Quincy Jones on the Beatles

not_the_dj

Teetonetal said:

english_bob said:

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.

Great pub conversation this. 

So how do you decide who is a great musician objectively?

Teetonetal

not_the_dj said:

Great pub conversation this. 

So how do you decide who is a great musician objectively?

Well for a start, you can listen to what they are actually playing whilst trying to forget who they are, before deciding if they are the great musicians. 

I just think that popularity is bound so tightly to who is deemed great or not that it distorts the answer. 

For example Steve Lukather is for me a great musician and really can you look at his resume (or i listen to it) and say Paul McCartney is more gifted musician? Honestly? I don't think so. . Yet Lukather's work outside of Toto is comparatively unknown to the wider public and he would not even be included in any greatest musician of the 20th Century debate by the vast majority of people.

Steve Lukather (lifted from a Gibson article)

Lukather’s résumé is phenomenal. He’s not only a cornerstone of Toto and also a solo artist, but as a sessioneer Lukather has played on over 700 albums. Rod Stewart, Chicago, Quincy Jones, Paul McCartney, Don Henley and Michael Jackson are just a few who’ve called on his versatility. He’s not so “famous” for his work as others: people always talk about Eddie Van Halen rockin’-up Michael Jackson’s “Beat It,” but EVH was just the solo. “Luke” delivered the killer riff and rhythms on his ’59 Gibson Les Paul, a go-to of his session work, and the bass parts.

Lukather says: “People don’t really understand what a session player is. They imagine a guy sitting on a stool, reading dots. The work I did required some music-reading – that’s true – but there’s a lot more to it than that. We were hired – the guys I came up with, and myself – to essentially take sketches on a canvas, and help finish the painting.

“You have to have your sound, your own ideas, and an ability to understand and interpret ideas coming from someone who, in some cases, may not be very musical. And you have to be willing to change something you’ve already done. You have to leave your ego at the door.”

robinbowes

Why are you comparing? 

Have you considered the possibility that both Steve Lukather *and* Paul McCartney are great musicians?

Teetonetal

robinbowes said:

Why are you comparing? 

Have you considered the possibility that both Steve Lukather *and* Paul McCartney are great musicians?

I'm only comparing as McCartney was earlier in the thread lauded to be the most naturally gifted musician of all time. Also, the conversation is at least in part about what is, who is and what defines a great musician. Gotta give examples, right?

In my opinion in terms of musicianship there is no contest. Paul McCartney was a great pop songwriter. Lukather is a great musician.

Put it this way - if you wrote an album and were told you can hire anyone to play on it. Would McCartney be at the top of your list? No freakin' way.

robinbowes

Again, you're comparing. Both are great musicians.

Also again, you're using the word "musicianship" to mean "technically good" - this is not what musicianship is. A player can become technically good with (a lot of) work and practice, but they can't become good musicians. Note: I'm not suggesting that technically good players can not also be good musicians, merely that it is not the same thing.

english_bob

not_the_dj said:

Great pub conversation this. 

So how do you decide who is a great musician objectively?

I think you'll struggle if you assume there's only one kind of greatness. Technical virtuosity, theoretical knowledge, technological, formal or stylistic innovation, popular appeal, emotional appeal, cultural significance... and that's before you get to stuff I can't think of a two- or three-word summation of, like a great producer or session musician's ability to take a composition and turn it in to a fully formed piece of music, or get an artist to create something beyond what they could have done alone.

That's before you even consider that a popular music artist- shit, any kind of artist- doesn't only exist in terms of their art- not since the '50s has it been common not to know what the artist you like looks like. Would David Bowie be regarded the way he is if he'd worn a t-shirt and jeans, never talked about his life outside his music, and never changed his image?

I think you could make good arguments that many of "the greats" tick more than one of the boxes on that (undoubtedly incomplete) list- both the Beatles and Quincy Jones do- but it's very difficult to reconcile some of them to each other within the same piece of music, or the same artist's body of work- how innovative can you be and still have popular appeal? Do you really need to achieve any of the others to have cultural significance? But does "greatness" rely on ticking *every* box? Couldn't you be great at just one of those things and still be considered "great".

ICBM

Teetonetal said:

Put it this way - if you wrote an album and were told you can hire anyone to play on it. Would McCartney be at the top of your list? No freakin' way.

Absolutely right at the top. He's played some of my favourite bass parts ever recorded.

I'd be playing rhythm guitar if I wrote the music probably, so I'd also have Neil Young on lead guitar, Ian Paice on drums and Tori Amos on piano.

Teetonetal

robinbowes said:

Again, you're comparing. Both are great musicians.

In my opinion they are not.

robinbowes said:

Also again, you're using the word "musicianship" to mean "technically good" - this is not what musicianship is. A player can become technically good with (a lot of) work and practice, but they can't become good musicians. Note: I'm not suggesting that technically good players can not also be good musicians, merely that it is not the same thing.

