I got this email from Ken Scott who also worked on a lot of recording sessions with The Beatles. He said that he just read the bit in MACCAnews about the "hidden lyric" in Hey Jude. He said he felt obliged to point out that the lyrics are correct the performer isn't. The words were muttered by John during a vocal overdub. Paul did not hit a wrong note. At least not at that point.
He also gave me a link to his site where he points out more errors in Geoff's book http://www.komosproductions.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=37
Well seems Geoff Emerick and Ken Scott disagree on a few points of fact but it is still very interesting to hear such great detail on the recording sessions from not a third party but from the people directly involved. I can't wait to get the book.
Statement from Geoff Emerick Regarding Ken Scott's Comments about "Here, There and Everywhere : My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles"
March 8, 2006
I was saddened to learn that Ken Scott is attempting to discredit my book, Here, There, and Everywhere, despite the fact that he has obviously not seen the published edition.
I would not care to speculate on the motivations Ken has for publicly taking issue with my memoir, let alone on his evident need to rush his negative comments into print after apparently reading only an uncorrected proof of the book. Yes, these were events that occurred forty years ago, and Ken's memory may differ in some respects, but this is the true story of the Beatles in the recording studio as I and many of my colleagues remember it. As the Beatles' own Anthology project proved, put four people in a room and you will get four differerent recollections of the same event. That is simply human nature. Nonetheless, my co-author and I took great pains to ensure the accuracy of all that is stated in the book.
In the instances where Ken Scott is pointing out a substantive factual mistake and is not merely nit-picking, we will ensure that our publisher is notified and that the correction is made in future editions. However, most of what Ken refers to as "errors" are in fact either differences of opinion, or instances where he is misquoting or mischaracterizing what I say. In other cases, he is flat out wrong.
Regarding what Ken characterizes as the book's "relentless tirade against George Harrison," I would argue that I have in fact painted an honest, balanced and even affectionate picture of George, about whom I write, "Even though we were never close personally, we always got along well professionally, and I always had great respect for his musicianship and his abilities as a producer. Especially after he got interested in Eastern music, George brought a new dimension to Beatles records and his contribution was inestimable." That is hardly what I would call a "tirade."
And since Ken is so vehement about getting things correct, I will point out that he is wrong when he says that Paul McCartney was the only Beatle to have employed me after the group split up. I was asked by John to record numerous Plastic Ono Band projects, and I was brought in by Ringo to engineer the "Sentimental Journey" album and, years later, to mix "Vertical Man." Not to mention the fact that I was asked by all three surviving Beatles in 1994 to engineer "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love."
If and when Ken gets around to writing his memoir, I will certainly defend his right to share his recollections as he remembers them, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. Until that time, I hope he will extend me the same courtesy.
Geoff Emerick
Rebuttal from Ken Scott to Daytrippin Magazine regarding Geoff Emerick's response addressing criticism to his book
March 12, 2006
Dear Daytrippin',
Many thanks for allowing me to respond to Geoff's letter.
First and foremost I wish to sincerely apologize to Geoff for my comment about his employment being only by Paul. I was wrong and I openly admit it. I would very much like to now see Geoff admit, and apologize for, his errors.
On February 10th, 2006, I sent 3 letters to Gotham Publishing. I wrote to the president of the company, the editor of the book and also to the editorial department notifying them of substantive factual mistakes in the book. To this date I have still had no response. I also have in my possession copies of letters sent to the publishers by other people mentioned in the book, each one complaining of errors. All parties to this publication had plenty of warning and if any one connected with this book were at all interested in the truth they could have made changes before it hit the book shelves not "in future editions".
With regard to Geoff's assertion that my complaints are based on an uncorrected proof, he is totally incorrect. Yes, my first reading was that version, but prior to writing my first letter I obtained a corrected copy to check for changes. They were negligible. If anyone connected with Geoff had bothered to look properly at what I wrote they would have noticed that all the page numbers given were for the final copy, not the proof copy. This is exactly the kind of sloppiness and lack of attention to detail that pervades this book.
My next admission. I am biased. I was and still am very fond of George. To see him described the way he is on numerous pages makes me mad. To quote a very good friend of his, " He was always called the quiet one, but anyone who knew him knew that once he started there was no way you could shut him up". "Dour" ? This is the man that made the Rutles and Monty Python movies possible. "Sarcastic" ? Well I can't argue that, except to say it was always with humor. And everyone dreading when he had to record a solo? In all the time I worked with the band I saw absolutely no evidence of this. Geoff in fact states, in an interview from Good Day Sunshine, issues 79 & 80, that George ".....was very meticulous. It didn't matter how long that sort of thing took, he'd just do it". Sounds just the same as Paul to me, but that's just my opinion.
Now to the facts. I would be most interested to hear how the errors I point out can be called "differences of opinion". There is no opinion contained in any of them. Opinion is that Rubber Soul is "not especially noteworthy" (I have to assume this is Geoff's opinion because he incorrectly states it was the feeling of those working the sessions; I was on all but 3 of those sessions and certainly didn't feel, or hear that anyone else felt, that way) or that the "White Album" is "virtually unlistenable", as the book so eloquently states. As for Geoff's other statement, I gave page numbers for every error, I therefore invite him to show me where I misquoted, mischaracterized or I'm "flat out wrong".
Let's try a couple more and see if these contain opinions, misquotes, mischaracterizations or are flat out wrong.
The book tells how a hurriedly done mix of "Penny Lane" was rushed to Capitol Records, inadvertently missing the end David Mason piccolo trumpet flourish. A new mix with the flourish, destined to be the released version, was later done and sent out to Capitol. If someone had even bothered to listen to the record they would have discovered it was the other way round. Paul decided he didn't like the ending and so the second mix was done without the flourish and it was this version that became the single. If the book is correct, I, and a lot of other people, have "quite a collector's item" in our record collections.
And though I did find the description of the novel use of a condom during the recording of "Yellow Submarine" amusing, I have to ask why it is that in previous interviews Geoff had stated it was a plastic bag, as do other people present at the time.
Last but not least. Geoff did incredible work and has an incredible story to tell. But, because there will always be differences of opinion, fact checking is essential and it shouldn't need the use of artistic licence and pure fiction in an attempt to turn his book into a big seller.
Cheers,
Ken Scott
http://www.daytrippin.com/letters.htm
Comments (5)
Comments (5)
Add Your Comment
