to
recreate Beatle songs, you would have realized that Ringo Starr was no
slouch. Those drum parts were very tricky and subtle. He did have a
special ability to create interesting rhythmic structures within the
music. This gave the Beatles a unique sound without loosing that
distinctive drive in rock and roll. ... Ringo moved smoothly from
verse to chorus without loosing the groove by subtly changing a
texture in the rhythm. Ringo is an important drummer to study well."
(Teach Yourself Rock Drumming, 1979)
Bob Cianci -- "He must have done something right. People today still
look for people who play like Ringo. If you don't believe me, just
check the musical ads. On top of all this, he certainly inspired
countless millions of teenagers worldwide to learn drums. There's no
doubt it, Ringo's a very important rock drummer. ... What Ringo does
on the most basic of terms is make the music feel good. He refers to
his playing as being fraught with silly fills due to his self-admitted
lack of technique, but he says it proudly. ... Sometimes chops do not
a real drummer make." (Great Rock Drummers of the 60s, 1989)
Peter Blake -- "Ringo is one of the most important drummers of the
20th century. While he hasn't got any technique to speak of, he
realizes how important It is for a song to feel good. His feel is
absolutely tremendous. He got some great sounds on the Beatles
records. It wasn't all production and microphones, a lot of it was
down to the way he tuned them. ... He has tremendous basic ability.
Obviously there were people playing in a straight-forward manner
before him, but he had a definite feel and he changed pop drumming
around. He changed the sound from hat of the high-pitched jazz
drummers. I think he's tremendous." (Speaking Words of Wisdom)
Mark Lewisohn -- "It is true that on only a handful of occasions
during all of the several hundred session tapes and thousands of
recording hours can Ringo be heard to have made a mistake or wavered
in his beat. His work was remarkably consistent and excellent, from
1962 right through 1970." ( The Beatles Recording Sessions, 1988)
George Martin -- "Ringo has a tremendous feel for a song and he always
helped us hit the right tempo the first time. He was rock solid. This
made the recording of all the Beatle songs so much easier."
(interviewed in 1988 for The Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark
Lewisohn)
Tim Riley -- "Ringo wanted to serve the songs rather than show off. As
a song writer's drummer, Ringo was the type of musician who could
follow instructions as he completed the overall sound. His commitment
to the music was bigger than his ego." ( Tell Me Why, 1988)
Kenny Aronoff -- "He consistently came up with new ideas that always
seemed perfect for the song, but it wasn't just a matter of him
picking a basic beat for a song, because lots of drummers could do
that. Ringo definitely had the right kind of personality and creative
ideas for The Beatles music. You will rarely find a Beatles song
without something noticeable that Ringo played or didn't play."
(Modern Drummer magazine, Oct. 1987)
Al Kooper -- "Sgt. Pepper was the album that changed drumming more
than anything else. Before that album, drum fills in rock and roll
were pretty rudimentary, all much the same, and this record had what I
call space fills where they would leave a tremendous amount of air. It
was most appealing to me musically and the sound of the drums got much
better. What I had to figure out now was what am I going to do to get
drums to sound like that." (Summer of Love by George Martin, 1994)
Martin Torgoff -- "If I could think of a single passage in which
Ringo's quintessential style as a drummer is most identifiable, it
could well be something as, say, the drumming behind George's guitar
solo in Paul's "Let It Be" after the organ trails off. There, in
simple 4-4 time, Ringo comes in with a trademark thump of his base
drum, clear tattering snare, and his insistent smashing of the high
hat, unvarying, unyielding, yet distinctively Ringo, and you can't
help but smile not for its banality but because it is so perfectly
adequate and because one can readily envision Ringo behind his kit as
he plays, his beringed fingers clutching his sticks, swaying
beatifically from side to side as he gets on with his work, blinking
those astonishingly saturnine blue eyes." (The Compleat Beatles, 1985)
Dino Danelli, drummer for The Rascals -- "I liked him. He had great
style. I never saw anyone play the way he did. I liked his simplicity.
(1984 interview for The Big Beat by Max Weinberg)
George Martin -- "I did quickly realize that Ringo was an excellent
drummer for what was required. He's not a technical drummer. Men like
Buddy Rich and Gene Krupa would run rings around him, but he is a good
solid rock drummer with a steady beat, and he knows how to get the
right sound out of his drums. Above all, he does have an individual
sound. You can tell Ringo's drums from anyone else's and that
character was a definite asset to the Beatles' early recordings." (All
You Need Is Ears, 1979)
Mike McCartney -- "There were quite a few drummers around Liverpool
and I used to go home and tell Paul about Ringo. I often saw him play
with Rory Storm. ...With Rory he was a very inventive drummer. He goes
around the drums like crazy. He doesn't just hit them -- he invents
sounds." (1983 interview for The Beatles: A Celebration by Geoffrey
Guilliano, 1992)
Max Weinberg -- "More than any other drummer, Ringo Starr changed my
life. The impact and memory of that band on Ed Sullivan Show in 1964
will never leave me. I can still see Ringo in the back moving that
beat with his whole body, his right hand swinging off his sock cymbal
while his left hand pounds the snare. He was fantastic, but I think
what got to me the most was his smile. I knew he was having the time
of his life." (The Big Beat, 1984)
Lenny Kaye -- "He was always meant to be utilitarian, a drummer to
provide feisty beat. He did this directly with wit imagination and the
famous Ringo personality. And his Spartan Ludwig kit showed his
ability to cut economically to the heart of the rhythm." (interview
for The Compleat Beatles, 1985)
Martin Torgoff -- "As a drummer, he was a natural, purely intuitive,
remarkably tasteful, spirited, but always basic, a proponent of less
is more school of minimal drumming. ...He had an uncanny understanding
of John's rhythm and Paul's base line. Time and again, the Beatles
rode his backbeat to glory. Precisely because he never overstated a
beat, or over accented a phrase (unless it was appropriate) he managed
to get more mileage out of his licks than most drummers could ever
dream of. The results were extraordinary." (The Compleat Beatles,
1985)
Don Was -- "Ringo's drums are one of the greatest things you can have
on a record."
Buddy Rich -- "Ringo Starr was adequate. No more than that." (Speaking
Words of Wisdom by Spencer Leigh [Leigh's note: "Buddy Rich's opinions
were as forceful as his drumming. So don't be dismayed, Ringo, he
paying you a compliment."])
Dave Ballinger -- "Technically brilliant drummers do not necessary
make good rock drummers. ...You don't have to be a technical Buddy
Rich type drummer, you just need to be inventive. He (Ringo) did
things I would never have thought of doing." (interview for Speaking
Words of Wisdom)
Chris Whitten -- " I think I understand why he (Paul) loves Ringo, now
after working with him. Paul loves 50s Rock 'n' Roll and Ringo is a
great 50s Rock 'n' Roll drummer." (Rhythm magazine, 1990)
Hal Howland -- "It is fascinating to trace the drummer's stylistic
development from rock-steady club veteran to studio innovator ...
Ringo's command of an exhaustive list of arrangements and new
originals is matched only by his versitility. (review for Modern
Drummer magazine, June 1995)
Anders Viberg
chewbop <
> Anders did a nice job of sidestepping the questions he wouldn't....or
> couldn't....answer. I expected no less.
>
> OK, this one is for Anders and Francie....let's see who actually wins this
> argument.
Me and Francie together feels rather...unusual.
>My question to Anders is this: If Ringo has such a friggin' "distinctive,"
> "unique," and "original" drumming style....as you keep telling us ad
> nauseam....
I don't remember saying this.
Taking single words out. *That* is not changing a quote then?
>how come you weren't able to tell instantly which of Ringo's
> White Album drum tracks Paul overdubbed and which ones he didn't?? And
> don't try to tell us you did, because you had to do some research before
you
> made your silly pronouncements about Ringo supposedly being on vacation
> during this track and that track, blah, blah, blah.....
Now it's wrong doing research too...
How *instant* did I have to be? I didn't know I had a responsibility
answering "instantly".
I like to think before my mouth leaks, it avoids you from going into trouble
all too easily.
I knew these things before but supporting your opinions with facts and dates
and places and times and names and sources does help I think.
And besides, YOU said that Paul overdubbed Ringo's tracks, I said he didn't
and I gave you the facts that showed you, you are wrong.
About my "silly pronouncements about Ringo supposedly being on vacation
during this track and that track, blah, blah, blah....."
Well, it's well documented that Ringo went on a "vacation" during the
recordings and which
songs J,P and G recorded without him. Blah, blah, blah....
Francie might help you with more details there.
> I look forward to your reply. We all do.
Who's we, your 8 year old?
Say hello from me!
/Anders
Anders Viberg
chewbop
> No one is suggesting that Ringo should have gone to drumming school,
> although it certainly wouldn't have hurt him any. The fact remains that
> when George Martin...a skilled musician in his own right...first heard
Ringo
> play at the Love Me Do sessions on Sept. 4, 1962, he quickly dismissed the
> Beatles, got on the phone to Andy White, called the Beatles back to
London,
> and put Ringo on maracas or tambourine or something equally
innocuous....in
> order to basically get him out of the way. You cannot deny that no matter
> how much you sing Ringo's praises. And Ringo can't deny it no matter how
> much he tries to rewrite history in his old age.
Do you know that Beatles contested in a "TV star search" in 1959 and lost.
