Correction corrected: The instrument Mr. Martin played is called a "harmonium." It is a keyboard instrument that is very like an organ, but its sounds differ from those either of a piano or of ordinary organs.
What IS correct is that it is a sublime result.Martin added that je ne sais quoi, a result of working in comedy and classical that distilled itself into the productions.Genius.
It's a brilliant score and an integral part of the work of art that is ER, but don't forget that the concept of that score, and the tone of it, were due to McCartney.
Martin has said the strings on Eleanor Rigby were Paul’s idea and that he and Paul worked for a half day on the score together with Paul describing what he wanted while playing piano and George writing it down and adding suggestions. Much the way Paul did his later classical pieces in the 90’s.
The greatest thing about George Martin was that he kept his ego and check. He could’ve been one of these producers who demanded writing credits or did interviews where he talked about how great he was, and in fact, he verged on that at times, which is why they didn’t use them for the last album they did and the Beatles took him for granted and many ways. When he wasn’t available time for working on Sergeant Pepper McCartney was just gonna go ahead without him. And martin claimed how much it hurt his feelings. He knew they were young men full of ego, and they were going to be on top of the world which would make them almost insufferable, and he managed to hold them accountable and keep the egos from spiraling out of control and kept his ego out of the mix, which would’ve destroyed everything as well. Great amount of respect for the man. A lesser person would have been a sore spot and probably broken up the band
Martin produced Abbey Road, which was the last album they made together. In fact, McCartney had to convince him to come on board after the sour sessions of Let It Be.
Great video! I actually got to meet him at the Birchmere musical Hall in Alexandria Virginia in 1999. Me and some friends got him a gift a gold plated pocket watch with the Kennedy half dollar on the face that cost about $200. He was so excited about the gift he could barely contain himself. And just as classy as you would imagine. It was an experience I will never forget. ☺️
@@Gerrys-Channel Glad you enjoyed it. I was also introduced to George’s wife and Giles who were equally wonderful. It was one of most joyful evenings of my life. 🤓 Postscript: I didn’t realize that I was in DIRECT VISUAL LINE of one of Sir George’s teleprompters, so it looked like he was talking DIRECTLY to me, which unnerved me until I figured it out! 😉
@@roberteccles3896 Just giving credit where credit it do. The only reason Mike Leander was used, was Paul was hot to get it recorded and George Martin was away. When George found out, he was very hurt Paul didn't wait to use him.
In 1967 Time magazine published a profile of George Martin which proclaimed him the Svengali-esque mastermind of The Beatles. This irked not only The Beatles but George Martin himself. Martin's unusual background for a pop record producer included a stint as an oboe player in the Sadler's Wells opera orchestra (which performed operas in English translations) and also producing comedy records for groups like Peter Sellers' Goon Squad (precursors of Monty Python), Beyond the Fringe (featuring Dudley Moore) and Flanders and Swann. His skill at creating unique sound effects for these comedy albums proved crucial to The Beatles when their music became more experimental and complex. George Martin was NOT an "auteur producer" the way Phil Spector and Berry Gordy were; he never saw himself as co-equal to The Beatles but was content to work with them and help them achieve their artistic dreams. I've also long thought that both Brian Epstein's and George Martin's background in classical music, in which the composer is considered the true artist and the performer is merely the interpreter, led to one of the most fascinating and far-reaching innovations in music. Before The Beatles, artists who wrote their own songs were considered cheating; many artists actually published their original songs under pseudonyms (like Buddy Holly, who often took his songwriting credits as "Charles Hardin," after the first two words in his real name, Charles Hardin Holley) and RCA Victor actually paid lower royalty rates to artists who wrote their own songs than they paid to professional songwriters. (That's the main reason why, when Johnny Cash left Sun Records, he signed with Columbia instead of going with RCA Victor as Elvis had.) Brian Epstein actively PROMOTED The Beatles as songwriters and said, essentially, that because they wrote their own songs they were more complete artists and therefore you should like them better.
Neither Paul nor John composed the orchestral parts of any Beatles song because they weren't capable. You think they wrote that music out and Martin just performed it? Absurd. Martin was a professional and took his producer credit. He wasn't going to be stupid and ask for songwriting credit. There are tons of producers that add music to songs, but never ask for song writing credit. They know that being the producer is enough and they aren't going to rock the boat over something stupid.
@@stickman1742How were the Beatles going to write out the music, given that none of them could read (let alone write out) any music? They might know what sounded good, but they didn’t know WHY it did.
The Beatles were very lucky to have both George Martin and Brian Epstein to work with at a time when artists were being totally ripped off by management and record labels. They were a hit making team. Without them the Beales probably would have made a few records and drifted off into obscurity.
He was the producer of the Beatles, not one of the writers. Period. The writer of a 'song' is the person (or persons) responsible for composing the top line melody and the lyrics.
He may have written parts within the song and helped with arrangements, key changes, bridges, etc. but the core of the songs were Lennon and McCartney.
3:26 no it wasn’t a harpsichord solo: he recorded it half speed on piano but sped the tape up double, making it an octave higher and thus sounding like a harpsichord.
Correction: George Martin and Paul McCartney collaborated on the string arrangements of "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby". Martin is on record complementing McCartney's contributions, including a relative seventh played on the cello and the "crying" violin on the final verse.
It was a marriage of circumstances. The Beatles' talent was not underpinned by musical knowledge in the classical sense -- reading music, etc., so they were limited. Martin's wide grasp of this kind of musical knowledge wasn't wanted or needed in the ordinary course of his job. Each flooded the other with opportunity for creative expression. Together they created music that is wonderful and enduring.
None.The songwriters are those who write: 1. The lyrics. 2 The melodies. All else is arranging/scoring/producing - which was GM's role within their music.
And he wrote the music, for instance, that he played on the piano on "In My Life". Arranging is the life blood of a hit. "Please Please Me" sounded like a Roy Orbison song until Martin arranged it into the hit we know now. I would give him songwriting credit for that.
@@harvey1954 Not at all. If he didn't write the lyrics (which he didn't) or the main tune (melody) which he didn't - then he is not the composer and therefore does not receive a songwriting credit. George Martin was the producer/arranger/additional musician - that's it.
Exactly. Without words, melody and chords, there is nothing to produce or arrange. Nashville's town motto is "It all starts with a song". The Beatle wrote words, melodies and chords.
@@harvey1954 All Martin told the Beatles with "Please Please Me" was to simply speed up the tempo. That's not an earth-shattering revelation of genius (nor does it have anything to do with the composition of the song); indeed, it's quite probable the group would have figured to speed it up themselves, anyway. That doesn't erase that it was Martin who told them, he still deserves credit as producer, but it certainly doesn't mean he deserves any songwriting credit. Yes, he did help polish their songs and make them the best that they could be but the songs were already genius, and the group were still responsible for the bulk of the arranging of their songs. It was the group themselves that insisted on experimenting with the sitar, the Moog synthesizer, backwards tape loops, the orchestral "freak out" in "A Day In The Life", etc.
@@spiritof6663 He did more than that. The beginning of Please Please Me was pushed into the back of the song at Martin's suggestion. You are quick to discount his importance. They were always his students.
99% of demos sound worse than the final cut, Martin has nothing to do with this fact. Sure, Martin was important to the Beatles, but if he'd been as good as you folks are making out it would seem to me that he would have found similar success with other artists.
If you ever heard a Gerry and The Pacemakers demo then listen to the final product you can see what a huge influence George Martin had on their songs too.
That's the bottom line. Anyone who even debates the question about someone else being "The Fifth Beatle" (Brian Epstein, Stuart Sutcliffe, Murray the K, Pete Best, Geoff Emerick, blah blah blah) is clueless. George Martin was THE man who put all the pieces together in the studio from 1962-1970. Without him, the Beatles would have been a far different band. Their dramatic beginning might not have happened without Martin's help in landing them a record contract in 1962. His influence on their entire career is immeasurable.
@@Bruce15485 It's interesting to think what The Beatles would have been if Decca Records had signed them instead. They probably would have been forced into a more conventional pop-rock mode and would not have had the chance George Martin gave them to explore different sound effects and styles of music. I remember getting the Beatles' Decca audition bootleg LP in 1979, listening to it with my then-girlfriend, and both of us staring at each other and thinking, "Gee, if THIS is what we'd had to go on, we wouldn't have signed them either!"
@@mgconlanOnly after their success. The 1st few albums were very much raw Beatles. After that the studio(& Martin)would have given them carte blanche when they were so bankable and talented.
@@bluemoon-20Martin was important to their success but not crucial to it. Why wasn't he near as successful with the other artists he worked with? People forget the Beatles gave Martin the platform to become a legend too.
How Many Beatles Songs Did George Martin Write? Ah, that would be zero. George Martin was a genius and he was essential to the Beatles, but he wasn't much of a songwriter.
