Does anyone know who organized the strings on Eleanor Rigby? Was it George Martin?

Both John Lennon and Paul McCartney learned piano through their interaction with other musicians during their years in the studio. Lennon already played the mouth organ, and progressed to hammering out basic accent chords on a small keyboard during cover songs like 'Rock and Roll Music' and songs like that. During the Shea Stadium concert footage, John can be seen one-handing on the organ and finishing up with an elbow slide across the keys.

George Martin scored all the orchestral music in their songs including 'Elenor Rigby' until Phil Spector took over when Apple records was established. Martin was very savvy in producing, as he never over-orchestrated and allowed the Beatles' musicianship to be the focal point. Martin is credited with suggesting many of the different instruments used to make many Beatle songs unique in sound for the time. His suggestions of using bongos, french horns and even harpsichord made those songs memorable, but he always allowed the Beatles to be themselves with them.

Spector on the other hand, was criticized for being too heavy handed in production. Sometimes, after recording was wrapped up, he would go back and add orchestration and effects to his own tastes. Such is the case with 'Let it Be.' Spector went back in after the album was finished and added all the orchestration. It was essentially 'un-authorized', but being the Beatles had officially broken up, they didn't fight the changes. Now we finally have the release of 'Let it Be Naked', which is the 'de-Spector-ized' version that the Beatles had originally envisioned for their last album.

double posted... this is deleted

Today I bought The White Album, and (my own copy of) Abbey Road.

Those kick ***, especially the White album

It's gotta be about 50% who love Let it Be, and 50% who hate Let it Be and love ...Naked. I haven't actually gotten Naked, so I've got no real qualms with the songs I've grown up with on the original version. I don't know why Let it Be never gets on alot of people's top Beatles albums lists. It's overlooked, but it's so good. It's up there with Abbey Road and The White Album for me.

I don't have Let it Be...Naked, but Let it Be is awesome. Why is I've Got A Feeling so underrated. It's one of my favorite songs :cool:

Sorry if I sound a lil off-key, but what exactly is the difference between Let It Be and Let It Be...Naked?

[QUOTE=Med57][i]Let It Be[/i] is the original album, which was the last album released by The Beatles. It's got Phil Spector's production on, meaning that the famous "wall of sound" is on there, with over the top strings, and it sounds overly produced. [i]Let It Be...Naked[/i] was produced a couple of years ago, has Spector's production toned down/removed, so it sounds more like what The Beatles, specifically McCartney, originally had in mind. It also features changes in tracklisting, such as what order the songs are in, and what songs are even on the album.[/QUOTE]
I see, thanks for clearing that up with me :thumb:

They say the two wrost beatles are still alive. Your thoughts? Paul was an excellent beatle, just a horrible soloist.

The 50/50 love/hate ratio is to be expected. After all, these songs, and the way we are used to hearing them, have been around for closing on forty years now. Any change is going to sound weird after all this time, as 'Long and Winding Road' and the such, have always had the big orchestra and you expect it when you hear it.

It's like hearing them do the 'Rain' master track before the slow down and effects were added. The Anthology had a lot of things like that, and when you listen to the raw track, your mind goes to what you know as the final version you are used to.

I grew up with the original albums, and when I listen to a compilation, like 'Beatles 1', as soon as a song is over, my mind expects to hear the next song from the album it originally was on, not the one on the new set list.

[QUOTE=freestyle1k86]They say the two wrost beatles are still alive. Your thoughts? Paul was an excellent beatle, just a horrible soloist.[/QUOTE]
Ya, and Ringo wasn't that great of a drummer eiter.

[QUOTE=freestyle1k86]They say the two wrost beatles are still alive. Your thoughts? Paul was an excellent beatle, just a horrible soloist.[/QUOTE]

That's a load of junk. I don't know who says that seriously. Ringo was the backbone of the Beatles. It's his solo efforts that leave something to be desired...many things, actually.

