Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google

Become a Subscriber!

Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!

Read more...

Quincy Jones on the Beatles

What's Hot
1356

Comments

  • proggyproggy Frets: 5827
    If jazz musicians are so good, why do they sound so bad?
    9reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 5reaction image Wisdom
  • proggy said:
    If jazz musicians are so good, why do they sound so bad?
    Because they want to. That's how good they are.

    Don't talk politics and don't throw stones. Your royal highnesses.

    7reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • Bezzer said:

    @english_bob ha ha ... yeah yeah, OK.  Maybe my knowledge of "what was possible" isn't as good as it could be, but I was thinking about people like Les Paul and his ilk and what they were doing.  I'd be interested to see how many takes were required, how many overdubs etc.  Not that it's unusual for anyone to do so ... you know what I mean.

    Les Paul was very much an anomaly.

    The good thing about the Beatles in this respect is that because they were *so* big, and there's *so* much interest, much of this sort of thing is documented. Not that you'd want to read it if you don't like the Beatles, but Ian McDonald's Revolution In The Head documents every studio recording the Beatles ever made in that sort of detail.

    The short version is that:

    1.  For most of their career they didn't have the luxury of very many takes, because recording wasn't the experimental, trial-and-error process they helped it become. Paul or John would play through the song they'd written, they'd run through it a few times to nail down parts and arrangement, then they'd record. In the later years there were exceptions, but it was as likely to be because they were trying to create music that had never been created before and nobody really knew how, rather than because they couldn't sing in tune or play the part. It's acknowledged that Ringo was pretty much fucking flawless- nailed the tempo every time and didn't make noticeable mistakes. 

    2. For most of their career, they had one or two four-track recorders to work with. They'd record a master take of the whole band playing, mix it and "bounce" it on to a single track, then there'd be room for three tracks of overdubs- vocals, backing vocals, guitar solos. That was generally about it. "Comping" the good bits from multiple crap takes to make one good one wasn't really a thing then. Again, it got more complicated in later years- there are a lot of overdubs on something like "Strawberry Fields Forever", but they're cellos, brass, harpsichord and mellotron, not "drop ins" to fix mistakes. 

    3. No Pro-Tools, no Autotune. Just compression, EQ and reverb. Analogue tape degrades with use, so you couldn't do your part over and over again for hours to get it right because by the time you did the tape would be fucked. 



    I sort of understand what Quincy Jones is talking about- none of the Beatles were as good as most of the people he chose to work with in terms of technique, but they were all perfect for their band, wrote more memorable music than most musicians could dream of, and will be remembered long after Quincy Jones is forgotten.

    Don't talk politics and don't throw stones. Your royal highnesses.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 12reaction image Wisdom
  • proggy said:
    If jazz musicians are so good, why do they sound so bad?
    Because they want to. That's how good they are.
    Hahaha! double wizz lol quality this
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • munckeemunckee Frets: 12255
    proggy said:

    Why do Americans precede the word fucker with mother?

    Are they insinuating that the person has sex with their mum? I've never understood that. To be honest though, I don't really understand Americans anyway.

    I thought they meant it as in "big" f#cker as in motherload etc. but I haven't studied them up close, perhaps Attenborough will do them next now he has finished his documentary on plastic.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601
    Reality check. QJ is a jazz musician and arranger. Put on some Wayne Shorter or Miles and then some Beatles right after. 

    I don't generally expect virtuosos to be impressed by the limited musical knowledge and technical abilities of self taught pop bands. 

    He was much more than that - he played the trumpet and worked with some jazz musicians in 1950s, but there was no money in jazz. He made his name writing film scores - he wrote the music for the Italian Job (UK version),  and then moved into popular music as writer, producer and arranger for the leading pop artists of the day. He hated rock and blues music.

    A piece of trivia. Jones released an album under his own name called The Dude with a hit single Ai No Corrida which was written by the Blockheads guitarist Chaz Jankel.


    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • DefaultMDefaultM Frets: 7271
    Writing songs that millions of people love is nothing to do with being a musician.

    Can John Lennon play 6 string sweeps? No because he's dead, but I can.
    5reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • NeillNeill Frets: 941
    I remember Joe Jackson - an example of a pop artist who has a lot of technical gravitas - relating a story about when he was studying at the Royal Academy of Music but earning money playing piano pubs and clubs.  In the middle of some tune a guy comes up to him and says can't you play anything fast so Joe trots out some fancy classical piece to which the guy just "tuts" and walks off.  It was moments like this that led JJ to the conclusion that being a good musician is only about 20% technical ability, the rest is the indefinable quality that we might call "soul".  

    We can all think of great technicians who don't move us at all, OTOH consider someone like Joni Mitchell who must be regarded as one of the greatest musicians of all time, yet her technical ability is quite limited.  Occasionally you get someone like Jimi Hendrix who has both the feel and the skill.  

    I think QJ was probably quoted out of context, perhaps, but to somehow use a lack of technical ability as a put down - under any circumstances - is ignorant of the true meaning of music, in fact of art in general.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • scrumhalfscrumhalf Frets: 11262
    By the by:

    The Beatles recorded almost their entire first album “Please Please Me” on this day, 11th February 1963, in three sessions, between 10am & 10.45pm at Abbey Road.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • impmannimpmann Frets: 12649
    Old Jazz Wanker slags off most successful musicians of all time for not being very good.

