Priore's Claim that The Beatles heard Smile tapes in early 1967

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Thanks to both of you for those quotes! That's great.  I have been doing my best to research the music the Beatles were listening to throughout the 60s but Melody Maker seems like a treasure trove that I don't have access to.

I know he doesn't have many fans around these parts, but Keith Badman's "The Beatles Off The Record" books are exactly what you're looking for. There are two volumes. One covering the 60's and one covering the solo years. The 60's volume is great, because it's a collection of interviews and quotes just from the 60's, rather than things the Beatles said after the fact through rose-colored glasses and faulty memories. A terrible book title though, because all of the quotes were actually on the record and printed in newspapers and magazines at the time.

Thanks for that! I will look into it.

[guitarfool2002]

Thanks for the quotes and sources! Cool read.

But I have to question something that's bugging me with this thread. Even though it's already been said the topic has moved and basically isn't even giving a damn about the conspiracy theories, is it just me or are some posting here trying to argue for or against an influence back-and-forth between The BB's and Beatles? I mean, seriously, it's been so often mentioned and quoted and recorded and everything else, what's the point of saying who was ***really*** influenced or even challenging the presence of such influence entirely? I don't get it.

So now we have McCartney obviously having been saying it for decades, we have some Lennon quotes, we have Ringo being described as the "ultimate" BB's fan in the group who was thrilled to meet a few members back in '64, and George...well, fill in the gaps wherever they are. But what more in the way of either examples, proof, or anything else are people looking for at this point?

[puni puni]

There is a less than 1% chance of the Beach Boys being mentioned in any article about the Beatles for the last fifty years. Pet Sounds is barely a footnote in books about Sgt. Pepper. I seriously doubt George was parroting anybody, and I didn't get that impression in his tone.

I have posted this elsewhere but it bears repeating here:

Look up any editorial about Pet Sounds, "the critically-acclaimed pop album, inspired by the Beatles' Rubber Soul, which later influenced Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."

Do the same for Sgt. Pepper, "the unprecedented forerunner to art rock and experimental pop music."

[guitarfool2002]

I wanted to revisit the points made about George Martin as producer. I'd have to say pretty emphatically there would be no Beatles, or they'd be perhaps playing golden oldies package shows with members of the Searchers or The Pacemakers or The Dakotas if it weren't for George Martin. Did his direct influence on *the music itself* diminish over time leading up obviously to the White Album where he basically took a powder and put a young guy who was basically his intern in his place? Yes. However:

When the Beatles in various degrees of enthusiasm wanted to regroup after the Get Back filming debacles, for a project which Geoff Emerick revealed they basically knew or approached it like they knew it would be their last hurrah, their goodbye to the whole thing...didn't they ask George Martin to come back and with at least what McCartney was reported to have said to Martin a request to "produce us like you used to do in the old days"? So that right there might suggest the band or maybe McCartney alone must have felt there was something George Martin brought to the recordings that they wanted to capture again.

And also, again pretty obvious point, the role and definition of "producer" was vastly different in the 50's and 60's than it would soon become as a job description. Brian Wilson was one of those kids in the business who helped write the dictionary definition of the job, as a self-contained producer playing and writing and calling the shots in his own band. But consider Chet Atkins "produced" Elvis on the early RCA dastes and basically sat and watched Elvis and the boys rip it up in the studio. Elvis produced *those* sessions for the most part, you can hear it on the sessions. Tom Wilson - Bob Dylan 1965...what exactly did Wilson "produce" to be blunt about it? Did he assemble the band or did Dylan or Grossman? Or was he just there as the point man for Columbia, lending an ear to the music?

But I'd say especially in the system that was EMI in the 1960's, they also needed George Martin as the buffer whenever they got told "no" by the brass. Then, obviously, George Martin had to put the producer's polish on the tracks. He got The Beatles as raw material as far as studio musicianship. They were a raucous live band, one of the absolute best if not *the* best by 1962 working the clubs. Their sets, full of covers and rockers and ballads and comedy and...

Then listen to the "Decca Audition" tapes, pre-George Martin, pre-EMI. They're flat. They're not only flat, they're depressing in a way because the group had not yet learned to play the studio. The choice of lead vocalists...George Harrison, what the hell did they give him so many leads on their audition when it was crucial to them getting ahead in the business? They had two of the finest singers in the land who could both rock out and harmonize like blood brothers...and you get Harrison singing Coasters covers?

That's the decision that a producer makes...who is best to sing this material, and what material. The original songs, they were raw, lot of promise though. They need a producer to whip them into shape, make them pop, trim the fat and leave the prime cuts. Take out George's guitar noodling on Please Please Me. Tell them the truth that Pete Best may have been the Casanova of the band and may have kicked ass on stage...but in the studio, he didn't cut it. The hard truth. Their road-beaten amps won't cut it, they're noisy and erratic and held together by tape and baling wire. Nope, can't have that in the studio.

It was about taking it to the next level, the music and the band and their sound. What worked live needed to be honed to a fine, sharp point to carry that energy in the studio and onto a record. The original songs needed to be tweaked, needed to be polished, maybe needed some strong hooks. They got that in spades.

So I'd say that original studio process education that the band got through George Martin (and his various teammates like Norman Hurricane Smith, Emerick, etc) was what made them better and better with each album. They could not have done that without having someone who at least knew how to give them what they may have wanted, or get them to try something as simple as reversing the order of a chorus and verse for maximum impact as a single.

