How Many Beatles Songs Did George Martin Write?

How Many Beatles Songs Did George Martin Write?

[@coyotecreekband236]

What a fabulous YT clip to have stumbled upon. Thanks so much for this.

[@kijekuyo9494]

I love George Martin's score on "Eleanor Rigby" as much as Paul's melody and words.

[@PaulFormentos]

The first PID song, foreshadowing the death later that year

[@vyaj]

No score without that melody

[@strathman7501]

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.

[@dan2050]

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.

[@johnmc3862]

You can but the score accompanies the melody. And a fine job too.

[@robertcallahan4065]

Correction: On "In My Life", George Martin DID NOT play a harpsichord. It was a piano sped up on tape.

[@DoIGetTube]

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.

[@michaelharrington75]

​@@DoIGetTube Wrong! On In my life he played piano.

[@brianfergus839]

@@DoIGetTube GM played harmonium on some tracks, but the “harpsichord” sound in ‘…Life’ is definitely sped up PIANO

[@johnnyhmash]

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.

[@ericbgordon1575]

The *Rubber Soul* track to feature George's harmonium is "The Word", ​@@DoIGetTube.

[@jorgeb555]

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]

Great story! George rules!

[@jorgeb555]

@@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! 😉

[@JustineLaLoba]

He wrote zero songs for the Beatles .....but he was a great arranger on many of their tunes.

[@antithug7942]

George Martin was an innovator, musician, composer, creator, producer & a genius. He was definitely the fifth Beatle, no ifs, ands, or buts.

[@petegilgan6217]

He was not a composer in the Beatles. To be that he'd have had to have written either or the lyrics, or the main melody to their songs. He didn't, therefore he is NOT classed as a writer. Simple.

[@Neil-Aspinall]

@@petegilgan6217 True, but without his arrangements, many Beatle songs would be far less. The problem with songwriting credits is, sometimes the arrangement is more import than the actual song? Seems unfair in a way? The Beatles are very lucky that Martin was such a gentleman because I am sure a good lawyer could have made a case for some royalties.

[@srothbardt]

@@petegilgan6217He was an arranger, which was common on Broadway.

[@johnwatts8346]

well he certainly contributed a lot more to them than sutcliffe or best.

[@spiritof6663]

@@Neil-Aspinall The Beatles still had a *huge* hand in their arrangements, it wasn't all Martin. For example with the orchestral scores, John or Paul would often hum what they wanted for Martin to transcribe to the session players. The famous "orchestral freak-out" in "A Day In The Life", for example, was Paul's idea, and Paul even conducted the musicians on that day. The horn solos in "For No One" and "Penny Lane" were also dictated by Paul, not Martin. John is largely responsible for all the weird, semi-obscene vocal chanting at the end of "I Am The Walrus", and it was he who had the idea for the backwards recording on "Rain". Harrison conducted the Indian players on "Love You To", "Within You Without You", and "The Inner Light" (although Martin did write and conduct the string part for "Within You Without You"). Etc. etc. During the White Album, Martin took a one month vacation and the group essentially produced themselves. A lot of people are too quick to give Martin all the credit because they just don't realize how bright and naturally gifted The Beatles were, or just how much they were involved in the production of their songs. Martin certainly deserves some credit and he did a brilliant job, I just get a little peeved when people start talking like he WAS The Beatles or that it wouldn't have turned out any good without him. But if that was the case, the other bands Martin produced like Gerry & The Pacemakers and Billy J. Kramer & The Dakotas should have turned out brilliant music but they didn't, did they?

[@lennon1252]

On 'She's Leaving Home', it's not George Martin's score, but Mike Leander, who scored 'As Tears Go By' for The Stones.

[@roberteccles3896]

Your very picky we know this

[@lennon1252]

@@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.

[@cliveburgess4128]

Thank you for finally giving him the recognition for his work!!!!!!

[@spiritof6663]

Yes, because George Martin *never* gets any recognition for his work...

[@georgeschaut2178]

5th Beatle!

[@Bassman2353]

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.

[@RK-um9tu]

Martin was just being kind, McCartney knew nothing about string arrangements.

[@toxic-o1u]

@@RK-um9tu He didn't have to. He had the musical ideas communicated them to Martin and then Martin made it happen by writing the arrangement and instructing the session musicians.

[@kitrichardson5573]

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

[@Au60schild]

"Ego in check." In check, as in reining in some force.

[@justwondering22]

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.

[@barrywitt1661]

in check

[@ktcarl]

@@Au60schild I know. It sounds like as he was writing the comment he was playing chess. 😁

[@thomastimlin1724]

@@Au60schild Well, he did keep his check and then cash though lol

[@asmukler]

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.

[@ChrisBlair-ev3mp]

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.

