Ken Scott on Geoff Emerick's book
DanKaye
had to do with the book's treatment of George, which sounds to me like
it was not really all that harsh, but others differ; and I admit I
have not read the book.
But what seems to not have been resolved are Ken Scott's original
assertions as to various lies or mistakes in the book. For this reason
I am repeating them, here, as I have not seen anyone able to refute
what Scott says here:
(I have marked the parts I am speaking about with ***)
By way of an introduction my name is Ken Scott and I was honoured and
privileged to work on a lot of recording sessions with The Beatles.
Being one of the few who got to see the Beatles record, up close and
personal, I have always been bothered by the many people who
disseminate false stories, always for a fast buck or some kind of ego
boost. I have been waiting for someone with credentials - like Geoff
Emerick - to come out, finally, with the true story. When his "Here,
There and Everywhere" was announced I was so happy. The truth would be
told, finally.
I was in for a big disappointment. I was one of the people interviewed
for Geoff's book, as were many other former Abbey Road employees. We
all came to understand that these interviews were arranged because he
had very little recall of those days, and his co-author would use our
memories to become Geoff's stories.
Now, after reading his book, I KNOW how little he remembers. It
appears we, the interviewees, didn't give enough, because much is
clearly fabricated stories, something made up to fill out the book. A
good example of this being the detailed recollection of the overdub
session he worked on for Misery (Page 59). However, in an interview in
2003, with Ken Michaels on Total Access Live
(http://www.totalaccesslive.com/geoffemerick.htm), Geoff was quoted as
saying "...I was informed the other day, and I couldn't remember it,
that Misery was the first track that I was actually present on."
***(Editor's Note: Geoff was a [tape operator] on "Misery". He started
engineering (mixing) a year after "Norwegian Wood") Amongst these
stories are many things that could be proven untrue by astute Beatles
fans, and things easily shown to be false by those who were there.
Taken as single points it is easy to say "so what", but when one turns
into two turns into one hundred the veracity of everything comes into
question. Unlike any other band The Beatles are now part of history
and it is my feeling that their history should be told correctly. As
part of that history Geoff did AMAZING work recording them, but if one
can't remember or take the time to double check the facts, DON'T WRITE
A BOOK.
There are so many errors in this book, some small, others not, so I
offer the following examples only as an insider's starting point,
***1) The book claims, on Page 108, that Geoff was the first engineer
to be given the job before the age of 40.
Amongst our teachers/mentors were Peter Bown, Stuart Eltham, Malcolm
Addey and Peter Vince. These 4 pop engineers were ALL promoted before
they were 40.
***2) It claims he was the first engineer to record a sitar at Abbey
Road on Page 137. However, it was not Geoff who recorded "Norwegian
Wood" - done the year before he first recorded the Beatles.
***3) On Page 257 it states how early on John wanted a rawer sound for
the "White Album" and yet on Page 264 it says they came up with that
idea as an excuse for the roughness much later.
***4) The story is told how they recorded "Blackbird" OUTSIDE the EMI
studio at night, with birds chirping in the background. When mixing
this song the only bird sounds present were from an EMI sound effects
tape (which Paul and I put there) and interestingly there were no
traffic noises, no plane sounds nor any other sound one would expect
recording outside on Page 240's "soft summer eve" .
***5) Paul's middle section on "A Day In Life" was there from Take 1.
It was not edited in later as is claimed on Page 149.
***6) On 31st July, 1968 "Hey Jude" was recorded at Trident Studios.
At that time the only studio in London to have an 8 track machine and
the very reason the Beatles chose to go to a virtually unknown and
untested studio rather than one of the more well known studios. Every
major studio certainly did not have an 8 track in 1967 as is claimed
on Page 199.
***7) Page 11 states that John showed he accepted Geoff by asking if
he had heard the new Tiny Tim record -- this is highly unlikely as at
this time the record had not been recorded and it would be at least a
year before it was released.
***8) Supposedly, according to Page 300, George recorded the
"Something" solo at the same time and on the same tracks as the
strings. Then why is it that on the track lineup it shows orchestra on
tracks 3 & 4 and main guitar solo on track 1 ? Also, if isolated, the
solo on the 5.1 version has no sign of an orchestra.
***9) And last but not least, page 218. Many times over the years I
have told the story of how Keith Moon was leaving the studio car park,
after playing tympani on "Old Man River" on the first Jeff Beck Group
album Truth, and when confronted by an elderly St Johns Wood resident
walking her dog he used his car's built in p.a. system to tell her to
"F*#! off" and the ensuing complaints to the studio. This is the first
I have heard that such a surprisingly similar incident occurred with
John.
Again, these are but a few of the MANY problems. Since copies of his
book leaked out, there has been a movement from fans and EMI employees
past and present; all are shocked at what Geoff is purported to say in
this book, as SO much of it is untrue. There are long lists of factual
errors being compiled around the world to be released when this book
is published. (The last list I saw was well over 100 errors, and
climbing as more people read the book).
In his defense, I must say it is likely Geoff did not write much of
this book at all - it is a creation of co-author Howard Massey. Much
of it is misleading 'creative' writing ***(such as his word-for-word
recreations of something said casually over 40 years ago?) and
elaborations on Mark Lewisohn's "Sessions" book; all done to "fill in"
the memory of Geoff Emerick.
I cannot bring this missive to an end without mentioning the book's
relentless tirade against George Harrison. As a second engineer I was
on more Beatles sessions than Geoff and saw none of the problems
talked about constantly, and as an engineer, the same. Sadly, George
is not in a position to defend himself today. I think I know what his
reaction would have been anyway... Mine is utter disgust.
This book is NOT accurate, it is not "the truth" and does not deserve
to be supported. It is very damaging to the good reputations of such
people as George Harrison, George Martin, John Lennon, Chris Thomas,
Ringo Starr, Phil McDonald and the list goes on. The only one who is
rarely mentioned negatively is Paul McCartney, the only one to have
employed Geoff after the Beatles.
Good luck and keep up the good work.
Cheers,
Ken Scott
*******
Those were Ken Scott's words.
Personally I have not read the book, but based on the above mistakes,
I am not inclined to read it.
jt1...@hotmail.com
With all due respect, you sound like you have a screw loose.
Based on Ken Scott's attacks on the book, and based on HIS version of
"the truth," you have decided not to read a book rather than make up
your own mind about it. Does that sound like the action of a sane
person?
To paraphrase what I'm sure your mother told you when you were a child,
if Ken Scott told you to jump off a cliff, would you jump?
Seriously, I cannot believe that supposedly normal human beings are
taking this approach to Emerick's book -- swallowing Ken Scott's
version whole, unquestioningly, without even READING THE BOOK FOR
THEMSELVES.
Let's take a look at who Ken Scott is, shall we? We'll start with some
of his "provable facts." Ken Scott was a junior at EMI who started
work in 1964 -- a full two years after Geoff Emerick began assisting on
Beatles sessions -- and assisted on some of the Help and Rubber Soul
sessions. Then he received a promotion to the mastering room,
literally upstairs from the recording studios at Abbey Road, which is
where he was sitting throughout most if not all of 1966 and the first
half of 1967, while Geoff Emerick (remember him?) was a little bit busy
down in the recording studios engineering two of the greatest albums of
all time: Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band.
