The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsQuncy Jones calls Beatles "worst musicians in the world," Microsoft's Paul Allen "just like Hendrix"
In a new interview, he gave a particularly unfavorable description of how he felt when he first heard the band. Speaking to Vulture, Jones recalled that "they were the worst musicians in the world. They were no-playing motherfuckers. Paul [McCartney] was the worst bass player I ever heard. And Ringo [Starr]? Dont even talk about it."
Jones also talked about his role arranging "Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing" for Starr's 1970 solo album Sentimental Journey. "I remember once we were in the studio with George Martin," he said, "and Ringo had taken three hours for a four-bar thing he was trying to fix on a song. He couldnt get it. We said, 'Mate, why dont you get some lager and lime, some shepherds pie and take an hour and a half and relax a little bit?' So he did, and we called Ronnie Verrell, a jazz drummer. Ronnie came in for 15 minutes and tore it up. Ringo comes back and says, 'George, can you play it back for me one more time?' So George did, and Ringo says, 'That didnt sound so bad.' And I said, 'Yeah, motherfucker, because it aint you.' Great guy, though."
Still, Jones admitted that he's a fan of Cream ("They could play"
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/quincy-jones-beatles/
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)and found a copy of a record that was the original recording of one of the Beatles songs by a completely different group and different words -- not the exact same song, but the same melody. Finding it taught me a lot.
unblock
(56,198 posts)i once heard a jazz piano tune that was the inspiration for the piano part of "lady madonna".
paul changed just enough to escape copyright problems, but hear them back-to-back and there's zero doubt that paul heard it and then said, "i'm gonna use that."
wish i could remember the name of that tune....
Miles Archer
(23,272 posts)thucythucy
(9,103 posts)was produced by one George Martin.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)That, in and of itself, is extreme. But this was not just borrowing. It was much, much more. And I think it was legal. I was under the impression that they did not swipe the tune, but worked with its actual composer.
I don't want to say more because then I might spoil the music for some Beatles fans.
I have absolutely no problem with the Beatles and other groups that made the crossover for white Americans to enjoy the music of African-Americans much easier.
I am white, but I grew up on gospel music so my background was different from most Americans.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I totally get James Baldwin, but Pryor and him is odd to contemplate. HA
skypilot
(9,128 posts)I thought I'd dreamt it.
unblock
(56,198 posts)they weren't about being the best technical musicians by any stretch.
they were always merely good enough.
they shined in other areas - composition, harmony, creativity, and just plain being prolific.
they didn't go for really complex, super-fast runs like eddie van halen; they didn't go for wild, syncopated rhythms with nearly ever bar different like stewart copeland; they didn't super-flourish every note like mariah carey.
but the simpler melodies and bass lines they came up with were brilliant nevertheless.
it's kinda like saying tchaikovsky wasn't a no-talent hack just because his music wasn't as complex and multi-layered as wagner's.
it's a fair point that his music wasn't as complex, but that doesn't mean tchaikovsky wasn't brilliant nevertheless.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)PJMcK
(25,048 posts)I had to re-read your post three times to realize you meant The Beatles!
I thought you were making a joke about Wagner and Tchaikovsky!
For the laugh, you get a heart, Sophia4!
Freddie
(10,104 posts)They weren't trying to be technically brilliant, they were trying to make music - the complete package, and they succeeded more than any pop artists, before or after. Anyone who says Ringo wasn't a great drummer, please listen. He wasn't flashy drum solos, but everything he played fit precisely to bring the song to the next level.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)Ringo wasn't flashy, and he certainly had some technical limitations compared to many of the true virtuosos, but he was creative, always played tastefully, and without his metronomic precision in timekeeping, the Beatles could never have pulled off the complex arrangements they did with such primitive multitracking technology.
nolabear
(43,850 posts)Little Feat (more recent incarnation--this was probably ten plus years ago) played the Sky Church at EMP here in Seattle and darned if Allen didn't come out and play a couple of songs with them. I wouldn't call it Hendrix...he had one of the guitarists whispering the chord changes to him til he caught on. He was fine, but it did strike me as a guy with a lot of money who got to do it because it was his house.
That interview was awesome for all the lack of fucks, though, and hey, if I was on a guy's yacht I might think he played pretty well too.
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)Ragging on a band where half of them are dead. They were what they were. They made alot of people happy. Quincy doesn't have to tear other people down.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)great song writers Lennon McCartney
that you have to say Quincy
unblock
(56,198 posts)that did not pan out well. they struggled with the idea of including george because he was only 14 at the time.
they let him join when he was 15.
unblock
(56,198 posts)they didn't try to do things they weren't capable of. they wrote for their own capabilities.
and when george knew he couldn't do justice to "while my guitar gently weeps", he brought in eric clapton.
brilliant move, that.
Miles Archer
(23,272 posts)I've posted it here a few times, but it's worth a repeat.
