Beatles Without George Martin?

"his career outside of the beatles music(check his discography without the band)was 'slight' at best" Jaybo - so wrong!

Those great sounding America tracks were produced by George Martin. Sister Golden Hair, Ventura Highway, Horse With No Name, ....

Regarding the argument that he wasn't very successful outside of the Beatles, the same argument could be made for the Beatles as individual artists. None of them were nearly successful as the band itself. This is one of "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" deals.

Martin wrote and arranged most of the strings for the Beatles.

He also played piano in many of the recordings. His Baroque style piano solo in the middle of "In My Life" is simply beautiful.

It's easy to underestimate his role in the Beatles success until you read many of the books about them.

LOL - you are just discovering what is behind the music!!!

Arrangers and session musicians like Brian Purdie or great producers like Daniel Lanois, Arif Marden etc. It is these musical talents behind the scenes that put the shine on the "poster kiddies".

I mean lets face it - most rock/pop bands are at least 50% about good looks...the true talent are often behind them. A studio with money can make a star out of anyone - from Brittany Spears to the Spice Girls - once the money starts flowing they continue to hire the best of the best. Why is Diana krall so popular? It ain't her virtuoso piano playing or her voice! Diana Krall was told one day....good piano players are all too common - can you learn to sing? Of course singing and throwing your hair back works everytime! Just as well as four cute british blokes with strong liverpool accents and funny haircuts...sure they can play their instruments (a bit) but half the success is the "it" factor - their charisma or appeal to target audiences - a bunch of cute white boys playing american southern blues music (Stones and Clapton) enjoyed mega-success - and no doubt this will continue in the "packaged" music business.

i would argue that the beatles as solo artists(the admitted weaker parts of the 'whole') still dwarf mr. martin's pre and post beatles career. i'm afraid comparing his production duties with the beatles with america, seatrain and others just flaunts what looks like the sobering comedown of a lifetime...doesn't mean he wasn't important, just means he didn't find himself being hired by other artists who were as talented....remember, the u.s. rubber soul is THE rubber soul.

I'd say Paul McCartney has had a pretty successful career without George Martin.

Lots of British bands were signed, given talented producers and the opportunity to show what they could do. Most of them fell flat on their faces or managed a hit or two at best.

America is not in the same league as the Beatles. In fact I don't understand their popularity at all.

Diana Krall is a talented pianist and singer. She plays a type of jazz that is accessible and popular. Is that a sin? If so, Nat Cole is burning in hell and so is Miles Davis for recording Kind of Blue. Miles always wanted his music to be popular, by the way, and was frustrated that he couldn't acheive mass popularity.