Ruminations on The Beatles in 1962

[Lord Reith]

I was thinking the same thing. Lewisohn really emphasized the Beatles' infatuation with the Goons. Their quick, off-beat sense humor was shaped by the guys whom Martin produced. George H's comment about not liking G Martin's tie quickly demonstrated their Goon sensibilities. JPG spoke the same Goonish language. Pete Best, the one guy who by most accounts, didn't speak that language was the odd man out. We're lucky that Ringo, too, spoke the same language. Although Martin initially dismissed Ringo's drumming, he liked his personality and allowed him to stay with the band.

I also think they would have been far more open to George Martin's suggestions than they would have been from Mike Smith. Like most "commoners" of the time, The Beatles automatically paid attention to people with a posh accent... or at least gave them the benefit of the doubt. They might have perceived the Cockney Mike Smith as being no different to them because of his lowly accent, and been less receptive of advice or criticism.

Of course, they didn't know that George Martin once had a cockney accent.

[20YearsAgo]

I also think they would have been far more open to George Martin's suggestions than they would have been from Mike Smith. Like most "commoners" of the time, The Beatles automatically paid attention to people with a posh accent... or at least gave them the benefit of the doubt. They might have perceived the Cockney Mike Smith as being no different to them because of his lowly accent, and been less receptive of advice or criticism.

Well, like I said earlier, the MAIN reason that they were amenable to his suggestions was that they had literally no other options if they wanted a recording contract. Everyone else had already turned them down. Where else could they turn. It was a "my way or the highway" situation... George Martin wouldn't have framed it quite so bluntly, and it also helped that they felt comfortable with him, personality-wise... He'd been the ONLY producer to seemingly take an interest in them.

[zaval80]

This is 1962, so yes, it would be the A&R man job to find them songs...however, what would be the point in trying to find best possible sounds for songs "at large"? IMO, Decca offered them a chance to record a demo. If a company was interested in an artist, they could offer that possibility, to use company's studios at no charge, contract not needed as well (definitely in the later years, like The Clash with Polydor; dunno about practices in 1962, though). We know that Decca showed certain interest in them, as Mike Smith visited Cavern before and found them generally OK. Decca recorded that many songs because the group was from another town and it'd be problematic for an A&R man to have them on beck and call; it was easier to let them record many different songs in one go to evaluate their strong and weak characteristics, and the sound could be taken care of at a later stage. IMO Mike Smith, by adjusting the knobs, acted instinctively. Sure the bosses would have no problem with changing the drummer, or everybody bar the lead vocalist, for studio pros - if needed.

And as for an artist being not 100% ready for the studio, it's not much of a problem in the eyes of experienced record men. The very first recordings of The Doors, for example - early versions of "Moonlight Drive" and "Indian Summer" from August 29th, 1966, from the "Box Set" in 1995. "Moonlight Drive", which was their flagship song, then was re-recorded around September 11th or so, but that re-recording was rejected as well and only the third version, recorded in 1967, made it to the (second) album. The August 1966 recordings look like intended for a single on the quick, but rejected immediately. The luck of The Doors was, they got themselves together in the middle of September 1966 to record other songs for their first album; obviously, the late great Paul A. Rothchild was the one who steered them through the process.

[jpgrjd]

I had a sleepless night and this all made very interesting reading. Had to go through it a few times as not that familiar with the terms. Just really enjoy the music.

I suppose the real answer is we will never know but that is what makes it so intriguing.

John

[onemojofilter]

I remember hearing Pete Best (actually on the Anthology Revisited series) where he said that he was told that they didn't sound like the same band as what they heard in the Cavern - which seems to me like it was taken as "why did we go along with the material Brian chose for us? HIS FAULT!" when really this tells me that they were being told, not in so many words, that they proved they couldn't cut it in a recording studio (for the reasons LR enumerated in the first post here).

Brilliant observations. I enjoyed reading them.

Thanks for sharing!

[zaval80]

IMO it would be really useful to compare the Decca recording with whatever there is from that early period from Brian Poole & The Tremeloes who were signed both from the artistic look at the respective songs and from the recording aspects, too.

[zaval80]

I'll say it again. I wish you had a podcast.

If memory severs well a recording test is what Queen made in 1971 and produce early version of many tunes that would appear in their debut album in 73

There is a test by the early Manfred Mann, on the box set "Down The Road Apiece", denoted as such (I don't remember whether recording or commercial, but it's there in full).