I'm in love with Paul's self titled solo album. It's absolutely amazing to me. He plays the instruments, and even does a formidable job on the drums, and he puts in a drum solo too. "Junk" could be the most beautiful, saddest song he's ever written, "Teddy Boy" is haunting, and "Oo You" and especially "Momma Miss America" have amazing riffs.

Paul gets bashed too much...

[QUOTE]Ya, and Ringo wasn't that great of a drummer eiter.[QUOTE]

Yes he was. Everyone should stop saying Ringo was a bad drummer. No one else could possibly have taken his place.

[QUOTE]Ya, and Ringo wasn't that great of a drummer eiter.[QUOTE]

Yes he was. Everyone should stop saying Ringo was a bad drummer. No one else could possibly have taken his place.[/QUOTE]
Well, Tony Williams probably could have done a better job.

To say that Ringo was unimportant is retarded. He may have not been tremendously gifted in drumming skills, but was the backbone of the Beatles. He set a steady rythm in every single song, and was able to hold the Beatles together for a while when they started drifting apart. The Beatles would not have been anywhere near the same group with anyone but Ringo, he just fit in perfectly with the others.

[QUOTE=bcf717]

It's like hearing them do the 'Rain' master track before the slow down and effects were added. The Anthology had a lot of things like that, and when you listen to the raw track, your mind goes to what you know as the final version you are used to.
QUOTE]


Is that on one of the anthologies? (The un-slowed version of Rain)

[QUOTE=robo2448]To say that Ringo was unimportant is retarded. He may have not been tremendously gifted in drumming skills, but was the backbone of the Beatles. He set a steady rythm in every single song, and was able to hold the Beatles together for a while when they started drifting apart. The Beatles would not have been anywhere near the same group with anyone but Ringo, he just fit in perfectly with the others.[/QUOTE]

plus, the only drum solo he ever did kicked an enourmous amount of ***.

The Beatles would have been a better band without Ringo, I mean there are so many notable drummers they could have gotten.

/sarcastic

and Paul McCartney was that good of a soloist! are you on drugs?

I dont know where to begin taking up this arguement.

Ringo was the most inpirational drummer to live....maybe not crazy Peart mad house drummer like everyone thinks what it takes, but the revolution of drummers wouldnt exsist without an idle they all looked for - Ringo

To say McCartney has a crappy solo career is like saying the Stones shouldnt be touring now because their dead. Alongside with his still fantastic voice and widely varying musical talent, his tickets sold out in almost all the shows in america in less then 5 minutes. Successful? Ill let you decide.

Ringo is not the most inspirational. Sure he kept a good steady beat in the songs and was a part of the biggest band but listen to a lot of is stuff. It isn't all that amazing its more like this: it isn't because of him why the beatles were as big as they are (obviously did have some part) but because of the beatles he is seen as a very influential drummer.

[QUOTE=panasonic youth]Ringo is not the most inspirational. Sure he kept a good steady beat in the songs and was a part of the biggest band but listen to a lot of is stuff. It isn't all that amazing its more like this: it isn't because of him why the beatles were as big as they are (obviously did have some part) but because of the beatles he is seen as a very influential drummer.[/QUOTE]

Stop comparing his drumming to drummers today. It doesn't work. It was the sixties then, it's the new millenium now. Time has passed, and drumming has [i]evolved[/i]. Guess who one of the pioneers of this evolution was. Thaaat's right.

Ringo was the best drummer in Liverpool when the Beatles picked him up. That's saying something. He popularized the matched grip, the backbeat, muffled toms, and countless other things we take for granted today. He was really the first hard rock drummer, because he just pounded out a beat for the rest of the band.

It had to start somewhere, and it started with Ringo.

John Lennon had the most meaningful solo career. George probably had the best songs, and Paul just had a really great solid one (Wings!). Ringo had some good stuff too but he was kind of ou of the spotlight.

[QUOTE=drugstore cowboy]Stop comparing his drumming to drummers today. It doesn't work. It was the sixties then, it's the new millenium now. Time has passed, and drumming has [i]evolved[/i]. Guess who one of the pioneers of this evolution was. Thaaat's right.