Sometime in the fall of 1967, Emerick was forced by EMI brass to take
some vacation time because they felt he had been putting in too many
hours. Reluctantly, Emerick agreed to take off for two weeks, and
Scott was plunked downstairs, trained with Emerick for an evening or
two and then engineered a few of the Magical Mystery Tour sessions on
his own -- his first time engineering ever. He hadn't been promoted to
full engineer on the basis of his merits like Emerick had six months
before starting work on Revolver -- he was simply dropped in at the
deep end, partly because he was a familiar face to the Beatles, and
partly because he was one of the few staff members there willing to
work the long hours involved in Beatles sessions -- a fact documented
all too clearly in Emerick's book. The point is, if Emerick hadn't
gone on that vacation, there's no telling if or when Ken Scott might
have EVER gotten a promotion to engineer.
Once back from his vacation, Emerick returned to his duties as the
Beatles' chief engineer and Scott returned to the mastering room. In
May, 1968, the Beatles began work on the White Album, again with
Emerick -- their engineer of choice -- behind the board. Six weeks or
so into the sessions, Emerick quit abruptly because he was upset at all
the arguments and tension within the group.
Once again, SuperSub Ken Scott was brought down from the mastering room
and told by the EMI brass to take Emerick's place. Scott finished up
the White Album, doing all the mixing and recording about 2/3 of the
backing tracks and overdubs.
Those of you who think the White Album sounds fine may feel that Ken
Scott was a decent engineer. Personally, I agree with Emerick's
perception that it is by far the worst-SOUNDING Beatles album ever,
even though it has some great songs and some great moments. Certainly
many people would agree with me that sonically it does not stand up to
other Beatles albums, especially masterpieces like Revolver and Pepper.
Obviously, the Beatles must have agreed, because the fact of the matter
is that Ken Scott was never asked back -- despite the fact, as Emerick
points out in his book, he had developed a close relationship with
George Harrison. Glyn Johns was hired to record Let It Be, and none
other than Geoff Emerick -- the man who had actually walked out on them
and quit! -- was asked to come back and engineer Abbey Road, along with
former Revolver/Pepper assistant (and future Lennon engineer) Phil
McDonald.
To be fair, Scott has a good run as an engineer in the 70s and 80s when
he left EMI to join Trident, working with David Bowie and Supertramp,
among others... and he did engineer a fair amount of Harrison's solo
work, including a lot of All Things Must Pass. But he hasn't done a
damn thing worth noting in the past twenty years... unlike Emerick, who
continues to remain active, not only writing his memoir, but producing
Nellie McKay's brilliant debut CD in 2004.
So for anyone who thinks that Ken Scott doesn't have an axe to grind,
think again. Not only has he been sour and bitter for years that
Emerick (and Norman Smith) received all the fame and accolades -- and
rightfully so -- as the Beatles engineers, but he's also busily
promoting another book, written by two friends of his, that he promises
will tell the REAL truth, Ken Scott-style.
But what is that truth if not subjective?? Scott's attack on Emerick
itself contains a huge lie (that McCartney was the only Beatle to
employ Emerick after the group broke up, patently untrue) and he
himself admits in the many bulletin boards he lurks around on (it must
be nice to have no work and plenty of time to attack others) that his
memory is poor. So why should we rely on his version of events?? If
Emerick has a vivid memory of recording Blackbird live, outdoors, then
I have no reason to doubt it. Why on earth would he stake his good
name and reputation to make something like that up? And how the hell
would Ken Scott know differently, sitting upstairs in the mastering
room? Emerick never states in the book that more than "one or two" of
the bird noises came from that backing track... in fact, he openly
acknowledges that Ken Scott overdubbed most of them from a sound
effects record later on.
As has been discussed over and over again here -- and as even Dan
admits -- Emerick does NOT beat up on Harrison unfairly, and as far as
the other "mistakes" in Scott's tirade, they all strike me as extremely
minor -- even trivial. These are probably the things that Emerick
refers to as "nit-picking" in his publicly issued response. (Also
available on the daytrippin.com website) I thought Emerick's response
was the ultimate in class, personally. Rather than stoop to Scott's
level, he simply acknowledges that different people will have different
recollections of what occurred, particularly of events many years ago,
and he offers to repair any truly factual errors -- something that VERY
few authors ever promise to do. I believe him when he says that he and
his co-author made every effort to fact-check the book; in fact, I
heard a radio interview with them not long ago in which they said that
they had done exactly what any self-respecting journalist should do:
they fact-checked and corroborated with other people who were there
(assistant engineers Phil McDonald, Richard Lush, John Smith, and John
Kurlander) and with acknowledged experts (Mark Lewisohn himself was
apparently consulted on more than one occasion... and let's not forget
that it was Emerick himself who was one of the primary sources for The
Beatles Recording Sessions book).
The idea that Ken Scott somehow knows Geoff Emerick's life better than
Emerick does is ludicrous, and Geoff Emerick doesn't have to defend
himself to you, me, Ken Scott, or anybody. His reputation precedes
him, and if his memory of events 40 years ago is somehow less than
100% accurate, all that does is make him human. It doesn't make his
story any less interesting, it doesn't discredit his book, and anyone
who simply bows down and accepts the word of a Ken Scott (or any other
pompous self-appointed "guardian of the truth" windbag with ulterior
motives) is, IMHO, a fool.
Ken Scott's a publicity-seeker with a chip on his shoulder and he
thinks he can somehow revive his reputation by attacking a former
colleague publicly. That's low-class in my view, if not downright
despicable. Chatting about this dispute here (and on other message
boards) may be fun and controversial, but personally I hate the idea of
giving him any more free publicity.
Just read the damn book for yourself and make up your own mind! This
witch-hunting is really starting to give true Beatles fans a bad name.
fatt...@yahoo.com
George is quite harsh. Throughout the book, he unfairly puts down
George's guitar playing and abilties as a songwriter. He constantly
compares Paul and George, claiming that there were a number of times
George had difficulty nailing a guitar solo and that Paul then stepped
in and did it almost effortlessly. According to Geoff, George finally
blossomed on Abbey Road.
Thoughout the book, Geoff mentions that Paul was domineering in the
studio, causing friction at times with the other Beatles, especially
George. (he doesn't use the word domineering, but that is what he
describes) Although Geoff doesn't say it, it almost seems that when
the Beatles finally sensed they would most likely be breaking up by the
time of Abbey Road, that is when George really began to flourish as a
guitarist and composer. The implication is that the imminent break up
of the band was liberating to George.
Ringo is also dismissed as a mediocre drummer who needs Paul to help
him keep time. He also suggests that Ringo is "not the sharpest tool
in the shed."
Overall, I found Geoff's tidbits and insights fascinating; however I
think many true Beatles fans will become annoyed by his constant
sniping at George and Ringo.
The author is obviously very close friends with Paul (and essentially
says so repeatedly). For example, he worked with Paul many times
during Paul's solo career, and Paul served as best man at his wedding.
Geoff's bias is unmistakable and gets tiring after a while, even though
the book is otherwise well written.
jt1...@hotmail.com
> I am almost done reading Geoff's book, and his treatment of Ringo and
> George is quite harsh. Throughout the book, he unfairly puts down
> George's guitar playing and abilties as a songwriter.
Why "unfairly"? Were you there while George was recording his solos or
when Ringo was trying unsuccessfully to nail down a beat? Have you
heard any of the early bootlegs that reveal their poor playing?? Do
you honestly think "DOn't Bother Me" and "I Want To Tell You" are in
the same league as even low-quality Lennon/McCartney songs??
