PDA

View Full Version : "Sir" ?.



leegordo
09-06-2008, 01:02 PM
To anyone who's interested, Sir Paul Mccartney was unable to read or write music 'til he was famous I don't know how significant that is, but,I have read that George Martin -the famous A/R-man arranged most of the stuff that was not directly arranged and /or played by the famous 4 on their own!
How about that?

scottgb
09-07-2008, 09:23 PM
To anyone who's interested, Sir Paul Mccartney was unable to read or write music 'til he was famous I don't know how significant that is, but,I have read that George Martin -the famous A/R-man arranged most of the stuff that was not directly arranged and /or played by the famous 4 on their own!
How about that?

OK, if you say so my friend :confused: your point is....

gersdal
09-08-2008, 01:49 PM
If you play guitar without concerning yourself with theory, you'll have a good chance of making good music if your talent is good.

If you play guitar and learn theory, you'll have a better chance of making good music if your talent is good.

I think it is that simple.

LaughingSkull
09-08-2008, 06:59 PM
If you play guitar without concerning yourself with theory, you'll have a good chance of making good music if your talent is good.

If you play guitar and learn theory, you'll have a better chance of making good music if your talent is good.

I think it is that simple.

well put.

jimc8p
09-09-2008, 07:53 AM
I remember hearing an interview with Mccartney where he said that a major songwriting breakthrough came about after being introduced to the 'magic' A7 chord in the key of D! I've also read that he got cold feet about the Mixolydian songs because they sounded 'out of tune'..I'm sure there's many more examples of this kind of thing.

JonR
09-09-2008, 10:53 AM
To anyone who's interested, Sir Paul Mccartney was unable to read or write music 'til he was famous I don't know how significant that is, but,I have read that George Martin -the famous A/R-man arranged most of the stuff that was not directly arranged and /or played by the famous 4 on their own!
How about that?So what?
AFAIK, a lot of George Martin's arrangements were based on lines McCartney sang or played to him.
The band certainly played all their own instruments on everything (you can tell, on some of the early recordings they're some way short of professional standard), but of course the orchestral instruments, horns etc, were played by others. What do you expect?
As well as guitars, Lennon and McCartney could both play keyboards to some extent - certainly enough to show George Martin what they wanted.

I don't think many people believe the Beatles wrote all those orchestral arrangements, as well their words and tunes. Their genius was in the songwriting, with which they had (and needed) very little help. (Martin might suggest arrangement ideas, that's all, such as putting a chorus first.)

As for the "Sir?", McCartney was knighted for his contribution to British culture and the UK economy. So was Sir George Martin.
The Beatles would have been successful without Sir George, tho some of their later music would have sounded different. Sir George would not have been famous without the Beatles. (Tho he was, and would have been, quite successful without them.)

leegordo
09-09-2008, 01:13 PM
So what?
AFAIK, a lot of George Martin's arrangements were based on lines McCartney sang or played to him.
The band certainly played all their own instruments on everything (you can tell, on some of the early recordings they're some way short of professional standard), but of course the orchestral instruments, horns etc, were played by others. What do you expect?
As well as guitars, Lennon and McCartney could both play keyboards to some extent - certainly enough to show George Martin what they wanted.

I don't think many people believe the Beatles wrote all those orchestral arrangements, as well their words and tunes. Their genius was in the songwriting, with which they had (and needed) very little help. (Martin might suggest arrangement ideas, that's all, such as putting a chorus first.)

As for the "Sir?", McCartney was knighted for his contribution to British culture and the UK economy. So was Sir George Martin.
The Beatles would have been successful without Sir George, tho some of their later music would have sounded different. Sir George would not have been famous without the Beatles. (Tho he was, and would have been, quite successful without them.)
Thanks for your reply ,I meant that Sir Martin only arranged stuff that was played by musicians other than The beatles themselves! Surely every one knows that the melodies that they composed were theirs and, nobody elses.... If they felt their music could benefit from a little augmentation,Then that's where Sir Martin, with possibly other musicians, and MAYBE, some other suggested harmonies COULD come in to ensure that the finished article was musically acceptable commercially. Thats why A+R men were needed in studios. Even the great Million sellers needed an A+R man to record them properly, thats why some of the beatles best songs like FI Yesterday and Michelle as well as other great songs couldn't be performed 'live' , and ,consequently,
became neglected during 'Live' concerts!
leegordo

reventlov
09-09-2008, 03:28 PM
"Even the great Million sellers needed an A+R man to record them properly, thats why some of the beatles best songs like FI Yesterday and Michelle as well as other great songs couldn't be performed 'live' , and ,consequently,
became neglected during 'Live' concerts!"