No I am not. You are not reading what I am saying. You are just telling me I'm wrong over and over again by telling me I'm asserting something that I'm not.

I'm trying to get more to the point of famous too often is equated with greatness. I don't think it should be even considered.

Teetonetal

ICBM said:

Teetonetal said:

Put it this way - if you wrote an album and were told you can hire anyone to play on it. Would McCartney be at the top of your list? No freakin' way.

Absolutely right at the top. He's played some of my favourite bass parts ever recorded.

I'd be playing rhythm guitar if I wrote the music probably, so I'd also have Neil Young on lead guitar, Ian Paice on drums and Tori Amos on piano.

Sounds like hell to me,

not_the_dj

ICBM said:

Teetonetal said:

Put it this way - if you wrote an album and were told you can hire anyone to play on it. Would McCartney be at the top of your list? No freakin' way.

Absolutely right at the top. He's played some of my favourite bass parts ever recorded.

I'd be playing rhythm guitar if I wrote the music probably, so I'd also have Neil Young on lead guitar, Ian Paice on drums and Tori Amos on piano.

I'd pay to see that :-)

english_bob

Teetonetal said:

Also, the conversation is at least in part about what is, who is and what defines a great musician. 

So define. 

I don't think you're doing yourself any favours being on the back foot, letting people guess why you think one guy is a great musician and another guy isn't, then telling them they've guessed wrong. 

What do you think defines a great musician? Not an example of someone you think is great, but what *makes* them great. 

not_the_dj

I really can't see how it can come down to anything other than personal taste and preference in deciding who's better, and that can only  be who's better in my eyes. 

Long time since I've seen it but in Dead Poets Society there's a bit where the Robin Williams character has to teach the formula for great poetry.....and ends up ripping up the book in front of the class (or something like that).

Can there really be a true measure of "better" in music, or any other form of artistic/creative process?

robinbowes

Teetonetal said:

robinbowes said:

Again, you're comparing. Both are great musicians.

In my opinion they are not.

robinbowes said:

Also again, you're using the word "musicianship" to mean "technically good" - this is not what musicianship is. A player can become technically good with (a lot of) work and practice, but they can't become good musicians. Note: I'm not suggesting that technically good players can not also be good musicians, merely that it is not the same thing.

No I am not. You are not reading what I am saying. You are just telling me I'm wrong over and over again by telling me I'm asserting something that I'm not.

I'm trying to get more to the point of famous too often is equated with greatness. I don't think it should be even considered.

I'm totally reading what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.

You think "great musician" means "technically proficient". It doesn't.

You don't think The Beatles can be considered great musicians because you don't consider them to have been technically proficient. I disagree .

Simple, really. 

english_bob

not_the_dj said:

I really can't see how it can come down to anything other than personal taste and preference in deciding who's better, and that can only  be who's better in my eyes. 

This is where consensus is useful. Does your subjective opinion line up with the subjective opinions of other listeners?

Sales statistics are one way to check that- for example, 50 million people since 1980 have decided that Back In Black is worth paying money for, and you were one of them. Does the weight of numbers make you right- Back In Black is "good music"- or are you just one of 50 million wrong people? 

Likewise, the opinions of professional critics might be worth considering- near-unanimous agreement from people whose job it is to know what they're talking about might be a good measure of quality. Trouble is, some of the most interesting, innovative stuff is also the most polarizing...

Still all subjective at the end of the day, but maybe less subjective than just one person's opinion?

Teetonetal

robinbowes said:

Teetonetal said:

robinbowes said:

Again, you're comparing. Both are great musicians.

In my opinion they are not.

robinbowes said:

Also again, you're using the word "musicianship" to mean "technically good" - this is not what musicianship is. A player can become technically good with (a lot of) work and practice, but they can't become good musicians. Note: I'm not suggesting that technically good players can not also be good musicians, merely that it is not the same thing.

No I am not. You are not reading what I am saying. You are just telling me I'm wrong over and over again by telling me I'm asserting something that I'm not.

I'm trying to get more to the point of famous too often is equated with greatness. I don't think it should be even considered.

I'm totally reading what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.

You think "great musician" means "technically proficient". It doesn't.

You don't think The Beatles can be considered great musicians because you don't consider them to have been technically proficient. I disagree .

Simple, really. 

Again, no I don't.
See below, might help.

english_bob said:

Teetonetal said:

Also, the conversation is at least in part about what is, who is and what defines a great musician. 

So define. 

I don't think you're doing yourself any favours being on the back foot, letting people guess why you think one guy is a great musician and another guy isn't, then telling them they've guessed wrong. 

What do you think defines a great musician? Not an example of someone you think is great, but what *makes* them great. 