Or are you so married to your preconceptions of who George and Ringo
"were" that you can't handle the truth?
>He constantly
> compares Paul and George, claiming that there were a number of times
> George had difficulty nailing a guitar solo and that Paul then stepped
> in and did it almost effortlessly.
Uh-huh. And are you disputing that? Based on what information? Again,
were you there? Emerick was.
> Ringo is also dismissed as a mediocre drummer who needs Paul to help
> him keep time. He also suggests that Ringo is "not the sharpest tool
> in the shed."
You want to be REAL careful about using quotes there, bro, or you may
have lawyers breathing down your neck. Emerick NEVER says any such
thing, not in those words, or anything close to them, nor does he
impugn Ringo's intelligence. The closest he comes to commenting about
Ringo's intellectualism (or lack thereof) is when he says that although
Lennon often had his head buried in a book and McCartney and Harrison
would read the tabloids during breaks, that he more often saw Ringo
reading comic books. That's a simple observation of fact, not a
slight.
>
> Overall, I found Geoff's tidbits and insights fascinating; however I
> think many true Beatles fans will become annoyed by his constant
> sniping at George and Ringo.
"True" Beatles fans are, in my opinion, people who enjoy their work,
not syncophants who religiously subscribe to some insane theory that
these were four demigods who came down from the sky. They were human
beings, and as such they all had flaws. Doesn't mean you can't still
enjoy their work, and it's no reason to attack the messenger if he's
being honest enough to paint them in their true colors. That's the
real joy of this book, and I would think that "true" Beatles fans would
rejoice in the fact that someone close to them was willing to be honest
about who they actually were.
> The author is obviously very close friends with Paul (and essentially
> says so repeatedly). For example, he worked with Paul many times
> during Paul's solo career, and Paul served as best man at his wedding.
So what? His observations about Paul are, IMHO, just as honest as they
are about the other three Beatles, as you yourself point out.
> Geoff's bias is unmistakable and gets tiring after a while, even though
> the book is otherwise well written.
I'll say it again for the benefit of any who still don't understand
this: EVERY book of this type is biased, of necessity. The events are
filtered through the eyes and ears of the author, based on his
perceptions at the time. That's what a memoir is.
Get over it, Beatles fans. I find it hard to believe that any
intelligent person would prefer a book that whitewashed the truth and
carried out the fable and legend that was perpetrated on the world by a
slick, professional team of promotion people some 40 years ago. I
enjoy the Beatles for what they were, what they gave to the world, for
their immense talent.
Doesn't mean they were gods, though.
Jenni Carter
<jt1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147832625....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I am almost done reading Geoff's book, and his treatment of Ringo and
> > George is quite harsh. Throughout the book, he unfairly puts down
> > George's guitar playing and abilties as a songwriter.
>
> Why "unfairly"? Were you there while George was recording his solos or
> when Ringo was trying unsuccessfully to nail down a beat? Have you
> heard any of the early bootlegs that reveal their poor playing?? Do
> you honestly think "DOn't Bother Me" and "I Want To Tell You" are in
> the same league as even low-quality Lennon/McCartney songs??
>
BTW, the last time I saw footage of the Blackbird session it was still
inside the studio. Ask Francie - I'm pretty sure it's her sitting close to
Paul as he runs thru the song.
marcuscp
jt1...@hotmail.com
> <jt1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> I certainly do. DBM and IWTTY are great songs.
> BTW, the last time I saw footage of the Blackbird session it was still
> inside the studio. Ask Francie - I'm pretty sure it's her sitting close to
> Paul as he runs thru the song.
Here we go, another illuminating comment from someone who obviously
didn't read Emerick's book (or didn't read it carefully). On page 239,
Emerick refers to Paul's "new lady friend" (he doesn't refer to Francie
by name, which I think is pretty classy of him) being at the Blackbird
session with Paul. Then he goes on to say (and this is a direct
quote):
"But... she didn't stay long, and George Martin had to leave early,
too. After she'd gone, Paul remarked to me that he wanted the track to
sound as if he were singing it outdoors. 'Fine,' I said, 'then let's
do it outdoors.'"
"He looked surprised, but there was a little spot outside of the echo
chamber with just enough room for him to sit on a stool. I ran a long
mic lead out there, and that's where we recorded 'Blackbird.'"
So there's no reason to "ask Francie," Ms. Carter. Geoff Emerick lays
it all out for us, just as it happened.
Any more questions? I suggest you read the book.
(P.S. I won't take issue with your feeling as to the merits of "Don't
Bother Me" and "I Want To Tell You" -- you're entitled to your opinion,
though I doubt that you'd find too many people agreeing with you.)
Kevin L.
inside the studio. Ask Francie - I'm pretty sure it's her sitting close
to
Paul as he runs thru the song.
marcuscp <<
Please read the book! On page 239, Emerick mentions the filming while
Paul rehearsed Blackbird inside the studio and he mentions Paul's
girlfriend, although he doesn't say her name. The controversy comes
from the fact that Emerick recalls recording the take used on the White
album outside.
I enjoyed the book a great deal. It was a "warts and all" book. If
the Anthology documentary proved that the Beatles' memories weren't
perfect, why is it surprising that Emerick's memories don't always jibe
with those of Ken Scott?
Kevin L.
paramucho
>fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I am almost done reading Geoff's book, and his treatment of Ringo and
>> George is quite harsh. Throughout the book, he unfairly puts down
>> George's guitar playing and abilties as a songwriter.
>
>Why "unfairly"? Were you there while George was recording his solos or
>when Ringo was trying unsuccessfully to nail down a beat? Have you
>heard any of the early bootlegs that reveal their poor playing?? Do
>you honestly think "DOn't Bother Me" and "I Want To Tell You" are in
>the same league as even low-quality Lennon/McCartney songs??
>
>Or are you so married to your preconceptions of who George and Ringo
>"were" that you can't handle the truth?
>
>>He constantly
>> compares Paul and George, claiming that there were a number of times
>> George had difficulty nailing a guitar solo and that Paul then stepped
>> in and did it almost effortlessly.
>
>Uh-huh. And are you disputing that? Based on what information? Again,
>were you there? Emerick was.
>
>> Ringo is also dismissed as a mediocre drummer who needs Paul to help
>> him keep time. He also suggests that Ringo is "not the sharpest tool
>> in the shed."
>
>You want to be REAL careful about using quotes there, bro, or you may
>have lawyers breathing down your neck.
You must be kidding.
DanKaye
>Dan,
>
>With all due respect,
;-D
>you sound like you have a screw loose.
>
>Based on Ken Scott's attacks on the book, and based on HIS version of
>"the truth," you have decided not to read a book rather than make up
>your own mind about it. Does that sound like the action of a sane
>person?
Yes, as a matter of fact, it sounds very sane.
With millions of unread books and unseen movies, and other options in
entertainment and information, I base whether to see or read something
on the information available, which includes reviews and criticism.
I'm not saying the book sucks, I'm just saying I have not been
convinced to read it, and probably won't based on the idea that some
of the "facts" were shown to be lies, the accusations have not been
convincingly refuted, and so that makes Emerick's book sound like less
than a worthwhile read.
I am entitled to change my mind if I become otherwise motivated to
read the book for some reason.
