Great comments everyone. Well, except czarivey; The "Beatles do suck"? No they don't, but you do. Wolf is absolutely correct---Rubber Soul and Revolver in particular contain music as fine as anyone in Pop has ever made. |
Great comments by bdp24. I agree, except that I think the opinion of someone who has been such a force in the music INDUSTRY is relevant if only to explain some of the seemingly unexplainable. What I think is being missed here, and is obvious to me from his comments, is the reality of the corrupting power of that kind of success and wealth and of being part of the ENTERTAINMENT elite. It takes a special personality to remain grounded and not lose touch with the basics of what it is to be an artist. In most respects what happens in the upper echelons of the pop music world is no different from what happens in Hollywood; it is a breeding ground for overblown egos and self-aggrandizement. For me the most interesting thing in his comments was his focus on and criticisms of the musicianship of The Beatles, Hendrix and others. Q is an extremely talented producer/arranger without a doubt, but he was a very mediocre section trumpet player who found his niche as an orchestrator while in Basie’s band. I know and have known so many orchestrators who when hanging out with the players on a session or rehearsal like nothing more than to “talk shop” with the musicians who play whatever their own instrument was when they were getting started in the business. Deep inside some of them are frustrated instrumentalists.
|
Q stopped being relevant to me when he 4ever linked himself at the hip to MJ. This interview read like the ramblings of a stoned out old goober!
|
tubegroover, if you reread my post you’ll notice I thought better of what I had said about Jones’ music, and beat the 30 minute clock. My beef with Jones’ opinion of the early Beatles musicianship is his (and a lot of other people’s) underlying assumption that a more, let’s call it accomplished, musician, will, by virtue of that fact alone, make better music than that of a less accomplished musician. That is a fallacy, just as is being a "trained" singer automatically makes one a better singer than an untrained one. Imagine if the only criteria in judging athletes in The Olympics was in the area of "difficulty of execution". Judging musicians by that criteria alone reduces the making of music to just that---an athletic endeavor. |
You have to compare early Beatles to what was going on at the time, and as a band in the early days they had honed themselves into a kick ass live act by playing out in clubs (Hamburg). Not everybody, when given good production and opportunity, comes up with good music. The Beatles not only had natural excellent vocal abilities and an ear for actually wanting a certain blend, they had the ability to use the resources of George Martin's production to get their ideas out there and by Rubber Soul they pretty much left everyone else in the dust. Note that Martin produced other people that went nowhere. It's sort of a little too late to criticize the Beatle's impact on music, or at least the relevancy of what I consider to be timeless stuff (I listen to Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper and other Beatle stuff still…and it's astonishingly hip and clearly holds up). Regarding the Monkees, they initially weren't supposed to be much more than a funny (questionable) rip off of the Beatles, and utilized the best musicians, songwriters, and production to get the music out. That's why some of it is good, pretty much having zero to do with them personally although some musical talent did exist. Note that when a new Beatle album came out in the 60s the world sort of stopped…I remember hearing "Im Looking Through You" for the first time on my tiny car radio in a parking lot someplace…couldn't drive unit it was over, and just sat there stunned…do people get that sort of buzz from Taylor Swift or Ed Sheerhan? Maybe they do, but doubtful. |
I thought he sounded a little senile in this interview, but you have to appreciate his brutal honesty. I didn't much care for the Beatles earler hits like "Do you want to know a secret" and "I want to hold your hand", but once I heard them cover "Twist & Shout", I was hooked. You have to give George Martin some credit for upping their game.
|
My understanding is the Monkees were permitted to play their own instruments around the time of their third album. Originally that was not in the plans.
A lot of The Monkees stuff actually holds up pretty well as pop music IMHO. Most of their songs do not all sound the same at all. Rather diverse actually! I still enjoy them. Does that make me a bad person? Tapioca Tundra remains one of my favorite 60’s treats that I never get tired of.
|
The early Beatles were rough around the edges but they were quick studies. Just listen to their third album, A Hard Day's Night--a pop masterpiece if there ever was one. I'll take it over Thriller.
|
As I recall the Monkeys, bless their hearts, didn’t play their own instruments so I hardly think you could even call them bad musicians. Hey, hey, we’re the Monkeys, and people say we monkey around, we’re the new generation, but we’re too busy singing to put anybody down. 🐒 🐒 🐒 🐒
|
Beatles do suck, but there are far worse such as Monkees, Hermits, Reo Speedwagon. Pop was designed for them coz they couldn't play anything interesting or descent. |
Thanks for your perspective Bdp24, but REALLY, the totality of Quincy's work corny? You protest too much. We are of the same generation and love a lot of the same stuff but I would NEVER say that Quincy Jones is anything less than a totally serious and accomplished music guy over the past 60 plus years, come on man, you can't be serious! A lot of his comments in that article are one off anecdotal stories and have to be taken in that context.
His comments about the Beatles were on their early musicianship, not their writing, at least that was my take. It takes time for good things to evolve. Or to put it another way, for cream to rise to the top. I can't tell you how many albums I have produced by this guy that I didn't even know about until I started to pay attention to such things. Sinatra at the Sands Live, check it out but if you think Sinatra is "corny" then maybe you have a point :).