[@christopherstarr8050]

@@ChrisBlair-ev3mp EXACTLY

[@michaelrapson]

@@ChrisBlair-ev3mp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Martin#Other_artists

[@ChrisBlair-ev3mp]

@@michaelrapson I'm familiar with Martin, and nothing in the article you suggest can contradict what I said above.

[@scottandrewbrass1931]

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.

[@petercullen1624]

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!

[@ozrob8726]

I'm a strong believer in "the right people at the right place at the right moment in time".

[@DoodlesMusic]

@@ozrob8726 Nails it!

[@tiki_trash]

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.

[@mgconlan]

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.

[@michaelkolber8471]

George Martin was note a co writer to 49 Beatles songs..and there are numerous mistakes in his reporting .

[@stickman1742]

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.

[@davidweihe6052]

⁠​⁠@@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.

[@hsepo]

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.

[@mdarrenu]

exactly

[@toxic-o1u]

Such a silly thing to say. They had a huge team of sound engineers who innovated tons of recording techniques and all of this with the absolute top notch recording technology of their time.

[@robbiepeterh]

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.

[@yelloworangered]

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.

[@brucewilson1958]

Thank you. I learned much from your video. I now have a much better understanding of Martin and the Beatles Sound. Excellent Work.

[@ericbgordon1575]

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.

[@michaelharrington75]

Pure speculation. Especially saying "they wouldn't have grown past where they were in 1962". The Beatles were smart guys, and were always progressing.

[@ericbgordon1575]

Is it true or false that the Headway they made as artists what's facilitated by Sir George Martin, @michaelharrington75 ?

[@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.

[@Neil-Aspinall]

@@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.

[@michaelharrington75]

@@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.

[@KeithSpinneyMusic]

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.

[@fennahrob6934]

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.

[@tiki_trash]

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.

[@BaronVonMunch]

Hey, here's something you don't know but should learn. Especially since you love to open your mouth in such an arrogant manner. Producers often do co-write songs for bands they produce, they just don't take a songwriter credit because they are happy to just be the producers. Been done for many, many bands. Another thing that clueless people should also know. Often outside writers are brought in to help write songs for bands, but don't get a credit. Little secret in the industry. Now Lennon and McCartney and Harrison wouldn't need outside writers, but whenever Martin would do something that could deserve a cowriting credit, he would never take it. That wouldn't be the professional thing to do.

[@mikethebloodthirsty]

Your reply is arrogant. The comment you are referring to is not arrogant.

[@petegilgan6217]

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.

[@harvey1954]

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.

[@petegilgan6217]

@@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.

[@keithlarson9304]

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.

[@spiritof6663]

@@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.

[@harvey1954]

@@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.

[@Bruce15485]

George Martin - Genius !!!!

[@bluemoon-20]

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]

@@bluemoon-20 Totally agree !!!

[@mgconlan]

@@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!"

[@johnmc3862]

​@@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.

[@johnmc3862]

​@@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.

[@patbrennan6572]

The man behind the curtain, great analogy .

[@tagoldich]

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.

[@BaronVonMunch]

If he were a member of the band, you can bet Martin would be listed as a co-writer on many songs. Since he was a producer, he wouldn't do that. Bob Ezrin similarly co-wrote many Alice Cooper songs, but as a producer he wouldn't want that credit. Same goes for many, many producers. They have huge impacts in many ways including co-writing, but they just take the producing credit.

[@JorgeGoica]

He wrote a few songs for other artists.He co- wrote l know by Billy Kramer and The Game by Mary Hopkin.Nothing special.

[@tagoldich]

@@JorgeGoica Did he? Didn't know that. Not surprised though. George Martin could sure write a score!

[@JorgeGoica]

And The Beatles as producers

[@JorgeGoica]

Martin produced many others.

[@ChrisM-fz6xx]

Martin didn't write anything . He was a Producer who did what Producer is supposed to do , make the Music sound as good as possible . The whole Band were experimenting with new sounds and Martin undoubtedly brought some new sounds that improved the end Product but the Song itself is and always will be the Genius of Lennon -McCartney and Harrison .

[@thomastimlin1724]

Misuse of words or dumb assumptions by the presenters, mimicking others, rather than reading and doing more accurate research, often leads to this kind of thing. Ultimately the term "The Fifth Beatle" is an honorary title for Martin as he was, lol, never asked to join the group. Too many call Billy Preston the fifth Beatle when he was only a guest musician, nothing more. Such hogwash...

[@BaronVonMunch]

@@thomastimlin1724 Not even sure what your point is. Sounds like you may be the one with dumb assumptions. It is well-known by people that understand how the music industry really works, that producers are often an integral member of the band. Ignorant fanboys don't know about this. The producers often do the work of co-writers, but they won't take that credit on it because they are the producer. That's why many artists sound very different depending what producer they work with. Quite often, the producer is more important to the songs than some of the actual members. With everything Martin did for the Beatles, he easily is a fifth member. For anyone else it is honorary, with Martin it is deserved.