According to your reasoning they should have realised they were no good then
and should just go on home and become bakers and electricians or whatever,
and give up their music because they were forever condemned as not being
good enough.
Besides from doing some real wild interpretations of the actual events, you
are saying that if you being refused once you should be living with that all
your life.
Haven't you ever been turned down by a girl (or a boy depending upon your
taste)?
What do you do after that? Just lay yourself down and die?
You keep on doing what you believe in, find new ways and new friends and
lovers.
Then one day you eventually reached your goal you've done something good,
you can say to the one who refused you; ha ha, you was wrong you should have
known it.
I think Ringo really showed George Martin he was wrong rejecting him that
day. And I know Sir George knows he was wrong doing it and still feels
guilty for doing so.
Ringo proved that he was the right one.
/Anders
Anders Viberg
chewbop <
> More evasions as predicted. How come you always put the word "vacation"
in
> quotes when you refer to Ringo quitting the group in summer 1968? Just
> curious.
Well, are you really so ignorant as you appears to be?
That's his own words. (I just listened to his CD "Storytellers" and he says
in fact "Holiday", he says something similar in the "Anthology")
He went to Sardinia to take a rest from the group and the recording sessions
that was becoming tense.
It was of course a big hush-hush about this, they wouldn't want the public
to know.
It wasn't a regular vacation, he wasn't supposed to be on Sardinia, he was
supposed to be in London recording.
That's why it's a "vacation" to me.
He then came back two weeks later.
What are you on?
I don't know what's the big deal.
chocolate jesus
chewbop <che...@webcombo.net> wrote in message news:397e3388_5@apollo...
> My question to Anders is this: If Ringo has such a friggin'
"distinctive,"
> "unique," and "original" drumming style....as you keep telling us ad
> White Album drum tracks Paul overdubbed and which ones he didn't??
anyone can pick maccas drumming.
he's a salad tosser.
ringo was the best drummer in the beatles by a country mile.
if you dont think so, you just dont know what you're talking about.
Jeremy Boob
Techniques. He gave his opinion. As you said, your 8 year old can
stomp out a recognizable beat, Ringo was certainly able to do the same
and more when he met GM.
Ringo had something many many 'technical' drummers don't have. STYLE.
A recognizable style. His backward fills are legend. He did it 'his
way', and he did superbly. After all, who can do Ringo better than
Ringo?
Mike D'Aversa
> Buddy Rich, one of the greatest drummers in history, was once asked some
> question about Ringo's drumming on a talk show. He never answered because
> he didn't hear the entire question. And the reason he didn't hear it is
> because he was laughing so hard.
Isn't Buddy Rich the drummer everybody laughs at because of his style of
over-playing on everything? The complete antithesis of Ringo. Now I
understand why you dislike Ringo, you lack good taste!
Mike D'Aversa
mjd...@enter.net
> Your post is so off-the-wall, I just couldn't resist responding:
>
> "paramucho" <i...@beathoven.com> wrote in message
> news:39853644...@news.remarq.com...
> > On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:27:42 -0400, "chewbop" <che...@webcombo.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > This is a ridiculous debate. Ringo Starr is the most successful
> > drummer of the last century. The Beatles would *never* have produced
> > the albums they did from 1966 on without his creative input.
>
> Let me see if I understand your latest preposterous pronouncement from on
> high. You're suggesting that without Ringo, the Beatles would never have
> produced Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and Abbey Road? Is that really what
you're
> trying to say? You'll notice I left out the White Album because...for the
> most part...Ringo didn't play on it. Yet in spite of that (or perhaps
> because of it), the album was one of the Beatles' most successful. But do
> you realize the sheer absurdity of what you're saying??? PLEASE think
> before you speak.
> >
> > Art is not physics and no musician in his/her right mind plays like a
> > metronome. If you want skilled virtuosos, then go to music schools,
> > they breed them on a production line basis. They can play stuff at age
> > six that no Beatle would ever approach. So what? When was technique
> > ever the criteria for measuring a pop artist?
>
> No one is suggesting that Ringo should have gone to drumming school,
> although it certainly wouldn't have hurt him any. The fact remains that
> when George Martin...a skilled musician in his own right...first heard
Ringo
> play at the Love Me Do sessions on Sept. 4, 1962, he quickly dismissed the
> Beatles, got on the phone to Andy White, called the Beatles back to
London,
> and put Ringo on maracas or tambourine or something equally
innocuous....in
> order to basically get him out of the way. You cannot deny that no matter
> how much you sing Ringo's praises. And Ringo can't deny it no matter how
> much he tries to rewrite history in his old age.
>
> > What Ringo Starr had was impeccable taste
>
> Oh really? Do you remember how he looked during his Yassar Arafat stage??
> Have you ever seen a rock star...other than maybe Frank Zappa...who went
to
> such great lengths to make himself look ugly and unappealing? Don't get
me
> wrong. Ringo was not a bad-looking guy, but I've never seen anyone go to
> such lengths to purposely make himself so physically unappealing.
> Impeccable taste? My ass.
>
> >and I know no other drummer
> > who can transmit the passion he does when simply playing eight hi hat
> > strokes in a bar. Each stroke that he plays means something.
>
> HUH?? Please pick a specific song and interpret for us each and every one
> of his "strokes in a bar" for us. Please don't evade this request.
>
> >His creativity on the drum kit was a match for the most creative band in
> > history. That's how I measure a pop artist.
>
>
> 'Nuff said.
darrenm3
is this: if he wasn't any good, how could you possibly be such a
fan of The Beatles music?
The drums on many many Beatle tracks are quite an integral part
of the music - and generally take place in nearly every part of
those songs......
I just don't think a lot of people realise what Ringo is
contributing to the overall sound picture.
The second thing that puzzles me is that nobody ever seems to
offer up a replacement drummer suggestion for Ringo. This is
because what Ringo did was perfect for The Beatles IMHO.
Nyarlathotep
darrenm3 <darrenm...@cpalace.com.au.invalid> wrote:
> The thing that puzzles me when people criticise Ringo's drumming
> is this: if he wasn't any good, how could you possibly be such a
> fan of The Beatles music?
Who alleges that "Ringo wasn't any good"?
I mean, there have been claims in here that Ringo's timekeeping
wasn't always flawless -- but that's hardly the same thing as saying
that "Ringo wasn't any good."
> The drums on many many Beatle tracks are quite an integral part
> of the music - and generally take place in nearly every part of
> those songs......
Ringo made some nice contributions to Beatle songs. But that
doesn't place us under any obligation to venerate every damned part he
layed down (as Paul found out).
> I just don't think a lot of people realise what Ringo is
> contributing to the overall sound picture.
I think that even Ringo's harshest critics (who might they be? the
ones who were not scintillated by his caveman film?) will concede that
he "contributed to the overall sound" of the Beatles.
> The second thing that puzzles me is that nobody ever seems to
> offer up a replacement drummer suggestion for Ringo. <snip>
Why would they? The records under discussion have (for the most
part) already been made.
Anyway, criticizing Ringo doesn't entail the obligation of
"offering up" a "replacement drummer" for Ringo. Ringo could be the
only drummer in existence -- & still make some mistakes.
>This is
> because what Ringo did was perfect for The Beatles IMHO.
What he did was usually very good. It doesn't mean that the
occasional part could not have been better.
paramucho
wrote:
>Your post is so off-the-wall, I just couldn't resist responding:
>
>"paramucho" <i...@beathoven.com> wrote in message
>news:39853644...@news.remarq.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:27:42 -0400, "chewbop" <che...@webcombo.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> This is a ridiculous debate. Ringo Starr is the most successful
>> drummer of the last century. The Beatles would *never* have produced
>> the albums they did from 1966 on without his creative input.
>
>Let me see if I understand your latest preposterous pronouncement from on
>high. You're suggesting that without Ringo, the Beatles would never have
>produced Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and Abbey Road? Is that really what you're
>trying to say? You'll notice I left out the White Album because...for the
>most part...Ringo didn't play on it.
We'll stop right there for now. You say that for the "most part" Ringo
didn't play on it. Please tell which tracks he didn't play on. Some
are well known:
Here's my own rough working analysis of who played what on that album.
L M H S M Glass Onion
L M H S M Revolution #1 (slow)
L M H S Hopkins Revolution
L M H S M Cry Baby Cry
L M H S T The Continuing Story Of Bungalow Bill
L M H S Happiness Is A Warm Gun
L M H S I'm So Tired
L M H S Yer Blues
L M H S Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except Me An
L M H S Revolution [#2] -- fast
L M H S Sexy Sadie
L M H Dear Prudence
L H Revolution 9
L H What's The New Maryjane
S M Good Night
L Julia
L M H S Birthday
L M H S M Ob La Di, Ob La Da
L M H S Helter Skelter
L M H S Hey Jude
L M HbS M Honey Pie
L M H Back In The U.S.S.R.
LbM S Rocky Raccoon
LpM S I Will
LpM S Can You Take Me Back
M S M Martha My Dear
M S Why Don't We Do It In The Road
M M Mother Nature's Son
M Wild Honey Pie
M Blackbird
L M H S T Piggies
L M H S Not Guilty
? M H S Clapton While My Guitar Gently Weeps
M H S T Savoy Truffle
M H S Long Long Long
M S M Don't Pass Me By
Ian
robertandrews
>Who alleges that "Ringo wasn't any good"?
