I'm an ex session player .... I'm " technically" better than all my heroes. But I didn't innovate or write any hit records ...Ego is a hell of a thing.
Ain't it just. You hit the nail on the head. I could with 10,000 hours practice become amazing at an instrument. It doesn't, however, make me in the least bit creative
Have you all watched "Get Back"? Paul comes in, tired. Sits down. Starts faffing on the bass. 10 mins later, a riff is starting to appear. Then he suddenly sings, "Get back!". George and Ringo join in. George joins in on guitar. Ringo starts drumming. John comes in and he joins in. All the parts start to come together (right now). A few days later, "Get Back" is recorded and it's #1 in UK for 17 weeks. #1 in 15 countries. Quincy Jones can bugger off.
Yeah, he had that in the bag already and people are just drinking the McCartney Kool-Ade if you imagine 'that's the moment where he created the song'. No dude, only children believe in Santa Claus and all of McCartney's posing.
McCartney said in the documentary that he had been playing with that at home for several days. So it didn't just happen in front of your eyes. But it is still a good bit of song writing and how he did it.
I met Quincy Jones on a flight into Washington, DC. We were both sitting in the front of the plane and as we landed and were disembarking he dropped an old leather portfolio full of music sheets. The paper was strewn all over the floor on the plane. I felt sorry for him and stopped to pick up the sheets to help him. Instead of being grateful he screamed at the top of his lungs at me yelling “DON’T TOUCH THAT!” I looked at him and shrugged my shoulders as if to say “Have fun picking up your paper pal!” And walked off the plane. Needless to say, I came away from the experience thinking he was a royal jerk! It doesn’t surprise me that a guy like him couldn’t keep his rude opinions to himself!!
That reaction by QJ is no surprise. I have found that uptight disrespectul arrogance like that is a typical trait of most people who are so high on themselves that they have lost touch with the humanity of their fellow human beings. Consequently, most of them live a lonely existence because they are miserable people to spend time with.
Good story. As a pro muso I've met very, very many top players and artists, and they've pretty much all been great. One notable exception was in Sydney, Australia in 1985 when I was on tour. I tried to introduce myself (politely) to a female artist staying at the same hotel (Sebel Town House) and she was very rude indeed. A certain Ms Lee Jones...
The craziest part of this video is finding out Buddy Rich said Glen Campbell was a poor musician. The man was a member of The Wrecking Crew & universally acclaimed by fellow guitarists.
Have you watched his rant on RUclips? He was appearing on the Mike Douglas show and Mike even tried to steer him away from his jackassery. He just kept on and on. As @johngerson said, he was a complete asshole.
I work in a music store, and there's a joke we tell: "The difference between a jazz musician and a rock musician? A rock musician plays 3 chords to 3,000 people, while a jazz musician plays 3,000 chords to an audience of 3 people. :-))
I would agree with that but nevertheless that was a completely unprofessional comment for QJ to make. Certainly jazz is top level musicianship without a doubt.
Always thought the Beatles' chord progressions were interesting. I mean what you said is true overall except the Beatles' songs were unique, they most definitely didn't tie themselves down to three chords. Conversely if you really look beyond the flashy virtuousity in jazz or fusion, there's often not much interesting or compelling going on chord-wise
There is a sad part all around . . . Jazz (which I enjoy, and Jazz/Fusion) has an audience that has been dwindling for many years, sadly. Progressive Rock and Metal doesn't have nearly the audience of Pop, & Country . . . BUT, has a International fanbase, and most tour the world. And many have those "3,000 chords", complexity, or melodic work. And usually an "Album" full of quality music . . . like the Jazzers. But again, most are not playing arenas, unless they play a festival, or they were HUGE at one time and carried it on (from current Yes, Genesis when they re-grouped, to Metallica, Ozzy, etc.). "Songs" will always win. But some of us want the envelope pushed with musicians, and all that goes with it.
@@tracyanne8616....If The Beatles had not been a white band from England but rather a black group from Africa he would be falling all over himself praising them to the skies.
I remember reading an interview of Paul McCartney a few years back. Paraphrasing the gist of it... he was playing Guitar Hero with his granddaughter and she was smoking him. In typical 10 year old girl style, she picked up the nuances of the game fast and was teasing her grandpa that she was better. At which point it looked at her and said, "Yeah, well I wrote all these songs." Game Over. So basically Quincy has the maturity of a 10 year old girl.
I was working from home on Monday, decided to have a Beatles day, played back to back records for eight hours straight. It was an absolute joy from beginning to end, that's what music should be.
You just perfectly explained what I've know all along... that it isn't how well you play an instrument, but how much passion and creativity you put into your music. Was Bob Dylan a great guitar player, or a great harmonica player, or did he have a great voice?? NO.