@@StellarFella I think he's talking about from an artistic perspective, not commercial. The other acts Martin produced in the 60s were embarrassingly straight and square, and had little or no evolution in their music. If Martin was such a genius, Gerry would have made his "Pepper" and Cilla her "Abbey Road", right? Or at least *something* interesting. That didn't happen. In the 70s Martin did hook up with America, but their music was already good before Martin (he came for their 4th album) and he didn't do very much to change their sound, as it was. He added some nice string arrangements, but nothing out of the box like what happened with The Beatles.
Very similar to how none of the Beatles solo careers matched the synergy of their time together. It was a place and time, a combination of personalities, a changing world, and talent that created an other worldly magic. Wouldn’t have happened without any of the five involved.
.....YES my friend, BUT you have literally ANSWERED your OWN question here, BUT from the REVERSE point of view !!!!!.....from the album Please Please Me (1963) to the Let It Be album (1970) and including every single released by The Beatles during this same timeline, WHY then (if as musicians and writers they were so good) did NONE of The Beatles ever act as, take control as the lone PRODUCER(S) on any of their released albums and singles ?????, that is the REAL question here, YES.....
George Martin was the best keyboard player in the band. He also arranged, wrote all the orchestra scores, produced. I've always considered Martin the 5th Beatle. Thanks to Martin, "Yesterday" was the hit that it was. He wrote the string quartet parts. Unheard of in Rock at the time.
Without George Martin and Brian Epstein, not only wouldn't we know who the Beatles were, but without George, they wouldn't have grown past where they were in 1962 when he met them. George brought out the best in them - and, possibly, they brought out the best in him.
@@ericbgordon1575 That's not a question that can be answered "true or false". Martin was responsible for much of the Beatles progession. Especially early on, but they wrote the songs, and after they learned their way around the studio they had many ideas. They advanced as producers and songwriters.
@@michaelharrington75 I believe it to be accurate speculation. Lennon for one would have stayed on track with his '50's' love of music and Paul would have gone too far with his natural love of corny sweet theatre music. Martin and Epstein were as important as any member of the Beatles.
@@Neil-Aspinall The Beatles are the most diverse band ever, and the reason for that is because THEY always listened to all styles of music. They didn't want to keep doing the same thing. John, Paul, and George could have easily kept writing the same style songs the people went literally crazy for, but they didn't. They allowed themselves to be influenced by other artists like Dylan, the Byrds, the Beach Boys, the Band, Jimi Hendrix, Harry Nilsson, and Cream. They always brought new instruments into the studio like the Pianet, Sitar, Clavioline, Mellotron, and Lap steel guitar. They were the ones that chose to use any instruments they saw laying around EMI studios. The Beatles brought in the volume pedals, fuzz box's, tone benders, and moog synthesizers to make sure their songs sounded fresh. The Beatles themselves smoked the pot, dropped the LSD, and did the transcendental meditation that had a direct influence on their music. It was their ideas to use tape loops, have backwards vocals/instruments, and record feedback. It was their idea to record all 30 songs they had in 1968 to make a double album instead of taking the best 14, and making a strong single album. It was the Beatles idea to have artists design their album covers, and make albums a complete piece of art instead of a collection of songs. I could say no one would know who Brian Epstein and George Martin are if it wasn't for the Beatles, but I would never do that. All the pieces had to come together at the perfect time for the Beatles to happen the way it did. Brian and George were key players in the Beatles success, and brilliant men. George Martin taught the Beatles a lot, and even played on, and wrote orchestral parts for their songs. To me, he's the "5th Beatle". But the Beatles wrote the songs, and those songs are why people still love the Beatles.
Another remarkable thing about George Martin was his accent: completely acquired. He freely admitted that he came from a humble background - his family spoke with cockney accents - but he created an upper middle class persona ( and accent) for himself.
Remarkable, but also sad that people feel that in the UK at least, you have to get rid of a regional accent to rise in the world. So much for the democratic principle.
Lucky enough to have met the legend once, getting to thank him for the wonderful productions with the greatest band ever - The Action! He took that very well, almost agreeing with me… 😊
I always wondered how much George M. contributed to the writing of their music. I knew he played the solo on, In My Life. If it wasn’t for producers a lot of bands wouldn’t even be that well known. ✌🏼
George Martin did more than just produce. He arranged vocals, wrote really effective orchestral scores and many key interludes and postludes for a number of Beatles songs. Martin was essentially a classical musician and composer who found his best fit as a musician in the context of the Beatles. He's part of the magic to be sure. IMO one of his strengths was finding way to include classical touches without over orchestrating. Much of his style as an arranger involved a lean apporach to orchestral color, something that worked well for a pop and rock texture. Compare his work on something like Strawberry Fields, I Am The Walrus, Eleanor Ribgy or Glass Onion to the syrup that Phil Spector poured all over Let It Be, Long and Winding Road and Across The Universe.
He wouldn't have been near the legend he became without the Beatles either. He worked with plenty of other artists who never reached the Beatles success.
George Martin didn’t “write” any Beatles songs…..he arranged their songs until they took over that for themselves around 1965. He also scored string and brass parts for some tracks. He was instrumental in giving them their big break for sure…..but he didn’t write any of their songs.
Listening to those old interviews with George Martin talking about first meeting the Beatles is key. In this video we hear him say, "...they weren't very good" and, "...they had no great songs...." That's quite telling. In another interview, Martin stated, "I thought their music was rubbish. Paul and John told me they had written over one hundred songs between them, but none of them were any good. So, I settled on Please, Please Me, which had to be re-done, essentially." Then there is a very telling article which appeared in a 1962 Mersey Beat magazine article. The article talks about Ringo replacing Pete Best on drums and states, "The Beatles will fly to London to make recordings at EMI Studios. They will be recording numbers that have been specifically written for the group, which they have received from their recording manager, George Martin (Parlophone)." If the Beatles, and specifically Lennon & McCartney, were such great songwriters then why did songs have to be "specifically written" for them?
There were only 4 Beatles, but George Martin by far has the strongest claim to being a "5th Beatle". I've seen other discussions where people acted as if there was some doubt as to who would be a "5th". Brian Epstein? No, he was just a promoter. Billy Preston or Eric Clapton? Nope, they just played on a few tracks. Pete Best or Stu Sutcliffe? Early band members with essentially zero influence on the Fab Four. Murray The K? Laughable in his self-promotion, but he did (probably) originate the term "The Fifth Beatle". Clearly the only serious contender to that title is George Martin.
The title card for this video says "The 5th Beatle" in reference to George Martin. He really wasn't.... The Beatles themselves always considered their road manager, best friend, fixer, body guard, occasional uncredited musician and actor in 4 out of 5 of their movies, Mal Evans to be the 5th Beatle. He was with them from the Cavern Club in '62 to their break up in 1970.
I truly believe George Martin was more aligned with Paul who liked mainstream and top 40. It was a major contributor of the band splitting up in 1970, happens to a lot of bands. John hated commercial music and Ob-La-Di stuck in his craw. They were in the studio and everyone not named Paul was really tired of the Obladi takes. It needed a intro and John came up with one (desperation) and they had their take. I think Paul/John and George Martin all learned from each other. Martin had never been around rock n roll while the Beatles had never been in a studio but they all outgrew each other as time marched on.
He was a great producer and arranger. He didn't actually create the songs though. All Beatle songs from the best to the mediocre, were enhanced/improved by the arrangement skills of all the members, but creative arranging skills don't mean you wrote the song. If the tune and words are there when the session starts, that's the song written. Incidentally, in my opinion, one of Martin's most telling contributions was forcing their hand in replacing their drummer. Without Ringo, the collective image wouldn't have been so coherent and the music would not have had that extra vitality.
@@henryalva8819 ...and where were the wonderful songs by Gerry & The Pacemakers and Billy J. Kramer & The Dakotas, who Martin also produced??? hmmm? THAT should tell you where the real genius was. The Beatles had great songs that they had played live in the studio with little to no input from Martin right from their first album--I'm talking classics like "I Saw Her Standing There", "There's A Place", "P.S. I Love You", etc.
@@henryalva8819 Gerry & Billy had enough "image, sound and charisma" to go to #1 on the British charts over and over again over a two-year period. And I'm not sure what you mean with "Martin did not do it alone". Are you saying that he had other people work with Gerry & Billy, while he focused solely on The Beatles? I would need some hard evidence for that, because from everything I've read that was definitely not the case. Martin produced the other acts in the same way he produced The Beatles. The only difference is The Beatles turned out brilliant artistic product and the others, while they did have smash hits, didn't.
@@henryalva8819 I'm certainly NOT saying that Gerry & Billy had more charisma or talent than The Beatles. The key word here being "talent". You still haven't really explained why, if George Martin was their producer and he was apparently behind all of The Beatles' success, he couldn't do the same for his other proteges--proteges that did, in fact, have many smash hits and so deserved the same kind of attention. Your answer basically just seems to be "because he didn't want to", which doesn't make any sense, because then why would he want to for The Beatles? *What was the difference with The Beatles* ? To me it is clear: their own innate talent.