The question was about technique. For the sake of comparison, and since I'm
not a drummer but a piano player, I asked if George Martin was technically
better on the piano than Paul, and why.
So far, zero responses.
paramucho
I guess Martin was better on piano when they started but he's never
said he was much chop. He often slowed the tapes down so that he could
get the timing right. His primary instrument was the oboe, not the
piano.
Ian
JLS
If you're McCarrtney vs. If you're lennon:
Tell something nice about Paul McCartney: you are a revisionist or biased.
Tell something nice about John Lennon: you are telling The truth.
It's very hard for the hardcore Lennonist to learn that the truth is
somewhat different than "John Lennon the experimental and Paul The safe
one".
JLS
paramucho
wrote:
>
>Martin did indeed say that Paul was a better drummer technically than anyone
>in the group, including (and especially) Ringo. But what good is a drummer
>if he can't master the technical aspects of drumming. Good Lord, my 8-year
>old can bang on a drum and he certainly has a very distinctive
>style....LOL!! But technically, he's a beginner....as is Ringo. And that's
>according to George Martin, not just me.
I think George Martin can answer you better than we can dear Chewbop:
George Martin -- "Ringo always got and still gets a unique sound out
of his drums, as sound as distinctive as his voice. ... Ringo gets a
looser deeper sound out of his drums that is unique. ...This detailed
attention to the tone of his drums is one of the reasons for Ringo's
brilliance.
Another is that although Ringo does not keep time with a metronome
accuracy, he has unrivaled feel for a song.
If his timing fluctuates, it invariably does so in the right place
at the right time, keep the right atmosphere going on the track and
give it a rock solid foundation. This held true for every single
Beatles number Richie played ... Ringo also was a great tom tom
player."
( Summer of Love, 1994)
George Martin -- "Ringo has a tremendous feel for a song and he always
helped us hit the right tempo the first time. He was rock solid. This
made the recording of all the Beatle songs so much easier."
(interviewed in 1988 for The Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark
Lewisohn)
paramucho
wrote:
>Your post is so off-the-wall, I just couldn't resist responding:
>
>"paramucho" <i...@beathoven.com> wrote in message
>news:39853644...@news.remarq.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:27:42 -0400, "chewbop" <che...@webcombo.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> This is a ridiculous debate. Ringo Starr is the most successful
>> drummer of the last century. The Beatles would *never* have produced
>> the albums they did from 1966 on without his creative input.
>
>Let me see if I understand your latest preposterous pronouncement from on
>high. You're suggesting that without Ringo, the Beatles would never have
>produced Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and Abbey Road?
They may well have produced great albums, but they would have been
quite different without Starr. Starting with REVOLVER he becomes a
real musical force. He's all over PEPPER in a big way and provides a
totally distinctive sound particularly in the period between PEPPER
and the WHITE ALBUM. I could go on...
I don't see anything preposterous in my statement at all and I believe
that his talents and impact on the group are widely recognised.
> Is that really what you're
>trying to say? You'll notice I left out the White Album because...for the
>most part...Ringo didn't play on it. Yet in spite of that (or perhaps
>because of it), the album was one of the Beatles' most successful. But do
>you realize the sheer absurdity of what you're saying??? PLEASE think
>before you speak.
I've answered your very own preposterous statement separately (i.e.
your assertion that Starr played on less than half the songs). I don't
think his impact on that album was as great as it was on the other
albums I mentioned. However, to respond your point (which I don't
quite understand) regarding the popularity of the WHITE ALBUM, I think
it is also widely recognised that the three albums of the Beatles most
likely to top a popularity poll are just those three I mentioned:
REVOLVER, PEPPER and ABBEY ROAD.
>> Art is not physics and no musician in his/her right mind plays like a
>> metronome. If you want skilled virtuosos, then go to music schools,
>> they breed them on a production line basis. They can play stuff at age
>> six that no Beatle would ever approach. So what? When was technique
>> ever the criteria for measuring a pop artist?
>
>No one is suggesting that Ringo should have gone to drumming school,
>although it certainly wouldn't have hurt him any. The fact remains that
>when George Martin...a skilled musician in his own right...first heard Ringo
>play at the Love Me Do sessions on Sept. 4, 1962, he quickly dismissed the
>Beatles, got on the phone to Andy White, called the Beatles back to London,
>and put Ringo on maracas or tambourine or something equally innocuous....in
>order to basically get him out of the way. You cannot deny that no matter
>how much you sing Ringo's praises. And Ringo can't deny it no matter how
>much he tries to rewrite history in his old age.
I don't what that has to do with a general appraisal of Starr's skills
at all. You choose some arbitrary incident from the start of the
Beatles' career in which George Martin managed to mix up most of the
roles in the band (who played rhythm, who played lead (harp), who sang
the chorus) which is totally meaningless in the context of Starr's
career with the Beatles. Additionally I've posted other remarks from
Martin giving credit to Starr in explicit terms in many different
ways. So I see you response as a red herring, but it doesn't deal with
my point at all.
>> What Ringo Starr had was impeccable taste
>
>Oh really? Do you remember how he looked during his Yassar Arafat stage??
>Have you ever seen a rock star...other than maybe Frank Zappa...who went to
>such great lengths to make himself look ugly and unappealing? Don't get me
>wrong. Ringo was not a bad-looking guy, but I've never seen anyone go to
>such lengths to purposely make himself so physically unappealing.
>Impeccable taste? My ass.
I think, if you forgive me, that you must be drinking Troll Juice.
What on earth has that to do with drumming?
>>and I know no other drummer
>> who can transmit the passion he does when simply playing eight hi hat
>> strokes in a bar. Each stroke that he plays means something.
>
>HUH?? Please pick a specific song and interpret for us each and every one
>of his "strokes in a bar" for us. Please don't evade this request.
You want me to interpret "musical" meaning in "words"? Let me tell you
what really bugs me about DOUBLE FANTASY.
Rock playing is essential fairly simple in terms of performance
skills. The problem with DOUBLE FANTASY is that also *sounds* simple.
When Lennon has the drummer playing his typical backing drum pattern
it sounds trivial. It sounds like the (fantastic) drummer is bored
shitless just tapping eight in the bar on the hi hat. He's not
listening to Lennon sing or the rest of the band play. He's a midi
device.
Starr always sounds to me like his listening to the song on *every*
stroke. That's why I mean by "meaning" : musical semantics.
Ian
You don't need to be a complete musician in a band -- you can play the
tricks you've learned and fudge or skip the rest. You don't get given
a score so you work out what you can do.
The problem
>>His creativity on the drum kit was a match for the most creative band in
>> history. That's how I measure a pop artist.
>
>Buddy Rich, one of the greatest drummers in history, was once asked some
robertandrews
>Starr always sounds to me like his listening to the song on *every* stroke.
That's why I mean by "meaning" : musical semantics.
Excellent points. Chemistry of the band is so important. Switch Keith Moon
& Ringo, I don't know what the hell we would get with either group.
Also, thanks for the George Martin quote -- he must have been more lucid
that day.
phil
But ya know what, Ringo's still the most famous drummer in the world & will
continue to be.
I don't understand it at all - why after 30 odd years are people still trying
to lessen
his contributions to the Beatles music?
Whilst he may not have any where near the technical ability that Buddy Rich
had, he made up
for that with a great feel for the songs & top notch time keeping - it's only
rock n' roll & the
1st rule of great rock n' roll drumming is time keeping, Charlie Watts has the
same qualities.
I'll go away now
Phil
Mike D'Aversa wrote:
> "chewbop" <che...@webcombo.net> wrote in message news:397e3db8_5@apollo...
> > Buddy Rich, one of the greatest drummers in history, was once asked some
> > question about Ringo's drumming on a talk show. He never answered because
> > he didn't hear the entire question. And the reason he didn't hear it is
> > because he was laughing so hard.
>
> Isn't Buddy Rich the drummer everybody laughs at because of his style of
> over-playing on everything? The complete antithesis of Ringo. Now I
> understand why you dislike Ringo, you lack good taste!
>
> Mike D'Aversa
> mjd...@enter.net
>
> > Your post is so off-the-wall, I just couldn't resist responding:
> >
> > "paramucho" <i...@beathoven.com> wrote in message
> > news:39853644...@news.remarq.com...
> > > On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:27:42 -0400, "chewbop" <che...@webcombo.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a ridiculous debate. Ringo Starr is the most successful
> > > drummer of the last century. The Beatles would *never* have produced
> > > the albums they did from 1966 on without his creative input.
> >
> > Let me see if I understand your latest preposterous pronouncement from on
> > high. You're suggesting that without Ringo, the Beatles would never have
> > produced Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and Abbey Road? Is that really what
> you're
> > trying to say? You'll notice I left out the White Album because...for the
> > most part...Ringo didn't play on it. Yet in spite of that (or perhaps
> > because of it), the album was one of the Beatles' most successful. But do
> > you realize the sheer absurdity of what you're saying??? PLEASE think
> > before you speak.
> > >
> > > Art is not physics and no musician in his/her right mind plays like a
> > > metronome. If you want skilled virtuosos, then go to music schools,
> > > they breed them on a production line basis. They can play stuff at age
> > > six that no Beatle would ever approach. So what? When was technique
> > > ever the criteria for measuring a pop artist?
