Quincy Jones on the Beatles

Teetonetal

AlexC said:

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.

Sorry I disagree. when a comment like @Richardhomer's He is the most Talented musician of all time get's raised, I think it's valid to debate that and potentially disagree. 

I'm convinced that people rate musicians to highly due to their popularity.

english_bob said:

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?

because when I listen to Beatles (less so) Wings or PMc Solo tracks, I don't hear anything special that elevates him into the realm of exceptional musician. He plays for the song, but that's it. I don't think he's an exceptional singer, or an exceptional bass player. He does the job. He gets the songs across but I don't think he is doing some of them justice.. for me you can hear it more in his wings / solo work, it's crying out for the diversity of delivery that the Beatles had. 

But sure - I'm not going to convince anyone here of my point of view. But for me, commercial success leads people to raise individuals up to the echelons of greatness where perhaps it's not deserved.

impmann

I think Macca would be near the top of my list of people I'd like to work with too. Amazing bass work - he *INVENTED* the melodic approach to playing bass, that was true innovation at a time when others where just playing root notes. Between him and Entwhistle, they wrote the rule book - brilliant musicians, both. Undeniable. His piano playing is very underated too - listen to those piano parts on things like Lady Madonna... yes, at first it has a musichall feel, but there's boogie-woogie swing, and Little Richard in there too. Try playing it exactly like him... its not as simple as you think to get the sound, feel and tempo right.

Technical garbage doesn't connect with people - it may be very worthy but if other people don't get off on whats being played its just noise. To quote Lemmy - "music should move you - move you to dance, fight or fuck... anything else is just fucking noise." I agree with that to a point. If something doesn't connect with you - it may as well be white noise.

I think most discussions about who is better than person 'x' comes down to preference and what you define as 'better'. Frankly, a bunch of histrionics played on guitar sounds about as good as listening to next door's cat fucking - I can't bear that smug, wanky fret shredding, likewise a lot of jazz is just twaddle (just play the fucking melody asshole) and the vast majority of modern blues playing just sounds like pentatonic lift music (and I've heard it *all* before). But that's just my opinion on those sorts of music - that doesn't mean that what I like is "better" than them or that the musicians involved are "better" or even more competent.

The perfect example of this is the Who. Stage left you have Entwhistle... a master of the instrument. Stage right is Townsend... a master of guitar control, and an incredible rhythm guitarist. In the middle is Moon... a musical mess to some, but somehow he weaved between these two creating some of the most exciting rhythms in rock (often by chance). Take any of those three elements and put them elsewhere and they no longer are so wonderful - if you've ever seen Townsend outside the Who (except his solo stuff where he's totally on his own) he looks out of place and can't express what he is, likewise Moon (the stuff he did with Lord Sutch wasn't very good) and Entwhistle never got the opportunity outside that unit to sound anywhere near as impressive (even with his own band). As a unit... genius. Apart... not great. So are there 'better' musicians? Maybe. But are there 'better' members of the Who? Not a fucking chance.

CHRISB50

Teetonetal said:

AlexC said:

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.

Sorry I disagree. when a comment like @Richardhomer's He is the most Talented musician of all time get's raised, I think it's valid to debate that and potentially disagree. 

I'm convinced that people rate musicians to highly due to their popularity.

english_bob said:

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?

because when I listen to Beatles (less so) Wings or PMc Solo tracks, I don't hear anything special that elevates him into the realm of exceptional musician. He plays for the song, but that's it. I don't think he's an exceptional singer, or an exceptional bass player. He does the job. He gets the songs across but I don't think he is doing some of them justice.. for me you can hear it more in his wings / solo work, it's crying out for the diversity of delivery that the Beatles had. 

But sure - I'm not going to convince anyone here of my point of view. But for me, commercial success leads people to raise individuals up to the echelons of greatness where perhaps it's not deserved.

Are you not contradicting what you previously posted in the thread about the lad playing the blues...?

http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/119602/young-player-having-fun/p4

Your post...

pia98jf said:

Teetonetal said:

pia98jf said:

guitarfishbay said:

Art is entertainment. It might make you happy, sad, contemplative, or any number of other emotions... but the primary purpose is to entertain in some way. It’s supposed to make you feel something.