DanKaye
<marc...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Why "unfairly"? Were you there while George was recording his solos or
>> when Ringo was trying unsuccessfully to nail down a beat? Have you
>> heard any of the early bootlegs that reveal their poor playing?? Do
>> you honestly think "DOn't Bother Me" and "I Want To Tell You" are in
>> the same league as even low-quality Lennon/McCartney songs??
>>
I certainly do, too. "I Want To Tell You" is a GREAT song, and "Don't
Bother Me", while maybe not great, certainly is great the way the
Beatles performed it.
Why are you so adamantly defending Emerick? Are you a friend of his or
something?
Jenni Carter
<jt1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147834763.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not so insecure as to care whether anyone agrees with me or not, or
arrogant enough to presume anyone's motivations: "Ken Scott's a
publicity-seeker with a chip on his shoulder and he
thinks he can somehow revive his reputation by attacking a former
colleague publicly." I'm just bemused by the heat exploding from your
vitriol at anyone who questions Emerick's opinions. I mean, to you
everything GE says or does is "classy", even for not mentioning Francie by
name. Huh?
I'll read GE's book some day and KB's if he writes one 'cos I'm a sucker for
insider Beatles recording info like you and many others. I just don't
believe everything I read, especially something written 40 years after the
event.
marcuscp
DanKaye
>"But... she didn't stay long, and George Martin had to leave early,
>too. After she'd gone, Paul remarked to me that he wanted the track to
>sound as if he were singing it outdoors. 'Fine,' I said, 'then let's
>do it outdoors.'"
>
>"He looked surprised, but there was a little spot outside of the echo
>chamber with just enough room for him to sit on a stool. I ran a long
>mic lead out there, and that's where we recorded 'Blackbird.'"
>
But others say it was not recorded outside at all which is one of the
things Ken Scott said was wrong in the book.
I wasn't there but it does seem unlikely those bird sounds were
recorded live from outside. More likely they'd have been edited in.
fatt...@yahoo.com
"fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am almost done reading Geoff's book, and his treatment of Ringo and
> George is quite harsh. Throughout the book, he unfairly puts down
> George's guitar playing and abilties as a songwriter.
Why "unfairly"? Were you there while George was recording his solos or
when Ringo was trying unsuccessfully to nail down a beat? Have you
heard any of the early bootlegs that reveal their poor playing?? Do
you honestly think "DOn't Bother Me" and "I Want To Tell You" are in
the same league as even low-quality Lennon/McCartney songs??
Or are you so married to your preconceptions of who George and Ringo
"were" that you can't handle the truth? etc. etc."
Of course, Geoff is a professional and he is entitled to his opinion.
However, I think his constant criticism of George and Ringo is mean
spirited. And IMHO if George was as fumble fingered as Geoff suggests,
I can't imagine how he could have been the Beatles' lead guitarist, in
addition to playing live at dozens of concerts.
"Ringo is also dismissed as a mediocre drummer who needs Paul to help
> him keep time. He also suggests that Ringo is "not the sharpest tool
> in the shed."
You want to be REAL careful about using quotes there, bro, or you may
have lawyers breathing down your neck. Emerick NEVER says any such
thing, not in those words, or anything close to them, nor does he
impugn Ringo's intelligence. The closest he comes to commenting about
Ringo's intellectualism (or lack thereof) is when he says that although
Lennon often had his head buried in a book and McCartney and Harrison
would read the tabloids during breaks, that he more often saw Ringo
reading comic books. That's a simple observation of fact, not a
slight."
I didn't say and didn't mean to suggest that it was Geoff who said that
Ringo "wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed." However there are a
couple of places in the book where IMHO he demeans Ringo's intelligence
and abilities.
"> Overall, I found Geoff's tidbits and insights fascinating; however
I
> think many true Beatles fans will become annoyed by his constant
> sniping at George and Ringo.
"True" Beatles fans are, in my opinion, people who enjoy their work,
not syncophants who religiously subscribe to some insane theory that
these were four demigods who came down from the sky. They were human
beings, and as such they all had flaws. Doesn't mean you can't still
enjoy their work, and it's no reason to attack the messenger if he's
being honest enough to paint them in their true colors. That's the
real joy of this book, and I would think that "true" Beatles fans would
rejoice in the fact that someone close to them was willing to be honest
about who they actually were."
I never said the Beatles were gods. Of course they had flaws.
However, it seems that Geoff stresses Ringo and George's flaws over and
over. His book is not balanced. He has little pleasant to say about
them until the last few chapters.
Perhaps Geoff is being honest in the sense that he is relating things
the best that he remembers them. But he is human. However even an
honest person can have biases. Geoff strikes me as being very biased
in favor of McCartney (and Lennon, to a lesser degree). I have the
right to question his memory and any perceived bias.
We must remember that he had a close relationship with Paul, that Paul
was his best man, and that he has worked with Paul on Band on the Run,
Tug of War and other albums. Geoff has a huge financial motive to
please Paul, and clearly likes him as a person. He admits he was not
close with the others.
Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if he is offered work or hopes to work
on future McCartney projects. Therefore his lavish praise of Paul must
be taken with a pinch of salt.
fatt...@yahoo.com
fan would be somewhat upset by any author who heaps criticism upon
criticism upon one or more of the Beatles. That doesn't mean we just
ignore a person's flaws. The Beatles were human, of course. However,
Geoff's criticisms of George is repeated over and over. He hardly has
anything nice to say except in the last few chapters. I'm sure if
Geoff wanted to he could have said some complimentary things about
George and Ringo.
Another thing: Geoff is unrelenting in his criticism of George's
songwriting ability until he discusses Abbey Road. Geoff may be a fine
engineer and have great musical ability; however, I don't think he is
qualified to stand in judgment of someone's songwriting ability.
He also has unkind words for Ringo's contributions to the White Album,
criticising his one song (Don't Pass me By) and slamming his singing of
Goodnight.
It reminds me of the Goldman book about Lennon. If the Goldman book
were balanced, I doubt there would have been such a hue and cry. But
when an author writes a book that clearly has a motive to discredit
someone, many fans, understandably, will protest.
If one were to read just the first 3/4 of Geoff's book, to me it
attacks George and Ringo in much the same way that Goldman attacked
John. A person who knows little about the Beatles would wonder to
themselves "Why the heck were they in the group? They were wasted
space."
As I said before, it seems, according to Geoff, that George and Ringo
suddenly developed some talent during the last year or two of their
work with the Beatles.
Lookingglass
"DanKaye" <dan...@nowhere.info> wrote in message
news:a6dk621jnqh5rje0c...@4ax.com...
I read the book and learned quite a bit from it.
These are Geoff's memories and opinions. He was is the studio with the
Beatles while some of the best music in rock/pop was being recorded. I know
I waited a long time for Geoff to write this book. I'm glad he did.
dave (...it took me years to write...)
Head Cheerleader
www.Shemakhan.com
jt1...@hotmail.com
> But others say it was not recorded outside at all which is one of the
> things Ken Scott said was wrong in the book.
>
> I wasn't there but it does seem unlikely those bird sounds were
> recorded live from outside. More likely they'd have been edited in.
See, this is EXACTLY the problem I've been talking about. You
admittedly haven't read Emerick's book, but you're taking what SuperSub
Ken Scott says as gospel.
Frankly, I don't even think it would make any difference to your
blinkered opinion if you DID read Emerick's book, judging from the way
you didn't even bother reading my posting above.
