Follow
Posted by
George Martin seemed to treat John differently … is that the case — and, if so, why?
Classical & rock musician, ’60-’70s fanatic , 17+ mil viewsUpdated Apr 23
Did George Martin underrate John Lennon?
I’m guessing that John was his own worst enemy much of the time, and increasingly so … he was a pain in the arse. And I’d guess that, over the years, the person who had to deal with that the most, in-studio … was George Martin (RIP, 2016).
Whereas Paul could sit with Martin, be pleasant, work together diligently, and pleasantly, for hours, experimenting, etc.
And, also re Paul, I think he (Paul) had the personality to fit into John’s tempestuousness, and so the two were magic together. Neither were as good — songwriting-wise — after 1969 as before it. Both missed each other, musically … I suspect they both knew it too.
As far as George Martin …
He WAS a quality musician, classically trained. So he knew what he was doing.
But John didn’t like Martin’s producing/experimenting at the end, and so Lennon took those Let It Be tapes and slipped them to Phi Spector to re-produce … Martin was greatly stung by that. When EMI informed Martin that he would not get a production credit for the album because Spector produced the final version, George-M commented, “I produced the original, and what you should do is have a credit saying ‘Produced by George Martin, over-produced by Phil Spector’.”
Of course, McCartney also took 10+ years, and 10 albums, to use George Martin again for an album (as producer for his Tug Of War) … and guess when he did it? 1982, the year of the Martin interview that’s dismissive of John (and when John is now no longer around to fire back) … Martin evidently saying, “… John was inclined to leave things to us and do his rock n roll bits …while the music side was basically Paul …”
A few years earlier, however, in 1976, Martin told Rolling Stone that “Lennon and McCartney are so enormously talented” … (though he did go on to say, “So I kind of tolerated George” … lol).
And In that interview, Martin also said, “One of the greatest problems (was that) … particularly John … wasn’t particularly articulate in saying what he wanted. Of course, when you’re dealing with a dreamlike substance (that is, music), it’s very difficult to be articulate. My main job was trying to get out of him what he was trying to get. It came together more in the mix …”
And … Martin goes on: “John was never really into a production bit … it was Paul and I getting together because Paul really dug what I wanted to do. I was trying to make a symphony out of pop music. … John hated that — he liked good old rock & roll.”
Of course, John’s angle on this was that he came to resent the ‘loose experimenting’ with just-his songs by Paul and Martin … saying to Playboy in 1980, “We would play experimental games with my great pieces … We would spend hours doing little, detailed cleaning up on Paul’s songs, but when it came to mine … somehow an atmosphere of looseness and experimentation would come up.” (See: Thomas J. Beaver’s answer to Why did John Lennon stop experimenting with obscure musical genres after he left the Beatles?)
(Again, George Martin from his ’76 interview) And … this one is telling IMO: “John was the rebel, the Dylan of the group …”
So … me … I take it as, in reality, Paul was more Martin’s ‘cup of tea’ … and with John there were underlying personality conflicts.