> >
> > No one is suggesting that Ringo should have gone to drumming school,
> > although it certainly wouldn't have hurt him any. The fact remains that
> > when George Martin...a skilled musician in his own right...first heard
> Ringo
> > play at the Love Me Do sessions on Sept. 4, 1962, he quickly dismissed the
> > Beatles, got on the phone to Andy White, called the Beatles back to
> London,
> > and put Ringo on maracas or tambourine or something equally
> innocuous....in
> > order to basically get him out of the way. You cannot deny that no matter
> > how much you sing Ringo's praises. And Ringo can't deny it no matter how
> > much he tries to rewrite history in his old age.
> >
> > > What Ringo Starr had was impeccable taste
> >
> > Oh really? Do you remember how he looked during his Yassar Arafat stage??
> > Have you ever seen a rock star...other than maybe Frank Zappa...who went
> to
> > such great lengths to make himself look ugly and unappealing? Don't get
> me
> > wrong. Ringo was not a bad-looking guy, but I've never seen anyone go to
> > such lengths to purposely make himself so physically unappealing.
> > Impeccable taste? My ass.
> >
> > >and I know no other drummer
> > > who can transmit the passion he does when simply playing eight hi hat
> > > strokes in a bar. Each stroke that he plays means something.
> >
> > HUH?? Please pick a specific song and interpret for us each and every one
> > of his "strokes in a bar" for us. Please don't evade this request.
> >
> > >His creativity on the drum kit was a match for the most creative band in
> > > history. That's how I measure a pop artist.
> >
> >
Anders Viberg
> George Martin -- "Ringo always got and still gets a unique sound out
> of his drums, as sound as distinctive as his voice.
There's those words "distintictive" and "unique" that chewbop claimed that I
used.
He must think I'm George Martin then, or maybe I am.
/Anders
Derek J. Larsson
Generally speaking I think Martin has made accurate comments
on songwriting .. much of the pro-Lennon commentary was not
included in your post ....
Martin gives Lennon credit for the "A Day In The Life" buildup
idea in "All You Need Is Ears" describing the specific details of
conversation he had with Lennon about the concept. He was far
more specific and detailed about John's input than he was about
Paul's (other than to give him credit). It is difficult to reconcile
this except to say that he is probably describing two aspects of
the same thing (Paul's idea for an orchestra & John's dialog about
a 'great expanding sound' ).
In "With A Little Help From My Friends" he compares Lennon
not to Andrew Lloyd Webber but to surreal artist Salvidor Dali
which says a great deal about what Lennon's role was as far as
"weird and wonderfulness" and avante garde impact on popular music.
If Lennon is compared to Dali - that answers hands down where the
source of the weirdness was. Webber was not "weird" at all
Dali made a legendary career out of it.
As for these comments:
> "Of all the Beatles Paul was the most talented musician.
I disagree. George Harrison was by far the most technically
accomplished on his instrument - which is evident from listening
to their records. Paul could play several instruments well.
All of them could switch off to different instruments.
But George was the most proficient guitarist.
"George came along and knew more chords than either one of us
[him and Paul] ... a -Lot- more chords."
-John Lennon on George Harrison
>
> musicianship. Paul could play the drums, technically, better than any of
> the others, including Ringo
I disagree. Paul's drumming in things like: "Back In the USSR" and
"Sgt. Pepper Reprise" and "Why Don't We Do It In The Road"
is very simple and straightforward. Very "white-guy" sounding.
The best drum tracks are things like: "I Feel Fine", "Rain",
"Tommorrow Never Knows" "Strawberry Fields" "A Day In the Life"
and his Abbey Road stuff ("The End").
Ringo was "the drummer" in the band ... Paul was
only a substitute, lightweight drummer at best.
> Paul took over the
> most difficult instrument to play with any originality in a rock 'n' roll
> band: the bass guitar."
WOW ... I disagree again. Granted Paul was fine Bass Player,
but every Rock band I have played in the Bass Guitarist was
an ex-guitar player who lost out to other people on the role of
guitar player (because others could do it better) and moved to
Bass Guitar .. because the Bass Guitar Parts (single notes)
are easier to play than the full spectrum of Rythmn & Lead guitar parts.
Paul himself was a guitar player turned bass player for
that exact same reason (George emerged as the soloist &
John held the Rythmn+ ground).
Rock Bass guitar (as opposed Jazz and Classical) is by no
means the most difficult instrument to play - no way!!
If that were true - you would have the Jimmy Page's,
Stevie Ray Vaughan's, and Eddie Van Halen's out there
starring and featuring themselves in the role of Bass Player.
A lot of Bass playing is very very simple
(listen to how simple the bass is for: "Can't Buy Me Love")..
Bias .... it does appear like there is a little bias there.
The musical complexity and sophistication of
Lennon's chord progressions (i.e., "Because", "Julia")
seem to escape much notice (except by transcribers).
-- Derek
======================================================
Derek J. Larsson EMail: derek_...@3com.com
======================================================
JLS
Derek J. Larsson skrev i meldingen <397F4D32...@3com.com>...
>
>
> Generally speaking I think Martin has made accurate comments
> on songwriting .. much of the pro-Lennon commentary was not
> included in your post ....
>
> Martin gives Lennon credit for the "A Day In The Life" buildup
> idea in "All You Need Is Ears" describing the specific details of
> conversation he had with Lennon about the concept
Well....I can count at least 5 times(first one in 1971) where he's said
that Paul was the one with the orchestral climax idea and I've even heard it
from his own mouth....( The making of sgt. pepper multimedia show).
But I guess you will never buy that..( it doesn't fit your fiction of John
the avant garde and Paul the safe one).
JLS
Derek J. Larsson
JLS wrote:
Sorry sweetheart ... this (below) is NOT FICTION ... and
-I- had nothing to do with it.....
____________________
"I (Martin) asked John for his ideas. [...] He said [Lennon]: 'What I'd
like to hear is a tremendous build -up of sound from nothing up to
something absolutely
like the end of the world. I'd like it to be from extreme quietness to
extreme loudness, not only in volume, but also for the sound to EXPAND
as well. I'd like to use a symphony orchestra for it. Tell you what
George, you book a symphony orchestra, and we'll get them in a studio
and tell them what to do.'"
-George Martin, "All You Need Is Ears"
Revisionism aside ... that (above) is precisely what we HEAR on the
recording itself .....
R4949
paramucho <i...@beathoven.com> wrote
> Martin's <snip> primary instrument was the oboe....
Pink or otherwise?
Actually, Martin was so crap he'd record every note on the piano at half
speed and Eric (the unsung editor at Ubby Road) edited the notes together in
the right order. This can be heard especially in Blackbird where he edited
no notes at all, thus the piano is almost non-existent on this track, thus
proving George was...
...where was I...
....NURSE.... the bed pan... quick....
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Jen, I will surely attract the flames of the usual suspects if I
> say this, but as briefly as I can, I'll say that George Martin
> was a tough, well-disciplined producer with plenty of opinions about what
> would sell and what wouldn't. It's no surprise to hear him speak
> of Paul's being the most talented musician of the four because he
> thinks in Paul's terms, about the making of hit records, an
> endless chain of them, all consistent with the "Beatles" sound and
> "Beatle" philosophy. Sweet, nice, never over the top or down to
> the nerve.
Oh yeah. That's right. The Beatles broke no new ground with their "Beatle"
sound and "Beatle" philosophy. They were just a bland teenybopper hair band,
and it was all Paul's fault. *eye roll*
> So aside from the denigration of protest songs (!) and the
> imagining John Lennon being a burnt out folkie/guru with a weird
> wife (the between the lines message has always been Yoko's terrible
> effect on John),
The not-between-the-lines message is that Martin said nothing even indirectly
about Yoko, that he didn't denigrate protest music and that his quote shows him
to be of the opinion that John's influence on Paul was extremely important.
> I just think he's become a bitter old man with a
> fluttery, confectionary Paul McCartney as his trophy Beatle.
George Martin, *bitter*? If anything, he's proud of his association with the
Beatles to a fault!
> He really had no clue about John's not being interested in spending
> the rest of his life as John Beatle, Yoko or no Yoko.
Hmmmmm. I'm sure Martin was/is mature enough to understand this. From what
I've read, Martin had more trouble understanding why John would slag him off in
public, saying how dissatisfied he was with many of his Beatles songs, without
giving Martin any kind of prior clue that there had ever been a problem.
--
northcut at mindspring dot com
Jen
--
Be nice to nerds. You'll probably end up working for one someday.
-Bill Gates
"lstoll" <lst...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:397DD6B3...@pacbell.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> fabella wrote:
> >
> > So aside from the denigration of protest songs (!)
> > and the imagining John Lennon being a burnt out
> > folkie/guru with a weird wife (the between the
> > lines message has always been Yoko's terrible
> > effect on John)
>
> "John would probably have ended up as a sort of Lou
> Reed, or Dylan figure singing protest songs in one
> form or another. Paul would probably have written
> safe, acceptable, soft, melodic songs lacking the
> acidity he absorbed from John."
>
> There's no denigration of protest songs. The thing
> about reading between the lines is that sometimes
> you read stuff that isn't there.
>
> Unlike Jen's other examples, the above quote hardly
> flatters Paul. Jen, aren't there also places in the
> book where GM speaks highly of John? -laura
Yes of course. But I felt the overall tone of the book was much more
pro-Paul, and I pulled certain quotes from the book to try and prove my
point.
Jen
Jen
--
Be nice to nerds. You'll probably end up working for one someday.