To refresh your memory, here's what I said:
"Emerick never states in the book that more than "one or two" of the
bird noises came from that backing track... in fact, he openly
acknowledges that Ken Scott overdubbed most of them from a sound
effects record later on."
So, guess what, Dan? Geoff Emerick's recollection actually agrees with
your deep analysis... and it actually agrees with Ken Scott's version
of events too. Shall we chalk that up to Mr. Scott having a senior
moment, or do we want to admit that even the Great Scott might actually
be wrong about something? Is it possible that he is INVENTING
"mistakes" that aren't actually there?? Could he possibly be wrong
about some of his other accusations??? Hmmm....
If you and some of the other posters here bothered to READ THE BOOK
instead of mindlessly repeating gossip that you have seen elsewhere,
you would know that Emerick in fact has many good things to say about
both George Harrison and Ringo, and not just "in the last 1/4 of the
book." His view of them -- in fact, his view of everyone in and around
the group -- is actually quite balanced, though most definitely
opinionated (which is what makes the book such an interesting read).
My "vitriol" comes from frustration at people like you either knocking
something you haven't read, based on false or inaccurate information,
or being so married to your preconceptions that you aren't even willing
to consider that you might possibly be wrong... even if someone WHO WAS
ACTUALLY THERE says that things were otherwise.
What ever happened to keeping an open mind before arriving at a
conclusion? You may "hate" Paul McCartney for some reason (that seems
to be fashionable these days) but does that automatically make someone
who knows him personally, sees the good in him and likes him, less than
credible and open to attack? That's mob mentality, and I'm disgusted
to see that starting to permeate this community. These ugly attacks on
the credibility of one of the greatest recording engineers of our time
-- led by a former colleague and clearly borne of jealousy -- reflect
so badly on those who mindlessly follow it as gospel without thinking
for yourselves.
Come on, people. It's supposed to be about the MUSIC, for chrissakes.
fatt...@yahoo.com
"If you and some of the other posters here bothered to READ THE BOOK
instead of mindlessly repeating gossip that you have seen elsewhere,
you would know that Emerick in fact has many good things to say about
both George Harrison and Ringo, and not just "in the last 1/4 of the
book." His view of them -- in fact, his view of everyone in and around
the group -- is actually quite balanced, though most definitely
opinionated (which is what makes the book such an interesting read)."
Well, you and I disagree and I did read the book. He is opinionated,
taking shots at almost everyone including George Martin. And yes, it
does make the book interesting. However his view of George and Ringo
is almost universally harsh in the first 3/4 of the book. He attacks
both their musical abilities and their personalities. Repeatedly. He
sets the tone in the first chapter or so. I do not think he is
balanced.
I am glad that there are least some Beatles fans who are calling Geoff
on the carpet for it, especially since poor George isn't even here to
defend himself.
HIs principal praise for George comes when he discusses Abbey Road.
Although I am rendering my opinion (not fact), it almost seems from
this book that once the Beatles were clearly on the verge of splitting
and George developed an attitude toward Paul of "I don't care anymore
what you like" George seemed to really blossom as a guitarist and song
writer. Geoff almost consistantly depicts George as being dominated
and out classed by McCartney in his guitar playing, going so far as to
describe George as having a small role in Sgt. Pepper, except for his
own song. One song that George wanted to contribute, It's only a
Northern Song, was rejected by the other Beatles and Geoff's
description of it makes clear that in his opinion, it was a crappy
song. (I happen to like it as do many other people)
Based on Geoff's descriptions, it seems that every time Paul dominated
George and redid his guitar work or insisted on doing the guitar
instead of George, Paul was justified. Geoff repeatedly describes
George as fumbling and incapable of getting a solo correct. I kept
asking myself: maybe there is more than one way to do a song. Maybe
George's interpretation of a song is just as valid, just as good or
even better than John or Paul's and Geoff is an opinionated idiot or
too in love with McCartney to see it. Frequently, IMHO, Geoff's nasty
comments are really his subjective opinion rather than objective fact.
Geoff does the same thing with Ringo's contribution to the White Album
. . . . He dismisses Ringo's one song, and criticizes his singing of
John's song, Goodnight. For example, at page 237, he expresses surprise
that one of the first songs the Beatles recorded for the White Album
was Ringo's song which Geoff says, "was hardly a masterpiece--it had
only three chords, no real hook, and a dreary country tinged
arrangement. No explanation was given, and George Martin and I were
flabbergasted." (Huh??!! Why would he and George Martin be
flabbergasted that Ringo was getting some respect from the other
Beatles? HOw sad.)
When describing the recording of "Goodnight," Geoff writes at page 245
as follows: First he praises the song and John's songwriting abilities
saying it demonstrated John's abilities were "astonishing." Then he
comments that John "was truly a monumental talent." (HUH? I think
John was immensely talented, but do many people feel that way about the
song Goodnight?)
Then Geoff writes that "we" (he and George Martin?) were caught off
guard that John wanted Ringo to sing it. (WHY? Why make a nasty
remark like that?) Geoff comments, "It's hard to imagine that John
actually thought Ringo could do a better job on it than he could--he
knew as well as anyone that Rngo was no singer." (Why does Geoff have
to say that . . . .What a lousy remark. If Albert Goldman had said
that about John or any of the other Beatles, fans would be all over
him) Geoff then adds that John had done a demo of the song, but the
demo was lost. Geoff comments at page 245 "It's a shame that this
particular tape has been lost to the world, and that nobody will ever
hear the gorgeous way John sang his tender little song. In comparison,
I don't thing Ringo did the song justice." (Why does Geoff feel
compelled to pit one Beatle against the other?)
He also claims that Paul was the best in the group at keeping time.
(again, this is his opinion) Geoff repeatedly states that Paul had to
keep Ringo in rhythm, almost implying that Ringo could not keep the
beat himself or could not do it well. I wonder how any of the Beatles
feel about Geoff's opinion. If John were alive, he might be telling
Geoff to "Fook off." The fact that Paul felt like dominating and
constantly giving opinions doesn't make Ringo an incapable drummer.
As a Beatles fan, I don't mind a criticism here and there. But Geoff's
attacks are repeated and not balanced in the first 3/4 of the book.
tima...@hotmail.com
one that some poster in here, and his pet turd, intimated was a
meaningless interest. Maybe he's the perfect person to read this
contrived story.
I seriously think that Geoff has classic symptoms of Alzheimers. It
happens in just this way. Read the latest news about boxing great
Floyd Patterson, and how he couldn't remember the most significant
events of his life, and thought it was because he was tired. We may
have simply gotten the book too late.
voice from the past
jt1...@hotmail.com
> It was a brief moment of hope to read a great book of accurate history;
> one that some poster in here, and his pet turd, intimated was a
> meaningless interest. Maybe he's the perfect person to read this
> contrived story.
>
> I seriously think that Geoff has classic symptoms of Alzheimers.
I believe one of the primary symptoms of Alzheimers is the inability to
write a coherent, grammatically correct sentence.
I suggest you look in the mirror. Perhaps a "pet turd" is peeking over
your shoulder! Quick, get it off!!