[@johngammon963]

I spoke to a professionally trained musician and mentioned none of them could read music, the musician said rubbish, someone in that group could read music!-- now I think: yeah, that person was George Martin.

[@EJP286CRSKW]

Paul and George used to perform the Bach Minuet in G as a party piece in the 1950s. I wonder how they learnt it ...

[@CharlesHoward-ud6qv]

Many great guitarists and songwriters don’t read music, they read chord charts and understand chord progression and patterns. George Martin enhanced that and added classical instrumentation and genius to their music.

[@tiki_trash]

@@CharlesHoward-ud6qv Bingo. Just because a musician isn't proficient at reading or writing traditional music notation does not mean they don't understand music theory. The Beatles all advanced in musicianship and songwriting skills as the band matured at a phenomenal pace. Paul certainly, in my opinion, made the most dramatic advances of the group.

[@krisscanlon4051]

I tell ya even the casual fan will tell you he had lots of creative influence. Made his career obviously...perfect sound man. George loved those lads...must of been so satisfying

[@D800Lover]

I don't go for the "fifth Beatle" stuff. He said it himself, "at the beginning I taught them things and then they ended up teaching me" and "don't forget the talent they had." Slightly paraphrased, but be said it. But he did what he needed to do perfectly and this is a great example of what a producer and engineer should be doing, getting the best out of the artist they are assisting. This is usual practice, trust me because I know about these things.

[@sentimentalbloke185]

Well, quite a few people have been acclaimed as the 5th Beatle over the years, but the only person who can legitimately be considered that way is Martin. His influence on the development of their music was profound. That's the singular thing about their music: how quickly it developed and how it took the rest of the music industry along with them.

[@D800Lover]

@@sentimentalbloke185 - I don't want to minimise what Martin did because he did it very well. But was his role of a producer that different from others who were charged with the same responsibilities. He worked for bosses above him, he was part of a business. Note that in later videos of him and The Beatles at work, it is very clear at this point who was in charge. As for the fifth Beatle, how about Billy Preston? Or was there a sixth Beatle? And was Clapton a seventh Beatle on the My Guitar Weeps track. Where do you draw the line. No, it's simple, and it's the same today. you have the main artist and you bring in whatever you need. Martin did that, sometimes himself, sometimes others, sometime The Beatles themselves. George did it with Clapton. But this was about The Beatles as the featured artist and the name that appeared on the front of the artwork. It is exactly the same today. That is all that I am saying. Martin was great for The Beatles, but a fifth Beatle? Hardly!

[@sentimentalbloke185]

@@D800Lover Disagree. Martin was a producer who had the technical capability to turn their musical ideas into reality & was a collaborator for their entire recording career. Most Beatles tracks you hear have some of his influence somewhere. All at the Beatles' initiation, of course, but they were smart enough to heed his advice & acknowledge his contribution. In the Beatles story, outside the four themselves, he's the most important individual. The 5th Beatle thing is a load of bollocks but the most serendipitous thing that occurred was Martin guiding their recording from the beginning.

[@D800Lover]

@@sentimentalbloke185 - OK, yet you don't seem to know how the system works. But I am not surprised, most are not familiar how it does. I know several producers and engineers who do the job that Martin did. One is at about the top and even co-writes songs and music, does arrangements and plays keyboard and more. If a musician is required which he will bring in, like adding a suitable solo, and even writing that too, a bridge even. In some cases even more than what George Martin did. I won't mention his name, but he produced an album by Leo Sayer, and if he saw this he would know who I am because I made the central piece of equipment that was used in the recording process. But my friend did what it took, to make it work. Including string arrangements used. But he knows where the line is drawn. And George Martin did as well, and rightly denied that he was any fifth Beatle. His role was well defined to him - as it is with many others. The fact this was The Beatles does not matter, know matter how well he helped them getting the job right. By all means praise what Martin did, he performed well above average. He was needed. But he was not the artist, he was the producer. Different job. We should all be happy, even ecstatic. Did he make a difference? Early on, he did. Later not to the same degree. "A Day In The Life" he helped Paul figure out what the orchestra player needed and the Paul did it. The Players didn't understand Paul's instruction. Martin chimed in and got that fixed. We now all know the result, but who wrote it and who had the artist's vision? It was Paul. I have many other examples I can point to. Not wanting to pick a fight with you, but having spent many hours in recording studios and even having a part, I am just trying to be informative. Cheers from Sydney Australia.

[@sentimentalbloke185]

@@D800Lover Martin was very much an artist in that what he did was revolutionary & he also played instruments on the recordings. Indeed, the sound they produced for the records was not reproducible on stage at that time & not having to perform the songs live freed them up to explore new soundscapes. Without Martin, that couldn't happen. No one would claim that Billy Preston wasn't an artist when he collaborated on Let It Be & that was recognized when he was later given a credit for Get Back.

