Geoff Emerick Interview
I agree with Jerry's comment - I always take anything somebody says about somebody else with a grain of salt. That said, I am in the process of reading Emerick's book and opinions about people aside, misremembered bits, etc., it is a terribly written book. To each his own in terms of style, I guess, but the writing in this book is abysmal. Lots of interesting information though and I have to admit, I was surprised by his impressions of George. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, he was there and I wasn't. I'm not disputing anything but it's very different from the mental image I have always had of George (not that his impressions will change mine - I always take these things with a grain of salt, remember....)
Methinks David Clarke needs to take a chill pill... or at the very least look into anger management.
"******"? "A very seedy decrepit looking old man"?? "Snot-nosed kid"????
What's your problem, bro?
You can choose to dislike Emerick's book, but why all the personal attacks?? It's totally uncalled for and makes you appear a fool.
An ignorant fool, I have to say. First of all, Emerick WAS there at the very beginning (along with, of course, Martin and Smith). If you read his book (as you say you did), you would realize that he sat in on the Beatles' very first recording session at EMI in September, 1962, as well as assisting on a number of others in 1963 and 1964. Secondly, the idea that Ken Townshend taught Emerick ANYTHING is ludicrous; Townshend was a maintenance engineer in a completely different career path than Emerick. Townshend's job at EMI was technical (disassembling, reassembling, repairing, and installing equipment) while Emerick's was creative. Finally, where on earth did you get the insane idea that George Martin ever served as a tape op or mastering engineer?? He did neither, nor did he ever serve as a balance engineer. As his books point out, he joined EMI as a producer's assistant, and eventually became a producer (and label chief) himself: those were the only two jobs he ever held there.
Your raving about the upcoming "Recording the Beatles" book makes me very suspicious about your motivations in attacking Emerick. Their book may well turn out to be terrific, but I am disturbed by how the authors and their friends (including Ken Scott, who was deeply involved in its creation) feel the need to attack other books (most notably, Emerick's) in their public postings. If the book is that great, it should be able to stand on its own legs without the need to attack competing works.
"******"? "A very seedy decrepit looking old man"?? "Snot-nosed kid"????
What's your problem, bro?
You can choose to dislike Emerick's book, but why all the personal attacks?? It's totally uncalled for and makes you appear a fool.
An ignorant fool, I have to say. First of all, Emerick WAS there at the very beginning (along with, of course, Martin and Smith). If you read his book (as you say you did), you would realize that he sat in on the Beatles' very first recording session at EMI in September, 1962, as well as assisting on a number of others in 1963 and 1964. Secondly, the idea that Ken Townshend taught Emerick ANYTHING is ludicrous; Townshend was a maintenance engineer in a completely different career path than Emerick. Townshend's job at EMI was technical (disassembling, reassembling, repairing, and installing equipment) while Emerick's was creative. Finally, where on earth did you get the insane idea that George Martin ever served as a tape op or mastering engineer?? He did neither, nor did he ever serve as a balance engineer. As his books point out, he joined EMI as a producer's assistant, and eventually became a producer (and label chief) himself: those were the only two jobs he ever held there.
Your raving about the upcoming "Recording the Beatles" book makes me very suspicious about your motivations in attacking Emerick. Their book may well turn out to be terrific, but I am disturbed by how the authors and their friends (including Ken Scott, who was deeply involved in its creation) feel the need to attack other books (most notably, Emerick's) in their public postings. If the book is that great, it should be able to stand on its own legs without the need to attack competing works.
Nope!
I'm just a product consumer with no vested interest in anything as well as a straight patriotic red blooded American who simply calls is it as it is.
My freedom!
But, John if you have a problem with that you simply can stop reading my posts or preferably STUFF IT, okay chump?
I'm just a product consumer with no vested interest in anything as well as a straight patriotic red blooded American who simply calls is it as it is.
My freedom!
But, John if you have a problem with that you simply can stop reading my posts or preferably STUFF IT, okay chump?
"Your Greatest Power is the Power to Choose"
Tsk, tsk, gentlemen...I think maybe both of y'all need to look into some vocabulary management...
Don't despair, though...I'm sure both of you will get the hang of this Forum thing before long...helped along, perhaps, by a friendly and diplomatic Canadian we all know...
Don't despair, though...I'm sure both of you will get the hang of this Forum thing before long...helped along, perhaps, by a friendly and diplomatic Canadian we all know...
I didn't get where I am today by being on time...
Hmm...not quite, yet, David...let's see if I can help: see, 'pal', while being perhaps a bit overly familiar in this context, is nonetheless perfectly acceptable...whereas 'schmoe' and 'chump' cross the line. Admittedly, as the kids in the back seat of the car always say, 'he started it!'...but it's gotta stop at some point, and the sooner the better (hopefully before post #29).
Come on, now, boys...let's curb the personal 'attachments'...
Come on, now, boys...let's curb the personal 'attachments'...
I didn't get where I am today by being on time...
David, you're not exactly leaps and bounds ahead of John in the posting department. I think the category in which you place him should have room for you as well. As for Geoff's fine book, I am going to buy another copy in case I want to read it again!!!
