In Reply to: Re: Martin was genius. Compare how loud and real posted by kentaja@yahoo.com on December 11, 2006 at 06:42:12:
I guess the word you use, "inspired," is the whole crux of my line of thinking. I just happen to feel that, especially when you get into the Rubber Soul era and beyond, the inspirations are rather the rule than the exception. Who was not struck by Harrison's fuzz bass playing on "Do What You Want to Do," for example? Or McCartney's acoustic guitar on "Michelle"? And by the time you get to the White Album or Abbey Road, they display a musical finesse that, at least in my opinion, has rarely been matched. Perhaps you and DUI may not agree, but it's my opinion and I think there's some justification for it.With regard to the George Martin "5th Beatle" issue, I'm still waiting to be convinced. To me, he has seemed more like the guy with the keys to the playground than a member of the team. But again, I'm not a Beatle historian, and this opinion seems to be one that has some currency. I've just never heard a really convincing case to give Martin that kind of status.
Was he a decent record producer? Surely. But you can only produce what your artists bring you. And in this regard, Martin had an embarassment of riches. I'm not aware of any other instances where Martin worked his magic with another artist. Would you say he was better than Berry Gordy of Motown, for example?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Martin was genius. Compare how loud and real - halfnote 20:16:44 12/11/06 (2)
- Re: Martin was genius. Compare how loud and real - kentaja@yahoo.com 20:56:56 12/11/06 (1)
- Re: Was Martin really so indispensible? - halfnote 19:38:07 12/12/06 (0)