Paul McCartney: “Musical Director” of The Beatles
By Marvin Marks on Jan 31, 2010 in Features
I recently came across the following quote from Norman Smith (who was The Beatles recording engineer from Please Please Me through Rubber Soul)
I don’t want to take anything away from anyone, but production of the Beatles was very simple, because it was ready-made. Paul was a very great influence in terms of the production, especially in terms of George Harrison’s guitar solos and Ringo’s drumming. The truth of the matter is that, to the best of my memory, Paul had a great hand in practically all of the songs that we did, and Ringo would generally ask him what he should do. After all, Paul was no mean drummer himself, and he did play drums on a couple of things. It was almost like we had one producer in the control room and another producer down in the studio. There is no doubt at all that Paul was the main musical force. He was also that in terms of production as well. A lot of the time George Martin didn’t really have to do the things he did because Paul McCartney was around and could have done them equally well… most of the ideas came from Paul.
I find this perspective (coming as it does from someone who knew what he was talking about from personal experience) very interesting and it definitely fits in with my belief that Paul is not given the credit he deserves in relation to John Lennon. Don’t get me wrong, I love Lennon and I think the John vs. Paul argument is a bit silly because I think they were both essential in the creation of The Beatles music but I really do think that Paul doesn’t get enough credit (and conversely John probably gets a bit too much) for what made The Beatles recordings so great.
I should also point out that this “Paul as the main musical force” idea is reinforced by Geoff Emerick (who took over recording engineering duties from Norman Smith beginning with Revolver in 1966) in his book which is titled Here, There, and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles (this book is highly recommended, by the way.) He talks a lot about how Paul was the easily the best musician amongst The Beatles and how he was behind many of The Beatles musical ideas.
Become A MusicByDay.com Music Blogger.
Paul McCartney is bigger than The Beatles.
Mozart Breath | Feb 1, 2010 | Reply
Smith was the engineer through Rubber Soul. Until that time George did what he was told. After that he did what he wanted to do or didn’t. It was George’s idea for the bass/guitar duet on Drive My Car. Paul had influence as did the other Beatles. Don’t worry Paul makes sure he get the credit for the Beatles, even though it WAS John’s group.
DoBotherMe | Feb 1, 2010 | Reply
It’s high time Paul gets the recognition he deserves.
yesamized | Feb 12, 2010 | Reply
John and Paul were equal partners. It was hardly “John’s group.” Lennon said he chose Paul as his “partner,” and he and the other Beatles are all on record as saying/confirming the Beatles had no leader. John made suggestions and contributed to Paul’s songs, and vice versa. But the fact is Lennon HATED production, whereas Paul loved production. There’s the difference.
Amazing how such objective facts escape those who love carrying on this imaginary John vs. Paul pissing match…
thomas | May 2, 2010 | Reply
Give me a link where it says he hated production.
matt | May 9, 2010 | Reply
I’m glad that Paul is finally getting the recognition he deserves. The Quarrymen was John’s group. The group was mostly a hobby until Paul came along. That’s when John stared to take the band seriously. John hadn’t even written a single song before meeting Paul. Paul was the one who brought George onboard.
So saying “The Beatles was John’s group” is absurd and factually incorrect
Anna | May 19, 2010 | Reply
The Beatles were John’s band. He was the leader and he formed the band. Get over it people. What do you gain by trying to denounce John’s significance? He was JUST AS GREAT at writing melodies as Paul and he had JUST AS GREAT a voice as Paul. And John was an innovator, a genius, and incredibly gifted. The Beatles would never be the Beatles without Paul but without John they simply wouldn’t exist.
Annastasia | Oct 23, 2011 | Reply
John was the catalyst in that he started a band in the first place, but as soon as McCartney became involved Lennon became an equal partner. And McCartney was DRIVEN to be a popular musician.
However, they were both loaded with talent in different ways and together they made the Beatles equally.
It is an indisputable fact that The Beatles was the “Lennon/McCartney” show and they did tend to sideline Harrison and Starr as far as the creative role goes. The ‘other’ two however made the public ‘face’ of the group complete and of course definitely had their own style and sound to their playing.
I’m likely contradicting everything that I’ve ever said before.
Anyway, it stopped being John’s group when McCartney joined and started pushing for creative excellence as opposed to hacking around with banjo tunings and only cover songs.
I should know because I know pretty much everything!
Amadeus | Oct 24, 2011 | Reply