There are thousands and thousands of “virtuosos” out there who can play every song they’ve ever heard note-for-note perfectly, but who couldn’t have CREATED those songs themselves.
@@CharlieTWilbury Mine is the difference is Quincy's musical world and that of the Beatles - plus, what does he mean exactly? The Beatles would have really sucked in a jazz band. Have you ever watched/heard a professional classically trained musician try to play Rock 'n' Roll? They're terrible at it.
@@JStephs1950 Yngwie Malmsteen is classically trained and he nails rock music. I think you're talking about someone who is classically trained and has no background in even listening to rock, or any other blues-based music.
@@rikk319 Yngwie is awful. An endless stream of meaningless noise. There is nothing musical nor communicative about a constant blathering of sound. Ill take ONE NOTE from Peter Green over every freaking blithering nonsense that Malmsteen ever played.
It's completely different styles of music. You don't expect a Rock & Roll musician to excel at Jazz, just like you don't expect a Country singer to excel at Opera. They all require different skills.
Also: Quincy was never to jazz what The Beatles are to rock. Quincy is not even to rock what The Beatles are to jazz, and every other style of music! Quincy is one of those great music figures, someone who worked with everybody and definitely had an amazing career, but his influence is simply nowhere near as vast as The Beatles, not even close.
@@KKMDStyle 100% wrong, "KKMD". #1) He NEVER "dominated" the music industry, what are you babbling about? He was A producer, who had hits, but he NEVER "dominated". Ever! Was never "the" producer of the moment, not even in the late 70s-80s #2) Wrong! He WAS known a recording artist......he has a string of albums - many of them crappy - to prove it! #3). What he's REALLY known for is his ARRANGING. And his FILM COMPOSING. Got it, dopey? He certainly is known for his producing of Thriller - which I guarantee is the ONLY thing you know about Quincy Jones - and he produced those cheesy Leslie Gore records. But it's "Arranged by Quincy Jones" that you see more than anything. Got it? Your comment is a shallow end of the pool joke, made by an imbecile who obviously knows NOTHING about music. Because you don't like music! You hate to listen to it! You like to TALK about it, but you hate to put in your ears.
Lots of us can play guitar better than the Beatles. But we're not the Beatles. To focus on their instrumental skill is to give yourself a PhD in point-missing.
@@paddymeboy They were the most successful band because of their songwriting. But the average superfan would never say that. Many of them truly believe that Ringo is the best drummer. John, Paul and George are the best singers, and Paul is the best bass player and they would justify that based on nothing more than the fame of The Beatles.
I think he went too far. The statements by QJ are offensive and very unfair. They weren't virtuosos - and so many rock musicians were/are not - but calling them the worst "no playing MFs" of all time is offensive and ignorant in the extreme.
@@mplant1999 Yes indeed. But I appreciate that Fil didn't retaliate. That's how feuds and wars start. I'd rather let it go and have peace. Let people have their say. It doesn't change the facts.
yes - i am 65 year old - i never heard of quincy jones - why would i care what this nobody thinks - i was never a big beatles fan but this guy just sounds bitter - maybe because no one knows who he is
@@rigpa10 Er... being 65, being into music, and never hearing of Quincy Jones is not something to be proud of! He has a track record as one of the greatest producers of all. But that doesn't stop him saying stupid stuff. Clearly The Beatles were not the worst musicians in the world, nor were they bad musicians, and they had real unique abilities as musicians and singers, even if they were not the most technically competent to do sessions for other people. Session musicians who crossed over into performers and writers include Elton John, Rick Wakeman, Jimmy Page, Glenn Campbell
Let me compare music to sports. Wayne Gretzky is arguably the best hockey player in history. He owns multiple records. By rights, he shouldn’t have been that good. He wasn’t the fastest skater, didn’t have the hardest shot, wasn’t at all physical…but what he DID have was a high hockey IQ. He succeeded with his brain. Same as the Beatles…they had a very high musical brain…and that counts for everything. QJ was careless saying what he did. It comes off as jealousy.
@@guynicoletti5811 I think they mostly had a lot of appeal for teenaged girls and they looked just rebellious enough for the middle class teens without going too far. Good melodies. Some great melodies. Not very interesting in the rhythm department.
@@pamelah848 that was early stuff. They continued to grow and learn and be creative. The ‘girl’ attraction pretty well went by the wayside when they stopped touring to concentrate on the music and recording. The point I was making was that they were brilliant musically without being individual musical virtuosos because they had good music instincts.
One of the things that slowed the Beatles down in the studio is that they were often being highly experimental, trying stuff no one had ever done before. That's a different kettle of fish than playing rhythm guitar in a style that you've been practicing every day for the last 20 years.
