Jump to content

Talk:George Martin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:44b8:3102:bb00:c8b5:22d9:7625:9289 (talk) at 09:19, 21 January 2018 (→Your First Number One: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleGeorge Martin has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 27, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 17, 2007Peer reviewNot reviewed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 9, 2016.
Current status: Good article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Archive
Archives

Archive 1 · Archive 2

James Bond: From Russia...

I'm pretty sure George Martin produced Matt Munro's version of From Russia With Love. However, I'm not sure who produced the version in the opening credits as it's just the instrumental version of the song - Munro's vocal version isn't until the credits and I'm unsure if it was the single from the soundtrack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.57.146 (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to take to another PR then FA

I would really like to take George Martin to a PR and then FA, but he's not on the Beatles list. Just don't want to step on toes before I start so thought I'd ask who'd like to help.--DizFreak talk Contributions 20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is on the list, and you are very welcome to take him up to FA. Very, very welcome indeed. :)--andreasegde (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the adopt an article list. I should be more clear. I'm going to prep this for a PR then and try to prep it for FADizFreak talk Contributions 16:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you - go for it. :)--andreasegde (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albums produced

Because I'm lazy and don't want to get out my Beatles box set and count them all...how many of the original Beatles albums did George produce (the only one that comes to mind that he didn't was the original Let It Be.)DizFreak talk Contributions 20:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never Mind, I just put "producer and co-producer". DizFreak talk Contributions 21:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let It Be has a complicated history; originally Martin was (obviously) planned to produce the LP, but the material was (to the Beatles minds) of too poor quality to release, Glynn Johns was given the job of trying to make a releasable product, but his version was rejected, Lennon & Harrison then approached Phil Spector who actually produced the released album. However, Spector wasn't present for the Beatles performances. To my count, Martin produced 10 Beatles albums - not counting Yellow Submarine, the anthologies and past masters:

Please, Please Me, With the Beatles, Beatles for Sale, Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, The Beatles (White Album), Abbey Road, Live at Hollywood Bowl.

Apepper (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Is it just me or are the references ambiguous? RJFJR (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instruments

The box on the side of the article that includes his picture and some facts about him is missing some things. Where it says "instruments", it is missing a few that he knew how to play. George Martin also knew how to play the cello. He played it in the Beatles song, "Strawberry Fields Forever". He knew how to play the glockenspiel, and played it in the Beatles song, "Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowconeboy789 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selected non-Beatles hit records produced or co-produced by George Martin

A bit confusing this, as the dates given for these hits are sometimes UK, sometimes US. For "how do you do it", which was a #1 in the UK, the American date and highest spot reached are given. However, I don't intend to do the necessary tidying up myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.32.224 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the section to reflect the UK number one placement of "How Do You Do It" and "Bad To Me", but I haven't checked the remaining entries to make sure that they give the highest chart placement. Given that Martin was a British producer, I think the list should give the UK chart placement of each song by default, with US chart placements given only if they were higher than those in the UK, and of course US chart placements should be indicated as such. Sonitus (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honorofics?

On this page http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Martin.htm the intials "Kt." preced the initials "C.B.E.". Why is "Kt." absent from George Martin's Wikipedia page? As a Knight Bachelor (a Knight who is not a Knight in an Order of Chivalry (or is it "Order of Knighthood"), Martin is referred to as "Sir". His being a C.B.E. (rank of Commander, in the Order of the British Empire) would not result in his being referred to as "Sir" because "Commander" is not a high enough rank in the Order of the British Empire to be a Knight. Hence without the "Kt." and only the "C.B.E." there the "Sir" is a bit of a head-scratcher, no? I am making the parallel edit to Paul McCartney's talk-page where the only difference is that McCartney, as a MEMBER of the British Empire, is even lower-ranked than Martin and likewise would not be a "Sir" if he were not also a Knight Bachelor affiliated with no Order.76.8.67.2 (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

See my reply at Talk:Paul McCartney. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Kt" is almost never used as a postnom except in the most formal usage. For a Knight Bachelor, the pretitle "Sir" usually appears alone. The College of Arms is not actually in error, since in recording his arms it is using the most formal version of Martin's name, but it would not be usual usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Richards and John Burgess at AIR Studios

The Ron Richards article states "In August 1965, Richards joined Martin in leaving EMI to start AIR Studios", but there is no mention of Ron Richards in the Associated Independent Recording (AIR) article. Assuming Ron Richards did join AIR Studios, did he start AIR Studios with George Martin and John Burgess? In addition, the George Martin article doesn't mention John Burgess, was Burgess a business partner, or a fellow record producer? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marriages

His two marriages are mentioned in the article but is it not standard practice to mention this and his children in the mini bio that appears beneath the picture? Adagio67 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Noise

Came here from Wikiproject: Orphanage. Is it possible to mention Martin's work on The Art of Noise (radio show) here? There is a section for his TV work, but I didn't see a place for his radio work. PaintedCarpet (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lewisohn's biography puts the Beatles signing into a slightly different light