-Bill Gates
"Jeremy Boob" <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8lj98b$v0h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I think George Martin was just expressing what he saw. He has always
> been forthright. I believe his assertions are correct, though the
> flowery language they're couched in is a bit much. Surely in that book
> he has something good to say about John, obviously we're reading out of
> context.
That is true. The quotes I pulled were to try and prove a point, but
obviously he has had plenty of great things to say about John over the years
as well.
Jen
Jen
--
Be nice to nerds. You'll probably end up working for one someday.
-Bill Gates
"paramucho" <i...@beathoven.com> wrote in message
news:39ad9195...@news.remarq.com...
> On 25 Jul 2000 11:23:02 GMT, d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
>
> >>From: i...@beathoven.com (paramucho)
>
> > But I always got a distinct impression that GM leaned more towards Paul.
>
> So did I. However, if you read his book about making Pepper it is
> clear that he leans towards John's songs.
>
> Ian
And isn't it true that he wasn't crazy about "When I'm Sixty-Four" and
"Lovely Rita"? I thought I remember reading somewhere that if "Strawberry
Fields" and "Penny Lane" could have made it on the album, WISF and LR would
have been taken off.
Jen
dlarsson
"The Question was how were we going to fill those twenty-four bars
of emptiness? After all, it was pretty boring! So I asked John
for
his ideas. As always, it was a matter of trying to get inside his
mind, discover what pictures he was trying to paint. He said:
'What I'd like to hear is a tremendous buildup, from nothing to
something absolutely like the end of the world. I'd like it to be
from extreme quiteness to extreme loudness, not only in volume
but also for the sound to expand as well. I'd like to use a
symphony orchestra for it...tell you what George, you book
a symphony orchestra, and we'll get them in a studio and tell
them what to do.'
Come on John, I said, there's no way you can get a symphony
orchestra sitting around and say to them look fellers this is what
you're going to do. You've got to write something down for them.
But he did explain what he wanted sufficiently for me to be
able to write a score. What I did there was to write, at the
beginning of the twenty-four bars the lowest possible note
for each of the instruments in the orchestra. At the end of the
twenty-four bars, I wrote the highest note each instrument
could reach that was near the chord of E major. Then I
put a squiggly line right through the twenty-four bars,
with reference points to tell them roughly what note they
should have reached during the bar. I marked the music
'pianissimo' at the beginning and 'fortissimo' at the end."
Anders Viberg
Derek J. Larsson <
> > "Of all the Beatles Paul was the most talented musician.
>
> I disagree. George Harrison was by far the most technically
> accomplished on his instrument - which is evident from listening
> to their records.
I don't really want to get involved in this but...really;
What has talent got to do with being "technically accomplished".
You are born with talent.
You're practicing your technique.
You don't have to be talented to have good technique.
And vice versa.
Besides how can you compare Paul's bass and George's guitar and saying it's
evident who was the "most technically accomplished".
It's like comparing sex to ice-cream or something, I mean they're both good
in their own different way, but maybe you're more of the ice-cream type...
/Anders
Anders Viberg
lstoll wrote;
Chewbop stated:
> > Oh really? Do you remember how he looked during
> > his Yassar Arafat stage??
>
> Musical taste. You're either stupid, a jerk, or
> both. -laura
Both.
But this Arafat look??? Really, I haven't seen it, when was that.
What's his stage now? Idi Amin? Hussein? Mao? Nixon?
/Anders
paramucho
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Jen wrote:
>>
>> > Unlike Jen's other examples, the above quote hardly
>> > flatters Paul. Jen, aren't there also places in the
>> > book where GM speaks highly of John? -laura
>>
>> Yes of course. But I felt the overall tone of the book
>> was much more pro-Paul, and I pulled certain quotes
>> from the book to try and prove my point.
>
>I realize that, Jen. It just seemed as though people
>were reacting as if GM had had nothing nice to say
>about John in the boo. In fact, he said quite a few
>glowing things about him. Some books about the
>Beatles have an *anti*-Paul bias. Most books are at
>least a little bit biased since they're written by
>people ;-) -laura
You can read the book as you wish (I'm talking about "The Summer Of
Love: The making of Sgt Pepper"). The book emphasises Lennon's songs
heavily. He concludes the chapter on "Strawberry Fields Forever"
saying that it was the work of an undoubted genius.
George Martin is his own man.
Ian
Tom Hartman
<derek_...@3com.com> wrote:
> > "Of all the Beatles Paul was the most talented musician.
>
> I disagree. George Harrison was by far the most technically
> accomplished on his instrument - which is evident from listening
> to their records. Paul could play several instruments well.
> All of them could switch off to different instruments.
> But George was the most proficient guitarist.
>
> "George came along and knew more chords than either one of us
> [him and Paul] ... a -Lot- more chords."
> -John Lennon on George Harrison
Derek,
This one's a tough one. Certainly George was not "by FAR" the most
technically accomplished. One has only to listen to him attempt a solo
in the "Hard Days Night" out-takes or the "Help" out-takes to know
this. Or hear him play the lead break to "Ticket to Ride" live.
His greatest strength was in thinking of great parts to play, and then
spending a long time practicing them before putting them down on tape.
I had a conversation with Geoff Emerick once about this, and he talked
about how George would spend great amounts of time thinking of, and
then working on, the parts he recorded. This is evident on the
recordings...and contrasts sharply with his live work.
Paul was certainly as accomplished on bass as George was on guitar, and
there is a pretty strong case to be made that Paul was very close to
his equal on guitar as well, though overall, he was probably the
slightest bit stiffer. JMHO.
paramucho
wrote:
Yes, he said that "Within You" had to stay, because it was George's
song, so they were the next two he chose. If you follow his rules of
laying out an album you'll see his choice. He basically puts the
strongest material at the start and the very end of the album, with
certain provisos.
"A Day In The Life" is the "track that can't be followed", so it goes
at the end preceded by the reprise of "Sgt Pepper" for programmatic
reasons. He explains that "Good Morning" preceded the reprise because
of the link he could make from the closing chick of "Good Morning" and
the opening guitar lick on the reprise.
Preceding "Good Morning" he has the weaker tracks (in his opinion) and
they are "Rita" (which he openly dislikes) and "When I'm 64".
Here's what he said:
Sgt. Pepper...... has to be the first track, naturally. The reprise
of the song had to go last -- except that the final chord of
A Day In The Life was so final that it was obvious nothing else
could follow it... That took care of three of our tracks already.
My old precept in the recording business was always, "Make side
one strong," for obvious commercial reasons. Since the last line
of Sgt. Pepper... introduces the fictional "Billy Shears"...
A Little Help...[sic] had to come immediately after the title
track. Four down.
Lucy... was a great song: it had to go on side one. It could
hardly be more different in atmosphere and mood from A Little
Help..., so why place it after that? Well, it was because it was so
different...
Another principle of mine when assembling an album was always
to go out on a side strongly, placing weaker material towards
the end but then going out with a bang. With this in mind,
Kite... ends side one.
The songs that were least interesting had come before that and
after Lucy. She's Leaving Home was a lovely song, but it was a
bit downbeat -- it didn't exactly shout its optimism -- so I
decided to place it after the more upbeat but less worthy
Fixing A Hole and Getting Better. These were all entirely
subjective judgements of course!
When it came to Within You..., I could not for the life of
me think of anywhere to put it at all. It was so alien, mystical
and long. There was no way it could end a side, not did it sit
comfortably next to anything else on the album. The self-deprecating
laugh George had added at the end of his song game me a bizarre
idea: it could start a side, and I could follow it with a jokey
track: When I'm Sixty-Four.
A lot of people like Lovely Rita, but it was not my favourite
song, as I've said, so that one went into the middle of side two
as a bit of padding. Good Morning found its place by virtue of a
happy accident, when I noticed that the chicken squawk on the
end of the song dovetailed... neatly with the sound of the guitar
tuning up that begins the title song's reprise. Finally came the
block-buster that ends the album, A Day In The Life: nothing could
come after that final, numbing, 42-second chord.
Martin GMSP148-149
If we had not given away Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane
for the double-A-sided single of 1966, but had included them
on Pepper, what would we have dropped from the album instead?
Maybe Within You, Without You, but that would have broken the
golden rule that George Harrison always had one of his songs on
an album. So it would have been Lovely Rita and When I'm Sixty-Four.
It's fun to imagine what a re-edited Sgt. Pepper with those two
crackers might have been.
Martin GMSP150
Ian
paramucho
<tomha...@adelphia.net> wrote:
k,
>
>This one's a tough one. Certainly George was not "by FAR" the most
>technically accomplished. One has only to listen to him attempt a solo
>in the "Hard Days Night" out-takes or the "Help" out-takes to know
>this. Or hear him play the lead break to "Ticket to Ride" live.
>
>His greatest strength was in thinking of great parts to play, and then
>spending a long time practicing them before putting them down on tape.
>I had a conversation with Geoff Emerick once about this, and he talked
>about how George would spend great amounts of time thinking of, and
>then working on, the parts he recorded. This is evident on the
>recordings...and contrasts sharply with his live work.
I just reread a passage where he spent seven hours perfecting his lead
for "Sgt Pepper" (only to have them rejected by Macca).
>Paul was certainly as accomplished on bass as George was on guitar, and
>there is a pretty strong case to be made that Paul was very close to
>his equal on guitar as well, though overall, he was probably the
>slightest bit stiffer. JMHO.