Ringo was the best drummer in Liverpool when the Beatles picked him up. That's saying something. He popularized the matched grip, the backbeat, muffled toms, and countless other things we take for granted today. He was really the first hard rock drummer, because he just pounded out a beat for the rest of the band.

It had to start somewhere, and it started with Ringo.[/QUOTE]
Wow, the best drummer from Liverpool, that's incredible.

I'm not comparing Ringo to today's drummers. Tony Williams in not a drummer from today, he was a 60's drummer.

I'm just saying, it's not Ringo, it's the drummer that's necessary. It could've been anybody, and you would be saying the same thing. NOte one thing he did for the group that really helped their career, did something that really stood out.

And Yellow Submarine is a crappy song.


Paul McCartney's concerts are 75% Beatles material. He's successful, but he can't survive without the Beatles.

[QUOTE=drugstore cowboy]

It had to start somewhere, and it started with Ringo.[/QUOTE]
Actually it started with Pete Best.

[QUOTE=freestyle1k86]I'm just saying, it's not Ringo, it's the drummer that's necessary. It could've been anybody, and you would be saying the same thing. NOte one thing he did for the group that really helped their career, did something that really stood out.[/QUOTE]

Look man, I'm not saying that "the Beatles' drummer" was influential, I'm saying that Ringo Starr was influential. As I stated before, whether or not he was with the Beatles or not has no effect, it only makes his influence more widely accessible. And if he wasn't with the group, they most likely wouldn't have been as successful, and therefore Ringo really made his own talents known by helping to make the Beatles known. They didn't stick with Pete Best because he wasn't good enough. He couldn't keep time as well as Ringo.

Not any drummer could have done as well as Ringo did. Especially not the ones the Beatles had to choose from. He was the best they possibly could have gotten within their limits.

Edit: Paul's concerts today are alot of Beatles stuff, and his more pop centred stuff, because those are the songs that everyone loved. There is no way Paul's going to get up on stage in front of thousands of fans and play "Teddy Boy" or "Momma Miss America". As amazing as those songs are, they aren't as widely loved by the masses. He plays what people like. He's a smart guy.

[QUOTE=drugstore cowboy]Look man, I'm not saying that "the Beatles' drummer" was influential, I'm saying that Ringo Starr was influential. As I stated before, whether or not he was with the Beatles or not has no effect, it only makes his influence more widely accessible. And if he wasn't with the group, they most likely wouldn't have been as successful, and therefore Ringo really made his own talents known by helping to make the Beatles known. They didn't stick with Pete Best because he wasn't good enough. He couldn't keep time as well as Ringo.

Not any drummer could have done as well as Ringo did. Especially not the ones the Beatles had to choose from. He was the best they possibly could have gotten within their limits.[/QUOTE]
Ringo was just lucky he lived in Liverpool.

He wasn't much of an influencial drummer. I could name 3 drummers much more influential,
Jack DeJohnette
Tony Williams
Gene Krupa

:rolleyes: whatever. i give up trying to make my case.

Gene Krupa would have been the worst drummer the Beatles never had.

[QUOTE=drugstore cowboy]:rolleyes: whatever. i give up trying to make my case.

Gene Krupa would have been the worst drummer the Beatles never had.[/QUOTE]
Except he's one the of best drummers the Beatles should've had.

[QUOTE=freestyle1k86]Except he's one the of best drummers the Beatles should've had.[/QUOTE]

Krupa was a virtuoso jazz drummer, rooted in semi traditional drumming ways. The Beatles were free thinking rock and rollers, young and wanting to expand their musical horizons. Hooking those two up would have been a catastrophe for music in general.

[QUOTE=freestyle1k86]Except he's one the of best drummers the Beatles should've had.[/QUOTE]
except no. the chemistry would have been terrible. williams is a jazz drummer you fool, how would he have been a good match for the beatles. its like those "dream band" threads where you post your dream band but everyone inevitably ends up choosing their favorites, and in actuality, if ever put together, would be an awful sounding ensemble. williams, krupa, dejohnette, all wouldve been bad matches. why cant you understand that?