DanKaye
[edit]
>
>Then Geoff writes that "we" (he and George Martin?) were caught off
>guard that John wanted Ringo to sing it. (WHY? Why make a nasty
>remark like that?) Geoff comments, "It's hard to imagine that John
>actually thought Ringo could do a better job on it than he could--he
>knew as well as anyone that Rngo was no singer." (Why does Geoff have
>to say that . . . .What a lousy remark. If Albert Goldman had said
>that about John or any of the other Beatles, fans would be all over
>him) Geoff then adds that John had done a demo of the song, but the
>demo was lost. Geoff comments at page 245 "It's a shame that this
>particular tape has been lost to the world, and that nobody will ever
>hear the gorgeous way John sang his tender little song. In comparison,
>I don't thing Ringo did the song justice." (Why does Geoff feel
>compelled to pit one Beatle against the other?)
>
>He also claims that Paul was the best in the group at keeping time.
>(again, this is his opinion) Geoff repeatedly states that Paul had to
>keep Ringo in rhythm, almost implying that Ringo could not keep the
>beat himself or could not do it well. I wonder how any of the Beatles
>feel about Geoff's opinion. If John were alive, he might be telling
>Geoff to "Fook off." The fact that Paul felt like dominating and
>constantly giving opinions doesn't make Ringo an incapable drummer.
>
>As a Beatles fan, I don't mind a criticism here and there. But Geoff's
>attacks are repeated and not balanced in the first 3/4 of the book.
Thanks for your reports of what is in the book.
Again, everything I read ABOUT the book leads me to not want to read
it.
Why does this upset anyone, that I - and others - have chosen not to
read a book based on reports and criticisms? There are DOZENS if not
hundreds of Beatles books I have chosen not to read; in fact there are
only a few of them I have read, and none lately.
To me, it's really all about the MUSIC the Beatles made!
Some day I might read a few books about them, but for now I have other
things to do, and am perfectly happy to just listen to their music,
including bootlegs, Dr. Ebbetts' versions, etc.
DanKaye
>Thanks for your reports of what is in the book.
>Again, everything I read ABOUT the book leads me to not want to read
>it.
>
>Why does this upset anyone, that I - and others - have chosen not to
>read a book based on reports and criticisms? There are DOZENS if not
>hundreds of Beatles books I have chosen not to read; in fact there are
>only a few of them I have read, and none lately.
>
>To me, it's really all about the MUSIC the Beatles made!
>Some day I might read a few books about them, but for now I have other
>things to do, and am perfectly happy to just listen to their music,
>including bootlegs, Dr. Ebbetts' versions, etc.
p.s. If I had heard from the majority of people that the book was
unbiased and accurate, I would have probably wanted to read it, but
that is not the case. Some day I might read it, anyway, but I'm in no
hurry to do so. The bottom line for me is that it bothers me a bit
when books like these are written with so little attention to accuracy
and fairness (again, according to what I'm hearing from those who have
read it and criticized it). While some do like the book, and it does
sound like it is a "good read", I just don't feel compelled to read
it. Sorry.
jt1...@hotmail.com
disagree. I respect you for at least having read the book and made up
your own mind without relying on the opinions of others.
Perhaps there is no conspiracy theory at play here; perhaps Geoff
Emerick honestly saw that neither George Harrison nor Ringo played as
big a role in the recording studio as John or Paul, and perhaps he is
simply honestly reporting that Harrison had a lot of difficulty nailing
his guitar solos in the early days, and that Ringo had problems coming
up with original enough drumming. He certainly NEVER says that Ringo
was incapable as a drummer -- in fact, he repeatedly states his
admiration for Ringo's timekeeping abilities and stamina. I doubt,
however, if you would find too many people supporting your view that
Ringo was in fact a capable singer -- certainly not by the measure of a
Lennon, McCartney, or Harrison.
As far as Emerick's opinion of "Only A Northern Song" and "Don't Pass
Me By," again, I feel he is as entitled to his opinions as you (or I)
are. The fact that OANS did not get completed for Pepper and was
instead relegated to Yellow Submarine does tend to support his view,
but, again, opinions are opinions. And the fact of the matter is that
DPMB does only have three chords to it -- hardly the kind of
sophisticated song structure we became used to hearing in John and Paul
(and even Harrison) songs -- so it's not surprising that George Martin
would have been appalled at the idea that so much time and energy, so
early into an album project, would be going into it. To me, the most
interesting thing about this section of the book is the way that
Emerick concludes that the Beatles were doing that to assuage Ringo,
that they sensed that he was getting pissed off (which turned out to be
true, since Ringo quit altogether, albeit temporarily, about a month
later).
Emerick's comment about John's talent being "astonishing" needs to be
presented in context: He wasn't necessarily saying that "Goodnight" was
a great song, he was talking about how amazing it was that the same man
who had written the angry songs "Revolution" and "Everybody's Got
Something To Hide Except for Me and My Monkey" -- recorded just a week
or two previously -- had the range of ability to show up in the studio
with a lush ballad as well.
As far as this idea of "poor George" not being able to defend himself,
well, I never met the man, but from everything I've read about him, I
think he'd be the first one to laugh out loud at the idea that you
shouldn't be allowed to ever say anything negative about someone who's
passed away. He, probably more than any of the Beatles, realized at a
fairly early age that none of us is either perfect or immortal. The
nasty little idea (planted by Ken Scott) that Emerick consciously
waited until Harrison was gone before he decided to attack him in this
book is palpable nonsense and extremely offensive. I suspect it would
be Harrison telling Scott to "fook off" just about now, if only he'd
lived a little longer.
Kevin L.
I agree that we've missed out by not getting to hear John sing
"Goodnight".
I agree that Only a Northern Song was weak in comparison to the rest of
the Pepper songs.
I believe George became more assertive and confident during the making
of Abbey Road.
I believe Emerick goes out of his way to praise George's
Eastern-influenced works as a contribution to the band, especially with
"Within You Without You". Outtakes certainly prove that George
struggled with many solos early in the band's career.
I agree that it must have been surprising that they recorded "Don't
Pass Me By" second in the WA sessions when there were so many other
songs waiting to be recorded, when Ringo's songs were usually recorded
near the end of albums.
Emerick is certainly "biased" towards McCartney's effort, but if I were
a 16 to 21 year old employee at EMI, I certainly would remember who was
the nicest to work with at the time.
Emerick is not kind about Paul's ongoing efforts to record Ob-la-di,
Ob-la-da.
The only time I remember Emerick mentioning Paul's efforts to help
Ringo keep time is the bell story with Everybody's Got Something to
Hide...
I believe comparing Emerick to Goldman is like comparing the Beatles to
Milli Vanilli.
There is no accounting for anyone's taste in Beatle music. I would
rather listen to Bip Bop 100 times than give Extra Texture another
listen (minus Tired of Midnight Blue)
Emerick's praise of George Harrison as a producer hasn't been mentioned
yet.
It's ok apparently, for John to say that Ringo wasn't even the best
drummer in the Beatles, but not ok for Emerick to criticize Ringo.
It's ok apparently, for John to say that he and Paul were the Beatles,
not ok for Emerick to go on and on about their skills.
Geoff Emerick was one lucky guy to get to work with the Beatles. I
appreciate his effort to remember what he could about his experiences
with them. I wish he would have written more about working with the
Zombies, but I understand why he didn't.
Kevin L
(Yes, the part about Bip Bop is true, go figure)
fatt...@yahoo.com
"It's ok apparently, for John to say that Ringo wasn't even the best
drummer in the Beatles, etc."
John did say that, but I believe any fair reading of that remark
indicates he was joking.
