As at the moment few other lovers of SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST are active in this thread, I will repeat myself from other threads by saying that this album to me as whole really is on par with the socalled and by me uncontested four great studio albums '68 - '72. That means that I would not wish for George Martin to have intervened towards the freakiness of the album, making it in parts more "normal" or whatever. I would not in any way have wanted him to "adjust" for instance "Gomper", a song and a track which for me is somehow a key track for starting to love the album as a whole, instead of only appeciating a few other isolated songs as great.

Edit: Correction of two misprints.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-20 20:03 by Witness.

The Stones would have called their new record Sgt Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band.

HMN

Strictly in terms of the quality of TSMR as we know it I think he would've told them Most of these songs are rubbish.

Certainly We Love You, Dandelion, 2000 Man, 2000 Light Years, Citadel and She's A Rainbow would've remained - if they had at least 4 more good songs it would've turned out to be a pretty damn good LP - but the rest of it I could understand him demanding anything other as they are so bad.

The Stones could have had their own "A Day in the Life' which is a masterpiece by most standards,
though they might have also had to bring in John Lennon to help in the writing department.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Witness
That means that I would not wish for George Martin to have iuntervened towards the freakiness of the album, making it in parts more "normal" or whatever.

I find fascinating the pt of view that Martin "normalized" The Beatles, or that their output was somehow "pretty," esp in contrast to the more rough-around-the-edges sound of The Stones.

What The Beatles and Martin achieved in the studio esp from Rubber Soul through Abbey Road, was innovative, experimental, and more sonically radical than almost anything The Stones ever attempted. Arrangements, instrumentations, the creation of original sound effects, unusual miking techniques -- all of these factors made those records almost avant-garde, at least by pop standards. They were doing things that had never been tried.

For what it's worth, to my ears, that does not make them "normal" or their sound "pretty."

I just think maybe he would have gotten better arrangentments andsounds out of the instruments.Some of the horns and mellotrons sound poorly recorded.Not neccesarily changing the songs.Like the difference between Let it Be naked and Abbey Road.

Quote
LazarusSmith

Quote
Witness
That means that I would not wish for George Martin to have iuntervened towards the freakiness of the album, making it in parts more "normal" or whatever.

I find fascinating the pt of view that Martin "normalized" The Beatles, or that their output was somehow "pretty," esp in contrast to the more rough-around-the-edges sound of The Stones.

What The Beatles and Martin achieved in the studio esp from Rubber Soul through Abbey Road, was innovative, experimental, and more sonically radical than almost anything The Stones ever attempted. Arrangements, instrumentations, the creation of original sound effects, unusual miking techniques -- all of these factors made those records almost avant-garde, at least by pop standards. They were doing things that had never been tried.

For what it's worth, to my ears, that does not make them "normal" or their sound "pretty."

However, I never asserted that George Martin "normalized" the Beatles, as you seem to have it that I implied. In fact, I did not mention the Beatles, at all.

But I used the words "to have intervened towards the freakiness of the album, making it in parts more "normal" or whatever". For instance, and as mentionned, towards "Gomper" that I am one of very few here to like. And the majority of the posters that would have hypothetically wanted George Martin to produce THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST, seem to think that it would have imposed kinds of disipline on the Stones in the process of making that album. Possibly with a mind to have certain songs excluded or shortened. Not my fancy.

Apart from that, then I am one who also likes "Revolution No 9", and I am not generally opposed to the Beatles, even if I decidedly prefer the Rolling Stones.

Have a listen to "Take a Giant Step" by The Monkees and then listen to "Gomper." There are plenty of unanswered questions where Brian was concerned, but this one likely isn't on anyone's radar. I presume this was simply coincidental. I'd blame George Martin if I thought I could make it stick.


[www.youtube.com]

Mr Martin probably woulda came out of
it all lookin' like Chas in Performance …



ROCKMAN

As already stated, Martin would have at least recorded them better. As far as being freaky, Martin produced Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields. He may very well have made Gomper even wilder while improving the sound.

Quote
Rockman
Mr Martin probably woulda came out of
it all lookin' like Chas in Performance …

Haha, yeah man.
Forget about Martin domesticating the Stones. More like the Stones radicalizing Martin.

ROCKMAN

Quote
You Got to Roll Me
why would he pick there worst album to produce. TSMR is hot garbage

Not only a weak observation, issues with spelling! And their you have it.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Rockman
Mr Martin probably woulda came out of
it all lookin' like Chas in Performance …

Haha, yeah man.
Forget about Martin domesticating the Stones. More like the Stones radicalizing Martin.

...or eviscerating.

were the stones more "radical" than, say, john lennon was? would they have "eviscerated" him in a way that the making of The White Album didn't?