Lots of groups have great producers but the Beatles recognized his musical knowledge and talent and were willing to accept his suggestions and input. They realized how lucky they were to have him in their corner. Compare that to a man like Paul Simon who only navigated by his own star.
Martin was an important influence to the Bealtes but not absolutely crucial in my view. Why wasnt Martin near as successful with any of the other acts he produced/worked with at the time. People forget the Beatles helped Martin become the legend he became too.
I think more like glue for the left overs. If EMI hadn't paid George Martin to get a product out of the Beatles then they would have self destructed earlier. That's how important George Martin was as a producer, and why ultimately he stopped and they sought Phil Spector's help.
If George Martin was this monumental producer, that was the fifth Beatle and without him, The Beatles would be nothing. Then why didn’t any of the other several musical artist he produced come remotely even close to the Beatles success? Martin was probably the best producer. The Beatles could’ve had because he allowed them to explore their creative tastes and he was able to bring to reality the creative vision of John and Paul. He should get credit for that. But without the Beatles Martin would be average producer from Britain no one in America would ever heard of him.
It's more than a bit like asking how many Who hits did Kit Lambert write. Lambert's classical fingerprints are all over " Tommy ". But of course, the gigantic ego calledTownshend barely mentions the creative who has inscribed on his stone; " ... "The Man Who Made Tommy " Or even genius producer Martin Zero ( Hannett ).. and the gold-plating of Joy Division's sound post '78
My take on it, has always been that George saw the Beatles as a project. After his work with all sorts of other creative artists in earlier years, his production and ‘session’ skills were perfectly honed and at that perfect point, could be given free rein with them. Paul and John were raw, brilliant and charismatic talents. George could mould that quality material into helping produce pop masterpieces. It was a collaborative miracle and probably one that could have only happened in the 60’s and only once in history. When the band inevitably atomised after Brian’s death, although still wonderful in their way, they gradually started to neglect George’s invaluable contributions. I lost interest in them at that time.
I think George Martin was integral in the recordings made by the Beatles....but make no mistake about it,,,George Martin did not write beatle songs....and in an interview where someone asked him regarding this...he said...that the talent Maccartney, Lennon had and developed...was astounding....together the alchemy made it what it is today......Miraculous When everything comes together...you get MAGIC.
Other than Harrison's "All Things Must Pass," none of them did anything of much significance after the Beatles, so it does seem that Martin's influence was enormous.
To me George Martin was the third Beatle to me. As important as George and Ringo were George changed so much of Beatles raw material so drastically. I love the tune "The Game" which Paul picked to use while producing Mary Hopkins' debut album. I often wonder if there is a batch of George Martin demos laying around somewhere and acetate on some shelf.
Now that's being silly. Don't forget Ringo and George were also the face and charisma of the Beatles. Martin was important to elevating some of their songs but it was the Beatles themselves who innovated beyond other bands.
How many songs did Ringo write? E actly teo, with a litle from his friends. There's two other where he has a co-writing credit. George Martin did most of their orchestrations, hd did a lof the technological innovations and in the early days he made numerous suggestions to their songs that really made their songs.
I totally agree with your argument and I enjoyed your presentation very much. But I have to account for the view of John Lennon when he said he wished he could record everything over again. Yes, even Strawberry Fields Forever. I think John may have resented the direction some of his inspiration went in. Especially his idea that became Yellow Submarine. It came from a painful place and became a cartoon. Don't get me wrong, I love them all, especially Paul in his emotional intelligence, but John brought a kind of magic that can't even be described in words.
McCartney wrote prettier melodies, but Lennon took music where it had never been before. Paul could never have written "I Am The Walrus." What irks me about him is now that John and George are dead, he's taking partial credit for many songs John wrote by himself. He can do that knowing that while George would have called bullshit, Ringo will never contradict him.
Some people always try to put the Beatles down a little but Geoge Martin would have likely remained a musical nobody without the Beatles. His background was classical, Jazz and comedy and like many in the music business considered Rock & Roll to be a necessary evil. The hugely successful Please, Please Me album was virtually a Beatles live performance and required very little producing.
Sir. George Martin He Was The Catalyst This is What a Great Producer Does He Took The Band Ideas and Made It Happen Then You Are a Extra Pair of Ears Then He Wrote String Arrangements To Embellish a Song Did Back Tracking What a Amazing Time For All Involved Sir. George Martin HMV Means His Majesty’s Voice In The United States HMV Records Means His Masters Voice With The Dog Niper and The Victrola
So, George Martin didn't write any Beatles song. But he did have a huge influence in producing and arranging them, as well as being a really talented session player. Yet another Beatles video cheap clickbait title.
He probably didn't write any songs. He enhanced a lot of them because he was the greatest producer in the history of rock music. It is not normal to consider a producer as part of a group but Martin has been considered a de facto member for decades. There probably aren't any Beatles fans who don't know this already.
The music of the Beatles in their solo careers was far less complex and far less daring than it had been when George Martin was their producer. That says it all to me.
McArtney,Ram,Band on the Run,Imagine,Plastic Ono Band, All Things Must Past,Venus and Mars,Walls & Bridges,Double Fantasy are far better than the music of Gerry & The Pacemakers,Fourmost, Cilla Black,Billy Kramer & The Dakotas,Edwards Hand,Seatrain. You are wrong. Martin out of The Beatles is not the same producer.Very overrated
Here comes again those that still insist to overvalue George Martin's contributions and undervalue Beatles unique ideas and compositions. Martin was key in the arrangements but, as he himself has stated over the years and up to his sad death, all the ideas, lyrics and melodies came from the Fab Four. Evenmore, in many of their masterpieces, they told him how they wanted them to sound, playing to him on guitar, piano and humming, not only the main melody but also the chorus an complementary musical sounds. Additionally, most of the experimental ideas came from them, traversing the recording and musical equipments on the studio that were not usual for them. All that experimentation significantly expanded when syntethizers and the mellotron arrived in Abbey Road studios. So, c'mon, what are you trying to "prove"? Of course, Martin didn't compose any Beatles song!
This is good but there's so clip of John Lennon going around the socials where he says that the notion that George was the 5th Beatles was wrong, and almost laughs about how people think this.
If the Beatles began in the 21st century, it's likely Martin would be credited as a band member, particularly once they became a purely studio band. The Beatles had outstanding talent, vision & work ethic but they also had some luck, all great artists need a measure of good luck. The luckiest break they had was the unlikely collaboration with George Martin.
In a way, George Martin was not the Fifth Beatle but the First. There are a number of clips tjat make it clear that the boys composed.and played intuitively. Without Martin, the Beatles would have remained in their same level of musical sophistication as in 1964-65.
I believe he was the best producer of all time! At least in the 60s .Brian Wilson thought so to. I Also believe Brian Wilson was an incredible a close 2nd until the drugs and mental illness took him away from that I also believe they were both absolutely better than Phil Spector. I know he did inspire Brian Wilson and others for a few years but he spent so much time and none of his money and driving people nuts recording sessions over and over and lucky to have the wrecking crew play for him. But as time went he was not that great. He ruined let it be. Glyn John’s is awesome too Berry Gordy was amazing as well . George Martin had tinker toy equipment thanks to EMI. He and his staff with Geoff Emerrick invented new recording technology as they went did loops before anyone else and changing Veri track speed, ADT, Flange etc… you get the point. As time moved forward there have a lot great producers to many to name but what George Martin did for the Beatles with all limited Technology was brilliant! He was such a great composer as well! RIP Master George Martin!
George Martin made only a trivial amount of money producing the Beatles, but provided massive insight and significantly embellished their recordings. John Lennon sometimes treated him like trash though.
How go you know Lennon sometimes treated him like trash? EVERYBODY has arguments working together. For example: The way George Martin produced "Strawberry Fields" WAS NOT great by splicing different takes together that had DRASTICALLY different timing. Lennon was upset & said it should have been re-recorded. So, nobody is perfect.
@@yesterdayproductions1019 For the record, splicing the two takes was done at John's own insistence although he knew full well what the problem was. That the tempi and pitches happened to allow it was sheer good luck, but GM did it and Lennon wasn't "upset" - he signed off on it. How could he not, it was what he asked for. It was after the break-up that he said everything should be re-recorded. "Even Strawberry Fields?" said the incredulous interviewer. "Especially Strawberry Fields," said Lennon. At that point it was GM that was "upset", with good reasion.
@@strathman7501 Who was the record Producer, George Martin or Lennon??? Martin should have told Lennon "No" & rerecorded it like Lennon said later when he was wiser. Sometimes the Parent has to tell the Child "No".