That's what's said about his drumming as well.
One area where I think Harrison is unmatched is the pop song "fill". I
can't think of anyone who comes close and I think it's a far more
essential skill in a pop band.
None of them were great soloists, although George's skill certainly
picked up in 1968/1969. From then on he left McCartney and the others
for dead in the solo department IMHO.
Ian
Mike Frenchek
JLS <jl...@c2i.net> wrote in message
news:KtIf5.9117$_r3.1...@juliett.dax.net...
>
> ( it doesn't fit your fiction of Johnthe avant garde and Paul the safe
one).
Wasn't John the one that used to say, "Avant garde is French for
bullshit", before he met Yoko?
robertandrews
>None of them were great soloists, although George's skill certainly picked
up in 1968/1969. From then on he left McCartney and the others for dead in
the solo department IMHO.
I think Clapton said George was among the first in rock to play major &
minor melodies with the slide, instead of blues licks. He certainly has a
distinctive sound & feel (which reminds me, I never figured out the My Sweet
Lord slide part).
JLS
Derek J. Larsson skrev i meldingen <397F5FF4...@3com.com>...
>
>
>
> "I (Martin) asked John for his ideas. [...] He said [Lennon]:
'What I'd
>
> like to hear is a tremendous build -up of sound from nothing up to
>something absolutely
> like the end of the world. I'd like it to be from extreme
> extreme loudness, not only in volume, but also for the sound to
EXPAND
> as well. I'd like to use a symphony orchestra for it. Tell you
what
> George, you book a symphony orchestra, and we'll get them in a
studio
> and tell them what to do.'"
From 1971 melody maker interview:
"There's a little legend that says that, although John and Paul wrote the
basic components of "Day In The life," you were responsible for picking up
the pieces and sticking them together.
No, let's explain that. John had this song, which started off with his
observation, and his part was the beginning and end, and Paul's was the
middle bit. We started recording it with Paul on piano and John on guitar,
and we decided we needed another riff in it, and Paul said, "Well, I've got
this song - 'Got Up, got out of bed'," ... and he was going to make that a
separate song. He said, "You can use it if you like, put it in your one.
Will it fit?" They thoight about it for a bit and decided it would work, and
they wanted something differentin it but didn't know what. They decided that
they were going to pit a lot of just rhythm in it, and add something later.
So I said let's make it a definite number of bars, let's have 24 bars of
just rhythm in two places, and we'll decide what to do with them later. They
said "How are we going to know it's 24 bars, because it's a long time?" So
we had Mal standing by the pianocounting "One ... two ... three" and in fact
he had an alarm clock, because he was timing the thing as well, and it
actually went off. On the record you can hear Mal saying "21 ... 22 .l.." if
you listen. When we'd done it I asked them what they were going to do with
those bloody great gaps. Paul said he wanted a symphony orchestra, and I
said don't be silly, Paul, it's all right having 98 men, but you can do it
with a smaller amount. He said, "I want a symphony orchestra to freak out."
So I said "If you really want one, let me write something for it." He said,
"No, I don't want you to. If you write it, it'll be all you. Let's have just
something freaking out." I said let's be practical, you can't get an
orchestra in there and say "Freak out, fellers," because nothing would
happen. hey'd just look round embarrassed and make a few funny noises. So I
booked a 41-piece orchestra, half the normal symphony orchestra, and I spent
some time with Paul and John. i wrote out the obvious underlying harmonies,
and during the main 24-bar sections John and Paul suggested that we should
have a tremendous shreik, starting out quietly and finishing up with a
tremendous noise? "
url:
http://www.btinternet.com/~keith.webley/28_Aug.html
And that was in 1971..You will probably call that Revisionism too.
Geoff Emerick gives Paul the credit for the build up( but he is a friend of
Mccartney = biased)
Paul claims it too(Revisionism-of course)
George Martin gives Paul the credit for the idea in interviews(apart from
All You need is ears)
Making of sgt. pepper multimedia show states the same thing: " It was Pauls
idea and John was in on it"
"The all you need is ears" is not accurate. It's GM's easy way of telling
how they worked out the arrangement. Interviews before and after AYNIE-book
shows the fact: Paul came up with the idea and they all (John .Paul and
George Martin)worked out the arrangement .
But Derek: just cling to your "alll you need is ears".
JLS
paramucho
> They decided that
>they were going to pit a lot of just rhythm in it, and add something later.
>So I said let's make it a definite number of bars, let's have 24 bars of
>just rhythm in two places, and we'll decide what to do with them later.
"They" and Martin decided on the gap.
> When we'd done it I asked them what they were going to do with
>those bloody great gaps. Paul said he wanted a symphony orchestra,
Paul suggested an orchestra for the gap and a freakout. The orchestra
idea was retained.
>So I said "If you really want one, let me write something for it." He said,
>"No, I don't want you to. If you write it, it'll be all you. Let's have just
>something freaking out."
The freakout was rejected and not used.
> So I
>booked a 41-piece orchestra, half the normal symphony orchestra, and I spent
>some time with Paul and John. i wrote out the obvious underlying harmonies,
>and during the main 24-bar sections John and Paul suggested that we should
>have a tremendous shreik, starting out quietly and finishing up with a
>tremendous noise? "
This is the idea he credits to Lennon in his book. Here he credits
both of them with the shriek. The idea was not used in this form.
>And that was in 1971..You will probably call that Revisionism too.
McCartney is credited with the idea of the orchestra. The remainder is
"they", John/Paul and mostly Martin.
Anyway, great interview. Many thanks.
Ian
larr
being "stiff". I never noticed this, and think his
Taxman solo pretty nimble. I'm uncertain as to what
you mean by "stiff". As opposed to ...what? Fluid?
Can you give us some examples where Paul's playing
illustrates this "stiff" quality, and maybe some
*contrasting* examples where George is
being, well, ..."not-stiff"?
lar
In article <270720000034436409%tomha...@adelphia.net>,
Tom Hartman <tomha...@adelphia.net> wrote:
<unrelated stuff snipped>
> Paul was certainly as accomplished on bass as George was
> on guitar, and there is a pretty strong case to be made
> that Paul was very close to his equal on guitar as well,
> though overall, he was probably the slightest bit stiffer. JMHO.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
JLS
Jen wrote:
>
>That is true. The quotes I pulled were to try and prove a point, but
>obviously he has had plenty of great things to say about John over the
years
>as well.
>Jen
but has George Martin to be biased to say great things about Paul??
JLS
Anders Viberg
larr <
> Aha! There it is again! This business about Paul
> being "stiff". I never noticed this, and think his
> Taxman solo pretty nimble. I'm uncertain as to what
> you mean by "stiff". As opposed to ...what? Fluid?
> Can you give us some examples where Paul's playing
> illustrates this "stiff" quality, and maybe some
> *contrasting* examples where George is
> being, well, ..."not-stiff"?
>
> lar
What about the solo on "Good Morning, Good Morning"?
Pretty stiff, er?
/Anders
Derek J. Larsson
Tom Hartman wrote:
> In article <397F4D32...@3com.com>, Derek J. Larsson
> <derek_...@3com.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Of all the Beatles Paul was the most talented musician.
> >
> > I disagree. George Harrison was by far the most technically
> > accomplished on his instrument - which is evident from listening
> > to their records. Paul could play several instruments well.
> > All of them could switch off to different instruments.
> > But George was the most proficient guitarist.
> >
> > "George came along and knew more chords than either one of us
> > [him and Paul] ... a -Lot- more chords."
> > -John Lennon on George Harrison
>
> Derek,
>
> This one's a tough one. Certainly George was not "by FAR" the most
> technically accomplished. One has only to listen to him attempt a solo
> in the "Hard Days Night" out-takes or the "Help" out-takes to know
> this. Or hear him play the lead break to "Ticket to Ride" live.
>
> His greatest strength was in thinking of great parts to play, and then
> spending a long time practicing them before putting them down on tape.
I agree George's studio work far surpassed anything he ever did live.
I've always been disappointed with his live solo break on
"I Saw Her Standing There" in contrast to the brilliant, rockabilly
solo he does on the recording. I am not sure if part of that is
due to his "shyness" (he was the 'quiet' Beatle) or what ...
But his knowledge of chords and music was more advanced
than Paul or John which is why at such a young age .. he not only
was "allowed" into the band - but took over the lead guitar role.
IMH Paul's strength was his piano playing. In the beginning
he did not do much with piano (George Martin and John would
would add the early piano or organ parts) .. but by 1966 he started
to do a lot with piano and play it well (GoodDay Sunshine, Back In the
USSR, etc.)
As far as guitar, I prefer George & John. Their guitar work
features more bizarre & cool chord changes and more of a
blues-y, rockabilly, psychedelic, and occasionally flamenco soul.
Lennon was the group's travis-fingerpicking standout (Dear Prudence)
as well as the one with the hottest riffs: ( I Feel Fine, Day
Tripper,
Hey Bulldog, Revolution intro, Everybody's Got Something To Hide,
..etc.)
Tom Hartman
> Aha! There it is again! This business about Paul
> being "stiff". I never noticed this, and think his
> Taxman solo pretty nimble. I'm uncertain as to what
> you mean by "stiff". As opposed to ...what? Fluid?
> Can you give us some examples where Paul's playing
> illustrates this "stiff" quality, and maybe some
> *contrasting* examples where George is
> being, well, ..."not-stiff"?