The long version is here: https://www.guitarplayer.com/players/tom-petty-and-others-tell-the-story-behind-princes-while-my-guitar-gently-weeps-solo
Basically, during rehearsals, Jeff Lynne's guitarist Marc Mann plays the first Clapton solo note for note, and when it comes time for Prince's big solo, he plays the same thing, note for note.
He tells the producer not to worry, everything will be fine at showtime. So he just whips it out, unrehearsed with the band, and the rest is musical history.
geardaddy
(25,392 posts)Prince in one of the most under-regarded guitar geniuses ever.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)guitar .....wow what a night and long ....he just kept going
All his concerts are a fabulous show but the one where he played guitar just experimenting and spontaneous was another insight into his musical talent
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Stage full of the best of the best! Thanks for this Miles Archer! Amazing!
Arkansas Granny
(32,265 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Miles Archer
(23,272 posts)
The third part of the equation that would become the Beatles fell into place on Feb. 6, 1958. George Harrison joined the Quarry Men, the John Lennon-led group that Paul McCartney had joined as a second guitarist and singer the previous summer.
Harrison, who was a few weeks shy of his 15th birthday, had known McCartney for about a year. The two were students at the Liverpool Institute and frequently took the same bus to and from school. A friendship blossomed, and the two began jamming together, even after McCartney had moved from Speke to Allerton.
When the Quarry Men -- named after the Quarry Bank High School where the band was formed three years earlier -- were looking to bring in a third guitarist (they had the idea long before Lynyrd Skynyrd), McCartney suggested his friend. The audition took place, strangely enough, on the top of a double-decker bus. At McCartney's prompt, Harrison took out his guitar and played Bill Justis' R&B instrumental "Raunchy," a No. 2 hit on Sun Records in 1957.
Lennon was impressed with the note-perfect rendition. But the 17-year old Lennon, who was already at Liverpool Art College, had reservations about being in a group with such a youngster. As McCartney put it in Anthology, "It seemed an awful lot at the time. If we wanted to do anything grown-up we worried about George looking young. We thought, 'He doesn't shave. ... Can't we get him to look like a grown-up?'"
msongs
(73,753 posts)John Fante
(3,479 posts)Fuck Quincy.
chuckstevens
(1,201 posts)Who cares what he thinks!
oasis
(53,693 posts)Floyd R. Turbo
(32,913 posts)dhill926
(16,953 posts)damn entertaining reads. Dated Ivanka...."She a fine motherfucker." Poor Jared haha....and yep, Q is a musical giant. He can say whatever the fuck he wants....and I'm a huge Beatles man. But there's a big difference between pop music and those with real chops...
lame54
(39,770 posts)Iggo
(49,927 posts)How'd that happen?
MiltonBrown
(322 posts)Compared with original American music, the Beatles were a pale imitation. Quincy Jones, Jerry Lee Lewis and I know it's blasphemy to say that and we don't care.
ProfessorGAC
(76,703 posts)Are you kidding? You can see by my avatar that i might have a different view of his skills.
MiltonBrown
(322 posts)'I never did like the Beatles. I guess some of their early tunes were okay, but the rest of it, no, not for me.' JLL
Not sure what you mean by having a different view of his skills. IMO the Killers is the most talented American musician of them all and John Lennon was right to literally kiss his boots.
ProfessorGAC
(76,703 posts)I'm done. Don't want to hijack the thread.
MiltonBrown
(322 posts)it seemed like a fair bet that you appreciate the Killer's music.
Are you a fan of Jerry Lee Lewis' music? I don't understand what you are trying to say.
ProfessorGAC
(76,703 posts)And i don't think much of his playing.
MiltonBrown
(322 posts)Indeed we are diametrically opposed regarding JLL and the Beatles. That doesn't mean that we can't be political allies and friends.
If everybody all liked the same things, this world would be a boring place. I love piano playing from ragtime and stride right on down the line. I'm sure there are a lot of players we both appreciate, even if we disagree on JLL. Cheers Prof.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)evening. Between the band sets they play some clips of jll (on a screen) from various points in his career . It was great for the youngins who came away with a new interest in jll.
Response to MiltonBrown (Reply #30)
Botany This message was self-deleted by its author.
This thread is about Quincy Jones' opinion of the Beatles. There are tons of positive threads about the Beatles and I don't bother posting in those.
And right back attcha whatever that foreign writing says.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Botany
(77,323 posts)have a heart
MiltonBrown
(322 posts)imitating American music isn't as good as the American originals. I'll wear that badge.
MiltonBrown
(322 posts)If not then kindly GFY. I'd expect the same if I made the accusation.
Iggo
(49,927 posts)Cartoonist
(7,579 posts)Old age? Envy?
The Beatles were more than musicians, they were a phenomenon. They changed the culture and the world.
