Well...I guess the accounts of what happend 40+ years ago have evolved....depending on who is writting a book at the moment
That's partly true, but even as far back as 1968, a good two years before the break up, in Hunter Davies' authorized biography, he makes some telling comments about how George Martin's role has changed. The things he said then are retrospectively fascinating.
If you ever a chance and the spare time, if you haven't already, Geoff Emerick's autobiog is another insightful read. I was really surprized at how there is this underlying condescension of George Martin throughout.
I just remember reading that during the last couple albums...none of the Beatles really even wanted to be in the studio at the same time...that they would come in individually to lay down tracks.
Well, that was happening as far back as the 'Help' sessions in 1965 and the tensions gathered pace through 'Rubber Soul'. Even in 'Revolver' you have the scenario of McCartney walking out after an argument during the recording of "She said she said" and Harrison having to play bass on it......'Pepper' and 'Mystery tour' were pretty much characterized by a number of solo laying down of tracks and the White album was full of it, partly because they were recording so many songs for it {33 in all, plus those that were demoed}. Martin felt the cracks began appearing in '65 with the recording of "Yesterday". He felt that doing those kind of solo spots weakened the fabric of the group ethic.
But he couldn't hold it together. He wanted the White album to be a single 14 track LP because he felt there was too much rubbish on it but they totally overruled him on that. That's where Lennon's comment about him not really producing their last few albums came in. During the "Let it be" sessions,
they brought in Glyn Johns and Martin's role was kind of relegated and in the end he opted out of it all.
Arguably though, they did need a producer. "Let it be" fell to pieces as they rejected Glyn Johns' mixes and was shelved while they recorded "Abbey Road". It came out with Phil Spector's touch, over a year after it was recorded, which in those days was unheard of.
Without a strong producer to bring it all together...I don't think they would have gotten things done toward the end of their run.
I think that the person that was really at the helm of things getting done was Paul McCartney. He was the one who pushed through 'Pepper', 'Tour', the white album and 'Abbey Road'. But his enthusiasm and drive was both a strength and a weakness because it drove the others nuts and poured petrol on the worsening scene as he came across as bossy and condescending.
But who cares ? The music was fab !
When I saw stuff like the Metallica movie I began to wonder if a producer is a) different things to different levels of remuneration &/or b) someone employed to give "product" their signature "saleable" sound/sheen. Jeff Lynn spoilt a heap of albums with his sound &, particularly, his backing vocals.
I think there's alot of truth in that, both positively and negatively.
I read a book about 10 years ago about record producers. The geezer writing the book listed 6 different kinds of producer. So it's really difficult using the catch all term 'producer' because there isn't really a unified definition. It's easy to know exactly what's meant say, by 'engineer' or 'tape op'. Even being a hands on kind of producer doesn't help in terms of definition because the hands could be on in an engineering sense or playing an instrument sense or in an ideas sense. And a producer that's collared the sound in one genre may be totally useless in another.
