Geoff Emerick Interview
I think he was called "Hurricane" because he was a blow hard. Thank God Geoff came around to save The Beatles! OOPS! Did I type that out loud.
LET THE WORLD KNOW YOU WANT PAUL TO BRING BACK THE 4001. JOIN OUR FACEBOOK GROUP!! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=147641915268984
Anyone here feel like getting back on topic?
Brian, you wrote a very interesting post here a few days ago regarding Geoff Emerick's book, even though you say you haven't read it yet.
You said:
"It's an interesting dilemma trying to fit our heros into a mould other than the one that was previously built for them."
I think that is precisely the problem Emerick has faced with some Beatles fans. There was this public image of the group, largely manufactured by their management and record company, that portrayed the four of them as stereotypes: John was the "witty" one, Paul the "cute" one, Ringo the "cuddly" one, George the "serious" one.
In the mid-1960s, we may have swallowed that kind of fluff unquestioningly, but we are all so much more sophisticated today (not to mention 40 years older), it seems silly to continue to buy into that kind of one-dimensional pap.
For me, the joy of reading Emerick's book is that, despite the fact that his name is so indelibly linked with the Beatles, and despite his friendship with Paul (something he is upfront and honest about), he was unafraid to deflate the myth and tell the truth. I saw Emerick at a live event a few months ago and he came across as a humble and self-effacing man who made the point that from his rather unique perspective the Beatles weren't icons, they were simply four human beings -- with the same flaws and foibles as the rest of us -- interacting together in a working environment. But behind those closed doors, without press or hangers-on, they could let their hair down and be themselves.
I for one am glad that Emerick decided to share his story with us, and that he has done so IMHO with grace and dignity, not dishing dirt, but instead simply giving us his plain unvarnished opinions and viewpoints -- as well as a lot of great technical and creative information we could never have gotten from anyone else. Unlike George Martin's books, no one comes across as a saint in Emerick's book -- not even Emerick himself (he talks openly about his fears and insecurities, about his inability to cope with the tension of the White Album, about the sometimes over-the-top drinking he engaged in with his Abbey Road and Apple compatriots). Even Paul comes across as a flawed human being, sometimes being pushy in the studio to the point of obnoxiousness.
If you believe the myth about George Harrison -- that he came down from the sky as a superb guitarist (instead of developing into one) and that he was a "great guy" (instead of the sourpuss many people -- not just Emerick -- describe him as being during his Beatles days), then I can see how you might take the position that Emerick should have been more diplomatic about "poor George."
But if you view Harrison as a human being -- a frustrated player and burgeoning composer who was overshadowed by two towering talents who not only had very healthy egos but were in a highly supportive friendship and collaboration -- then Emerick's description of the guitarist has the ring of truth about it. It's worth pointing out also that Emerick goes out of his way in his book to praise Harrison's blossoming abilities in the last year or two of his Beatles run, not just as a guitarist and songwriter, but as a producer as well.
Sure, there may have been some hard feelings back in the day, but let's not forget that Harrison worked with Emerick as late as 1994 - 1995, on the Anthology project and the "Free As A Bird" / "Real Love" singles. There may not have ever been a personal closeness there, but there was clearly a professional respect between the two men, and Emerick says as much in his book.
That's my take on things. Please note: Not a single personal attack on anyone, including the always delightful (though some might say delightfully misguided) Mr. Clarke.
Brian, you wrote a very interesting post here a few days ago regarding Geoff Emerick's book, even though you say you haven't read it yet.
You said:
"It's an interesting dilemma trying to fit our heros into a mould other than the one that was previously built for them."
I think that is precisely the problem Emerick has faced with some Beatles fans. There was this public image of the group, largely manufactured by their management and record company, that portrayed the four of them as stereotypes: John was the "witty" one, Paul the "cute" one, Ringo the "cuddly" one, George the "serious" one.
In the mid-1960s, we may have swallowed that kind of fluff unquestioningly, but we are all so much more sophisticated today (not to mention 40 years older), it seems silly to continue to buy into that kind of one-dimensional pap.
For me, the joy of reading Emerick's book is that, despite the fact that his name is so indelibly linked with the Beatles, and despite his friendship with Paul (something he is upfront and honest about), he was unafraid to deflate the myth and tell the truth. I saw Emerick at a live event a few months ago and he came across as a humble and self-effacing man who made the point that from his rather unique perspective the Beatles weren't icons, they were simply four human beings -- with the same flaws and foibles as the rest of us -- interacting together in a working environment. But behind those closed doors, without press or hangers-on, they could let their hair down and be themselves.