John worked with Ringo a number of times after the Beatles split, lived
for a while with Ringo in California, contributed songs to 2 of his
albums, and praised him to high Heaven in 1980 during his Playboy
interview. John had also written a song or two which according to
rumor John had planned to give to Ringo for his album released soon
after John died. HOwever John did not get around to it.
Ringo visited with John and Yoko in New York just a couple of weeks
before John died.
Ringo visited Yoko almost immediately after John died.
It has been reported a number of times that when Ringo gave interviews
after John died and was asked to discuss his friend, he either became
teary eyed or had to temporarily stop the interview to compose himself
because he was so upset.
The bottom line: I think Ringo and John were good friends to the end,
and John genuinely admired Ringo.
Some Other Guy
>when Ringo was trying unsuccessfully to nail down a beat?
Not for nothing, but in Lewisohn's Recording Sessions book, it stated that Ringo was the most
consistant of the four and they almost never had to stop rolling tape because of his mistakes. I
think he said it only happened once or twice in their recording career. Ringo was not fancy or
flashy, but hs is one of the most rock solid drummers around. He may not have had much songwriting
ability but his unique playing and fills (always played reversed as a result of a left handed
drummer playing right handed) added so much to the songs. Listen to Ticket To Ride. A completely
different beat at the time and all three verses are variations of the first when it comes to the
drumming. I am amazed at Ringo's abilty NOT to play a straight 4/4 beat on many songs. He is
amazing. If Emerick says anything less than that, he is wrong. It doesnt matter if I wasnt there and
he was. I know what I hear. It also doesnt matter if it took a few takes to come up with the final
version. That's called "working a song out". George could have easily played anything Paul did. He
played Ticket To Ride and Help live just fine. Can you imagine the pressure of being George. He was
working with the two greatest songwriters of the century and he had to present his solos to them.
Being a guitar player, I know what it is like to add my parts to a song only to have the write tell
me it isnt what he had in mind. And that is an unknown, never will go anywhere writer. I couldn't
imagine having the balls to present them with anything.
>Have you heard any of the early bootlegs that reveal their poor playing?? Do
>you honestly think "DOn't Bother Me" and "I Want To Tell You" are in
>the same league as even low-quality Lennon/McCartney songs??
I Want to Tell You is a great song. Great chord changes. I think George said he invented a chord
(said it was the first time an F note was mixed in with an E Chord.
Kevin L.
>>>>Kevin wrote,
"It's ok apparently, for John to say that Ringo wasn't even the best
drummer in the Beatles, etc."
John did say that, but I believe any fair reading of that remark
indicates he was joking
John worked with Ringo a number of times after the Beatles split, lived
for a while with Ringo in California, contributed songs to 2 of his
albums, and praised him to high Heaven in 1980 during his Playboy
interview. John had also written a song or two which according to
rumor John had planned to give to Ringo for his album released soon
after John died. HOwever John did not get around to it.
Ringo visited with John and Yoko in New York just a couple of weeks
before John died.
The bottom line: I think Ringo and John were good friends to the end,
and John genuinely admired Ringo. <<
How this relates in any way to anything I wrote, I don't understand.
My point about the book in this topic was that Emerick has the right to
be critical of Ringo in his book. He never said that John didn't love
Ringo. He said Ringo didn't have much of a personality in the studio.
You write frequently of Emerick's "bias" and it is apparent that you
have an anti McCartney/Emerick bias yourself. That's your right, just
as Emerick has the right to state his opinion about each personality he
came in touch with.
At least you took the time to read the book, although you didn't give
it a "fair reading" as you would call it.
Kevin L.
tima...@hotmail.com
you know nothing about the subject.
voice from the past
fatt...@yahoo.com
"At least you took the time to read the book, although you didn't give
it a "fair reading" as you would call it."
I certainly gave the book a fair reading and I don't think I have shown
a bias as you claim.
Just look at the book quote above. Geoff essentially says Ringo could
not sing, and that he and Martin were "flabbergasted" that they were
recording Ringo's song. He also is very critical of the decision to
have Ringo sing "Goodnight." On the same page, he praises John's
singing and songwriting ability to high heaven. On this page and
elsewhere, Geoff pits one person against the other. It is a study in
contrasts. I think it is in poor taste. It is right there in black
and white.
Any fair reading of that page and similar pages would make any neutral
person conclude that his remarks are just plain mean and, to a large
extent, are based on his SUBJECTIVE opinion.
Geoff is entitled to his opinion but the words he chooses and the facts
he chooses to stress show, IMHO, he had little respect for George and
Ringo. I am sure there were many times George or Ringo made wonderful
contributions to Beatles records, but during the first 3/4 of the book,
he hardly mentions them. I am not a professional musician, but I know
what I hear on a CD and I know what I hear and see at a condert. If
Ringo and George were as untalented as Geoff suggests, they would never
have lasted in the Beatles.
jt1...@hotmail.com
> I certainly gave the book a fair reading and I don't think I have shown
> a bias as you claim.
> person conclude that his remarks are just plain mean and, to a large
> extent, are based on his SUBJECTIVE opinion.
Your anti-McCartney and pro-Harrison / pro-Ringo bias are quite
obvious. Better not ever write a book!! "True" Beatles fans might not
agree with everything you say, and even the ones who never bother to
read your book will trash it on the Internet.
"Any neutral person"?? Seems like there are quite a few people on this
board (and elsewhere) who disagree with your conclusion. I guess we're
all "biased" in YOUR view -- maybe we don't (shock horror) worship the
ground Harrison and Starr walk on, maybe we actually think Paul had
some talent, maybe we aren't quite convinced that Ringo is the master
vocalist you seem to think he is.
Ahem.
SUBJECTIVE opinon, huh??? News flash! Fattuchus just "got it"!!!
That's three lollipops for you and a gold star.
EVERY memoir is filled with SUBJECTIVE opinion, my poor misinformed
friend. Without exception, bar none. Geoff Emerick's book is a
MEMOIR. Not a textbook, not a "definitive" biography, not a reference
tome. A memoir. Memoir=Subjective.
Got it? We certainly hope so. Maybe we won't have to listen to you
beating that particular horse to death any more.
t...@aerovons.com
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> jt10 writes,
> Why "unfairly"? Were you there while George was recording his solos or
>
> when Ringo was trying unsuccessfully to nail down a beat? Have you
> heard any of the early bootlegs that reveal their poor playing?? Do
> you honestly think "DOn't Bother Me" and "I Want To Tell You" are in
> the same league as even low-quality Lennon/McCartney songs??
>
At the least, they are in the same league as "Bungalow Bill" or
"Little Child" "Glass Onion" and "Baby You're a Rich Man". Yikes. ;)
TH
Kevin L.
remember about them?
Kevin L.
Danny Caccavo
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If
> Ringo and George were as untalented as Geoff suggests, they would never
> have lasted in the Beatles.
In comparison to John and Paul, perhaps.
dc
Danny Caccavo
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I wanted to add one more comment. It seems to me that a true Beatles
> fan would be somewhat upset by any author who heaps criticism upon
> criticism upon one or more of the Beatles.
Well, we could go on about what a "True Beatles Fan" is. One could
define a True Beatles Fan as someone who is unconditinally adoring and
uncritical.
So maybe Emerick's book isn't for Beatle "Fans."
dc
jt1...@hotmail.com
> Well, we could go on about what a "True Beatles Fan" is. One could
> define a True Beatles Fan as someone who is unconditinally adoring and
> uncritical.