Is there over-crediting? Find me anyone in the music biz who doesn't over-credit themselves every so often if not hourly, it's our version of padding the resume. Find me those who don't heap lavish praise on various musicians based more on affection than actual credit due. It's all perspective.

I think George Martin's contributions hold up and are worthy of the praise he gets. It's one of those Catch-22 deals where we could argue if even one minute piece of the puzzle had been changed, they wouldn't have been the band they were. I think without Martin, Emerick, Smith, etc in place and working when and where they did, i.e. the studio cats who brought the ideas to life, it would be radically different. And it may have been cool, it may have been successful, but I don't know if McCartney working as a solo producer would have been able to make the magic happen. In fact when he tried to become more of a producer and skipper the Get Back ordeal, the others pretty much balked.

[GhostyTMRS]

Indeed. George Martin's role should never be diminished. I think some of the recent dismissal of George Martin's work may stem from people reading Geoff Emerick's book and thinking of it as gospel. I would take that book with a grain of salt (or two).

And good call on mentioning Elvis basically producing his own sessions. Some would relish the idea of Elvis as some kind of musical simpleton who just did what he was told in the studio, but the session tapes prove otherwise.

[guitarfool2002]

Indeed. George Martin's role should never be diminished. I think some of the recent dismissal of George Martin's work may stem from people reading Geoff Emerick's book and thinking of it as gospel. I would take that book with a grain of salt (or two).

And good call on mentioning Elvis basically producing his own sessions. Some would relish the idea of Elvis as some kind of musical simpleton who just did what he was told in the studio, but the session tapes prove otherwise.

Hearing some of those Elvis sessions through the years was a revelation for me. The guy was in full control, he was calling the shots, he knew when a vocal take everyone else might have approved wasn't quite right and he also could feel it when the band's performance wasn't exactly where it had to be. The guy was something else, as early as whatever RCA sessions from the 50's have leaked. Really cool stuff. I think that may have been what kept the Beatles on their game, not just that but getting better at every outing from 63-67. They had someone who might hear something that could be done better who was outside the group's inner circle and psychology. He had a damn good ear, obviously.

I wouldn't have even thought of Elvis had it not been for watching TCM late night last night. They featured lesser-screened films that had been preserved by the UCLA film archive, one of them was a disturbing film called Wanda from 1971 written by, directed by, and starring Barbara Loden. I'll be seeking that one out again! And a pretty cool film noir I hadn't seen with more of a domestic/family bent instead of the usual shadowy alleys and underworld.

So they did this quick featurette in between with Ann Doran, who played Mrs. Stark in the film Rebel Without A Cause. I've read numerous books about Dean and others involved, but she surprised me by saying James Dean more or less directed the film as he was acting the scenes. Maybe there was an axe to grind there, decades-old, but Ann said the director Nicholas Ray was there to say "roll, cut, print it" behind the camera while James Dean was the one who was actually the de facto director! The one scene where Dean comes home, wearing the red jacket, and eventually argues with his parents then storms out kicking a hole into the family portrait of "Mother"...that was all Dean improvising and Doran playing off of him. No script, no direction, they just let the film roll as they improvised and that was the only take they shot. Powerful scene. Apparently Dean's role was like that in alot of the scenes.

So I thought about Elvis - He did the same thing on those landmark 50's sessions at RCA. Chet admits he basically sat there in awe and even called his wife to come down and watch this kid put on a revue in the recording studio. Elvis and James Dean, right? In terms of pop culture, what is more iconic from the 50's than Dean and Elvis? They called the shots while others got the credits, creative powerhouses as well as performers. It was different system for sure.

[GhostyTMRS]

If this were Facebook I'd give that a "like".  

[Nile]

Here you go!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/blhdrj7zlr9nt2q/CCF10092012_00011.jpg?dl=0

It´s pretty clear when PM was in LA with BW! I think we can trust Derek Taylor!

What am I looking at?

First meeting, circa 8/26 or 27/66, Taylor's house (Dodger Stadium show was 8/28, Candlestick Park was the next day).

Second meeting, 4/10/67, Sound Recorders studio ("Vega-Tables" session)

So if there were some kind of spy business back then this were the dates.. well done AGD! Personally don´t think that there was this kind of stuff going on.. Dates in August were to early (well maybe PM could have heard I ran, Wonderful and..well that´s it ) and April date is far to late because Pepper was already in the can!
I rest my case

[Andrew G. Doe]

Thanks for the quotes and sources! Cool read.

But I have to question something that's bugging me with this thread. Even though it's already been said the topic has moved and basically isn't even giving a damn about the conspiracy theories, is it just me or are some posting here trying to argue for or against an influence back-and-forth between The BB's and Beatles? I mean, seriously, it's been so often mentioned and quoted and recorded and everything else, what's the point of saying who was ***really*** influenced or even challenging the presence of such influence entirely? I don't get it.

No-one here is denying influence in both directions: that's been going on in music for millennia and only a complete idiot would deny it. No art form exists in a complete vacuum: did Paul & John keep an ear on what Brian was doing and vice versa ? Of course, established fact. But the title of this thread concerns a very specific incident, which was proven some years ago to have been entirely impossible.