LET THE WORLD KNOW YOU WANT PAUL TO BRING BACK THE 4001. JOIN OUR FACEBOOK GROUP!! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=147641915268984
I learned from the best Dane. Of course I am referring to you sir!
LET THE WORLD KNOW YOU WANT PAUL TO BRING BACK THE 4001. JOIN OUR FACEBOOK GROUP!! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=147641915268984
Normally it is my habit to extend a very warm welcome to a first time poster John, but I have to say that your attack on David is out of place on this forum. We don't tolerate such things.
David too appears to be gaining an understanding of where the established boundaries are and in this instance he certainly has crossed them as well.
Please remember that this forum is open to the public view and your comments may be viewed by literally thousands of people.
David too appears to be gaining an understanding of where the established boundaries are and in this instance he certainly has crossed them as well.
Please remember that this forum is open to the public view and your comments may be viewed by literally thousands of people.
“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
Thank you for reminding me as well Brian.
LET THE WORLD KNOW YOU WANT PAUL TO BRING BACK THE 4001. JOIN OUR FACEBOOK GROUP!! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=147641915268984
Dane, Brian, and Brian,
Your point is well taken, although I have to state for the record that the only thing I said about David was that his personal attacks on Geoff Emerick made him appear to be a fool, and that his misstatements, particularly the completely inaccurate one regarding George Martin's supposed apprenticeship as a tape op and mastering engineer (neither of which ever happened), showed his ignorance.
If you all collectively feel that what I said was unwarranted, then I offer you my apology.
However, I do not retract either of those statements, nor do I apologize to Mr. Clarke, who in his response proved my point precisely.
What's more, I believe that he owes an apology to the members of this forum for his vicious personal attacks on Geoff Emerick -- far worse than anything he said about me (or I about him). People can choose to like or dislike Emerick's book or even to question his motivations in writing it, but calling one of the most respected recording engineers of all time (and a person who was largely responsible for the sound of so many Beatles records which we enjoy to this very day) a "******," "seedy" and "decrepit" goes WAY over the line, IMHO, and he should have been called out on that long before you ever decided to take offense at my relatively benign posting.
Lastly, I would point out to Mr. Clarke that he too was a "first time" "mystery" poster here, what, some two weeks ago? He chose to use just his fifth posting to attack Geoff Emerick personally. Again, I find that far more offensive than anything he said about me personally.
I will be very interested to hear what you all think about this. Then hopefully we can get back to the task at hand, which is discussing topics of interest in a civilized fashion.
Your point is well taken, although I have to state for the record that the only thing I said about David was that his personal attacks on Geoff Emerick made him appear to be a fool, and that his misstatements, particularly the completely inaccurate one regarding George Martin's supposed apprenticeship as a tape op and mastering engineer (neither of which ever happened), showed his ignorance.
If you all collectively feel that what I said was unwarranted, then I offer you my apology.
However, I do not retract either of those statements, nor do I apologize to Mr. Clarke, who in his response proved my point precisely.
What's more, I believe that he owes an apology to the members of this forum for his vicious personal attacks on Geoff Emerick -- far worse than anything he said about me (or I about him). People can choose to like or dislike Emerick's book or even to question his motivations in writing it, but calling one of the most respected recording engineers of all time (and a person who was largely responsible for the sound of so many Beatles records which we enjoy to this very day) a "******," "seedy" and "decrepit" goes WAY over the line, IMHO, and he should have been called out on that long before you ever decided to take offense at my relatively benign posting.
Lastly, I would point out to Mr. Clarke that he too was a "first time" "mystery" poster here, what, some two weeks ago? He chose to use just his fifth posting to attack Geoff Emerick personally. Again, I find that far more offensive than anything he said about me personally.
I will be very interested to hear what you all think about this. Then hopefully we can get back to the task at hand, which is discussing topics of interest in a civilized fashion.
A much more balanced post John and welcome to the forum.
We do not try to change the opinions of posters in any way. We do like to see objective reasoning and have a discussion around the points expressed. Posters are welcome to their opinions and we will undoubtedly share ours.
Personally I have not read the book in question yet, but I will be interested to find out what all the "noise" is about.
We do not try to change the opinions of posters in any way. We do like to see objective reasoning and have a discussion around the points expressed. Posters are welcome to their opinions and we will undoubtedly share ours.
Personally I have not read the book in question yet, but I will be interested to find out what all the "noise" is about.
“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
Brian, I am not in any way suggesting that you or anyone here should be trying to change David (or anyone else's) opinion about Geoff Emerick's book, the Rickenbackers he likes to play, or anything else, for that matter.
I am, however, suggesting that you and some of the other more senior members of the forum should have taken him to task for his vicious and completely uncalled for PERSONAL attacks on Emerick.
We may all have a constitutional right to say what we want, but allowing public postings like his simply cheapens and demeans the forum, IMHO. I may be a new poster, but I've been reading threads on here for some time, and this just seems like too good a community to even passively countenance behavior like his.
I am, however, suggesting that you and some of the other more senior members of the forum should have taken him to task for his vicious and completely uncalled for PERSONAL attacks on Emerick.
We may all have a constitutional right to say what we want, but allowing public postings like his simply cheapens and demeans the forum, IMHO. I may be a new poster, but I've been reading threads on here for some time, and this just seems like too good a community to even passively countenance behavior like his.