[billychildish]

I'll say it again. I wish you had a podcast.

But then you'd all find out I'm a woman.

And?

[Lord Reith]

I watched the Brian Poole interview again the other day and he says they had been signed to Decca for a while by then but just had not released any records under their own name. He also he doesn't remember auditioning or seeing them on New Years eve or New years day.

Mike Smith says he hated Sheik Of Araby and Three Cool Cats and thinks the songs The Beatles played were awful. But he also admits he'd had 40 years to reflect on it.

Make of that what you will but it just goes to show as usual that peoples' memories cannot be relied upon when you're dealing with events in the distant past which were not noteworthy at the time. Pete Best has given ten different stories about Decca, ranging from "Brian chose all the songs" to "we worked out the songs to play with Mike Smith at the Cavern that night".

Anyway I don't think the songs they played were that different from what they did on stage at the time, so even if Brian chose the 14 songs then he was choosing all the ones The Beatles liked anyway (and let's not forget The Beatles had already learnt and performed those songs... they didn't just learn them for the benefit of Brian).

Even though we have different ways of coming at it, I think most of us agree that the reason they were at Decca that day was not so Mike Smith could hear what they sounded like - he'd already heard them play at The Cavern according to multiple eyewitnesses including Brian Poole - but to see if they sounded any good on tape. Those are usually two different things. So the in and outs of it all are largely irrelevant, as were the songs. If you're just evaluating the sound and playing of a group then it doesn't matter what they play, so long as it is material they are familiar with. If he'd decided they had a commercially exploitable sound then he would have picked songs himself for them to record and not do the bidding of Brian Epstein. The fact is they sounded utterly mediocre on tape, and they still sounded mediocre six months later when they did the first session at EMI. They were never going to cut it with Pete, and their own songs were still fairly lightweight (don't get me wrong - Ask Me Why and PS I Love You are nice songs but they aren't chart toppers, which is what A&R guys look for by default). But George Martin decided to put in the extra work and help turn them into recording artists, whereas Mike Smith evidently had an epic failure of imagination.

I'm open to all opinions, but I reject the simplistic view of things we've had forever. They didn't just come back from the Kaiserkeller and were totally brilliant from that day onwards, then had a bad day at Decca and then got a deal with EMI because it was inevitable someone would see how good they were. The way things work in the real world is not like that. I'm sure they came back from Hamburg greatly improved but then there must have been a long, long period of refining and tweaking their sound, and at Decca they were only halfway through that journey. George Martin got them just as they were about to bloom but they needed that critical input from him to make the jump from club band to first class recording artists. I just don't think they would have got there without him. More likely they'd have stayed in Liverpool, kept Pete and kept playing the same old stuff they'd been playing all year, and never written any of those great songs.

[zaval80]

There are many angles to look from, but at all times, the company men looked for the artists that had some unique property - or for artists with which to copy other artists in hope to sell a quickie single or two. If the band in question was able to rise the emotions of an A&R man in live performance, there were ways to replicate this artistry in the studio, whatever the problems may be - starting from replacing the weakest musician or two and ending with replacing everybody but the lead vocalist. Was it Decca who honoured their big customer, Brian, and decided to give his boys a look, I forgot? in any case, they were sufficiently good in the live performance to test them in a studio. But very probably, they were not possessing that "it" the company men look for. IMO the raw rock quality they had wasn't something sought out by company men at the moment - all-round entertainers was the word. So Decca did what they could to appease their big client, but basically, they did not see in this out-of-town group anything unique that couldn't be replicated with the London groups - there was no "it" back then, though yes, it may look like there was with hindsight.

The Joe Meek angle is the one not mentioned yet. Despite whatever Joe ever thought of The Beatles, Merseybeat groups leaving less chances for his artists to succeed at a later stage, it is known that great many famous names either started with Joe or at least came to him at some time. Yet the most achieved the fame only years later. IMO this just reflects the general state of the British pop business back then. So, back to the Beatles with Decca, they most probably were no good at copying some other artists to sell their services as copycats, and the raw rock quality they had was out of vogue, so they had nothing of "IT" written in large letters for a record man - "guitars groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein", just that. So Decca passed on them, just like any other company.