I don’t agree that art necessarily has to entertain but I do agree with you that it should move you and make you feel something. But that’s exactly my point - I’m moved deeply when I listen to Robert Johnson but not when I listen to Joe Bo or this kid. Why is that?

Because it's YOUR taste. That's all.

And let's just think about the absolute ridiculousness of trying to call blues musicians artists by your own definition. A huge amount of blues is recycled, be it the song, chords, lyrics, form etc... it's a folk form, very unoriginal, very copied (even by the greats) etc. Sure it's evolved, but it's a movement.based on simple ideas that almost anyone can play and get decent at. 

I'm also going to say that in terms of emotion, the guitar is almost irrelevant in blues. It's all about the voice...

It’s equally ridiculous of you to deny the status of blues or folk forms as true art. Just because a form is simple does not mean it cannot have great depth. Some of Picasso’s greatest works were his simple line drawings. Would you deny that Flamenco is a true art form?

And I don’t swallow the first point about cultural relativism either. Some art is objectively better than other art. A Beethoven sonata has more artistic value than a Taylor Swift song full stop. If you disagree you’re wrong, simple as that.

No you are not. Art is 100% subjective. There is no better or worse, only popular or not.
. 
And I was holding Blues up to your own yardstick. Blues is essentially an art form that copies itself. The greats, like the 3 Kings stamped thier own style within an extremely limited frame of reference. To use your art analogy, blues is nothing more than painting by numbers, it's just that some people are so good, thier own style comes out. It's how you compared JoBo to Johnson -  a mimic to an artist. But look at that genre, cover after cover after cover. It's a folk form, that's how it works. So based on your own argument, where is the true artistry in that?

I don't like Bethoven or Mozart at all. On the other hand I don't mind Taylor Swift and I adore Vivvaldi and Puccini.
Greatness in any art form, is only in the eye of the beholder.

Or am I missing the point you are making now?

scrumhalf

There are several concepts being intertwined here, possibly to the detriment of the original subject matter.

- competence at playing an instrument
- originality as a player of an instrument
- commercial success
- critical success

The first is to do with a physical skill. The second is to do with art. The third is to do with business. The fourth is to do with people who are no good at the first three.but still feel the need to chip in.

UnclePsychosis

I can't be the only one laughing at the assertion that songwriting isn't part of musicianship. You're at the windup, surely? 

By the same logic, is Lukather a better musician than Bach or Mozart? :-D:-D:-D

darthed1981

impmann said:

I think Macca would be near the top of my list of people I'd like to work with too. Amazing bass work - he *INVENTED* the melodic approach to playing bass, that was true innovation at a time when others where just playing root notes. Between him and Entwhistle, they wrote the rule book - brilliant musicians, both. Undeniable. His piano playing is very underated too - listen to those piano parts on things like Lady Madonna... yes, at first it has a musichall feel, but there's boogie-woogie swing, and Little Richard in there too. Try playing it exactly like him... its not as simple as you think to get the sound, feel and tempo right.

Technical garbage doesn't connect with people - it may be very worthy but if other people don't get off on whats being played its just noise. To quote Lemmy - "music should move you - move you to dance, fight or fuck... anything else is just fucking noise." I agree with that to a point. If something doesn't connect with you - it may as well be white noise.

I think most discussions about who is better than person 'x' comes down to preference and what you define as 'better'. Frankly, a bunch of histrionics played on guitar sounds about as good as listening to next door's cat fucking - I can't bear that smug, wanky fret shredding, likewise a lot of jazz is just twaddle (just play the fucking melody asshole) and the vast majority of modern blues playing just sounds like pentatonic lift music (and I've heard it *all* before). But that's just my opinion on those sorts of music - that doesn't mean that what I like is "better" than them or that the musicians involved are "better" or even more competent.