"Yesterday" was often performed live by the Beatles. "Michelle" wasn't, because they wrote it for somebody else (can't remember who off the top of my head).

What is the point of this thread anyway?

JonR
09-10-2008, 03:32 PM
Thanks for your reply ,I meant that Sir Martin only arranged stuff that was played by musicians other than The beatles themselves! Surely every one knows that the melodies that they composed were theirs and, nobody elses.... If they felt their music could benefit from a little augmentation,Then that's where Sir Martin, with possibly other musicians, and MAYBE, some other suggested harmonies COULD come in to ensure that the finished article was musically acceptable commercially.LOL. The Beatles were "musically acceptable commercially" well before Sir George (not "Sir Martin") started orchestrating for them!
True, they were a little raw at the edges when they began, which was enough to put Decca off them ("guitar groups are on the way out" :D ), raw enough visually for Brian Epstein to make them wear suits, and raw enough musically for them to sack Pete Best.
But they were commercial gold dust before Martin touched them (although it was him made them see they needed to replace Best).
Martin - as producer - also tried to get them to record professionally-written covers to begin with, which was the standard thing then. But of course Lennon and McCartney's compositional skills meant the pop rule-book had to be re-written.

Who decides what's "commercial"? Not A&R men. It's the public. A&R men (and other music biz people) try and second-guess the public and often get it wrong. The Beatles were not too rough for the teenage audience. Only for the parents, and the men in suits in the record companies.
Of course, smoothing out their look and sound probably broadened their commercial appeal beyond their natural target audience.

Thats why A+R men were needed in studios. Even the great Million sellers needed an A+R man to record them properly, thats why some of the beatles best songs like FI Yesterday and Michelle as well as other great songs couldn't be performed 'live' , and ,consequently,
became neglected during 'Live' concerts!
leegordoFirstly, "A&R" stands for "Artists and Repertoire". A&R men were responsible - as the name suggests - for finding artists and matching them up with the right songs. They were talent spotters (both of performers and writers). They had no role in recording the songs - certainly not in arranging or orchestrating them. Recording was the producer's (and engineer's) job.
Sometimes (rarely AFAIK) A&R and producer may have been the same person, but they were different jobs.
Secondly, Yesterday and Michelle were mainly McCartney solo efforts in the studio. Yesterday had its string quartet overdubbed of course, and Michelle had vocals overdubbed (by either the other Beatles or McCartney himself) - other instruments on Michelle were mostly played by McCartney.
This meant they were hardly ideal performance material by the quartet.(although McCartney did perform Yesterday solo several times.)

BTW, although the string arrangement on Yesterday was Martin's, McCartney had significant input. He stipulated no vibrato (didn't want it sounding sentimental, "like Mantovani"), and made a couple of additions to the arrangement.
Yesterday was solely a McCartney composition, while Michelle had secondary input from Lennon (the opening of the bridge, and some parts of the rest).

(all info from Ian McDonald's "Revolution in the Head")

Both these tunes indicated that the band were beginning to recognise that studio recording and live performance were two different things. Live, they were a rock'n'roll band - no more, no less (it was barely 3 years since they'd been ripping up Hamburg clubs). In the studio, they could allow their sophisticated composition ideas to come to the fore, freed from the limitations of the guitar-bass-drums line-up.