@@yesterdayproductions1019 "Strawberry Fields" sounds fantastic as is; most people don't even realize it's an edit of two different takes. I certainly didn't, until I read about it. Once you know the edit is easy to spot, but is otherwise pretty seamless. Lennon only said all the songs should have been re-recorded because he's an artist and artists are always dissatisfied with their own work. It wasn't about putting down Martin. The only time he actually got mad at Martin was after Martin had given an interview suggesting that HE was the guy behind all those great records. Lennon was pissed because he knew otherwise and told the interviewer how it really was in the studio--ie. it was The Beatles directing George Martin, not the other way around. But that's the only time he ever really had a bad word toward Martin. He later apologized to Martin, saying he didn't mean to hurt his feelings in that interview. He just wanted to correct the record, which apparently still needs correcting to this day, as evidenced by all these comments making is sound like the band would have been nothing without Martin. Hogwash!
@@spiritof6663 Correct. However, I will say that Martin broke all the rules when he spliced two takes together that were a semi-tone apart with way different tempos. However, to his credit he made it work. LOL Lennon was a little upset because Martin spent more time on things that were more McCartney oriented and in reality, Martin really should have spent more time on Strawberry Fields & recorded it again instead of "rigging" it. That's just my opinion from being involved in the recording/production process for many years.
Some exaggeration. Some errors. Some misinterpretation. Yes, Martin was a major contributor to Beatles success. But not a s much as portrayed in this piece. For example, most of the instrumental parts scored by Martin were first created by one of The Beatles, usually Paul, and demonstrated to George Martin by whistling, humming, or use of another instrument. Since none of The Beatles could write musical notation, Martin would then score the part--always with continuing input not only in the scoring but in the performance. It is not usually as if he went away and wrote a piece of music that he then presented to the Beatles. There were some small exceptions, such as the piano piece--not harpsichord as stated here-(that was recorded at slow speed and then sped up) for "In My Life". That was an excellent example of his contributions--one of his best. But most of what he did was under the considerable directions of The Beatles themselves. His contributions as a session player combined with his production skills were unique but, as Paul has put it, "George certainly helped, but let's not get carried away."
They created some masterpieces WITHOUT George Martin later. You made a dumb "Blanket" statement & your education level is low. "There" in this case should be a possessive pronoun spelled "THEIR".
Anyone who even debates the question about someone else being "The Fifth Beatle" (Brian Epstein, Stuart Sutcliffe, Murray the K, Pete Best, Geoff Emerick, Phil Spector, Billy Preston, blah blah blah) is a clueless idiot. George Martin was THE man who put all the pieces together in the studio from 1962-1970. Without him, the Beatles would have been a far different band; their impact on the world stage would have been delayed without Martin's help in landing them a record contract in 1962. His influence on their entire career can never EVER be overestimated.
I agree that Martin gets the nod for his enormous contributions to the classic Beatles' sound, but it should not be overlooked that none of us would have ever heard of The Beatles were it not for Pete Best. Not just because Pete allowed them to go to Germany simply by joining the band, but also because the band gelled behind his revolutionary "Atom Beat" like they never had before. And because Pete was by far the most popular Beatle during his entire 2-year tenure on drums. Geoff Nugent, guitarist for the contemporary Liverpool band, The Undertakers, said, *"You'd see 2 or 3 girls around John, Paul and George after a Beatles show, and you'd see 50 around Pete. Pete Best put The Beatles on the map."* The day before Pete joined The Beatles, they were the worst band in Liverpool. "Awful", according to George Harrison. And on the brink of disbandment. But then Pete joined, they went straight off to Hamburg, and they were immediately transformed into the hottest ticket in two cities in two countries.
@Cosmo-Kramer I'll give you that Pete Best does not get enough credit or respect for the contributions he made to the original blueprint of the Beatles. In fact, in a way each of the people who came and went in the progression and growth of the Beatles had their own impact on the eventual final product. Pull one loose thread out and there's a chance the tapestry that was the Beatles changes.
@@bluemoon-20 Agreed, there were lots of people who if you removed them from The Beatles' circle, The Beatles would've been different. Famous, but different. For example, take Astrid out the equation and they don't get the moptop. But they'd still have gone on to write those great songs and been the biggest band in world. Their cultural effect would've been diminished, but Martin didn't sign them because of their haircuts (which only 3 of them had, anyway). There are lots of people like that, if they never met The Beatles, The Beatles would be somewhat different. Still a huge success, but a bit different. But outside the final four bandmembers, I think only the following individuals were *_essential_* to the band making it big. Not in any particular order: *Allan Williams, Bruno Koschmider, Pete Best, Mona Best, Brian Epstein, Mike Smith, George Martin, and Ken Townsend.* Remove any one of them from the equation, and The Beatles never make it. I might even add Bill Harry, Bob Wooler, and Ray McFall to that list of indispensable contributors to The Beatles reaching superstardom.
Plain and simple, George Martin WAS the fifth Beatle! He polished, advised and even played with what eventually became the legend of The Beatles. How many people can say that? Eric Clapton, a legend in his own right? Billy Preston? The Fifth Beatle, period!
@@fortunatomartino8549 Thank you for providing the name. I read his background, and his story about Ringo. Looks like he was just hustling, and was unwilling to provide many specifics to back up his all his claims. Also was not able to find corroboration for most of his claims.
Correction: On "In My Life", George Martin DID NOT play a harpsichord. It was a piano sped up on tape.
Correction corrected:
The instrument Mr. Martin played is called a "harmonium."
It is a keyboard instrument that is very like an organ, but its sounds differ from those either of a piano or of ordinary organs.
@@DoIGetTube Wrong! On In my life he played piano.
@@DoIGetTube GM played harmonium on some tracks, but the “harpsichord” sound in ‘…Life’ is definitely sped up PIANO
What IS correct is that it is a sublime result.Martin added that je ne sais quoi, a result of working in comedy and classical that distilled itself into the productions.Genius.
The *Rubber Soul* track to feature George's harmonium is "The Word", @@DoIGetTube.
I love George Martin's score on "Eleanor Rigby" as much as Paul's melody and words.
The first PID song, foreshadowing the death later that year
No score without that melody
It's a brilliant score and an integral part of the work of art that is ER, but don't forget that the concept of that score, and the tone of it, were due to McCartney.
Martin has said the strings on Eleanor Rigby were Paul’s idea and that he and Paul worked for a half day on the score together with Paul describing what he wanted while playing piano and George writing it down and adding suggestions. Much the way Paul did his later classical pieces in the 90’s.
You can but the score accompanies the melody. And a fine job too.
The greatest thing about George Martin was that he kept his ego and check.
He could’ve been one of these producers who demanded writing credits or did interviews where he talked about how great he was, and in fact, he verged on that at times, which is why they didn’t use them for the last album they did and the Beatles took him for granted and many ways. When he wasn’t available time for working on Sergeant Pepper McCartney was just gonna go ahead without him. And martin claimed how much it hurt his feelings.
He knew they were young men full of ego, and they were going to be on top of the world which would make them almost insufferable, and he managed to hold them accountable and keep the egos from spiraling out of control and kept his ego out of the mix, which would’ve destroyed everything as well.
Great amount of respect for the man.
A lesser person would have been a sore spot and probably broken up the band
"Ego in check." In check, as in reining in some force.
Martin produced Abbey Road, which was the last album they made together. In fact, McCartney had to convince him to come on board after the sour sessions of Let It Be.
in check
@@Au60schild I know. It sounds like as he was writing the comment he was playing chess. 😁
@@Au60schild Well, he did keep his check and then cash though lol
Great video!
I actually got to meet him at the Birchmere musical Hall in Alexandria Virginia in 1999.
Me and some friends got him a gift a gold plated pocket watch with the Kennedy half dollar on the face that cost about $200. He was so excited about the gift he could barely contain himself.
And just as classy as you would imagine.
It was an experience I will never forget. ☺️
Great story! George rules!
@@Gerrys-Channel Glad you enjoyed it. I was also introduced to George’s wife and Giles who were equally wonderful.
It was one of most joyful evenings of my life. 🤓
Postscript: I didn’t realize that I was in DIRECT VISUAL LINE of one of Sir George’s teleprompters, so it looked like he was talking DIRECTLY to me, which unnerved me until I figured it out! 😉
On 'She's Leaving Home', it's not George Martin's score, but Mike Leander, who scored 'As Tears Go By' for The Stones.
Your very picky we know this
@@roberteccles3896 Just giving credit where credit it do. The only reason Mike Leander was used, was Paul was hot to get it recorded and George Martin was away. When George found out, he was very hurt Paul didn't wait to use him.