[@MegaTriumph1]

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.

[@alexandrebenois7962]

George Martin's tremendous success with the Beatles wasn't repeated with any other musician he produced. What does that mean?

[@StellarFella]

What about Gerry Marsden and Cilla Black? George produced the songs on Alfie.

[@spiritof6663]

@@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.

[@justwondering22]

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.

[@robertsohm4521]

Blow By Blow and Wired by Jeff Beck both produced by Martin

[@8TENASTER8IDS]

.....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.....

[@JimmyTimmy-wh8dz]

The people in the shadows controlling those in the light.

[@PaulFormentos]

Crowley on Pepper cover....Twice

[@ericrose3877]

@@PaulFormentos OOOOOO, scaredy scaredy!

[@timdailey2690]

Tavistock

[@ArlenWilliams]

@@timdailey2690 They do seem to cover their secrets.

[@davidbrims5825]

@@ArlenWilliams Masonic….

[@yesterdayproductions1019]

George Martin DID NOT write any Beatle songs. A producer's ROLE is to add PRODUCTION ideas to a song ALREADY written.

[@chrissharkey9644]

He enhanced the music and wrote arrangements

[@scottandrewbrass1931]

​@@chrissharkey9644Which is NOT songwriting.

[@chrissharkey9644]

@@scottandrewbrass1931 and a movie is not a movie without its people that you read in the credits! I love the Beatles with all My heart but I don’t think they could have made it without Martin!

[@paulryan5150]

I think that is the point. The songs weren't already written. They were already started.

[@nolcrayus]

But he wrote iconic parts in their songs, like the orchestras in Strawberry Fields. Probably also helped with sounds effects on tracks like Tomorrow Never Knows, Yellow Submarine, Benefit of Mr Kite and so on

[@oolongoolong789]

There were two Georges in The Beatles.

[@PaulFormentos]

And one Paul before 67 and a Billy Shepherd after

[@CLH126]

Paul recently said, "On any song, where there is good "piano,' it was George Martin." :)

[@awol2602]

Very balanced and informative. No Beatles without George M

[@javierrodriguez-fonseca4717]

Ja, ja, ja!!!

[@oleplanthafer7034]

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… 😊

[@robertengland8769]

The Beatles were phenominal. At least Paul and Ringo are still among the living.

[@OroborusFMA]

George Martin's abilities can be seen on Paul's solo single "Live and Let Die". While it is a theme song for a James Bond movie it is so good it rises above the "spy movie" genre.

[@johngarbarini1048]

He most likely wrote3/4 of them, with his team, especially after McCartney died.

[@johnmc3862]

@@johngarbarini1048 😅😅😅

[@skaf9587]

Yep! There’s only one Fifth Beatle- and that’s the genius George Martin The Fifth

[@Valtrach]

Super well made document. Very interesting. Thank you for your time and work.

[@markharris5107]

He seemed to be a wonderful gentleman. He may have had more influence over the Beatles than is even discussed here.

[@sixstringhans-tone5574]

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. ✌🏼

[@canalesworks1247]

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.

[@srothbardt]

@@canalesworks1247Right.

[@keithlarson9304]

Weak.

[@sixstringhans-tone5574]

@@keithlarson9304 Worthless

[@johnmc3862]

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.

[@cymro6537]

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.

[@smthB4]

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.

[@BaronVonMunch]

@@smthB4 UK was horrible back then. Apparently, Michael Caine was the first actor that was able to gain success without an upper crust accent. Before him, it simply wouldn't be allowed. England also banned most of their 60s rock acts that we all know and love. They could only be heard in England from offshore pirate radio. They actively tried to put the Rolling Stones in prison they were so afraid of them.

[@JimmyTimmy-wh8dz]

It's about collaboration at the end of the day. The Beatles sound changes drastically from the early 60s to the late 60s.

[@DoodlesMusic]

It changed drastically because they stopped touring in 1966 and became a studio band.

[@sentimentalbloke185]

It couldn't have changed so dramatically without Martin's advice & studio expertise.

[@paulmitchell359]

George Martin was the best '5th Beatle ' of all time - much better than all the other 14 '5th Beatles ' .

[@musedroid]

This tier list considers 23: kzbin.info/www/bejne/imWoamSkiZx6jdk Strangely with so many contenders nobody is ever claimed as the sixth Beatle.

[@scoobydoo4087]

George Martin was brilliant. He made so many Beatles songs even better

[@DoodlesMusic]

Which is the job of a producer. The producer needs material to work with. Lennon and McCartney gave him gold.

[@JS6969tz]

It takes a great producer to put the final touches to any song. They turn ideas into great music.

[@RobertBroatch-dc5qw]

Often wonder if he wrote the string and horn arrangements on I am the Walrus.

[@Neil-Aspinall]

Of course, who else could have done it in their camp to it's degree?

