Quncy Jones calls Beatles "worst musicians in the world," Microsoft's Paul Allen "just like Hendrix"

[Denzil_DC]

56. Clickbait from Quincy, huh? Disappointing.

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.