huh? ruin the beatles? it was the other George...as in HARRISON..that came up with the Love project along with the creator of Cirque de Soleil. So why don't you just shut up if you don't know what you're talking about.
CONGRATS TO DEACON MO...... I AM 49 A YEAR OLD SERIUOS WORKING DRUMMER AND AND BEATLE FAN AND THIS IS T H E MOST STUPIDEST THING IV'E EVER HEARD ABOUT THE BEATLES OR GEORGE MARTIN, THE 5th BEATLE. IF NOT FOR SIR GEORGE THE BEATLES WOULD HAVE MOST LIKELY NEVER BEEN SIGNED TO A RECORD LABEL AND STAYED IN LIVERPOOL! MARTIN GAVE THEM FREE HAND AND WORKED HARD WITH ENGINEERS NORMAN SMITH AND GEOFF EMERICK TO PUT THE GUYS IDEAS DOWN ON TAPE WITH EXTREMELY PRIMATIVE RECORDING GEAR. I DON'T KNOW IF TO LAUGH AT MR. MO'S IGNORANCE OR BE SICK!!!!!!!!!! RUSSELL HILL
I think George Martin has been vastly overrated as a record producer. He broke very little ground compared to true innovators like Sam Phillips and Phil Spector. It seems his whole reputation rests on his work with the Beatles. I mean, if the Beatles had bombed, would Martin be touted today for his work with Matt Monro or Rolf Harris? These are, in fact, well-made records. But it's because of his association with the Beatles that some people tend to worship Martin.
Don't get me wrong, much of what is said about Martin is undoubtedly true. Without him, the Beatles may have never been signed. Martin is also a very skilled musician and his knowledge helped make his recordings what they were.
But even George Martin cannot be excused for playing with the Beatles recordings. I know he made them in the first place, but the world does not need a backwards "Sun King."
Have you heard how Phil Spector and his "wall of sound" sounds nowadays? It sounds like crap. George Martin's work sounds so crisp and clean, and can stand up to anything that's recorded now in terms of audio clarity.
Tom A. Roberts, What albums have you produced? You seem so quick to dismiss George Martin's career, which leads me to believe that you have accomplished more than him in the music industry. I would love to hear your work.
I find it disturbing that some believe that a career in the music business is a prerequisite to criticism of an artist's work. Contrary to those that deify George Martin because his employment with EMI made him the Beatle's producer, I do not consider the man to be a member of the Beatles. I did not say that I did not appreciate the man's achievements, but I will not praise that which is not praiseworthy. The album LOVE is not praiseworthy.
I THINK "THE FIFTH BEATLE" AS AN HONARY TITLE. HE OBVIOUSLY DID'NT SHARE THE HAMBURG DAYS, ETC. BUT IF NOT FOR HIM THE WORLD WOULD HAVE NEVER SEEN A BEATLE RECORD. WE WOULD'NT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. IF YOU KNOW THE BEATLES HISTORY (AND I DON'T EXPECT ONE TO KNOW AS MUCH AS I DO),YOU WOULD KNOW HOW CLOSE THEY CAME TO NOT MAKING IT, AND HOW MUCH IT HAD TO DO WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE BEING IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME.AS FAR AS "LOVE" IS CONCERNED I HAVED MIXED OPINIONS.I HAVE MIXED OPINONS ABOUT "FREE AS A BIRD" & "REAL LOVE". THE U.S. (MMT l.p.)) MIX OF "STRAWBERRY FIELDS" IS DIFFERENT THAN THE GERMAN VERSION FOUND ON THE MMT C.D.WHAT ABOUT THE MONO MIX? THIS STUFF CAN GO ON FOREVER. JUST LISTEN TO THE MUSIC AND BE GLAD IT'S THERE AT ALL!
I DO know the Beatles' history (probably as well as you). To say that without George Martin the world have never known a Beatles is projecting quite a bit. The fact is, the world already knew a Beatles record well before Mr. Martin signed the Beatles to Parlophone. That Beatles record ("My Bonnie") was in existence before even Brian Epstein entered the picture.
It is impossible to speculate exactly where the Beatles would have been without Brian Epstein, George Martin, Brown Meggs, Ed Sullivan, and many other people. But they were already the number one band in Liverpool, and it is inconceivable that they would have remained in obscurity. They were just too good.
Tom A. Roberts, I agree with your post 100%. You are absolutely right. The Beatles were already huge in England before they signed with EMI. I actually love "My Bonnie", it's one of my favorite Beatles' records even though Tony Sheridan sings on it. "Ain't She Sweet" is another great early track. You do bring up a good point. I wonder; had they signed with Decca and kept Pete Best how far would they have gone? My guess is that they still would have been big on some level. There was too much talent there.
The old Beatles didn't mind that Friar Martin took their stuff "...and make it better...". Even the dead Beatles wouldn't mind now, according to their living next of kin. So for a few dollars more, we add to the legend and have some fun. After all, "...it's only a (Northern) song..."
Judging from some fans negative reactions to the new Love album, I wouldn't be surprised if the Beatles just closed the vaults for good and never released another CD again. I wouldn't blame them if they did. There has been so much hate directed towards them in regards to any new release of late that they're probably afraid to put anything out including remasters.
For a band that everyone claims to love so much people sure are angry with them for reasons I still can't fathom.
Don't bet on the vaults being closed. There is too much money to be made. There is also an infinite number of remixes, edits and other "re-imaginings" to create. And a line of people waiting to buy them. So, they'll never be gone for good.