I'm currently reading Mark Lewisohn's biography of the Beatles and that puts George Martin's decision to sign the band into a different light; according to Lewisohn, there were two events that led to the signing: EMI publishers had heard that some of the Beatles songs were unpublished and wanted to get the publishing rights for them (mainly, ISTR, Love of the Loved). Secondly, senior EMI managers had recently found out that Martin was having an affair with his secretary - in 1962 this might have been a sacking offence. George Martin wasn't that impressed with the Decca recording, but EMI management essentially used the knowledge of the affair to pressure him to sign the band to get hold of the unpublished songs - which, of course, they actually lost to Northern Songs. I'm going through the extended edition of the book now, unless someone beats me to it, I'll try and come up with a section that presents the Lewisohn information - perhaps calling it something like (Other factors in the Beatles' signing). Apepper (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on George Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last two links have permanently disappeared. Karst (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Train

What's the issue with the Big Train sketch? It is documented in multiple reliable sources as mocking public image towards Martin, rather than the man himself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of this trivia. Per WP:IINFO, we do not have to include every snippet of information simply because it's reported in a reliable source. If material is trivial, and gives no additional understanding of the subject of the article, it should be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one was mentioned in multiple reliable sources years after the sketch, particularly this Time Out source which mentions it in the context of The Beatles directly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Eldon

In the current version we go from Martin as the fifth Beatle (no chronology issue), then to Kevin Eldon in recent times, and then to comments by John Lennon about George Martin back in 1970. The mention of Eldon in this location does not have any logic.

Additionally, this article on George Martin will be read by the widest possible spread of English speakers throughout the world. It is unclear if Eldon has any significant following outside the UK, and his inclusion may possibly be a distraction for most users. It is not only a case of the passage's location, but its relevance. For this reason, I removed the passage. As noted in the "Big Train" section above, the existence of a reliable source does not mean we automatically have to make use of the content. Philip Cross (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artist test vs commercial test

The section about the distinction between different types of audition - artist test vs commercial test - seems to have a bit too much detail and is not specifically relevant to the life/career of George Martin (and I notice has also been added to articles about other Beatle-related persons, e.g. Pete Best). What do others think? MFlet1 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Clear consensus to not move this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– The record producer by this name may well have been the "fifth Beatle" by some estimations, but he wasn't a Beatle; he may be the most notable "George Martin" (George R. R. Martin might challenge him for that title now), but with nearly thirty people in the encyclopedia with that name, including athletes, actors, politicians, etc., it seems implausible that there is a primary topic for this very common name. bd2412 T 20:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment George R. R. Martin is not a famous George Martin. He is a famous George R. R. Martin. DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for now. My own thoughts echo DuncanHill's. Is there any indication that users are searching on "George Martin" when they're looking for "George R. R. Martin"? I know that for me, those "R.R." initials always stand out, and he's not commonly referred to as "George Martin". Of the entities who might be referred to as "George Martin", the record producer is the primary topic. TJRC (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The argument "it's a common name" seems untenable when you consider pages means primary topic status for common names is never going to be set in stone. He is by far the most notable George Martin (no one even comes close to challenging that many common names have primary topics and the nature of people having Wikipedia his pageviews & significance), so I suppose the argument rests on if you consider George R. R. Martin "George Martin". I personally wouldn't; if I do a google search for "George Martin" (quotes included to limit the search) I only get results for the Beatles producer. GRRM is much more well known with his prominent inititals. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, have to oppose this one, mainly for WP:ILIKEIT (he's the fifth Beatle! Aside from Pete Best, who should also have statues and holidays). And per the comments above, the R.R. seems a consistent and familiar part of G.R.R.M.'s common name. But support attention to BD2412's discovery of the dragon-in-the-details. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. The George Martin (disambiguation) page list 29 names --- far too many for one holder of this common name to maintain a claim to greater prominence and notability than the other 28 combined. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He is still famous enough to merit direct access to a WP search. I believe most people who will type in this name are indeed looking for Sir George, not a cricket player...As for GRRM, most will type the two Rs Poirier2000 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Still looks like the primary topic. Among the people widely known simply as George Martin, all are quite obscure except the admiral and the comedian. —innotata 09:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your First Number One

My Beatle library, which dates from 1962, tells me that Martin actually telephoned the pub where The Beatles were having a pint after the recording session, to tell them that in his opinion 'Please, Please Me' was Number One material.

McCartney makes clear in the long interview that commences Lewissohn's book about Beatle recording sessions, that they were forbidden to set foot in the engineering booth, and had no say in their early mix-downs. So Martin could not have addressed them 'over the console' that night.

I have reservations about Some of Spitz's work ... not a reliable source, IMNSHO. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:C8B5:22D9:7625:9289 (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Martin&oldid=821574885"