>
> lar
Nimble, yes, fluid? Not really. It's a great solo, but it has a lot of
Paul's typical quick jerky bends and a lot of hammer ons. If you
really listen to most Paul solos there's an ever so slight jerkiness
about them...he does a lot of quick bends and the like...I love his
stuff, but certainly he's never played anything with the finesse of
"Till There Was You.' "Blackbird" is wonderful but a completely
different can of worms, that's fingerstyle and I'm talking about his
"picked" work. "Ticket to Ride" is his most fluid work I've heard...but
you can hear what I'm talking about in a lot of his stuff. Listen to
the third phrase of "The Night Before," for instance. When George does
get his solo down, it has more of an effortless quality to it that I
don't hear in Paul's stuff. And I'm a big fan of Paul's lead work...I
love "Another Girl," (very flowing, but the part itself is intentional
jerky in style, thus a hard one to use as a reference). It's hard to
really explain. I've spent years in bands with the guys that have that
tendency, and most people think they're just great on guitar. You
actually hear it in musicians of all types...piano players, bass
players, whatever. WIth Paul it's really only the slightest of
criticisms...it's usually me coming to his defense when people champion
George's superior playing. I don't think George was that superior to
Paul at all in his Beatle days, but his touch was definitely a cut or
so above. It's a subtle thing. PS---"Maybe I'm Amazed" is a good
example of Paul at his stiffest. ;)
robertandrews
>Aha! There it is again! This business about Paul being "stiff".
On lead guitar, I'd say he was pretty stiff. I assumed it was because he
didn't play a lot of lead, but maybe that's the sound & feel he preferred.
BIL...@webtv.net
plays...he picks notes up and down the string instead of playing a
pattern across the strings
http://www.angelfire.com/ny3/BILLNY/index.html
rwal...@my-deja.com
"JLS" <jl...@c2i.net> wrote:
>
> If you're McCarrtney vs. If you're lennon:
>
> Tell something nice about Paul McCartney: you are a revisionist or
biased.
> Tell something nice about John Lennon: you are telling The truth.
>
> It's very hard for the hardcore Lennonist to learn that the truth is
> somewhat different than "John Lennon the experimental and Paul The
safe
> one".
>
> JLS
And reverse the names and you take care of the other half of RMB.
>
--
Robert A. Walker, Ph.D.
Biological Anthropologist
Anatomist
Waterloo, New York
John Serafino
Anders Viberg <anders...@zeta.telenordia.se> wrote in message
news:8lnrd7$ecu$1...@zingo.tninet.se...
>
> Derek J. Larsson <
>
> > > "Of all the Beatles Paul was the most talented musician.
> >
> > I disagree. George Harrison was by far the most technically
> > accomplished on his instrument - which is evident from listening
> > to their records.
>
>
Yeah. They were all lining up to play like George!!!!
LOL!!!
-JS
John Serafino
Neither of these two songs ('Penny Lane' OR 'Strawberry Fields') fits the
common thread of this album.
You know the thread I mean????
The one that doesn't exist, of course.
See, all the songs on this album are about fictitious characters. The songs
are surreal sonic painting about fictitious characters that live in this
strange psychedelic world.
John said that there was no common thread. Bull. The fucking album was an
entity unto itself... perhaps so much that no one including it's creators
understood it fully.
'Penny Lane' and 'Strawberry Fields' are about Paul and John.
The album 'Sgt. Pepper' is about Sgt. Pepper, Billy Shears, Lucy In The Sky,
The Hendersons, Mr. Kite, The girl in 'She's Leaving Home', The guy in 'Good
Morning', Lovely Rita, her sister, the people in 'A Day In The Life' Vera,
Chuck, Dave, and of course YOU!
THIS is the 'Lonely Hearts Club' who live in this surreal psychedelic
world.
NONE of the songs on this album are the Beatles' best work. Then WHY is this
album not only regarded by most Beatles fans as their best album, but is
often regarded by most people as the best album ever made?
Including these two songs might have broken it. Sometimes an album is
stronger than the sum of it's parts because of the perception of the thing
as a whole. That's why an album of the best songs doesn't make the best
album.
Does anybody else see this?
-JS
John Serafino
with the idea.
Of course, in NumbNutz land, the earlier interviews are the ones that are to
be believed, unless the later ones are the ones that support your fantasies.
But if the earlier ones support your fantasies, then go with the later ones.
Yeah NumbNutz. John was THIS adventurous.
LOL You're on a roll today!!!!
LOL.
-JS
dlarsson <dlar...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:8loc9g$cqk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> HERE IS THE FULL TEXT:
>
> "The Question was how were we going to fill those twenty-four bars
> of emptiness? After all, it was pretty boring! So I asked John
> for
> his ideas. As always, it was a matter of trying to get inside his
> mind, discover what pictures he was trying to paint. He said:
> 'What I'd like to hear is a tremendous buildup, from nothing to
> something absolutely like the end of the world. I'd like it to be
> from extreme quiteness to extreme loudness, not only in volume
> but also for the sound to expand as well. I'd like to use a
> symphony orchestra for it...tell you what George, you book
> a symphony orchestra, and we'll get them in a studio and tell
> them what to do.'
> Come on John, I said, there's no way you can get a symphony
> orchestra sitting around and say to them look fellers this is
what
> you're going to do. You've got to write something down for
them.
> But he did explain what he wanted sufficiently for me to be
> able to write a score. What I did there was to write, at the
> beginning of the twenty-four bars the lowest possible note
> for each of the instruments in the orchestra. At the end of the
> twenty-four bars, I wrote the highest note each instrument
> could reach that was near the chord of E major. Then I
> put a squiggly line right through the twenty-four bars,
> with reference points to tell them roughly what note they
> should have reached during the bar. I marked the music
> 'pianissimo' at the beginning and 'fortissimo' at the end."
>
>
> -George Martin, "All You Need Is Ears"
>
>
> Revisionism aside ... that (above) is precisely what we HEAR
> on the recording itself .....
>
>
>
John Serafino
Yeah, Stiff. BUT, It's a kicking solo. Paul didn't spend enough time
playing lead to be anything but stiff. But this song proves he could WRITE
a great lead part.
Jimmy played this perfectly.
-JS
John Serafino
> he did not do much with piano (George Martin and John would
> would add the early piano or organ parts) .. but by 1966 he started
> to do a lot with piano and play it well (GoodDay Sunshine, Back In the
> USSR, etc.)
George Martin played piano on 'Good Day Sunshine' NumbNutz. Your Beatles
knowledge is shining through yet again.
> As far as guitar, I prefer George & John. Their guitar work
> features more bizarre & cool chord changes and more of a
> blues-y, rockabilly, psychedelic, and occasionally flamenco soul.
>
> Lennon was the group's travis-fingerpicking standout (Dear Prudence)
> as well as the one with the hottest riffs: ( I Feel Fine, Day
Tripper,
> Hey Bulldog, Revolution intro, Everybody's Got Something To Hide,
> ..etc.)
>
> -- Derek
>
> ======================================================
> Derek J. Larsson EMail: derek_...@3com.com
> ======================================================
The fast 'Revolution' intro was played and conceived by George Harrison, you
dipshit. In fact it was his idea to play it harded and faster. The riff for
'Day Tripper' started out as a bass riff. It was also George on the harder
lead on 'Let It Be', just in case you're falling for the old bullshit
perceptions on that one too.
And as far as 'Hey Bulldog' goes, after the ass kicking you took on this
one, don't you think you should leave it alone????
LOL!!!
The Beatles according to Derek!!!!
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
-JS
John Serafino
of
> Mccartney = biased)
> Paul claims it too(Revisionism-of course)
> George Martin gives Paul the credit for the idea in interviews(apart from
> All You need is ears)
> Making of sgt. pepper multimedia show states the same thing: " It was
Pauls
> idea and John was in on it"
>
> "The all you need is ears" is not accurate. It's GM's easy way of telling
> how they worked out the arrangement. Interviews before and after
AYNIE-book
> shows the fact: Paul came up with the idea and they all (John .Paul and
> George Martin)worked out the arrangement .
>
> But Derek: just cling to your "alll you need is ears".
>
> JLS
Hold on. 'All You Need Is Ears' never says that the idea was John's, only
that Geroge Martin remembers working with John on the idea. He remembered
talking the thing over and developing it further.
Which may be correct.
No place does it say John thought of it. It only says John told him how he
wanted it.
Don't start attacking George. Attack NumbNutz. He's the one who wants to
re-write history.
-JS
John Serafino
> >booked a 41-piece orchestra, half the normal symphony orchestra, and I
spent
> >some time with Paul and John. i wrote out the obvious underlying
harmonies,
> >and during the main 24-bar sections John and Paul suggested that we
should
> >have a tremendous shreik, starting out quietly and finishing up with a
> >tremendous noise? "
>
> This is the idea he credits to Lennon in his book. Here he credits
> both of them with the shriek. The idea was not used in this form.
>
>
> "they", John/Paul and mostly Martin.
>
>
> Anyway, great interview. Many thanks.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
As I've stated, the idea to interrupt a haunting, hypnotic song like 'A Day
In The Life' with irrelevant, contrasting, and mood breaking musical parts
could not possibly have come from John, IMO.
I have no doubt, based on Paul's solo habits both subtle and extreme, that
it was his.
