Beatles Without George Martin?

Let me be a little more clear- in no way would I claim Martin was a greater songwriter, or that the Beatles were just a pretty boy band. That of course is rubbish.

It's simply listening to Martin's influence on the guys in studio situations (view old studio footage, listen to behind the scenes tracks) that reveals his ability to take a request McCartney or Lennon had for a certain "sound" and deliver what is now known as a Beatles "defining" sound (Bach Trumpet in Penny Lane, and a zillion other examples).

My point is that many parts of the sound you define as the Beatles- from the multi-layered vocal harmonies to the unique instrumentation often employed- were George Martin's hand delivering what the boys envisioned.

i agree with you totally. rhe right man for the right job. talk about a creative 'think tank'.

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

You missed or ignored my point.

I said, "None of them were nearly successful as the band itself".

That is irrefutable.

"None of them were nearly successful as the band itself".

That's because, while it lasted, the talents of each individual Beatle, including Martin, complemented the others almost perfectly.

Take any of them individually, and while still uniquely gifted in different ways, there is not the overall balance and synergy that characterized the Beatles.

Well, what about George Martin without the Beatles?
There are combinations of talent that existed in time and space and this team/group/ensemble was one of them.

Even when I was kid and Beatles fan in the late 60s I knew the Martin name and equated it with the success of the Fab Four. One thing Martin did effectively was expose them to resources, other instruments, members of LSO that could augment the basic ideas they had.

Another album that Martin did with Geoff Emerick which was OK was Ultravox' Quartet album from 1984; OK but not great and certainly not anywhere near the caliber of the results with the Beatles.