>
> So maybe Emerick's book isn't for Beatle "Fans."
Excellent point! I guess in my naivete I was thinking that "true"
Beatles fans were people who admired and enjoyed their music and were
interested in knowing what they were really like behind the scenes.
Sadly, I think your definition is closer to the truth. You know, there
was a publication that ran for more than 30 years that catered to those
kinds of fans: it was called "Beatles Monthly" and all it ever ran were
puff pieces describing J, P, G, and R as musical icons and saintly
figures that could do no wrong in either their professional or personal
lives. Total crap, of course, but I suppose it kept the "fans" happy
because it perpetuated the myth.
Personally, I would find a full-length book written in that genre both
boring to read and insulting to my intelligence. Which, I suppose, is
why I enjoyed Emerick's book so much: refreshing candor instead of
patronizing ass-kissing. (And, no, he DOESN'T kiss Paul's butt,
either... he presents him in a less-than-flattering light on occasion,
too, even though he also makes it clear that Paul was in his view not
only the most talented but also generally the most pleasant of the
four.) That was Emerick's sense of how things really were, and, as it
has been pointed out frequently on this thread, he was there. None of
us were, so I have no idea how any rational person can make the case
that we somehow know what went on better than he did ("huge financial
incentive" conspiracy hogwash aside!).
Danny Caccavo
jt1...@hotmail.com wrote:
I finally finished the Spitz book. Both Paul and John are depicted in
unflattering lights, but of course, in very different ways. In a
nutshell, Paul was a born showman (not a bad thing in itself), but in
his drive would sometimes steamroller over others - particularly if the
others weren't driven at the time. It was so clear (to me, anyway), how
Paul's drive worked in The Beatles for a long time - but when John or
George started to lose his drive, Paul didn't know how to ramp down and
be sensitive to the situations - which only made things worse.
However, without Paul's drive, idea-building and attention to detail -
it would have been a very different Beatles - or none at all.
But I don't see how anyone reading the Spitz book could come away with a
one-sided take. I haven't read the Emerick book yet, but as a former
recording engineer myself, it sounds like working with Paul was an
engineers or producer's dream.
All parts of a whole, as we all say.
dc
River...@hotmail.com
"And the fact of the matter is that [Don't Pass Me By] does only have three chords to it -- hardly the kind of sophisticated song structure we became used to hearing in John and Paul (and even Harrison) songs . . ."
Hold on there, cowboy. I'm just jumping in with an observation about another song with ONE chord throughout the whole song - Tomorrow Never Knows. In fact, Lennon took great pride in the fact he wrote it that way. It IS a great song, not exactly something one hums while doing housework, but it's spectacular in its own way. // Personally, when I read George Martin's comment that the (so-called) White Album would have made a great single album, I can't help thinking Don't Pass Me By would have been jettisoned right behind Wild Honey Pie and that pastiche of crap Revolution 9.
Norbert K
I mean, I've read various accounts of Paul's stepping in to do the guitar solo on "Taxman." If I recall correctly, George himself gave an account that was consistent w/ Emerick's. He wasn't able to come up with something suitable, so Paul stepped in -- and rapidly came up with the famous solo.
Maybe I'll reread the book. I really didn't find it upsetting at all back then.
wsmit...@gmail.com
> Jenni Carter wrote:
> > <jt1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > I certainly do. DBM and IWTTY are great songs.
> > BTW, the last time I saw footage of the Blackbird session it was still
> > inside the studio. Ask Francie - I'm pretty sure it's her sitting close to
> > Paul as he runs thru the song.
>
> Here we go, another illuminating comment from someone who obviously
> didn't read Emerick's book (or didn't read it carefully). On page 239,
> Emerick refers to Paul's "new lady friend" (he doesn't refer to Francie
> by name, which I think is pretty classy of him) being at the Blackbird
> session with Paul. Then he goes on to say (and this is a direct
> quote):
>
> "But... she didn't stay long, and George Martin had to leave early,
> too. After she'd gone, Paul remarked to me that he wanted the track to
> sound as if he were singing it outdoors. 'Fine,' I said, 'then let's
> do it outdoors.'"
>
> "He looked surprised, but there was a little spot outside of the echo
> chamber with just enough room for him to sit on a stool. I ran a long
> mic lead out there, and that's where we recorded 'Blackbird.'"
>
> So there's no reason to "ask Francie," Ms. Carter. Geoff Emerick lays
> it all out for us, just as it happened.
>
> Any more questions? I suggest you read the book.
>
> (P.S. I won't take issue with your feeling as to the merits of "Don't
> Bother Me" and "I Want To Tell You" -- you're entitled to your opinion,
> though I doubt that you'd find too many people agreeing with you.)
You must be Geoff's boyfriend....Yes I read the bookk 2x and read as much as I could on the subject....There ARE at least 200 inconsistencies in that book...The estates of JL and GH should have sued( and Ringo ). And sources say Geoff was running around getting more interviews about the book than what he wrote...he needed filler, because he wasn't there when he said he was....stop being his dick rider
wsmit...@gmail.com
wsmit...@gmail.com
Maybe you are GE, you seem to try too hard to defend a low lif ehuman being...and the idea that Ringo starr was subpar drummer!!! Is that why ALL the Beatles kept asking him to play on their solo albums??/What the f*ck do you know!!! Geoff seems to me to be a bitter little man! I bet he is unbder 5 6' Hmmm. And yes I do believe he waited until GH died b/c after I read the book I think that is the kind of slime Emerick is.
wsmit...@gmail.com
wsmit...@gmail.com
wsmit...@gmail.com
> >Why "unfairly"? Were you there while George was recording his solos or
> >when Ringo was trying unsuccessfully to nail down a beat?
>
> Not for nothing, but in Lewisohn's Recording Sessions book, it stated that Ringo was the most
> consistant of the four and they almost never had to stop rolling tape because of his mistakes. I
> think he said it only happened once or twice in their recording career. Ringo was not fancy or
> flashy, but hs is one of the most rock solid drummers around. He may not have had much songwriting
> ability but his unique playing and fills (always played reversed as a result of a left handed
> drummer playing right handed) added so much to the songs. Listen to Ticket To Ride. A completely
> different beat at the time and all three verses are variations of the first when it comes to the
> drumming. I am amazed at Ringo's abilty NOT to play a straight 4/4 beat on many songs. He is
> amazing. If Emerick says anything less than that, he is wrong. It doesnt matter if I wasnt there and
> he was. I know what I hear. It also doesnt matter if it took a few takes to come up with the final
> version. That's called "working a song out". George could have easily played anything Paul did. He
> played Ticket To Ride and Help live just fine. Can you imagine the pressure of being George. He was
> working with the two greatest songwriters of the century and he had to present his solos to them.
> Being a guitar player, I know what it is like to add my parts to a song only to have the write tell
> me it isnt what he had in mind. And that is an unknown, never will go anywhere writer. I couldn't
> imagine having the balls to present them with anything.
>
>
>
> >Have you heard any of the early bootlegs that reveal their poor playing?? Do
>
> I Want to Tell You is a great song. Great chord changes. I think George said he invented a chord
> (said it was the first time an F note was mixed in with an E Chord.
R Kellog
I agree with Emerick's view that Harrison didn't peak till Abbey Road.