True, but even the simplest , least experimental arrangement was something they worked out in the studio, a time consuming process, 4 opinions finding common ground.
Quincy Jones saying that is the jazziest quote I ever heard. I even met many jazzmen in my musical journey who pretended to be able to write an entire Beatles album in one night. They never composed one interesting song to this day.
Are saying it would be good music if it sold? I've never equated good music or any art with sales. I love The Beatles and not knocking them at all but I think the times had a lot to do with The Beatles success. The market wasn't flooded as it is now. Rock 'n roll was still in it's infancy and had new plenty of room for new bands and for bands to develop the genre. Which The Beatles definitely did.
To this day, with the exception of maybe zeppelin, no band or artist wrote and composed as many songs that sounded as good as the Beatles, so I don't think timing was the only thing the Beatles had in their favour. I mean, the Beatles have 5 albums certified as classics, excluding anything they made before rubber soul as well as mmt. I don't think even Floyd, Dylan or Zeppelin had that many classics. Music is subjective ofcourse, this is just my opinion and that of many others.
I feel like the main lesson from this situation is that having a good "ear" for music is more important than just being able to play. If you separate those things, I can see how you could say that the Beatles don't know how to play the instruments as well as some other professionals. But they were geniuses with composition.
Actually I think being able to write songs at the level the Beatles did, and then performing at the level they did, singing and playing, is on another level!
I remember Steve Vai said something like this: You can be a good player, but creating music is another different muscle. Even Al dimeola made a CD Tribute to the Beatles... He is a fan... We are not worthy
They never claimed to be the best musicians but they were definitely the best song writers. Many technical musicians are a little jealous of successful bands. You nailed the explanation brother!
The Beatles were just great artists. They wrote wonderful, meaningful, emotive songs that were incredibly memorable. Not something most jazz players are interested in.
My goodness. What an asinine thing to say for Quincy Jones. I've learned a few of their songs on guitar & piano...& have been a fan since childhood. There are so many tricky, unique, & beautiful instrumental parts to their songs -- not just their top notch singing & harmonizing. Everything from Blackbird, Here comes the Sun, I Feel Fine, Michelle, Penny Lane, Norwegian Wood, Eleanor Rigby, Something, etc. Amazing chord changes, hooks, short solos.
@@SuziQ. Well, you call it pedantic. But imagine if Paul McC had written, say, "Blackbird singing when it's not that light/ Hey hey blackbird hope you feel all right/All your life/you probably wanted to fly around a bit"...It's not as good, is it? I did understand joey - I just wondered why he didn't bother putting "to" in the middle of his list. Although it wasn't really an appropriate use of the 'from...to' construction anyway, as there was no progression in the order - he starts and ends with two 1969 George songs, with a random selection of favourites in between. You call it pedantic, but you could also think that a tiny effort can go a long way.The difference between the Beatles and Rory Storm and the Hurricanes is that the Beatles made a tiny bit more effort. (Discuss, with examples, in not more than 250 words.) OK, I was just being pedantic! I don't think it has to be "important" to justify a bit of pedantry. After all, this whole thread is just a bunch of people getting worked up over a passing remark someone made about the Beatles - is that really important? Nice of you to come and stand up for joey, anyway. Peace and love, as Ringo always says.
@@99tonnes Oh, I see! You think he misused the "from...to" construction. Perhaps he merely meant he liked everything from each of the listed songs. You could still complain, of course, but it would be about something else.
@@drs-xj3pb That's a great point! "Everything from" would be an unusual way to express that (compared to say "everything about") - but then, kudos to joey for originality! It just illustrates how innovation is sometimes harshly judged by those who are not ready for it. One thinks of the riot that supposedly greeted the first performance of Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring'. Igor had the last laugh there, for sure! Now, what else can I complain about? Well, I prefer Fil's videos where he talks us through the intricacies of performance rather than goes on about whether one great musician's dissing of a great band's technical skills is justified or not. On the other hand, I love the way the fans get all hot under the collar about it as if it somehow threatened the Beatles or meant that QJ was a bad guy. Will that do?
Quincy Jones also said that Hendrix sucked and that George Johnson of the Brothers Johnson was far superior. Quincy has always been an arrogant asshole. I'll never forgive him for dragging a sick and near the end of his life Miles Davis out to do a concert that did nothing for his legacy except tack on a sad ending and allow Quincy to bask in Miles aura. I have no respect for him.
A musician buddy of mine said something profound back when we were in a band together in college. I remember it to this day and the realization has shaped both of our lives. "Great players are a dime a dozen, great songwriters are the precious commodity."
