Home Rocky Road

From Classic Rock to Progessive to hip hop to today's hot new tunes!

Re: Was Martin really so indispensible?

Yes, I would have to say that on Eleanor Rigby, his contribution is important, insofar as he wrote the string accompaniment. And certainly, in their early years, he was very important in introducing a rather uninitiated group of young musicians into the complexities and possiblities of the recording studio. But I wonder how indispensible he really was. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject of Martin. Let's just say I'm agnositic on the scope and importance of his contribution. It would seem to me that the Beatles walked into the studio with their own music and their own ideas about how the music should be produced. George Martin didn't nudge the Beatles toward the psychedelic experimentation that culminated in Strawberry Fields and Pepper, did he? Without Martin, we still get Revolver, and Pepper and MMT, right? Similarly, Martin didn't instruct them to abandon psychedelia in favor of the more straight-forward, though just as artistically ambititous White Album. Did he contribute an interesting horn or violin accompaniment here or there? Certainly. Did he educate them, as any good record producer would have. Of course. And for helping the Beatles become serious about studio recording in a way that no other pop group had ever been, he also deserves great credit. If that's what your saying as well, maybe we've just come to a medium from opposite ends of the pole. But if you mean to say that the Beatles were dependent upon him, or that by means of some "producer vodoo" he transformed a sow's ear of a band into a musical silk purse, I would need some more persuading.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
  • Re: Was Martin really so indispensible? - halfnote 12/12/0619:38:07 12/12/06 (0)


You can not post to an archived thread.