I agree, not all today's music sucks, did Quincy actually say that it did? I don't think that he did. He made references to some of the current crop doing good work, Bruno Mars as a popular example. The bottom line is as it always has been, most music is mediocre at best as will be judged by the test of time. |
Akshully, Dave Chappelle does a terrific impersonation of Prince.
|
I like people who are opinionated, and/or have a point of view. But The Beatles the WORST musicians in the world? Jones has obviously never heard The Shaggs ;-) . It takes advanced technique to play Jazz really well, other musics not so much. Just like in the world of automobiles, it’s a matter of "horses for courses". A 4-wheel drive Jeep is great for off-roading, but you wouldn’t want to drive one across the country. And a sports sedan is great for cruising down the Interstate, but you’re not going to go camping in one. What makes for superior musicianship in one style of music is not necessarily what does in another. What makes George Harrison’s little guitar break (commonly referred to as a solo, but in this case it’s not actually an improvised solo, but more a "song part") so incredibly musically delicious has NOTHING to do with the technique that Jazz guys are listening for in their effort to access the talent of a musician. Those Jazz "rules" are inappropriate for Pop or Rock ’n’ Roll music---they don’t apply. Quincy Jones, for all his knowledge and talent, is apparently ignorant of that fact. Guys who came up in the world of Jazz tend to think that all music can be assessed in comparison to it. When Buddy Rich was in the hospital the last time, a nurse asked him if there was anything he couldn’t take (meaning medicines, of course). His reply was "Yeah. Country music". Pretty funny, but I’ll bet he never heard Jerry Douglas’ dobro playing. Danny Gatton was (R.I.P.) an amazing guitarist, and the music he made got tagged with the label Redneck Jazz (and it’s the title of one of his albums). He liked guitar players who came before him from all styles---Hillbilly, Rockabilly, Rock ’n Roll, Blues, Jazz, and everything else. He was no Jazz snob, yet could play that music as well as any guitarist you can name. I see musicians my age doing nothing but bitching about current music, how it all sucks. They don’t remember hearing "their" music (1960’s, mostly) denigrated the same way by the WWII generation, who pined for the days of the Big Bands. It comes of ignorance, partly. If you don’t understand a music---what makes it work, what principles are involved, you aren’t a person who is qualified or entitled to judge it. And besides, it isn’t being made for you, any more than that of The Beatles (or anyone else of that time) was for fans of Big Band, Jazz, or Classical music. There’s a lot of good music being made today in all genres. It can’t ALL be on the radio, or performed at half-time. The music business is going to push what it wants, so if you don’t like that music, don’t listen to the radio or watch the half-time show. As for Quincy Jones’ opinion on ANYTHING, I couldn’t care less. |
I would most certainly be interested in his take on Prince. Can anyone imagine a musicican that could intimidate Prince?
Really appreciate his recognition of a lot of the latin music and rhytums
so often overlooked in our culture. This guy is a real gem in so many ways, culturally, musically and as a human being for cutting through a lot of the BS, thanks Quincy, I needed that!
|
Hendrix was an R&B/blues/rock player, so the prospect of doing a session with the likes of Herbie Hancock, Freddie Hubbard and Ray Brown playing jazz could have easily been intimidating.
Jones said he met the Beatles in 1963/64. His comments were that Paul was terrible bass player and Ringo couldn't play simple rhythms. Paul later became a superb bass play and Ringo is Ringo (the perfect drummer for the Beatles), but early in their recording careers as instrumentalist they were nothing special.
Jones was there, were you their with him?
|
I read that interview yesterday and considered posting it here. Thanks for doing so.
I checked out the tune that he mentioned in the beginning (the great BIllie Jean ripoff). I think I have a good ear and a clear understanding of copyright law but I just don't hear the similarity (just as with the Robin Thicke/Marvin Gaye case). I haven't checked the Giant Steps/Slonimsky claim yet. I'm not sure everything he says in the interview is true but it is absolutely the most compelling thing I've read in ages. What an amazing life he has had. Wow!
|
+1! @geoffkait The greatness of the Beatles is in the subtleties of their performance and even more obviously in the brilliance of their compositions. Hendrix played a helluva hot axe, but Quincy was more of a producer than performer. I thought of Prince as the successor to Hendrix's brilliance of speed and ingenuity. JMHO
|
I’ll pick Hendrix or the Beatles over Quincy Jones any day.
|
|
His comments about music are very astute. The Beatles weren't very good musicians when he met them, Hendrix was scared to play with top echelon jazz musicians, Micheal Jackson didn't share credit easily and modern pop production is unimaginative. Jones has been a major player for at least the past 50 years. You got to respect that.
|
Sounds like a movie by collaboration of Oliver Stone and David Lynch.
|
There is a lot of information in there. He is up front about it. |
Some things seem more plausible than others.
|
@gareneau
I read this on my phone a few hours ago. Could a break down in his mental faculties be at play here?🤪
|