[@spiritof6663]

@@Neil-Aspinall You see, this is the problem with the credit that Martin gets for these things. People assume when they hear an orchestral score that Martin was 100% responsible but in the case of The Beatles, it simply isn't the case. In this case, Martin and Lennon worked out the score together, as recounted by Paul himself in his autobiography "Many Years From Now". Just as Martin and McCartney had together worked out the string and horn scores for "Yesterday", "Got To Get You Into My Life", "Penny Lane", the "Abbey Road" suite, etc.

[@Neil-Aspinall]

@@spiritof6663 You do realize that John and Paul started to resent Martin after 1967 due to the reverence of his treatments of SF, PL, I am TW etc. Of course, Paul the great history revisionist was going to say something like that. John it has been reported would just give a vague directive to Martin and expect him to understand. To almost prove this point, Lennon later was very disparaging to what Martin had done to said songs. Why would he put down his own arrangements? (yes, I know Lennon was also fickle at times also)

[@johnmc3862]

​@@Neil-AspinallHe didn't, he directed the orchestra. Paul wrote the melodies most of the time. Same with 'A day in the life'. The orchestra melodies were originally composed by Paul/John and given to Martin to arrange the orchestra. Only in specifically played solos by Martin on e.g. 'In my life' was he given complete melodic control.

[@johnmc3862]

​@@spiritof6663Yes, he would have been given a specific or melodic outline and direct the orchestra from that.

[@mikehalloran1341]

George Martin played harpsichord or piano on "Hard Day's Night" doubling George Harrison's 12 string lead and giving it definition-like "In My Live, it was recorded half speed. It's very easy to hear. The lead is different and the keyboard is missing from the version on Anthology 1.

[@Maltloaflegrande]

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.

[@harvey1954]

Absurd, Martin did create much of the Beatles' music. He was able to translate the musical desires of the Beatles into reality.

[@keithlarson9304]

@@harvey1954 He did not, I repeat did not create much of the Beatles music. Learn something about songs Harvey.

[@spiritof6663]

@@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.

[@spiritof6663]

@@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.

[@spiritof6663]

@@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.

[@philipshuler5806]

The list of lines from Beatles songs, it is hard to believe that Martin came up with some of the lyrics to Beatles songs as well as the music and a lot of the times they were the best lyrics of the song.

[@dgcmusi]

They would not have been as great without him….he was ahead of his time….

[@bugsby4663]

It took me a second to realise it was Giles Martin and not his father.

[@sundrenched6248]

Maybe not the most popular opinion, but he's probably the third most influential Beatle, after Lennon and McCartney. George Harrison and Ringo were also good, but something that sets the Beatles apart is their classical influences and the many timbres (instruments) they recorded with, and I think a lot of that was George Martin's influence. You could have had another guitar player or drummer on there, but it would still have been the Beatles. (And yes, I know George Harrison wrote some great songs of his own, but on the bulk of the Beatles' output he was "just" a guitar player and not irreplaceable -- no knock on him, but many others could have played on "Help" or "Love me do" or "In my life". Same with the drums. They played their role well, but not irreplaceable.)

[@petegilgan6217]

The Beatles themselves had no classical influences whatsoever.

[@jhaduvala]

Wrong.

[@rdsieben]

George Martin composed some instrumental tracks on Yellow Submarine

[@Hammerman48]

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.

[@BaronVonMunch]

If he were just a band member doing some of the things he did, he would get a co-writing credit. Since he was the producer, the professional thing to do would be to just take the producer credit. It is very common for producers of bands to help write some of the songs, but they will never take a songwriting credit. Aren't you glad you learned something today?

[@Hammerman48]

@@BaronVonMunch I learned nothing. Nothing I didn't already know. I've contributed ideas and lyrics to songs that I've recorded for others and I'm quite happy to be the producer. To be a songwriter you have to write the lyrics and come up with the chords and melody.... George would never have expected a writer's credit.

[@scottlalexander510]

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?

[@ozrob8726]

He thought Beatles was a stupid name? Beetles would have been a stupid name. Beatles was a great name, a clever name, as history now shows.

[@kitrichardson5573]

The first time I heard it I thought it was a stupid name also. Beat Les is kind of cool, but the play on words is insect that crawls around in manure. Anytime you have a play on words you want both meetings to have some kind of charm and in this case, only one of them does.

[@BaronVonMunch]

Hard to say. It is iconic which makes it seem to make sense. But to listen to the word, it sounds kind of lame. I wouldn't want that to be a name for my band, but it is historic and everyone knows what it means so it sounds better.

[@timturner36]

He claims he composed "Michelle".

[@PaulFormentos]

Memoirs of Billy shears confirms this

[@robertlennon9531]

They all were part of the recipe.

[@MJWPub]

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.