Even after 60 years George Martin's mixes sound very clear and interesting. It proves that technology doesn't do much. Mostly it's the human talent.
exactly
In 1967 Time magazine published a profile of George Martin which proclaimed him the Svengali-esque mastermind of The Beatles. This irked not only The Beatles but George Martin himself. Martin's unusual background for a pop record producer included a stint as an oboe player in the Sadler's Wells opera orchestra (which performed operas in English translations) and also producing comedy records for groups like Peter Sellers' Goon Squad (precursors of Monty Python), Beyond the Fringe (featuring Dudley Moore) and Flanders and Swann. His skill at creating unique sound effects for these comedy albums proved crucial to The Beatles when their music became more experimental and complex. George Martin was NOT an "auteur producer" the way Phil Spector and Berry Gordy were; he never saw himself as co-equal to The Beatles but was content to work with them and help them achieve their artistic dreams. I've also long thought that both Brian Epstein's and George Martin's background in classical music, in which the composer is considered the true artist and the performer is merely the interpreter, led to one of the most fascinating and far-reaching innovations in music. Before The Beatles, artists who wrote their own songs were considered cheating; many artists actually published their original songs under pseudonyms (like Buddy Holly, who often took his songwriting credits as "Charles Hardin," after the first two words in his real name, Charles Hardin Holley) and RCA Victor actually paid lower royalty rates to artists who wrote their own songs than they paid to professional songwriters. (That's the main reason why, when Johnny Cash left Sun Records, he signed with Columbia instead of going with RCA Victor as Elvis had.) Brian Epstein actively PROMOTED The Beatles as songwriters and said, essentially, that because they wrote their own songs they were more complete artists and therefore you should like them better.
George Martin was note a co writer to 49 Beatles songs..and there are numerous mistakes in his reporting .
Neither Paul nor John composed the orchestral parts of any Beatles song because they weren't capable. You think they wrote that music out and Martin just performed it? Absurd. Martin was a professional and took his producer credit. He wasn't going to be stupid and ask for songwriting credit. There are tons of producers that add music to songs, but never ask for song writing credit. They know that being the producer is enough and they aren't going to rock the boat over something stupid.
@@stickman1742How were the Beatles going to write out the music, given that none of them could read (let alone write out) any music? They might know what sounded good, but they didn’t know WHY it did.
It's amazing that the four Beatles came together to create such great stuff and just as amazing Martin happened to produce them. Heck of a combo!
I'm a strong believer in "the right people at the right place at the right moment in time".
@@ozrob8726 Nails it!
The Beatles were very lucky to have both George Martin and Brian Epstein to work with at a time when artists were being totally ripped off by management and record labels. They were a hit making team. Without them the Beales probably would have made a few records and drifted off into obscurity.
He was the producer of the Beatles, not one of the writers. Period. The writer of a 'song' is the person (or persons) responsible for composing the top line melody and the lyrics.
He may have written parts within the song and helped with arrangements, key changes, bridges, etc. but the core of the songs were Lennon and McCartney.
3:26 no it wasn’t a harpsichord solo: he recorded it half speed on piano but sped the tape up double, making it an octave higher and thus sounding like a harpsichord.
Correction: George Martin and Paul McCartney collaborated on the string arrangements of "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby". Martin is on record complementing McCartney's contributions, including a relative seventh played on the cello and the "crying" violin on the final verse.
It was a marriage of circumstances. The Beatles' talent was not underpinned by musical knowledge in the classical sense -- reading music, etc., so they were limited. Martin's wide grasp of this kind of musical knowledge wasn't wanted or needed in the ordinary course of his job. Each flooded the other with opportunity for creative expression. Together they created music that is wonderful and enduring.
The people in the shadows controlling those in the light.
Crowley on Pepper cover....Twice
@@PaulFormentos OOOOOO, scaredy scaredy!
Tavistock
@@timdailey2690 They do seem to cover their secrets.
@@ArlenWilliams Masonic….
Thank you for finally giving him the recognition for his work!!!!!!
Yes, because George Martin *never* gets any recognition for his work...
5th Beatle!
None.The songwriters are those who write: 1. The lyrics. 2 The melodies. All else is arranging/scoring/producing - which was GM's role within their music.
And he wrote the music, for instance, that he played on the piano on "In My Life". Arranging is the life blood of a hit. "Please Please Me" sounded like a Roy Orbison song until Martin arranged it into the hit we know now. I would give him songwriting credit for that.
@@harvey1954 Not at all. If he didn't write the lyrics (which he didn't) or the main tune (melody) which he didn't - then he is not the composer and therefore does not receive a songwriting credit. George Martin was the producer/arranger/additional musician - that's it.
Exactly. Without words, melody and chords, there is nothing to produce or arrange. Nashville's town motto is "It all starts with a song". The Beatle wrote words, melodies and chords.
@@harvey1954 All Martin told the Beatles with "Please Please Me" was to simply speed up the tempo. That's not an earth-shattering revelation of genius (nor does it have anything to do with the composition of the song); indeed, it's quite probable the group would have figured to speed it up themselves, anyway. That doesn't erase that it was Martin who told them, he still deserves credit as producer, but it certainly doesn't mean he deserves any songwriting credit. Yes, he did help polish their songs and make them the best that they could be but the songs were already genius, and the group were still responsible for the bulk of the arranging of their songs. It was the group themselves that insisted on experimenting with the sitar, the Moog synthesizer, backwards tape loops, the orchestral "freak out" in "A Day In The Life", etc.
@@spiritof6663 He did more than that. The beginning of Please Please Me was pushed into the back of the song at Martin's suggestion. You are quick to discount his importance. They were always his students.
If you ever heard a Beatles demo tape and then listen to the final product you can see what a huge influence George Martin had on the songs.
99% of demos sound worse than the final cut, Martin has nothing to do with this fact. Sure, Martin was important to the Beatles, but if he'd been as good as you folks are making out it would seem to me that he would have found similar success with other artists.
@@ChrisBlair-ev3mp EXACTLY
@@ChrisBlair-ev3mp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Martin#Other_artists
@@michaelrapson I'm familiar with Martin, and nothing in the article you suggest can contradict what I said above.
If you ever heard a Gerry and The Pacemakers demo then listen to the final product you can see what a huge influence George Martin had on their songs too.
There were two Georges in The Beatles.
Paul recently said, "On any song, where there is good "piano,' it was George Martin." :)
George Martin - Genius !!!!
That's the bottom line. Anyone who even debates the question about someone else being "The Fifth Beatle" (Brian Epstein, Stuart Sutcliffe, Murray the K, Pete Best, Geoff Emerick, blah blah blah) is clueless.
George Martin was THE man who put all the pieces together in the studio from 1962-1970. Without him, the Beatles would have been a far different band. Their dramatic beginning might not have happened without Martin's help in landing them a record contract in 1962. His influence on their entire career is immeasurable.
@@bluemoon-20 Totally agree !!!
@@Bruce15485 It's interesting to think what The Beatles would have been if Decca Records had signed them instead. They probably would have been forced into a more conventional pop-rock mode and would not have had the chance George Martin gave them to explore different sound effects and styles of music. I remember getting the Beatles' Decca audition bootleg LP in 1979, listening to it with my then-girlfriend, and both of us staring at each other and thinking, "Gee, if THIS is what we'd had to go on, we wouldn't have signed them either!"
@@mgconlanOnly after their success. The 1st few albums were very much raw Beatles. After that the studio(& Martin)would have given them carte blanche when they were so bankable and talented.
@@bluemoon-20Martin was important to their success but not crucial to it. Why wasn't he near as successful with the other artists he worked with? People forget the Beatles gave Martin the platform to become a legend too.
How Many Beatles Songs Did George Martin Write? Ah, that would be zero.
George Martin was a genius and he was essential to the Beatles, but he wasn't much of a songwriter.
George Martin's tremendous success with the Beatles wasn't repeated with any other musician he produced. What does that mean?
What about Gerry Marsden and Cilla Black? George produced the songs on Alfie.
@@StellarFella I think he's talking about from an artistic perspective, not commercial. The other acts Martin produced in the 60s were embarrassingly straight and square, and had little or no evolution in their music. If Martin was such a genius, Gerry would have made his "Pepper" and Cilla her "Abbey Road", right? Or at least *something* interesting. That didn't happen. In the 70s Martin did hook up with America, but their music was already good before Martin (he came for their 4th album) and he didn't do very much to change their sound, as it was. He added some nice string arrangements, but nothing out of the box like what happened with The Beatles.
Very similar to how none of the Beatles solo careers matched the synergy of their time together. It was a place and time, a combination of personalities, a changing world, and talent that created an other worldly magic. Wouldn’t have happened without any of the five involved.
Blow By Blow and Wired by Jeff Beck both produced by Martin
.....YES my friend, BUT you have literally ANSWERED your OWN question here, BUT from the REVERSE point of view !!!!!.....from the album Please Please Me (1963) to the Let It Be album (1970) and including every single released by The Beatles during this same timeline, WHY then (if as musicians and writers they were so good) did NONE of The Beatles ever act as, take control as the lone PRODUCER(S) on any of their released albums and singles ?????, that is the REAL question here, YES.....
George Martin was the best keyboard player in the band. He also arranged, wrote all the orchestra scores, produced. I've always considered Martin the 5th Beatle. Thanks to Martin, "Yesterday" was the hit that it was. He wrote the string quartet parts. Unheard of in Rock at the time.