Oh, I'm not betting on them closing the vaults at all. My point is that I don't understand all of the anger and hatred directed towards the Beatles. It seems that some people just can't enjoy anything any more.
I would be willing to bet that if Sgt.Pepper's was a long lost unreleased album that nobody had ever heard before and it were released today, there would be fans like yourself that would absolutely despise it. It would have no nostalgia factor and therefore be rejected. Some would complain that it was a money grab. There would be plenty of angry one star reviews for sure.
WHATS SAD IS THE ORIGINAL CATALOG'S FIDELITY IS NOT AS GOOD AS IT SHOULD BE AND A MESS. FIRST FOUR IN MONO, NEXT TWO DARN GOOD SOUND (IF NOT FAITHFUL TO ORIGINAL MIXES), THEN REVOLVER'S ORIGINAL STEREO MIX IS A STEP DOWN FROM HELP! & RUBBER SOUL'S ETC.AND THEY'LL STAY THAT WAY AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO SELL A TOP DOLLAR PRICE.MAYBE THEN THE RECORD BUYERS WILL GET A PROPER RECORDING. SOMEONE ONCE SAID "ALL WAYS LEAVE THEM WANTING FOR MORE". LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF ROLLING STONES GREATEST HITS, BEST OF, ANY EXCUSE REPACKAGES. ANYBODY WHO COLLECTS BEATLE BOOTLEGS KNOWS THERE'S A LOT MORE TO HEAR.I DON'T WANT TO SOUND RUDE BUT HALF OF THE BEATLES ARE GONE, AND IS GILES MARTIN BEING GROOMED TO BECOME THE NEW GEORGE MARTIN. I'M SORRY, THAT'S REALLY OUT THERE. BUT WITH E.M.I.'s HISTORY AND "LOVE" NOTHING SHOCKS ME ANYMORE. BUY "LOVE" THE BEATLES GO VEGAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love the sound quality on the original '87 CDs! They don't sound bad to me at all. In fact, the only people I have ever heard complain about them are hardcore Beatle fanatics. Everyone else I know who owns them doesn't have a problem with them. The Beatles and George Martin must love the way they sound as well or they would not have released them that way. I mean, they did approve them.
I'm back, and I just checked in to see what condition my discussion is in. I'm glad to see that there are so many earnest Beatles fans out there. It's been fun reading your opinions. I just want to say more about Geo. Martin. His production values were not appropriate for rock and roll. A performance can only stand so much clean-up before it doesn't breath. Too many overdubs, punch-ins,re-do's,tweakings, and rehearsals make the recording more machine-like and less human. That's the analogy : a drum machine vs. a real drummer. The real person will never be as perfect, but they can sound better because they are human. Consider Bob Dylan's recordings that were made in the days when the Beatles were together. He would do very few takes, if not just one. Everything was live. Those recordings have a fresh, vibrant quality that's missing from most Beatles songs. I'm not attempting the to compare the musicianship of Dylan vs. the Beatles. I'm talking about the feel of the recordings. One more thing - how did the members of the Beatles do after they broke up and some of them used other producers? Didn't Sir Paul stick with Sir George for a long time?
While I believe George Martin is no Sam Phillips or Phil Spector, I can't vilify the man. He was a very accomplished musician and arranger, and without him the Beatles records would have been radically different. While I don't like what he's done on LOVE, I can't say that about most of the Beatles catalog. Compared to other British producers of that same period, Martin's productions were head and shoulders above his competitors. And that applies to his non-Beatles work as well.
WHAT RECORDINGS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? GEORGE MARTIN OFTEN SAID HE WENT FOR THE PERORMANCE NOT FOR PERFECTION. WOULD YOU SAY ON THE ANTHOLOGY SERIES THE EARLY VERSION OF "I'M LOOKING THROUGH YOU" IS BETTER, MORE EXCITIG THAN THE POLISHED, DILUTED VERSION THAT APPEARS ON RUBBER SOUL? THE FIRST TAKE OF "TOMMOROW NEVER KNOWS" IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HEAR ON REVOLVER?
PLAY "LOVE ME DO" & "PLEASE PLEASE ME" FOR THE 1987 "PLEASE PLEASE ME"CD. NOW PLAY THE SAME TWO SONGS FROM THE "RED" "THE BEATLES / 1962-1966" DOUBLE CD FROM 1993. YOU'LL KNOW RIGHT AWAY WHAT THE FUSSINGS ALL ABOUT.BEST WISHES.
I've listened very carefully to the "Love Me Do" and "Please Please Me" recordings from the 1987 "Please Please Me" compact disc that you mention and have compared them to the quality of the audio found on "The Beatles/1962-1966" double disc from 1993. I must say that I cannot discern a noticeable difference between the two, even on a pair of high-end headphones. If there is such a difference at all, it is very subtle and not one in which I find myself compelled to fuss over.
A great deal has been made of the 1987 mixes in regard to being of an inferior quality. I myself have not found this to be true. Quite the contrary, the 1987 discs are in immaculate shape. I own the same Beatles' discs that I purchased nearly twenty years ago and they sound as new today as the first time I played them. You will not find this with an original LP, as the sound will deteriorate upon each and every subsequent listening. The discs themselves sound as fresh, warm and vibrant as they always have. Sgt.Pepper is of a particular high caliber which is superior to most of the modern remastering I've had the privilege of hearing.
I highly enjoy the original Beatles' discs and am in no immediate need of replacing my collection whether they are re-released or not.