The perfect example of this is the Who. Stage left you have Entwhistle... a master of the instrument. Stage right is Townsend... a master of guitar control, and an incredible rhythm guitarist. In the middle is Moon... a musical mess to some, but somehow he weaved between these two creating some of the most exciting rhythms in rock (often by chance). Take any of those three elements and put them elsewhere and they no longer are so wonderful - if you've ever seen Townsend outside the Who (except his solo stuff where he's totally on his own) he looks out of place and can't express what he is, likewise Moon (the stuff he did with Lord Sutch wasn't very good) and Entwhistle never got the opportunity outside that unit to sound anywhere near as impressive (even with his own band). As a unit... genius. Apart... not great. So are there 'better' musicians? Maybe. But are there 'better' members of the Who? Not a fucking chance.

Great post - wis from me

Neill

I wonder if anyone would agree that before "pop" music this debate would never arise.  By that I mean that before pop music, to be a successful "musician" you had to be highly competent, technically.  After Elvis and Buddy Holly it all got a bit messed up.  

In a sense I agree with @Teetonetal in that popularity can be achieved these days without being a good musician, or in fact being a musician at all.  There are plenty of examples where I think we can all agree a band or artist of limited musical ability has nonetheless become famous solely for their musical output.  

The reason we're having this discussion is because there are also plenty of examples of popular artists who may be competent musicians, but their popularity has arguably given them a musical credibility they don't deserve.  You might say these artists are great entertainers, but to speak about them in the same vein as say Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Robert Johnson, Django Reinhardt?  This is where Quincy Jones is coming from. 

But the Fab Four were not Freddie and the Dreamers, they were not Gerry and the Pacemakers.  The Beatles used their technical ability to fashion tunes and sounds that changed popular music forever, and so personally I think that to imply the Beatles were not great musicians is by any definition wrong.  And I'd repeat that it's a cheap shot to criticise the ability of anyone who manages to succeed in any artistic field.  But I appreciate why the point is being made.   

AlexC

The only song I can think of that Quincy Jones has written is The Self Preservation Society from The Italian Job. So, well done on that mate. Well up there with the greats.

Teetonetal

UnclePsychosis said:

I can't be the only one laughing at the assertion that songwriting isn't part of musicianship. You're at the windup, surely? 

By the same logic, is Lukather a better musician than Bach or Mozart? :-D:-D:-D

Here's a thing then. Is Macca "most talented musician ever" a better musician than Bach, Mozart, Verdi etc.

Again no chance.

I think my point is simple we rate 20th pop / rock musicians far higher than their actual ability is worth because they are ours and important to us and within that subset it's then defined in part by popularity.

AlexC said:

The only song I can think of that Quincy Jones has written is The Self Preservation Society from The Italian Job. So, well done on that mate. Well up there with the greats.

Which kind of proves my point. Quincy Jones has 78 Grammy nominations. He has won 28. Producer of thriller and bad, film score credits, a musician on countless records, his own work in the Jazz field has seen him share stages and release records with miles davis amongst others.

Yet none of that matters because you can only think of one song he wrote and we get a nice pithy comment about it.

This is why all talk of well known pop rock musicians being the greatest is stupid. WhaT they are great at above all else is being popular. 

I think I wandered away from my real point over the course of the discussion. But I think people have a hard time seeing past well known and famous figures when it comes to music.


@chrisb50 that was a different conversation and the point being made was accordingly different. 

I have my own opinion about who is / what makes a musician great. I have been using Macca as an example purely as it came up in the op.

I think my assertion in that first thread holds. It finally doesn't matter what I think. Other people will hold up Macca as great @ICBM @richardhomer and others clearly believe so. They are not wrong if that's how it moves them. Music is all subjective and personal and that's how it should be.

But when we discusspoke greatness,  countless wonderful musicians are just passed over because they are not high visibility.  Hence my Lukather example. He is not mainstream so unlikely to be considered a great, but what a career!

What ultimately matters is are you popular enough and in demand enough to make a career from music? The great thing is largely irrelevant.