Without George Martin and Brian Epstein, not only wouldn't we know who the Beatles were, but without George, they wouldn't have grown past where they were in 1962 when he met them. George brought out the best in them - and, possibly, they brought out the best in him.
Pure speculation. Especially saying "they wouldn't have grown past where they were in 1962". The Beatles were smart guys, and were always progressing.
Is it true or false that the Headway they made as artists what's facilitated by Sir George Martin, @michaelharrington75 ?
@@ericbgordon1575 That's not a question that can be answered "true or false". Martin was responsible for much of the Beatles progession. Especially early on, but they wrote the songs, and after they learned their way around the studio they had many ideas. They advanced as producers and songwriters.
@@michaelharrington75 I believe it to be accurate speculation. Lennon for one would have stayed on track with his '50's' love of music and Paul would have gone too far with his natural love of corny sweet theatre music. Martin and Epstein were as important as any member of the Beatles.
@@Neil-Aspinall The Beatles are the most diverse band ever, and the reason for that is because THEY always listened to all styles of music. They didn't want to keep doing the same thing. John, Paul, and George could have easily kept writing the same style songs the people went literally crazy for, but they didn't. They allowed themselves to be influenced by other artists like Dylan, the Byrds, the Beach Boys, the Band, Jimi Hendrix, Harry Nilsson, and Cream.
They always brought new instruments into the studio like the Pianet, Sitar, Clavioline, Mellotron, and Lap steel guitar. They were the ones that chose to use any instruments they saw laying around EMI studios. The Beatles brought in the volume pedals, fuzz box's, tone benders, and moog synthesizers to make sure their songs sounded fresh.
The Beatles themselves smoked the pot, dropped the LSD, and did the transcendental meditation that had a direct influence on their music. It was their ideas to use tape loops, have backwards vocals/instruments, and record feedback. It was their idea to record all 30 songs they had in 1968 to make a double album instead of taking the best 14, and making a strong single album. It was the Beatles idea to have artists design their album covers, and make albums a complete piece of art instead of a collection of songs.
I could say no one would know who Brian Epstein and George Martin are if it wasn't for the Beatles, but I would never do that. All the pieces had to come together at the perfect time for the Beatles to happen the way it did. Brian and George were key players in the Beatles success, and brilliant men. George Martin taught the Beatles a lot, and even played on, and wrote orchestral parts for their songs. To me, he's the "5th Beatle". But the Beatles wrote the songs, and those songs are why people still love the Beatles.
Another remarkable thing about George Martin was his accent: completely acquired. He freely admitted that he came from a humble background - his family spoke with cockney accents - but he created an upper middle class persona ( and accent) for himself.
Remarkable, but also sad that people feel that in the UK at least, you have to get rid of a regional accent to rise in the world. So much for the democratic principle.
The Beatles were phenominal. At least Paul and Ringo are still among the living.
He seemed to be a wonderful gentleman. He may have had more influence over the Beatles than is even discussed here.
George was really something of a person. To take the Beatles tunes and work them out the way he did was genius on his part.
Lucky enough to have met the legend once, getting to thank him for the wonderful productions with the greatest band ever - The Action! He took that very well, almost agreeing with me… 😊
I always wondered how much George M. contributed to the writing of their music. I knew he played the solo on, In My Life. If it wasn’t for producers a lot of bands wouldn’t even be that well known. ✌🏼
George Martin did more than just produce. He arranged vocals, wrote really effective orchestral scores and many key interludes and postludes for a number of Beatles songs. Martin was essentially a classical musician and composer who found his best fit as a musician in the context of the Beatles. He's part of the magic to be sure.
IMO one of his strengths was finding way to include classical touches without over orchestrating. Much of his style as an arranger involved a lean apporach to orchestral color, something that worked well for a pop and rock texture. Compare his work on something like Strawberry Fields, I Am The Walrus, Eleanor Ribgy or Glass Onion to the syrup that Phil Spector poured all over Let It Be, Long and Winding Road and Across The Universe.
@@canalesworks1247Right.
Weak.
@@keithlarson9304 Worthless
He wouldn't have been near the legend he became without the Beatles either. He worked with plenty of other artists who never reached the Beatles success.
Thank you. I learned much from your video. I now have a much better understanding of Martin and the Beatles Sound. Excellent Work.
Very balanced and informative. No Beatles without George M
Ja, ja, ja!!!
George Martin didn’t “write” any Beatles songs…..he arranged their songs until they took over that for themselves around 1965. He also scored string and brass parts for some tracks. He was instrumental in giving them their big break for sure…..but he didn’t write any of their songs.
He most likely wrote3/4 of them, with his team, especially after McCartney died.
@@johngarbarini1048 😅😅😅
It took me a second to realise it was Giles Martin and not his father.
It takes a great producer to put the final touches to any song. They turn ideas into great music.
0:05 Never thought they had so big age differences. But great band.
Not sure about GM but pretty sure a good deal of them have quite a bit todo with Theodor W. Adorno
Thank you!
BRAVO!!! Well Done!
Listening to those old interviews with George Martin talking about first meeting the Beatles is key. In this video we hear him say, "...they weren't very good" and, "...they had no great songs...." That's quite telling. In another interview, Martin stated, "I thought their music was rubbish. Paul and John told me they had written over one hundred songs between them, but none of them were any good. So, I settled on Please, Please Me, which had to be re-done, essentially." Then there is a very telling article which appeared in a 1962 Mersey Beat magazine article. The article talks about Ringo replacing Pete Best on drums and states, "The Beatles will fly to London to make recordings at EMI Studios. They will be recording numbers that have been specifically written for the group, which they have received from their recording manager, George Martin (Parlophone)." If the Beatles, and specifically Lennon & McCartney, were such great songwriters then why did songs have to be "specifically written" for them?
Yeah ok. But the term the fifth beatle, if I am not mistaken, was initially used to refer to the first drummer.
There were only 4 Beatles, but George Martin by far has the strongest claim to being a "5th Beatle". I've seen other discussions where people acted as if there was some doubt as to who would be a "5th". Brian Epstein? No, he was just a promoter. Billy Preston or Eric Clapton? Nope, they just played on a few tracks. Pete Best or Stu Sutcliffe? Early band members with essentially zero influence on the Fab Four. Murray The K? Laughable in his self-promotion, but he did (probably) originate the term "The Fifth Beatle". Clearly the only serious contender to that title is George Martin.
The title card for this video says "The 5th Beatle" in reference to George Martin. He really wasn't.... The Beatles themselves always considered their road manager, best friend, fixer, body guard, occasional uncredited musician and actor in 4 out of 5 of their movies, Mal Evans to be the 5th Beatle. He was with them from the Cavern Club in '62 to their break up in 1970.
Martin contributed MUSIC to the catalogue. Consistently. That makes him the fifth Beatle. Mal was a friend.
I truly believe George Martin was more aligned with Paul who liked mainstream and top 40. It was a major contributor of the band splitting up in 1970, happens to a lot of bands. John hated commercial music and Ob-La-Di stuck in his craw. They were in the studio and everyone not named Paul was really tired of the Obladi takes. It needed a intro and John came up with one (desperation) and they had their take. I think Paul/John and George Martin all learned from each other. Martin had never been around rock n roll while the Beatles had never been in a studio but they all outgrew each other as time marched on.
He was a great producer and arranger. He didn't actually create the songs though. All Beatle songs from the best to the mediocre, were enhanced/improved by the arrangement skills of all the members, but creative arranging skills don't mean you wrote the song. If the tune and words are there when the session starts, that's the song written. Incidentally, in my opinion, one of Martin's most telling contributions was forcing their hand in replacing their drummer. Without Ringo, the collective image wouldn't have been so coherent and the music would not have had that extra vitality.
Absurd, Martin did create much of the Beatles' music. He was able to translate the musical desires of the Beatles into reality.
@@harvey1954 He did not, I repeat did not create much of the Beatles music. Learn something about songs Harvey.
@@henryalva8819 ...and where were the wonderful songs by Gerry & The Pacemakers and Billy J. Kramer & The Dakotas, who Martin also produced??? hmmm? THAT should tell you where the real genius was. The Beatles had great songs that they had played live in the studio with little to no input from Martin right from their first album--I'm talking classics like "I Saw Her Standing There", "There's A Place", "P.S. I Love You", etc.
@@henryalva8819 Gerry & Billy had enough "image, sound and charisma" to go to #1 on the British charts over and over again over a two-year period. And I'm not sure what you mean with "Martin did not do it alone". Are you saying that he had other people work with Gerry & Billy, while he focused solely on The Beatles? I would need some hard evidence for that, because from everything I've read that was definitely not the case. Martin produced the other acts in the same way he produced The Beatles. The only difference is The Beatles turned out brilliant artistic product and the others, while they did have smash hits, didn't.