[@jakezywek6852]

Template quotes from utterly blinded fans: 'They were like Brothers.' 'It just took the right ingredients and the right combination to make the whole thing work.' 'They developed incredibly from 1963 to 1966.' No- regardless of my point being from Mike Williams's Beatles programs, it is extremely likely George Martin had a major part in writing the songs, in addition to many session musicians playing on the many albums. The industry is heavily guarded and if anyone speaks up, things happen. Just because it's the entertainment industry doesn't mean it's lighthearted.

[@peterrichards931]

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.

[@yesterdayproductions1019]

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.

[@strathman7501]

@@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.

[@yesterdayproductions1019]

@@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".

[@spiritof6663]

@@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!

[@yesterdayproductions1019]

@@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.

[@niemann3942]

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.

[@BaronVonMunch]

I'm sure he cowrote a few, but a producer doesn't take co-writing credits. It is very, very common for producers to help cowrite songs. Done all the time just none of them take cowriting credits. If they were just another member of the band then they would take some cowriting credits.

[@johnkochen7264]

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.

[@arthouston7361]

Here is an irony...a conversation with a talented, legendary producer, and the audio and video of his speech is not in sync. How sad is that the content creator did not take care of that.

[@ChrisBlair-ev3mp]

Calm down, Nancy.

[@97GibsonsgOhyeah]

😂​@@ChrisBlair-ev3mp

[@johnmc3862]

1st world problems.

[@arthouston7361]

@@johnmc3862 True. You have to deal with things in your own spectrum of experience. Mine includes 19 years as a broadcaster in the music industry.

[@murmerjangle3016]

@@arthouston7361 Agreed. Imagine what the Beatles would have sounded like with sloppy editing, with people saying "Calm down Nancy" when you noticed...

[@GuitarMatt]

I'm going to comment on this video before watching it. I've heard too much evidence over the last few years that he obviously is not taking credit for some writing that he did for THAT band!

[@richardhawkins4621]

He had influences on all there studio records without his help they could have never created there masterpieces

[@ericrose3877]

Correction....it's THEIR, not there.

[@harvey1954]

@@ericrose3877 nor "they're" !

[@yesterdayproductions1019]

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".

[@Neil-Aspinall]

@@ericrose3877 Thank God we have a spelling **** checking the spelling/grammar on this thread.

[@keithlarson9304]

Total Bullsh***

[@stephenhosking7384]

I knew most of this before, but it was good to put it all into one video, and to get quotes from different sources (Ringo, George, .. etc...). Good job!

[@MUE4731]

90%of the information on this video is completely wrong, whoever researched it is a absolute moron. It is the worst job of putting George Martins contribution to the Beatles I’ve ever seen.

[@JimmyTimmy-wh8dz]

He knew that their personalties could pull off the sound that followed..they would learn the tunes.

[@glennstockley2197]

Martin played a couple of piano riffs period.....

[@stephenhowes8937]

I didn't get the impression he was charmed by George's opening comment about his tie.

[@slow-mo_moonbuggy]

5th Beatle? I think there was over 100 Beatles that played on and wrote Beatles songs.

[@davidbrims5825]

Theo Adorno….

[@andrewfurst5711]

George Martin could be considered a co-writer to Eleanor Rigby, I am the Walrus, and many others. He turned Please Please Me into a much better song with his tempo suggestions. Of course I also think George and Ringo could be credited as co-writers of many of the Lennon/McCartney songs, as they added musical parts not originally envisioned in the "song". But Martin was clearly a major factor in sound, composition, and arrangement of the band's music - something that other "5th Beatle" claimants often don't have.

[@bluemoon-20]

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.

[@Cosmo-Kramer]

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.

[@bwana-ma-coo-bah425]

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.

[@bluemoon-20]

@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.

[@bwana-ma-coo-bah425]

@@bluemoon-20 Epstein changed the look of the beatles, used the same playbook the colonel did with Elvis.

[@Cosmo-Kramer]

@@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.

[@andrewfurst5711]

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.

[@keithlarson9304]

This is the most reckless KZbin video I have ever seen. George Martin did not write one song for The Beatles. He didn't Co w r i t e one song for The Beatles. Songs are lyrics melodies and chords. True, some of George Martin's arrangements are melodically memorable but they are secondary to the song and to say George Martin was a writer on dozens of Beatles songs is simply not true. The more I think about it the more pissed off I get thinking about the irresponsibility and the misrepresentation offered in this video.

[@vladdrakul7851]

As a listener, as at least 99% of us are, what you experience when listening to music is the WHOLE SOUND. As someone who writes, plays and produces my own music I KNOW that what you hear in the end is the result of ALL OF THE PARTS. You are correct that from a publishing perspective most (but not the written orchestrated parts) of the Beatles music is indeed the work of Lennon /McCartney/Harrison but what we hear (and therefor consume) is the product of writing, arranging, recording and finally producing a song /record. In that George Martin is the 4th Beatle in terms of musical input. Just some obvious examples, neither Eleanor Rigby, I am the Walrus or A day in the Life could even exist, as we know them, without George Martin's creative input as opposed to any other mere 'producer'.