However if it comes up, as here, why not debate it? This is a forum after all. My original assertion in this thread probably morphed as the posts went by, but I do believe that if you must hold discuss greatness of musicianship... then try to look at the musician without the baggage of their popularity.

stickyfiddle

Was Jackson Pollock shit because he couldn't paint like Rembrandt and sculpt like Michelangelo?

How about Picasso? Most of his stuff doesn't look like the woman he's painting. 
or Mondrian? lines! what's it even a picture of?
Monet? It's just a load of dots, innit. 
Van gogh? swirly nonsense. 

Who gives a shit? Technical ability is so fundamentally unimportant to creative arts that to argue otherwise is pretty ridiculous.

(McCartney ftw!)

Teetonetal

stickyfiddle said:

Was Jackson Pollock shit because he couldn't paint like Rembrandt and sculpt like Michelangelo?

How about Picasso? Most of his stuff doesn't look like the woman he's painting. 
or Mondrian? lines! what's it even a picture of?
Monet? It's just a load of dots, innit. 
Van gogh? swirly nonsense. 

Who gives a shit? Technical ability is so fundamentally unimportant to creative arts that to argue otherwise is pretty ridiculous.

(McCartney ftw!)

Again. I'm not saying this is about technical ability. 

CHRISB50

Hello @Teetonetal.

Having re-read it I kind of worked out you were making a different point, but left it there rather than deleting it.

Danny1969

If Paul McCartney is "the worse bass player I have ever heard" then Quincy must have led a musically very sheltered life

ICBM

Danny1969 said:

If Paul McCartney is "the worse bass player I have ever heard" then Quincy must have led a musically very sheltered life

He’s certainly never heard me, for a start...

It’s the raising yourself up by putting others down thing that’s missing the point.

Is Paul McCartney a great musician? Yes.

Is Steve Lukather a great musician? Yes.

Is Quincy Jones a great musician? Yes.

All in very different ways, none of which are mutually exclusive.

english_bob

^^^ That. Can we lock the thread now? 


Kidding. Carry on.

Bezzer

stickyfiddle said:

Was Jackson Pollock shit because he couldn't paint like Rembrandt and sculpt like Michelangelo?

How about Picasso? Most of his stuff doesn't look like the woman he's painting. 
or Mondrian? lines! what's it even a picture of?
Monet? It's just a load of dots, innit. 
Van gogh? swirly nonsense. 

Who gives a shit? Technical ability is so fundamentally unimportant to creative arts that to argue otherwise is pretty ridiculous.

Um, don't want to completely derail things here but this is not a great analogy, all of the above were incredibly accomplished painters in a technical/classical sense who chose to pursue a different path and explore alternative extremes, styles and themes.

Teetonetal

@Bezzer very good shout.

I went to a Picasso exhibition in Prague some time ago and they had some early work. It was fantastic, really loved it. Then  hit the African period and the foundation of his later work appears. But man his early work is just fab. 



This ^ is a Picasso.

robinbowes

ICBM said:

Is Paul McCartney a great musician? Yes.

Is Steve Lukather a great musician? Yes.

Is Quincy Jones a great musician? Yes.

All in very different ways, none of which are mutually exclusive.

Absolutely this.

AlexC

@Teetonetal  Obviously I was being a tad facetious with my comment about The Self Preservation Society, but in order to make a point about the popularity of various famous players versus talent level you cite all the awards and nominations MrJones has had. Which is a form of popularity in Iteself, is it not? I don’t think anyone’s denying QJ has skill and talent, just calling him out on his reactionary comment. And I’m taking a wild guess that McCartney’s got every musical award going. So awards are either an indicator of something, or they’re not. Again, down to how you wish to personally interpret something.

stickyfiddle

Teetonetal said:

@Bezzer very good shout.

I went to a Picasso exhibition in Prague some time ago and they had some early work. It was fantastic, really loved it. Then  hit the African period and the foundation of his later work appears. But man his early work is just fab. 



This ^ is a Picasso.

Of course. But that's the art equivalent of Jimi Hendrix's work in backing bands before he got big doing his own thing. It's technically excellent, and perhaps better than most people could manage, but not at all why he's regarded as important.