@@henryalva8819 I'm certainly NOT saying that Gerry & Billy had more charisma or talent than The Beatles. The key word here being "talent". You still haven't really explained why, if George Martin was their producer and he was apparently behind all of The Beatles' success, he couldn't do the same for his other proteges--proteges that did, in fact, have many smash hits and so deserved the same kind of attention. Your answer basically just seems to be "because he didn't want to", which doesn't make any sense, because then why would he want to for The Beatles? *What was the difference with The Beatles* ? To me it is clear: their own innate talent.
Lots of groups have great producers but the Beatles recognized his musical knowledge and talent and were willing to accept his suggestions and input. They realized how lucky they were to have him in their corner. Compare that to a man like Paul Simon who only navigated by his own star.
Paul, John , and George Martin all played the same piano on Rock And Roll Music
George Martin was brilliant. He made so many Beatles songs even better
Which is the job of a producer. The producer needs material to work with. Lennon and McCartney gave him gold.
They would not have been as great without him….he was ahead of his time….
Martin was an important influence to the Bealtes but not absolutely crucial in my view. Why wasnt Martin near as successful with any of the other acts he produced/worked with at the time. People forget the Beatles helped Martin become the legend he became too.
They all were part of the recipe.
I think more like glue for the left overs. If EMI hadn't paid George Martin to get a product out of the Beatles then they would have self destructed earlier. That's how important George Martin was as a producer, and why ultimately he stopped and they sought Phil Spector's help.
George Martin, said he learned more from the Beatles than the Beatles learned from him..but of course Martin was a great producer for the Beatles
If George Martin was this monumental producer, that was the fifth Beatle and without him, The Beatles would be nothing. Then why didn’t any of the other several musical artist he produced come remotely even close to the Beatles success? Martin was probably the best producer. The Beatles could’ve had because he allowed them to explore their creative tastes and he was able to bring to reality the creative vision of John and Paul. He should get credit for that. But without the Beatles Martin would be average producer from Britain no one in America would ever heard of him.
It's more than a bit like asking how many Who hits did Kit Lambert write. Lambert's classical fingerprints are all over " Tommy ". But of course, the gigantic ego calledTownshend barely mentions the creative who has inscribed on his stone; " ... "The Man Who Made Tommy "
Or even genius producer Martin Zero ( Hannett ).. and the gold-plating of Joy Division's sound post '78
My take on it, has always been that George saw the Beatles as a project. After his work with all sorts of other creative artists in earlier years, his production and ‘session’ skills were perfectly honed and at that perfect point, could be given free rein with them.
Paul and John were raw, brilliant and charismatic talents. George could mould that quality material into helping produce pop masterpieces. It was a collaborative miracle and probably one that could have only happened in the 60’s and only once in history.
When the band inevitably atomised after Brian’s death, although still wonderful in their way, they gradually started to neglect George’s invaluable contributions.
I lost interest in them at that time.
Under current ways of crediting song writers, many of their songs would show Martin as a cowriter, but the '60 had different rules. Plus royalties...
George Martin was taught piano by Jane Asher's mother. Unbeknownst to Paul McCartney, who lived in Jane Asher's parents house for a time.
I think George Martin was integral in the recordings made by the Beatles....but make no mistake about it,,,George Martin did not write beatle songs....and in an interview where someone asked him regarding this...he said...that the talent Maccartney, Lennon had and developed...was astounding....together the alchemy made it what it is today......Miraculous When everything comes together...you get MAGIC.
Other than Harrison's "All Things Must Pass," none of them did anything of much significance after the Beatles, so it does seem that Martin's influence was enormous.
To me George Martin was the third Beatle to me. As important as George and Ringo were George changed so much of Beatles raw material so drastically. I love the tune "The Game" which Paul picked to use while producing Mary Hopkins' debut album. I often wonder if there is a batch of George Martin demos laying around somewhere and acetate on some shelf.
Now that's being silly. Don't forget Ringo and George were also the face and charisma of the Beatles. Martin was important to elevating some of their songs but it was the Beatles themselves who innovated beyond other bands.
How many songs did Ringo write? E actly teo, with a litle from his friends.
There's two other where he has a co-writing credit.
George Martin did most of their orchestrations, hd did a lof the technological innovations and in the early days he made numerous suggestions to their songs that really made their songs.
I totally agree with your argument and I enjoyed your presentation very much. But I have to account for the view of John Lennon when he said he wished he could record everything over again. Yes, even Strawberry Fields Forever. I think John may have resented the direction some of his inspiration went in. Especially his idea that became Yellow Submarine. It came from a painful place and became a cartoon. Don't get me wrong, I love them all, especially Paul in his emotional intelligence, but John brought a kind of magic that can't even be described in words.
McCartney wrote prettier melodies, but Lennon took music where it had never been before. Paul could never have written "I Am The Walrus." What irks me about him is now that John and George are dead, he's taking partial credit for many songs John wrote by himself. He can do that knowing that while George would have called bullshit, Ringo will never contradict him.
Some people always try to put the Beatles down a little but Geoge Martin would have likely remained a musical nobody without the Beatles. His background was classical, Jazz and comedy and like many in the music business considered Rock & Roll to be a necessary evil. The hugely successful Please, Please Me album was virtually a Beatles live performance and required very little producing.
Thank you George Martin !
Greatest band of all time?
Sir. George Martin
He Was The Catalyst
This is What a Great Producer Does
He Took The Band Ideas and Made It Happen
Then You Are a Extra Pair of Ears Then He Wrote String Arrangements To Embellish a Song Did Back Tracking What a Amazing Time For All Involved
Sir. George Martin
HMV Means
His Majesty’s Voice
In The United States
HMV Records Means
His Masters Voice
With The Dog Niper and The Victrola
His knowledge of the off-beat was one of the reasons he was employed by EMI to look after Parlophone.
So, George Martin didn't write any Beatles song. But he did have a huge influence in producing and arranging them, as well as being a really talented session player. Yet another Beatles video cheap clickbait title.
He probably didn't write any songs. He enhanced a lot of them because he was the greatest producer in the history of rock music. It is not normal to consider a producer as part of a group but Martin has been considered a de facto member for decades. There probably aren't any Beatles fans who don't know this already.
I've said it as a comment on other videos, without GM ,the Beatles would have flamed out after an album or two.
Y'know, I'd have to agree that there were indeed two Georges in the Beatles!
The music of the Beatles in their solo careers was far less complex and far less daring than it had been when George Martin was their producer. That says it all to me.
McArtney,Ram,Band on the Run,Imagine,Plastic Ono Band,
All Things Must Past,Venus and Mars,Walls & Bridges,Double Fantasy are far better than the music of Gerry & The Pacemakers,Fourmost,
Cilla Black,Billy Kramer & The Dakotas,Edwards Hand,Seatrain.
You are wrong.
Martin out of The Beatles is not the same producer.Very overrated
Here comes again those that still insist to overvalue George Martin's contributions and undervalue Beatles unique ideas and compositions. Martin was key in the arrangements but, as he himself has stated over the years and up to his sad death, all the ideas, lyrics and melodies came from the Fab Four. Evenmore, in many of their masterpieces, they told him how they wanted them to sound, playing to him on guitar, piano and humming, not only the main melody but also the chorus an complementary musical sounds. Additionally, most of the experimental ideas came from them, traversing the recording and musical equipments on the studio that were not usual for them. All that experimentation significantly expanded when syntethizers and the mellotron arrived in Abbey Road studios. So, c'mon, what are you trying to "prove"? Of course, Martin didn't compose any Beatles song!
He claims he composed "Michelle".
Memoirs of Billy shears confirms this
Well done and more importantly, well said. George Martin's musical DNA is all over these wondrous tracks.
This is good but there's so clip of John Lennon going around the socials where he says that the notion that George was the 5th Beatles was wrong, and almost laughs about how people think this.
George H's cheeky tie remark was aimed at engineer Geoff Emerick, not George Martin. Emerick resented it for years.
If the Beatles began in the 21st century, it's likely Martin would be credited as a band member, particularly once they became a purely studio band. The Beatles had outstanding talent, vision & work ethic but they also had some luck, all great artists need a measure of good luck. The luckiest break they had was the unlikely collaboration with George Martin.
In a way, George Martin was not the Fifth Beatle but the First.
There are a number of clips tjat make it clear that the boys composed.and played intuitively.
Without Martin, the Beatles would have remained in their same level of musical sophistication as in 1964-65.
5th Beatle? I think there was over 100 Beatles that played on and wrote Beatles songs.
Theo Adorno….
How many did Phil Specter fix?
I believe he was the best producer of all time! At least in the 60s .Brian Wilson thought so to. I Also believe Brian Wilson was an incredible a close 2nd until the drugs and mental illness took him away from that I also believe they were both absolutely better than Phil Spector. I know he did inspire Brian Wilson and others for a few years but he spent so much time and none of his money and driving people nuts recording sessions over and over and lucky to have the wrecking crew play for him. But as time went he was not that great. He ruined let it be. Glyn John’s is awesome too Berry Gordy was amazing as well . George Martin had tinker toy equipment thanks to EMI. He and his staff with Geoff Emerrick invented new recording technology as they went did loops before anyone else and changing Veri track speed, ADT, Flange etc… you get the point. As time moved forward there have a lot great producers to many to name but what George Martin did for the Beatles with all limited Technology was brilliant! He was such a great composer as well! RIP Master George Martin!
