It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Don't talk politics and don't throw stones. Your royal highnesses.
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.
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!
Can John Lennon play 6 string sweeps? No because he's dead, but I can.
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.
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.
Fair enough. Each to their own opinion.
But its better than being a wanker.
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
Quincy is just doing this...
https://s26.postimg.org/r22a2l43t/297.jpg
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
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
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.
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.
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
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.