I great musician for me is someone who can interpret music and perform it with flair, passion and accuracy all the time, they play for the song and elevate it. If it requires improvised blistering runs, you get it, if it requires reading simple arpeggios you get it. I think a great musician is going to be someone who is comfortable in a range of styles, I think you are going to be comfortable playing with and for a range of different composers. there has to be a level of competence and virtuosity in their that is above the normal - otherwise they would get unstuck, though they need to not be tied to technique and the abilty to play the simple thing is just as important.. You gotta be able to deliver the take required.

What I don't think needs to be included is popularity or records sold. 

english_bob

Teetonetal said:

I great musician for me is someone who can interpret music and perform it with flair, passion and accuracy all the time, they play for the song and elevate it. If it requires improvised blistering runs, you get it, if it requires reading simple arpeggios you get it. I think a great musician is going to be someone who is comfortable in a range of styles, I think you are going to be comfortable playing with and for a range of different composers. there has to be a level of competence and virtuosity in their that is above the normal - otherwise they would get unstuck, though they need to not be tied to technique and the abilty to play the simple thing is just as important.. You gotta be able to deliver the take required.

What I don't think needs to be included is popularity or records sold. 

Thanks. That's helpful.

Based on your criteria, why isn't Paul McCartney a great musician?

AlexC

Whether or not you personally like The Beatles debating their level of musicianship is akin to going on a literature forum and umming and ahhing over whether Charles Dickens was any good. I mean his books aren’t that modern, are they? They don’t rattle along like Lee Child.
can Bob Dylan play guitar like Steve Vai? No. Does he try to? No. Is Dylan a fantastic and influential songwriter? Yes. Does this mean he is a ‘good’ musician? Yes.
Dont get personal preference mixed up with fact. I detest shredding, but I wouldn’t say that shredders ‘can’t play’. And neither would I say they are therefore more competent than someone who plays in a completely different style - finger picking like Nick Drake, for example.

DefaultM

When I was a teenager I'd wind my Dad up about how Dream Theater were better than The Beatles.
 Thinking about that now, I'd say there's no doubting that they're better instrumentalists than The Beatles, but to say they're better musicians is a pointless discussion. 

John Myung is a 100x better technical bass player than Paul McCartney, yet right now I can imagine loads of Beatles basslines, and zero Dream Theater ones despite me having listened to them thousands of times.

Stand them side by side and get them to take part in some kind of technical test, then play their songs. Very few people are going to say John Myung is the better musician because most people see musicianship as songwriting, and anything else as technical ability.

Blueingreen

Musical taste is highly subjective, but I do object to the argument, stated or implied, that QJ "would think that, because he's a much more sophisticated musician than The Beatles".

Aaron Copeland and Leonard Bernstein were both massively impressed by The Beatles.  Many of the most sophisticated musicians in jazz continue to explore their music.  Howard Goodall, a "sophisticated" classically trained composer of film music etc wrote and presented a tv program in which he argued that The Beatles compositions were better and more important than those of the "serious" musicians of the twentieth century.

You don't have to agree with these guys but it's certainly not as simple as "simple people may be impressed by The Beatles but the more musically sophisticated among us know better."

QJ was earning a very good living arranging music for Sinatra et al when The Beatles came along and threatened the livelihood of him and his friends with, on the face of it, less sophisticated music. They hadn't studied with Nadia Boulanger. Quincy was a very good arranger for Sinatra, even though he was no Nelson Riddle.  Sinatra and his chums were understandably very bitter.  It's a shame that QJ never got past that, but anyone reading the whole interview will be left in doubt that he's mad as a box of frogs and lives in a universe where what's good for Quincy is good and what's bad for Quincy is bad.  And The Beatles were bad for Quincy.

It's the old craftsman v artist thing.  QJ was in many ways a superior musical craftsman to The Beatles (although it's a slightly unfair comparison because they never properly entered the competition).  As a creative artist he's no slouch either but he's not in the same league as The Beatles in terms of the impact on or value of his music to listeners, sophisticated or otherwise.

ICBM

Blueingreen said:

Howard Goodall, a "sophisticated" classically trained composer of film music etc wrote and presented a tv program in which he argued that The Beatles compositions were better and more important than those of the "serious" musicians of the twentieth century.

The programme on Sgt Pepper was amazing - because it really showed the amount of fine-detail genius that went into it. It was very definitely not accidental, in the way that it's possible to think that some more modern rock music is, where they have the luxury of going into a studio, recording everything and then the producer makes a record out of it. Because the Beatles' technology was so limited at Abbey Road - 4-track recording only - everything had to be carefully worked out and arranged in advance so it could be bounced in the right order, and played right. And although they did have the ability to do multiple takes, they still had to play the songs well enough to be recorded in complete run-throughs without obvious mistakes.

That's not to ignore the role of George Martin either - without who things would have been very different and probably not anywhere near as good, since he contributed a lot of classically-taught arrangement ideas as well as technical ones - but the Beatles themselves were no unskilled or ignorant pop band. In some ways part of the brilliance of it is that it *does* still sound quite raw and spontaneous, despite actually being the exact opposite.