Wagner didn't, and neither did Hendrix. Certainly Quincy didn't.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)As if pop music was ever about musicianship.
Botany
(77,323 posts)n/t
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)And if we're going to be catty about it, technical chops aren't the only measure of of musicianship. The Beatles might be "no-playing motherfuckers," but they wrote "Yesterday" and Quincy Jones wrote "We Are the World."
Me.
(35,454 posts)you dated Ivanka
John Fante
(3,479 posts)Receipts, or I'm going to assume Quincy is angling for a loan.
TexasBushwhacker
(21,202 posts)Denzil_DC
(9,100 posts)Anybody who makes claims like The Beatles "were the worst musicians in the world" can't ever have tried to actually play the parts they came up with, and does a grave disservice not just to their abilities, but to how influential what they did was to contemporary and later musicians (vastly more influential than Jones, I'll wager, but I'll try to steer away from getting caught up in pointless backbiting).
The Beatles were never slow to acknowledge their own influences - unlike some other bands, they were very respectful of black musicianship, having been steeped in it by exposure to early records imported via Liverpool docks, and also took a strong stand against racial segregation among audiences during their American tours - from classical music, jazz, showtunes or other bands and artists that were developing as the same time as them.
All of the components - the guitar parts, basslines, drum parts, vocal harmonies, and also the production techniques - were always in service of the song, not technical virtuosity or gimmickry for the sake of it, not least because they were generally working within industry- and self-imposed limits on song length (it didn't hurt that they generally started out with strong song ideas to dress up in various ways).
However, there was abundant technical virtuosity, nevertheless.
Harrison started out playing short rockabilly-like solos in the early years, drawing on influences like Chet Atkins. Later, he progressed to lyrical solos like those on "Something" and "Let It Be", which are works of art in themselves, and continued to expand on this when he went solo.
Contrary to what was written by somebody above, it wasn't that Harrison couldn't have played a decent solo on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" (he was an excellent slide guitar player, with a unique tone he developed by detuning harmony strings), Clapton was a close pal whose chops he loved and respected, and the two influenced and sparked off each other. Harrison was typically unegotistical enough to hand Clapton the chance to shine spectacularly (I know a lot of people love Prince's live version of the solo, but to me it's extended cliched technical noodling to no great purpose, whereas the original solo was soaked in emotion and very concise).
Ravi Shankar certainly didn't seem to have any complaints about Harrison's musical abilities when he began his education in Indian music and sitar. Other bands (like the Stones) used the sitar as more or less an exotic sound effect, just playing standard Western musical lines, whereas Harrison took the trouble to learn about the hinterland of the instrument (and went on to groundbreakingly meld Eastern and Western musical ideas and theory in songs like "Within You, Without You").
Neither McCartney nor Lennon were slouches either (I'll focus on their guitar playing, but they also developed into competent self-taught keyboard players, and McCartney was a good enough all-rounder to play most of the instruments, including drums, on the album Band On The Run).
Lennon was, unusually for him, quite humble about his guitar abilities, but as a rhythm/lead player, he was up there with Pete Townshend (listen to the brief, searing solos on "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", for just a few examples). He also developed, after tuition by Donovan, a decent clawhammer folk fingerpicking style, in evidence on songs like "Dear Prudence".
Here's Donovan recounting this:
Here's a take on Lennon's (and, under his influence, McCartney's) developments in fingerpicking style: https://www.guitarplayer.com/technique/john-lennon-style-fingerpicking
And here's one technical look at some of The Beatles' guitar techniques:
McCartney and Starr are too well respected by renowned players of bass and drums over the years to need any serious defending, so I won't bother here, or this will be a very long post indeed.
None of them were classically trained, just self-taught, but this bred a humility that meant they were receptive to a wide range of influences and willing to learn from others, and they were blessed with excellent natural ears and sensibilities. They'd also happily bring in session payers when they'd add to a song (it's a great shame Billy Preston only joined them at the very tail end of their career).
Nevertheless, classically trained composer Howard Goodall has broadcast numerous times dissecting in awe The Beatles' composition techniques. If you can spare the time, any of his analyses online are well worth watching. Here's one:
Largely at McCartney's prodding, The Beatles embraced not just classical influences, but avante-garde ones, which came to spectacular fruition on "A Day In The Life", which I consider their masterpiece and listen to with fresh joy each time to this day. This then developed into still-startling songs like "I Am The Walrus", "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Tomorrow Never Knows".
When you consider the musical and technical advances (and let's not forget George Martin's invaluable contribution to both those aspects) packed into a band recording career that didn't even span a decade, it's just ignorant to dismiss the important contribution of these musicians to all our cultures. And on past form, they were never slow to acknowledge that they were just one bunch of guys among many others who were stretching boundaries during that period.
It's a shame Quincy Jones apparently doesn't rate them. It's entirely his loss.