George Martin made only a trivial amount of money producing the Beatles, but provided massive insight and significantly embellished their recordings. John Lennon sometimes treated him like trash though.
How go you know Lennon sometimes treated him like trash? EVERYBODY has arguments working together. For example: The way George Martin produced "Strawberry Fields"
WAS NOT great by splicing different takes together that had DRASTICALLY different timing. Lennon was upset & said it should have been re-recorded. So, nobody is perfect.
@@yesterdayproductions1019 For the record, splicing the two takes was done at John's own insistence although he knew full well what the problem was. That the tempi and pitches happened to allow it was sheer good luck, but GM did it and Lennon wasn't "upset" - he signed off on it. How could he not, it was what he asked for. It was after the break-up that he said everything should be re-recorded. "Even Strawberry Fields?" said the incredulous interviewer. "Especially Strawberry Fields," said Lennon. At that point it was GM that was "upset", with good reasion.
@@strathman7501 Who was the record Producer, George Martin or Lennon??? Martin should have told Lennon "No" & rerecorded it like Lennon said later when he was wiser. Sometimes the Parent has to tell the Child "No".
@@yesterdayproductions1019 "Strawberry Fields" sounds fantastic as is; most people don't even realize it's an edit of two different takes. I certainly didn't, until I read about it. Once you know the edit is easy to spot, but is otherwise pretty seamless. Lennon only said all the songs should have been re-recorded because he's an artist and artists are always dissatisfied with their own work. It wasn't about putting down Martin. The only time he actually got mad at Martin was after Martin had given an interview suggesting that HE was the guy behind all those great records. Lennon was pissed because he knew otherwise and told the interviewer how it really was in the studio--ie. it was The Beatles directing George Martin, not the other way around. But that's the only time he ever really had a bad word toward Martin. He later apologized to Martin, saying he didn't mean to hurt his feelings in that interview. He just wanted to correct the record, which apparently still needs correcting to this day, as evidenced by all these comments making is sound like the band would have been nothing without Martin. Hogwash!
@@spiritof6663 Correct. However, I will say that Martin broke all the rules when he spliced two takes together that were a semi-tone apart with way different tempos.
However, to his credit he made it work. LOL
Lennon was a little upset because Martin spent more time on things that were more McCartney oriented and in reality, Martin really should have spent more time on Strawberry Fields & recorded it again instead of "rigging" it. That's just my opinion from being involved in the recording/production process for many years.
He wrote zero songs for the Beatles .....but he was a great arranger on many of their tunes.
Some exaggeration. Some errors. Some misinterpretation. Yes, Martin was a major contributor to Beatles success. But not a s much as portrayed in this piece. For example, most of the instrumental parts scored by Martin were first created by one of The Beatles, usually Paul, and demonstrated to George Martin by whistling, humming, or use of another instrument. Since none of The Beatles could write musical notation, Martin would then score the part--always with continuing input not only in the scoring but in the performance. It is not usually as if he went away and wrote a piece of music that he then presented to the Beatles. There were some small exceptions, such as the piano piece--not harpsichord as stated here-(that was recorded at slow speed and then sped up) for "In My Life". That was an excellent example of his contributions--one of his best. But most of what he did was under the considerable directions of The Beatles themselves. His contributions as a session player combined with his production skills were unique but, as Paul has put it, "George certainly helped, but let's not get carried away."
Hmm.Pete Best, Jimmy Nicol, Stewart Sutcliffe, George Martin. Doesn’t that make 8 Beatles?
He was forced into producing them by Tavistock
Billy Preston was the "5th Beatle" . Lennon said it himself in "Get Back". He played one song with the band and Lennon said "Yer in the group".
Yeah he was jokin’...something Lennon and the other Beatles ALWAYS did....because they are Scousers!...
@@frankhornby6873 John Lennon wanted Billy Preston to join The Beatles as part of a last-ditch attempt to keep the band together.
Yeah he was "in the group"... for about 2 weeks, when they were trying to do everything "live".
Billy Preston ? he played on their second to last album . last album to be released
@@mgconlan no he didnt , john did not want to keep the band together
He had influences on all there studio records without his help they could have never created there masterpieces
Correction....it's THEIR, not there.
@@ericrose3877 nor "they're" !
They created some masterpieces WITHOUT George Martin later. You made a dumb "Blanket" statement & your education level is low. "There" in this case should be a possessive pronoun spelled "THEIR".
@@ericrose3877 Thank God we have a spelling **** checking the spelling/grammar on this thread.
Total Bullsh***
“If anyone was the fifth Beatle, it was Brian.” - Paul McCartney
I wonder if Martin had turn The Beatles down outright and never give them a chance, would The Beatles be as big as they became?..
It's incredible how Giles sound s exactly like hid dad George did
Anyone who even debates the question about someone else being "The Fifth Beatle" (Brian Epstein, Stuart Sutcliffe, Murray the K, Pete Best, Geoff Emerick, Phil Spector, Billy Preston, blah blah blah) is a clueless idiot.
George Martin was THE man who put all the pieces together in the studio from 1962-1970. Without him, the Beatles would have been a far different band; their impact on the world stage would have been delayed without Martin's help in landing them a record contract in 1962. His influence on their entire career can never EVER be overestimated.
I agree that Martin gets the nod for his enormous contributions to the classic Beatles' sound, but it should not be overlooked that none of us would have ever heard of The Beatles were it not for Pete Best. Not just because Pete allowed them to go to Germany simply by joining the band, but also because the band gelled behind his revolutionary "Atom Beat" like they never had before. And because Pete was by far the most popular Beatle during his entire 2-year tenure on drums. Geoff Nugent, guitarist for the contemporary Liverpool band, The Undertakers, said, *"You'd see 2 or 3 girls around John, Paul and George after a Beatles show, and you'd see 50 around Pete. Pete Best put The Beatles on the map."* The day before Pete joined The Beatles, they were the worst band in Liverpool. "Awful", according to George Harrison. And on the brink of disbandment. But then Pete joined, they went straight off to Hamburg, and they were immediately transformed into the hottest ticket in two cities in two countries.
100 million points. go straight to go and collect $200.00 If it wasn't for Martin, the beatles would be just a boy band.
@Cosmo-Kramer I'll give you that Pete Best does not get enough credit or respect for the contributions he made to the original blueprint of the Beatles.
In fact, in a way each of the people who came and went in the progression and growth of the Beatles had their own impact on the eventual final product. Pull one loose thread out and there's a chance the tapestry that was the Beatles changes.
@@bluemoon-20 Epstein changed the look of the beatles, used the same playbook the colonel did with Elvis.
@@bluemoon-20 Agreed, there were lots of people who if you removed them from The Beatles' circle, The Beatles would've been different. Famous, but different. For example, take Astrid out the equation and they don't get the moptop. But they'd still have gone on to write those great songs and been the biggest band in world. Their cultural effect would've been diminished, but Martin didn't sign them because of their haircuts (which only 3 of them had, anyway). There are lots of people like that, if they never met The Beatles, The Beatles would be somewhat different. Still a huge success, but a bit different. But outside the final four bandmembers, I think only the following individuals were *_essential_* to the band making it big. Not in any particular order: *Allan Williams, Bruno Koschmider, Pete Best, Mona Best, Brian Epstein, Mike Smith, George Martin, and Ken Townsend.* Remove any one of them from the equation, and The Beatles never make it. I might even add Bill Harry, Bob Wooler, and Ray McFall to that list of indispensable contributors to The Beatles reaching superstardom.
we always heard the fifth beatle was murray the k, maybe self appointed?
Plain and simple, George Martin WAS the fifth Beatle! He polished, advised and even played with what eventually became the legend of The Beatles. How many people can say that? Eric Clapton, a legend in his own right? Billy Preston?
The Fifth Beatle, period!
He knew that their personalties could pull off the sound that followed..they would learn the tunes.
Martin played a couple of piano riffs period.....
George Martin, fifth beatle. Quincy Jones, Second Michael Jackson
The official story?
Or the real one?
" There were four drummers for the Beatles, none of them were Ringo"
Is that your quote or someone else's?
@ron88303
Don't be lazy
Look up Bernard Purdie
@@fortunatomartino8549 Thank you for providing the name. I read his background, and his story about Ringo. Looks like he was just hustling, and was unwilling to provide many specifics to back up his all his claims. Also was not able to find corroboration for most of his claims.
@@fortunatomartino8549highly unlikely. Why wouldn't they hire a British drummer
SN#6: Sir George Martin is the greatest musical producer, TY Lou Adler, not only for the Beatles but in this history of music...in my opinion.
He wore a suit and tie in the recording studio?