Geoff Emerick Interview

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:25 am

QUOTE:
"Geoff Emerick is a ******".
END QUOTE

A ****** or a yanker?

I'll go for a for a very seedy decrepit looking old man.
And Emerick WASN'T there "from the very beginning."

But, George Martin and Norman 'Normal" Smith were.

lennonon · Post by **lennonon** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:25 am

Well Brian, it's an emotional topic. Anyone who's ever played in a studio can tell you how nerve wracking it can be at times, to nail a particularly complex part or to come up with something spot on. His assessment of GH's musical abilities just doesn't seem supported by the recorded record. Sure, GH had many awkward takes and mistakes as anyone with a decent Abbey Road boot collection can attest to. I just don't think he should be portrayed as some bitter, fumbling kid, riding the coatails of the great wunnerful Paul McCartney and the marginally less talented, rage filled John Lennon.

Yes, we all know GH's talents were less that L-M, but, whose weren't/aren't.

Buy the book and read it - maybe you'll enjoy it, agree with it and think I'm a ******. Or a yanker.

Just some opinions anyway, innit?

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:15 am

Lets' just face it. George Martin and gracious EMI staff with such highly notable skilled and creatively innovative people such as Ken Townsend (inventor of ADT, variable speed and other technical wonders still widely used in the industry) taught this (then) snot nose arrogant young turk kid named Emerick every single thing he knew.

Emerick should still be greatfully kissing the floor where George Martin and other recording professionals walked.

By 1964 Sir George Martin had already forgotten more about the entire professional recording process then Geoff Emerick ever knew on his best day.

Geoff Emerick can't even shine George Martin's shoes lest step into them!

winston · Post by **winston** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:38 pm

Thanks Michael,

Yes I have been there, on pins and needles after every take wondering if the ******* in the control booth managed to make something useful out of the effort that I had just put in. After ten takes and they are still saying just give me just a little more expression in this or that segment of a solo or hold that note just a little longer and let it decay. You begin to wonder who really is the artist after a long night of that stuff.

So yes I understand the emotion and intensity. George in my mind was a brilliant guitarist. He was also a much underrated songwriter. I have no illusions about Paul or John. They were a great team.

I would be more interested in the technical side of his book than his observations of their character or personalities.

As to whether or not Emerick is a ******? I don't know him so it would be hard for me to say. No pun intended.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:57 pm

You're killing me Dave. Lighten up. One thing I know is that you weren't there for any of it.

westtexasrickenbacker · Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:10 pm

Well, George Martin is a great PRODUCER.

Geoff Emerick is a great ENGINEER. There is some overlap, but not that much.

A producer tends to be more artistic on the arrangement side and a good engineer knows how to manipulate the recording equipment to get the best sounds, or the most unique sounds.

Ken Townsend was a great innovator, but to say he taught Emerick everything is ludicrous. If that were the case, Ringo's drums would have had the Sgt. Pepper's sound back in '65. And that's just one example of how Geoff helped change the Beatles sound.

Wow, there was tremendous talent at Abbey Road in the 60's. They all deserve good credit, Emerick among them. He did win numerous Grammys, and while I don't think he was as diplomatic as he could have been, he was there and it's his story to tell.

I think Brian's correct. Listen to him

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:24 pm

This is exactly why I'm still very partial to the 1988 tome "The Beatles Recording Sessions" and most eager to focus on every single page of the upcoming work "Recording the Beatles" book that is due out shortly.

As actor/director Jack Webb said to the film cameras in 1954, "Just the facts, mam, just the facts!"

I have zero interest in the gossipy Kitty Kelly type of books by Geoff Emerick and others who have their own agenda in mind on this subject.

lennonon · Post by **lennonon** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:23 pm

QUOTE:
"Yes I have been there, on pins and needles after every take wondering if the ******* in the control booth managed to make something useful out of the effort that I had just put in. After ten takes and they are still saying just give me just a little more expression in this or that segment of a solo or hold that note just a little longer and let it decay. You begin to wonder who really is the artist after a long night of that stuff. "
END QUOTE

Hysterical! And quite true. I've spent whole nights trying to get rhythm tracks down that I thought were done by take 3. Anyway, the book DOES offer interesting tidbits on the state of recording in England in the '60's and what The Beatles did to change that. I'd be curious to know you're opinion after giving it a read.

winston · Post by **winston** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:17 pm

I'll let you know when I read it. I am glad you caught the humour in my previous post BTW. It's all true too.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:02 am

It would be an overstatement to say that without Martin and the EMI staff the Beatles would have just been another band.

But in less capable hands their product a lot of their product wouldn't have been as good and in a few isolated cases it would probably be pretty awful.

Luckily, they seem to have listened to him more often than not.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:56 am

Would it be an overstatement to say that without Owsley, 'Sgt. Pepper' would have been just another album?

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:44 am

Let's also remember that George Martin started his employment with EMI way back in 1950.

In fact Martin he did his whole required EMI apprenticeship doing and mastering everything from being a tape op to an engineer plus latter as producer. He also did lots and lots of creative cut and splice jobs doing all of "The Goons" live recordings with innovative novel recording effects.

Certainly no slouch or stranger in the "audio engineering" thing was old George Martin.
So again, if we are to give true proper credit, let's give it.

The only problem with Sir George is that he is a very humble man and a gentelman who extends praise to others verses pounding his own chest.

chucksimms · Post by **chucksimms** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:00 am

Interestingly enough, I came across a recent interview with Cheap Trick's Tom Peterssen. When asked about producers and engineers, he put Geoff Emerick at the top of the list. He claimed that if he could work with anybody again (and that group includes George Martin and Jack Douglas) he would choose Geoff first.

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:32 am

I enjoyed Geoff's detailing the sounds they were getting, how and why. He did add his impressions of the people he was working with. But they are just that, HIS impressions.

A lot of people think I'm a dope, a lot of people think I'm a great guy. That's gonna happen.

westtexasrickenbacker · Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:34 am

Exactly right, Jerry. Books are written subjectively, especially when one is putting forth their opinion.

In that, and detailing how the songs were recorded and the who did what, the book is very good reading.