I for one am glad that Emerick decided to share his story with us, and that he has done so IMHO with grace and dignity, not dishing dirt, but instead simply giving us his plain unvarnished opinions and viewpoints -- as well as a lot of great technical and creative information we could never have gotten from anyone else. Unlike George Martin's books, no one comes across as a saint in Emerick's book -- not even Emerick himself (he talks openly about his fears and insecurities, about his inability to cope with the tension of the White Album, about the sometimes over-the-top drinking he engaged in with his Abbey Road and Apple compatriots). Even Paul comes across as a flawed human being, sometimes being pushy in the studio to the point of obnoxiousness.
If you believe the myth about George Harrison -- that he came down from the sky as a superb guitarist (instead of developing into one) and that he was a "great guy" (instead of the sourpuss many people -- not just Emerick -- describe him as being during his Beatles days), then I can see how you might take the position that Emerick should have been more diplomatic about "poor George."
But if you view Harrison as a human being -- a frustrated player and burgeoning composer who was overshadowed by two towering talents who not only had very healthy egos but were in a highly supportive friendship and collaboration -- then Emerick's description of the guitarist has the ring of truth about it. It's worth pointing out also that Emerick goes out of his way in his book to praise Harrison's blossoming abilities in the last year or two of his Beatles run, not just as a guitarist and songwriter, but as a producer as well.
Sure, there may have been some hard feelings back in the day, but let's not forget that Harrison worked with Emerick as late as 1994 - 1995, on the Anthology project and the "Free As A Bird" / "Real Love" singles. There may not have ever been a personal closeness there, but there was clearly a professional respect between the two men, and Emerick says as much in his book.
That's my take on things. Please note: Not a single personal attack on anyone, including the always delightful (though some might say delightfully misguided) Mr. Clarke.
Great post John I really enjoy your writing style. As I read it, my immediate reaction was that I should rush out and buy the book.
Oh! and BTW. On rare occasions when I make an observation devoid of specific knowledge of the subject, much like the quote you used in your post, the comment "appears" to be rather profound much later. That quote was a prime example.
I have not read the book in question.
Oh! and BTW. On rare occasions when I make an observation devoid of specific knowledge of the subject, much like the quote you used in your post, the comment "appears" to be rather profound much later. That quote was a prime example.
I have not read the book in question.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
-
beatlefreak
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6160
- Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:45 am
- Contact:
PLEASE STOP! Don't make me go back to pissing everyone off! 
LET THE WORLD KNOW YOU WANT PAUL TO BRING BACK THE 4001. JOIN OUR FACEBOOK GROUP!! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=147641915268984
Oh Yeah! Welcome John!
LET THE WORLD KNOW YOU WANT PAUL TO BRING BACK THE 4001. JOIN OUR FACEBOOK GROUP!! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=147641915268984
Thanks, guys. Sorry if I got off on the wrong foot. I just saw red when Clarke began ragging on Emerick personally and no one was reining him in.
There are lots of books I don't like, yet that doesn't mean I dislike the author. OK, maybe Guiliano and Goldman are the exceptions, but even then I wouldn't go on a public forum and start calling them names.
It also bugs me when I see misinformation being presented in an authoritative way (like Clarke's "George Martin was a tape op" nonsense), so you may see me calling people out from time to time. I'll do my best to be as diplomatic as possible about it, though!
Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed Emerick's book and learned a lot from it, and I'm very much looking forward to Norman Smith's memoir, which I hear is scheduled to come out before the end of the year. I get the impression it's going to be self-published because I can't find it listed on Amazon or Barnes & Noble.com. Hope that doesn't mean it will cost 100 bucks like Ryan and Kehew's book!
There are lots of books I don't like, yet that doesn't mean I dislike the author. OK, maybe Guiliano and Goldman are the exceptions, but even then I wouldn't go on a public forum and start calling them names.
It also bugs me when I see misinformation being presented in an authoritative way (like Clarke's "George Martin was a tape op" nonsense), so you may see me calling people out from time to time. I'll do my best to be as diplomatic as possible about it, though!
Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed Emerick's book and learned a lot from it, and I'm very much looking forward to Norman Smith's memoir, which I hear is scheduled to come out before the end of the year. I get the impression it's going to be self-published because I can't find it listed on Amazon or Barnes & Noble.com. Hope that doesn't mean it will cost 100 bucks like Ryan and Kehew's book!
Welcome John AND David...and may I say that if Kent and I can get along (and we're getting better and better at doing that), you guys have no reason not to shake virtual hands and be, well, for lack of a better term, 'pals'...
One thing I'm trying to do these days: if you're seeing red, log out and wait for it to fade to a more pleasant shade of pink...
One thing I'm trying to do these days: if you're seeing red, log out and wait for it to fade to a more pleasant shade of pink...
I didn't get where I am today by being on time...
-
westtexasrickenbacker
- Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:46 am