BUT, that doesn't mean I think the idea was DEVELOPED in a vaccuum. The
'shriek' idea was further developed.... probably by John and Paul, then
finally with Martin.
-JS
paramucho
<johnse...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Does anybody else see this?
I don't. But that's not surprising since I think the thrust of your
argument is largely subjective and based on your judgement that none
of the songs were the Beatles' at their best. I disagree. I think
they're fabulous songs and that the album is a stunning success (and
they had many).
A better argument can be made though. The fact is that the B's knew
*before* they made "A Day In The Life" that "Fields" and "Penny Lane"
would not be on the album which may have changed their approach
considerably.
Ian
paramucho
<johnse...@mediaone.net> wrote:
><PS---"Maybe I'm Amazed" is a good example of Paul at his stiffest. ;)
>
>Yeah, Stiff. BUT, It's a kicking solo. Paul didn't spend enough time
>playing lead to be anything but stiff. But this song proves he could WRITE
>a great lead part.
It's a dream song and a killer chord sequence to play solo against.
Lennon provided a couple of songs on "Mind Games" with equally good
opportunities ("Aisumusan? (?) and "Out The Blue").
>Jimmy played this perfectly.
Which Jimmy?
Ian
paramucho
<tomha...@adelphia.net> wrote:
How would you evaluate their respective solo work on "The End" Tom?
Ian
Tom Hartman
<i...@beathoven.com> wrote:
Terrific, on all counts. Very reflective of their individual styles,
this time, with everyone at their best.
robertandrews
>Does anybody else see this?
I think the production (classical instruments, intricate harmonies, etc.)
were at least as important as the "concept." Penny Lane has many fictional
characters, but it might have destroyed the balance of the album -- it's
nice to have A Day in the Life as the one overwhelming statement.
Strawberry Fields might have worked somewhere (in place of Lucy), but I'm
quite happy to have the single (which may be the best A/B sides ever).
Maybe this wasn't their best collection of songs (as songs), but they still
had some quite outstanding ones: She's Leaving Home, Lucy, Little Help From
My Friends. A Day in the Life could be viewed as the peak (or at least one
peak) of rock 'n roll. As a single track, I don't know if the Beatles ever
surpassed it.
paramucho
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A Day in the Life could be viewed as the peak (or at least one
>peak) of rock 'n roll. As a single track, I don't know if the Beatles ever
>surpassed it.
It's an interesting notion: did the Beatles' "surpass" themselves?
Here's a couple of half formed thoughts:
Certainly they grew as writers and recording artists, but I don't
think we can stack their earlier work up against their later work
because the didn't travel in a straight line at all. Instead, each new
album tended to go off at a new tangent or from a new starting point.
To take an extreme example, there's not much use looking for a
competitor to "A Day In The Life" on LET IT BE.
This insight is not true of a band like the Rolling Stones where songs
like "Brown Sugar" and "Honkey Tonk Woman" are directly comparable to
"Satisfaction".
Ian
Tom Hartman
Serafino <johnse...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> NONE of the songs on this album are the Beatles' best work. Then WHY is this
> album not only regarded by most Beatles fans as their best album, but is
> often regarded by most people as the best album ever made?
>
> Including these two songs might have broken it. Sometimes an album is
> stronger than the sum of it's parts because of the perception of the thing
> as a whole. That's why an album of the best songs doesn't make the best
> album.
>
> Does anybody else see this?
I agree that SP is a thematic whole greater than the sum of it's parts.
I do not agree that none of the songs are them at their best..."A Day
In The Life" is one the most amazing recordings in rock history. I
cannot overstate what it felt like to hear the song for the first time
when the album was about to be released (it was sneaked in St.Louis,
where I lived at the time). And amazing song and recording, by anyone's
standards. JMHO.
Tom Hartman
Serafino <johnse...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> And as far as 'Hey Bulldog' goes, after the ass kicking you took on this
> one, don't you think you should leave it alone????
Paul claims to have written the "Bulldog" riff...
Anders Viberg
John Serafino wrote:
> Hold on. 'All You Need Is Ears' never says that the idea was John's, only
> that Geroge Martin remembers working with John on the idea. He remembered
> talking the thing over and developing it further.
>
> Which may be correct.
>
> No place does it say John thought of it. It only says John told him how he
> wanted it.
>
> Don't start attacking George. Attack NumbNutz. He's the one who wants to
> re-write history.
The original quote fro Martin:
"The Question was how were we going to fill those twenty-four bar of
emptiness? After all, it was pretty boring! So I asked John for his ideas.
As always, it was a matter of trying to get inside his mind, discover what
pictures he was trying to paint.
He says he asked John for his ideas, and he got one answer, but does this
mean that it was the first time John talked about that idea?
What about if he been discussing the idea with Paul first when George M
wasn't there which to me seems very likely and they both came up with the
idea for the climax bit together then.
If so George M went to Lennon and asked what they should put there in the 24
bar gap, Lennon told him what they wanted and possibly he just said what it
was they had came up with at that moment and it wasn't that important to say
"well in fact Paul was involved in this too", so I can't see that statement
meant that John was the one who came up with the orignal idea.
If Martin should have walked up to Paul instead he could probably have had
the same answer and so then Paul's name would be in the book.
That quote doesn't mean anything when you scatch the surface a little.
But I know one person who never does that.
/Anders
Anders Viberg
paramucho <
> >Jimmy played this perfectly.
>
> Which Jimmy?
Wings' Jimmy McCulloch.
But I prefer Robbie McIntosh's solo on "Tripping", there a guitarist who has
that "fluid" in his playing.
/Anders
robertandrews
>This insight is not true of a band like the Rolling Stones where songs like
"Brown Sugar" and "Honkey Tonk Woman" are directly comparable to
"Satisfaction".
I tend to view the Beggar's Banquet-Exile period as somewhat apart from the
earlier stuff. Of course, big change with Mick Taylor instead of Brian
Jones. But you can play Satisfaction after Brown Sugar, I don't know if
Please Please Me can follow A Day in the Life.
>It's an interesting notion: did the Beatles' "surpass" themselves?
I see some of the later songs as "peaks," like Strawberry Fields, Penny
Lane, A Day in the Life, Walrus, & Hey Jude. With the earlier ones, I
suppose Please Please Me was a peak. I'll leave it to you to explain the
rest.
paramucho
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>paramucho <i...@beathoven.com> wrote:
>>This insight is not true of a band like the Rolling Stones where songs like
>"Brown Sugar" and "Honkey Tonk Woman" are directly comparable to
>"Satisfaction".
>
>I tend to view the Beggar's Banquet-Exile period as somewhat apart from the
>earlier stuff. Of course, big change with Mick Taylor instead of Brian
>Jones. But you can play Satisfaction after Brown Sugar, I don't know if
>Please Please Me can follow A Day in the Life.
That's what I meant. The Stones kept making the same kind of music so
that the *best* songs they produced are pretty homogenous regardless
of the year.
> I'll leave it to you to explain the rest.
You don't get out of it that easy...
Ian
JLS
Tom Hartman skrev i meldingen
<280720000111384350%tomha...@adelphia.net>...
>Paul claims to have written the "Bulldog" riff...
Don't say that -- In the world of Derek that's revisionism.....
JLS
paramucho
<tomha...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>In article <EH6g5.51165$Q8.4...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, John
>Serafino <johnse...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> And as far as 'Hey Bulldog' goes, after the ass kicking you took on this
>> one, don't you think you should leave it alone????
>
>Paul claims to have written the "Bulldog" riff...
Not quite. I think he said that the riff evolved in the studio. He
separately says that he helped finish the song off in the studio. The
demo seems to indicate the basic rhythm and the placement for the riff
(and my guess had been that it was finalised in the studio).
I recall that the "Cold Turkey" home tape was a bit like "Bulldog" in
that he sort of "scratched" in the rhythm of the riff in places.
We see something similar in the recent IMAGINE video when they're
playing "How Do You Sleep". Lennon says something like, "oh yeah, I
think we need some kind of riff/lick here" and they all play around
with it until that distinctive chord riff emerges. But you can hear
the "space" left for the riff and suggestions of it in the first cut.
Ian
robertandrews
>You don't get out of it that easy...
I think John came into his own (or surpassed himself, if that means
anything) on Rubber Soul (Girl, In My Life, N. Wood), and Paul on Revolver.
I used to think Paul topped John on Revolver, thanks to Here There &
Everywhere, For No One & Eleanor Rigby. The problem is that the damn
Capitol record left out I'm Only Sleeping & Your Bird Can Sing. And Your
Bird Can Sing is an underrated track, if the Beatles have such a thing.
I'll leave it to you to explain the rest . . .
paramucho
You seem to go for the ballads...
Anyway, I meant something a little different:
HELP! we hear a lot of country rock.
RUBBER SOUL get the Beatles brand of folk rock/ballads.
REVOLVER is the worlds best garage band: rock/electric
PEPPER is full pschedelia
etc
The "style" progression is so fast that "Wait" really does sound old
fashioned when it's heard on RUBBER SOUL. Likewise, "You're Going To
Lose That Girl" and "Yes It Is" sound out of date around the time of
HELP!.
I'll leave you to explain the rest.
Rusnak2938
Never Knows' - claiming the basic concept was John's but the "weird and
wonderfulness" of the song came from Paul because of how much he was
involved in the avant-garde London at the time
As big a Sir George fan as I am, I don't buy that either.