This was a fairly revolutionary concept in those days. Les Paul, Phil Spector and Joe Meek had use the studio as an "instrument" before the mid-60s, but most people still thought of it as a venue for capturing live performance. It was the Beatles' demands for different effects that forced the technology to develop beyond 4-track into 8-track and more. (Even Sgt Pepper was recorded on just two 4-tracks, slaved together.)

leegordo
09-12-2008, 10:29 PM
LOL. The Beatles were "musically acceptable commercially" well before Sir George (not "Sir Martin") started orchestrating for them!
True, they were a little raw at the edges when they began, which was enough to put Decca off them ("guitar groups are on the way out" :D ), raw enough visually for Brian Epstein to make them wear suits, and raw enough musically for them to sack Pete Best.
But they were commercial gold dust before Martin touched them (although it was him made them see they needed to replace Best).
Martin - as producer - also tried to get them to record professionally-written covers to begin with, which was the standard thing then. But of course Lennon and McCartney's compositional skills meant the pop rule-book had to be re-written.

Who decides what's "commercial"? Not A&R men. It's the public. A&R men (and other music biz people) try and second-guess the public and often get it wrong. The Beatles were not too rough for the teenage audience. Only for the parents, and the men in suits in the record companies.
Of course, smoothing out their look and sound probably broadened their commercial appeal beyond their natural target audience.
Firstly, "A&R" stands for "Artists and Repertoire". A&R men were responsible - as the name suggests - for finding artists and matching them up with the right songs. They were talent spotters (both of performers and writers). They had no role in recording the songs - certainly not in arranging or orchestrating them. Recording was the producer's (and engineer's) job.
Sometimes (rarely AFAIK) A&R and producer may have been the same person, but they were different jobs.
Secondly, Yesterday and Michelle were mainly McCartney solo efforts in the studio. Yesterday had its string quartet overdubbed of course, and Michelle had vocals overdubbed (by either the other Beatles or McCartney himself) - other instruments on Michelle were mostly played by McCartney.
This meant they were hardly ideal performance material by the quartet.(although McCartney did perform Yesterday solo several times.)

BTW, although the string arrangement on Yesterday was Martin's, McCartney had significant input. He stipulated no vibrato (didn't want it sounding sentimental, "like Mantovani"), and made a couple of additions to the arrangement.
Yesterday was solely a McCartney composition, while Michelle had secondary input from Lennon (the opening of the bridge, and some parts of the rest).

(all info from Ian McDonald's "Revolution in the Head")

Both these tunes indicated that the band were beginning to recognise that studio recording and live performance were two different things. Live, they were a rock'n'roll band - no more, no less (it was barely 3 years since they'd been ripping up Hamburg clubs). In the studio, they could allow their sophisticated composition ideas to come to the fore, freed from the limitations of the guitar-bass-drums line-up.

This was a fairly revolutionary concept in those days. Les Paul, Phil Spector and Joe Meek had use the studio as an "instrument" before the mid-60s, but most people still thought of it as a venue for capturing live performance. It was the Beatles' demands for different effects that forced the technology to develop beyond 4-track into 8-track and more. (Even Sgt Pepper was recorded on just two 4-tracks, slaved together.)
Oh! no! Must'nt have the music sound like Mantovani, I mean it would be terrible to think that a great- amateur guitarist was as corny as all that!
Come-on !!!

JonR
09-13-2008, 07:38 AM
Oh! no! Must'nt have the music sound like Mantovani, I mean it would be terrible to think that a great- amateur guitarist was as corny as all that!
Come-on !!!What are you saying? That McCartney didn't say that? Or that he did, but shouldn't have?

And yes, it WOULD be terrible to think - as a young rock player in the 60s - that one might produce something sounding like that smooth soporific music of one's parent's generation.
The quality of Mantovani's music is not (was not) the issue. It's the SOUND of it, which was as uncool as you can get. (And is still pretty uncool, let's face it.)
"Cool" doesn't mean you accept lower standards. It means different standards. 60s pop and rock was about making something new, finding a new set of standards, for a new audience. It's a matter of taste. Mantovani meant poor taste.
The Beatles actually respected classical music a lot more than many of their peers. They had the most open ears of anyone in the 60s. (They wouldn't have sneered at, say, Beethoven or Mozart, or Stravinsky, or whoever. But Mantovani was "easy listening" - shallow, sentimental.)

They were young and untrained. So what? If one is going to make original music, that's a GOOD thing. (You can always learn on the job...)