[@strathman7501]

​@@vladdrakul7851 Those three songs would clearly not sound "as we know them" with another producer, but we ought not to assume that they would be greatly diminished without reflecting that in each case the *ideas* for those arrangements owed a lot to Lennon and McCartney themselves. For ER, Paul himself conceived a backing of rhythmic string chord stabs inspired by Vivaldi, and sat with George Martin at the piano to sketch out the score, specifying a strident sound with minimal vibrato. For IATW, John came up with quite a bit of the arrengement, including the avant garde idea of mixing in the live radio broadcast. According to Paul McCartney, “John worked with George Martin on the orchestration, and did some very exciting things with The Mike Sammes Singers ... John got them doing all sorts of swoops and phonetic noises. It was a fascinating session. That was John’s baby, great one, a really good one." For ADITL, both men worked out that arrangement together at Paul's house, including the idea for cacophanous crescendi linking the sections, before going into the studio. Lennon: "We arranged it and rehearsed it, which we don't often do, the afternoon before. So we knew what we were playing," and you can hear the dissonant crescendi are there in placeholder form on Take One. The orchestration of these parts was their idea, too, not Martin's. So it would be fascinating to step into an alternate reality where these arrangements were scored by, say, Mike Leander (who did She's Leaving Home at Paul's request). They would surely sound different. But would they sound so much diminished that the idea of calling Leander "the 5th Beatle" would never occur to anybody? I'm not sure about that. Of course, having George Martin around since Please Please Me could be said to have encouraged in them the creative confidence they needed in order to have these ideas in the first place. But have the ideas, they did.

[@keithlarson9304]

@@vladdrakul7851 Why didn't you use She's Leaving Home as an example of George Martin's great string arrangements? Cause some other guy did it! Mike Leander! Paul wouldn't even wait for George Martin to be available so he went ahead with someone else who did one of the most memorable Beatle arrangements ever! George Martin is not the only guy in the world who can produce and arrange a song. I stand my claim that yours is the most reckless thing I have ever seen on KZbin.

[@keithlarson9304]

Thank You! @@strathman7501

[@spiritof6663]

@@strathman7501 Brilliant response. Most people do not know that John and Paul usually worked with Martin on the arrangements, humming the parts they wanted to him or sitting down at the piano together to explore different options. It's why The Beatles' scores are so much more adventurous and avant-garde than anything Martin had ever scored up to that point, because John and Paul actually had input. In any case they also had a zillion different brilliant songs that had no orchestration on them at all (in fact, I think there's outside orchestration on just 34 of the 210 songs they recorded).

[@mahatmarandy5977]

I always thought it was interesting that prior to the Beatles. George was best known for producing novelty records for a spike Jones and others. I have always suspected that his ear for goofiness, and his technical skills in making those dumb songs sound good really was the thing that made him such an amazing producer. And it’s also I think the thing that made him recognize the potential of the Beatles, because, just by his nature as a guy who produced comedy songs, he heard things differently. Or perhaps more properly he listened differently.

[@johncarlo7395]

You Americans ain't gotta clue, telling us about the the best British band ever, and it's George Martin, not George Martan.

[@harvey1954]

Oh my gosh, a typo. Still sore about the Revolution and 1812 ?

[@anthonyintexas]

BRAVO!!! Well Done!

[@gettinhungrig8806]

Yes so many hits after he split with the Beatles. He obviously didn't need them.

[@stephenhosking7384]

If you don't want to make a fool of yourself, you should watch videos before criticising them.

[@keithlarson9304]

Beautiful. Thank you for the needed sarcasm.

[@bradhill1099]

Interesting documentary. Well done.

[@markrainsford9480]

If The Beatles were recording in the 21st Century, George Martin's lawyers would have made sure that some songs were Lennon/McCartney/Martin.

[@markrainsford9480]

@@jamieflowers1493 Take a look at the songwriting credits for many of today's biggest songs; there are sometimes 6-8 different writers credited, many of them are the producers.

[@PaulFormentos]

Lennon and Harrison not available in 21st century

[@Neil-Aspinall]

Exactly! I wonder if a good lawyer could still do the same?

[@keithlarson9304]

Hogwash.

[@spiritof6663]

I swear, this comment section is depressing. Such brain dead assertions. At least there's been some pushback to this particular silly comment.

[@MrMjp58]

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.

[@bb1111116]

None. George Martin was not a pop song writer. He could write film scores but with a rock band he was an arranger, studio musician and producer. By himself Martin did not write any pop hits.

[@bwana-ma-coo-bah425]

If you write pop hits, then you are not in the music industry. you are in the industry of writing poop hits. and that is the beginning of selling your soul to the likes of Simon Cowell and his bunch of groovy accountants.

