Martin wants "Yesterday" credit

This is a couple of days old, but I haven't seen any post on it around
here:

rforman61...

It is one of those stories where none of the quotes from the person in

ian...

I thought "Birthday" was a nick from the Undertaker's 1963/64 "Just A
Little Bit". The Undertaker's bass player, Jackie Lomax, was hanging
with the Beatles at the time.

tom...

Wow don't even know that one Ian! Maybe it is!

The song 20-75 was an R&B semi hit in the US that had brass essentially
playing the "Birthday" riff...a couple years before birthday. In fact
when we heard "Birthday" we were amazed...."Hey, that's 20-75!"

;)

ian...

Just some slight differences between the riffs (here in G major), but
they all feature that riff+stop+break pattern.

?/64, Willie Mitchell, 20-75 (album release)

2/64, The Undertakers, Just A Little Bit

68, Birthday

The Willie Mitchell *single* may been earlier. The website I got the
date for "Just A Little Bit" had "2/63", but the sequence made it
clear that it was "2/64".

Trivia: The Undertakers got their name from a printer's error. "20-75"
was the record companies release number for the single.

question, in the body of the story, seem to support the headline!

At any rate, this item conflicts with pretty well-established history
of the song's creation. Of course, GM had no involvement in writing
the song's melody. Moreover, according to the description in the
current Bob Spitzer book which I am about halfway through reading, Paul
worked hands-on with George Martin in composing the string score
(didn't come back and find it written). Most important to my ears
though, is that the string quartet arrangement isn't really anything
new in its own right, in the verses it is just a transcription of
Paul's acoustic guitar parts, with extra little melodic touches in the
bridge that were at least in part, thought of by Paul and sung to GM
who transcribed them.

Nowhere...

Ringo wrote it, but can't be named!

umpston...

I reckon this is a mis-quote, misunderstanding or fabrication by the
'journalist' who wrote the piece.

For a start George Martin is described as a 'songwriter'. He is best
known as one of the greatest producers and musical arrangers. He has
also successfully composed and conducted instrumental music, often film
scores. But he is certainly not known for his songwriting - if he has
ever written any songs I doubt I've heard any of them.

The piece also 'quotes' him as saying "I went away and wrote a score
for a string quartet" and then suggests he brought it back as a
finished piece to show McCartney. But in all previous accounts that I
have read George Martin always says he and McCartney worked together on
the score (although McCartney couldn't read music he would sing or play
his string-arrangement ideas).

Perhaps he was talking about credit for the string arrangement - not
the song. I'm sure anyone who has heard the first take of Yesterday,
on the Anthology, would agree that the song stands up quite well on its
own - without the string arrangement.

Yourimageunreals...

It wouldn't be as popular as it is, without the string arrangment.

Seth Jackson...

So? You could say that about any hit single. It wouldn't be (as)
successful without the producer doing his job. That's why they have
producers. Songwriters write, producers produce.

Yourimageunreals...

So..what's the problem, Seth? Somebody said
something before I did.

Seth Jackson...

Sounded like you were suggesting that Martin deserved songwriting
credit for doing the string arrangement.

Eric Ramon...

Opportunity knocks!

Yourimageunreals...

I don't understand you, and people like you, Seth. You're very
intelligent..from the posts I've seen you write. Yet..you assume things
for Bizarre reasons. It never even crossed my mind
that Martin should get songwriting credit for doing the string
arrangement. Why didn't you just come right out..and ask me if I was
suggesting that..in the first place...instead of
assuming? Assuming things...takes up alot of unnecessary time.

Seth Jackson...

Because it sounded like that's what you were suggesting. If that
wasn't your intention, then I guess I don't understand what your point
was in stating the obvious.

Yourimageunreals...

It's not obvious to every poster. Some claim that "Strawberry Fields"
is a song that stands on it's own. I disagreed, and said that the song
needed all the orchestration..and everything that is on the final

homesick...

Hallelujah!!!!

Church of st.Lennon is here again

version. to have made it
as big as the song got to be. It's not obvious to them.

Yourimageunreals...

Seth, you still haven't answered my question.
Why didn't you just ask me what I meant..instead of just assuming
something?

MikeSo...

Nor is laughing at your agenda.

Assuming something is a time waster..as I said before. As for my point
in stating the obvious, you did the very same thing you accuse me of.

Yourimageunreals...

successful without the >>producer doing his job. =A0 That's why they

Yourimageunreals...

Now isn't that the obvious?