    Fair enough. Each to their own opinion.

    But its better than being a wanker.


    Never Ever Bloody Anything Ever.

    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • impmann said:
    Old Jazz Wanker slags off most successful musicians of all time for not being very good.

    Fair enough. Each to their own opinion.

    But its better than being a wanker.


    Is success the benchmark? It's arguable that Disco was quite successful.

    As a producer and cranky old man let him have his opinions, they're also a bit of an intentional windup.

    You ever heard Buddy Rich talking about popular music? Youtube and enjoy :)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • impmannimpmann Frets: 12649
    impmann said:
    Old Jazz Wanker slags off most successful musicians of all time for not being very good.

    Fair enough. Each to their own opinion.

    But its better than being a wanker.


    Is success the benchmark? It's arguable that Disco was quite successful.

    As a producer and cranky old man let him have his opinions, they're also a bit of an intentional windup.

    You ever heard Buddy Rich talking about popular music? Youtube and enjoy :)
    I don't doubt... however, its probably arguable that the Beatles connected with more people and changed the face of popular music far more than disco did (and also changed popular culture - and political agendas, such as Russia).




    Never Ever Bloody Anything Ever.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • darthed1981darthed1981 Frets: 11680
    The Beatles were amazing...

    Quincy is just doing this...

    https://s26.postimg.org/r22a2l43t/297.jpg
    We have to be so very careful, what we believe in...
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71963
    impmann said:

    I don't doubt... however, its probably arguable that the Beatles connected with more people and changed the face of popular music far more than disco did (and also changed popular culture - and political agendas, such as Russia).
    Exactly.

    Most of even the most influential musicians only really change music. The Beatles changed the world.

    Not single-handedly, it's true - but they had a direct and huge impact that went far beyond being just a very popular music group. It has nothing to do with whether they were technically 'good' musicians or not, or whether you even like them or not... they are the most important musicians of the second half of the 20th Century, even more so than the early rock'n'rollers who opened the door for them.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom

  •  but as individuals they are not particularly competent musicians. 
    I'd define musical competence as the ability to communicate thoughts, feelings or emotions. They had it in spades. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 5reaction image Wisdom
  • Is success the benchmark? It's arguable that Disco was quite successful.


    It's *a* benchmark.

    If you look at a list of the best selling albums, a good proportion of what's on it is credible, if not very cool stuff, so it's not completely useless as a measure of a particular kind of quality.

    And some disco is bloody brilliant. 

    Don't talk politics and don't throw stones. Your royal highnesses.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • impmannimpmann Frets: 12649
    Is success the benchmark? It's arguable that Disco was quite successful.


    It's *a* benchmark.

    If you look at a list of the best selling albums, a good proportion of what's on it is credible, if not very cool stuff, so it's not completely useless as a measure of a particular kind of quality.

    And some disco is bloody brilliant. 
    Yikes theres some awfulness in that list... shows that popularity is no arbiter of taste.
    Never Ever Bloody Anything Ever.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • english_bobenglish_bob Frets: 5128
    edited February 2018
    impmann said:
    Yikes theres some awfulness in that list... shows that popularity is no arbiter of taste.

    But there's also some really good stuff. Shows that popularity is no arbiter of bad taste either.

    I'm definitely saying there aren't other measures of quality for art, and better ones, but I do think popularity is worth considering.

    By sheer number of albums sold, Quincy Jones is right up there with the Beatles, although whether QJ can take direct credit for Thriller or Bad in the same way Paul McCartney can for Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a whole other discussion.

    Don't talk politics and don't throw stones. Your royal highnesses.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • stickersticker Frets: 869

    I just don't believe him .

    or Bernard Purdie .

    If Ringo hadn't played all of those grooves/fills there would be recordings and bootlegs of those sessions and there aren't .


    QJ is a tool



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • TeetonetalTeetonetal Frets: 7801
    edited February 2018
    impmann said:
    Yikes theres some awfulness in that list... shows that popularity is no arbiter of taste.

    But there's also some really good stuff. Shows that popularity is no arbiter of bad taste either.

    I'm definitely saying there aren't other measures of quality for art, and better ones, but I do think popularity is worth considering.

    By sheer number of albums sold, Quincy Jones is right up there with the Beatles, although whether QJ can take direct credit for Thriller or Bad in the same way Paul McCartney can for Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a whole other discussion.
    Record sales simply show that lots of people bought the record. It does not define what is good or bad. Probably just defines what was well marketed and/or catchy. 

    It's extremely possible to be a virtuoso musician and never write or sell your own music in any great number, there must be countless session guys who have played on hit after hit after hit or songwriters who wrote hit after hit (Desmond Child springs to mind) and yet most people would barely know their name.. People bind up popularity and visibility with greatness , especially in regard to popular music and I think it's a real shame.

    That's not to begrudge people's success either. Write a hit, make lots of money, nothing wrong with that. But I wish people would be more objective when deciding who is a great musician or not.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.