[@bb1111116]

@@bwana-ma-coo-bah425 ; pop is short for popular. The Beatles wrote popular songs like I Want To Hold Your Hand and She Loves You.

[@bwana-ma-coo-bah425]

@@bb1111116 I agree, the beatles wrote tons of love songs and that is why they will only ever be a boy band.

[@bb1111116]

@@bwana-ma-coo-bah425 ; back to my original topic with more clarity, George Martin was not a Billboard popular song writer. He could write film scores but with a rock band he was an arranger, studio musician and producer. By himself Martin did not write any popular hits.

[@bwana-ma-coo-bah425]

@@bb1111116 If you spend your life writing songs to be popular to make money, in my opinion, you have sold your self. and your artistic flair. I would rather write stuff that I want, not what everyone else wants just to be popukar. but that's me.

[@markgraham2312]

Excellent! Beyond Excellent!!

[@robertellison4691]

How many of the Beatles' songs were written by Theodore Adorno and the Tavistock Institute?

[@nnotny]

They wrote so many before Paul died and his body was left to be discovered on the moon by the landing that never happened.

[@keensoundguy6637]

They only wrote one: "Please Don't Bring Your Banjo Back" released in '66. Theodore thought they had just come up with the next "Yesterday."

[@candidodemanchuria6]

Not sure about GM but pretty sure a good deal of them have quite a bit todo with Theodor W. Adorno

[@carlosimotti3933]

The real question is - How many songs did the Beatles really write?

[@altair8598]

All except the early cover versions (or any late ones, none of which spring to mind...) and the Yellow Submarine soundtrack.

[@hardtohandleweddingbandent8653]

That's not a question anyone really needs to ask.

[@spiritof6663]

@@altair8598 The only cover version on any of their albums after "Help!" was the 30-second "Maggie May" on "Let It Be".

[@altair8598]

@@spiritof6663 Thanks!

[@dieberliner1576]

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.

[@jhaduvala]

Martin contributed MUSIC to the catalogue. Consistently. That makes him the fifth Beatle. Mal was a friend.

[@PaisleyPatchouli]

Y'know, I'd have to agree that there were indeed two Georges in the Beatles!

[@williamoates9887]

In those days it was far from unusual for string players to play on pop records, there are countless examples ....

[@rickwhepley3377]

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.

[@trigger399]

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.

[@paulmitchell359]

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.

[@torreybliss]

We would have never heard of George Martin without the Beatles and we would have never heard of the Beatles without George Martin!

[@SleazyNice]

Ringo: When we first met George (Martin), We loved him because he took a chance on us. Reality: When the Beatles - John, Paul George and Pete - first met George (Martin), they loved that he took a chance on them. George Martin didn't take a chance on Ringo. In fact he didn't even want Ringo. Even though he hired Any White to drum for the Beatles, he still wanted Pete Best. He said that Pete Best was the most sellable of all of them and couldn't see why they wanted to change him.

[@thomastimlin1724]

This is a situation where George Martin had never heard Ringo play, and when both versions of Love Me Do were recorded [Andy White , and then Ringo on drums], they could hardly tell the difference. It was simple drumming on a simple song. Earlier he said do what you want with Pete Best on tour, but he isn't good enough to record basically. at that point he thought they would keep Pete Best in June of 1962. Ringo was already a professional drummer, and the Beatles took a very short time to sell Martin on Ringo. With Ringo on drums it was obvious that the group was lightning in a bottle, with Best, no...I don't think Ringo was being historically inaccurate because at the point he showed up to record in Sept or so of 1962, Martin had no guarantee they would be a hit...he WAS taking a chance. Love Me Do was not a big hit, at #17 in England, it just got them on the map.1963 with Ringo and George Martin was the year that proved both of them were the right people needed to be a success.

[@SleazyNice]

@@thomastimlin1724 - They already had the contract before they hired Ringo. So Ringo was full of it here in this Video. "both versions of Love Me Do were recorded [Andy White , and then Ringo on drums], they could hardly tell the difference." Even people who are not musician can tell the difference. "Ringo was already a professional drummer" . No Andy White was a professional drummer. Ringo was a stage drummer. Just ask Quincy Jones. lol. See the video on my channel for more about this.

[@flyingjeff1984]

And all this time I thought Billy Preston was the 5th Beatle. He is certainly playing keys in the movie.

[@michaelkolber8471]

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

[@BaronVonMunch]

I'm sure that Martin is nowhere near the songwriter that Lennon or McCartney were, but it is funny how many Beatle fanboys get so angry when it is suggested that Martin may have cowritten a few songs. Some fans are out of their minds. Fun to f around with them and feel their heads explode.

[@hansvandermeulen5515]

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.

[@jmarty1000]

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.

[@sd31263]

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.