At the time he said this quote, Quincy had a documentary to promote. One of the easiest ways to get attention from the press is to say something negative about someone who is more famous than you are. Also, I once heard Paul McCartney in an interview asked about his guitar playing. He basically said he wasn't a professional guitar player (I'm pretty sure he considers himself a pro bass player though). He said he could play the songs he writes on guitar but that he was not up to the level of session players on the guitar. I think these guys had somewhat realistic understandings of their instrumental abilities. I also recall John saying that he was no Eric Clapton but that he could communicate with his guitar which is what music is anyway.
Exactly. But the batshit crazy thing about it is that Quincy complained about Ringo's drumming on a record that he didn't play drums on. Ringo only sang on Sentimental Journey, a deliberate decision to be just the singer. Dementia?
John also said that perhaps it would have been better for Frank Sinatra if he was a plumber - when FS spent years “reducing” him as Q.J. is now trying to do.
I think it's pretty common for these great artists to claim someone else is better. They've all done it. Hendrix once claimed Terry kath of Chicago was the best he'd seen. We were blessed with a time that created true great musicians. No autotune or other bs. The real thing!!!👍🎹🎸☮️
Oddly enough, Eddie van Halen wanted to learn from Glen Campbell and asked Alice Cooper (who was Campbell's friend) who made it happen and he had a lesson with Glen.
@@md-ps2hx People such as Elvis Costello's Dad, perhaps. Jimmy Page was doing session work for years, but who knows what ever happened to him? There was a music and recording scene in the UK before the Beatles, full of talent. Research Peter Asher, a Brit who went to the US, who demanded that the Record labels name and credit the musicians that followed the Wrecking Crew, perhaps fostering the virtuoso talent of the US and helping to craft so much of what followed after the 60s.
Anyone who has tried to play Beatles material will realise how subtly complex and different their compositions are. Their use of chords and changes was diverse and unusual for the time. They developed their skills in playing live over hundreds of performances
I think a true artist isn't always someone with extreme technical ability. But someone who works extremely well within their own limitations, who works with what they've got. Someone whose creativity overcompensates for whatever it is they are lacking. If they've got a cheap guitar that's missing a string and they can't afford a new string, they have to find another note to make it work. The blues and soul food both come from that perseverance and creativity. Great job Fil! I always admire your patience and diplomacy and your great knowledge of music. Don't ever lose that, man.
I would not give Quincy a pass. They were great musicians and it’s not about being a studio musician. Being tasteful and melodic is just as important in being a great musician than just technical skills. I am sure many of the musicians Quincy used could never do what the Beatles did. Jimmy Paige was considered a very good studio musician and great player but he wasn’t always technically perfect in Zeppelin. Saying that the Beatles especially Paul is one of the worst musicians is just ignorance from Quincy.
I think Quincy said that because Faul, the fake Paul McCartney since 1966 when Paul died in a car crash, isn't a very good musician, certainly not like the original. The real Paul's last album was "Rubber Soul." Look at the changes after that. Read attorney, Tina Foster's book, "Plastic Macca" and decide for yourself. I didn't want to believe it but I never like Paul after the Beatles broke up and probably before that. Also, "Justice for James Paul McCartney" is an excellent site and also on YT.
@anotherjoshua The Beatles led to prog rock. Beatles-->Moody Blues-->Yes. Stones led to nasty rock. The Rolling Stones-->Velvet Underground-->The Stooges.
A lot more hard practice goes into perfecting the former, and maybe some feel a little credit is due for that. Meanwhile, I can appreciate Ray Brown, Stanley Clark, but especially Paul McCartney when it comes to finding the perfect bass part.
Paul McCartney was always a great bassist. As far as composing rock music, Lennon and McCartney are pure gold. Their interesting chord changes were way ahead of the American rockers in the 1960's.
Yes, Paul is highly regarded as a bassist, and Ringo is as a drummer by his peers. Lennon's (especially) chord changes were solid gold. George Harrison, well, he is also highly regarded. Quincy gets no pass from me on this.
Very well put. This channel has been such a refreshing find for me. Your perspectives and technical knowledge is something that I, a 65 year old live engineer from the 80s, can understand and relate to. People get sidetracked by technical abilities. Most bands do not rise to success based upon one musician’s individual talent. Typically it’s a collaboration of their talents. In the Beatles, we see they’re a mix of all things good. I think every technically oriented musician can take any Beatles song and technically do it better. That said, it’s the human element that makes a song something we want to listen too. Thats why live vocals are often more appreciated than canned autotuned vocals.
The Beatles were entertainers who learnt their craft playing live in front of the most demanding of club goers in Germany. Song writing is a craft that many instrumentalists are not capable of doing.
I can't speak for places other than the UK, but the revolutionary progress in rock music (and all its other adjuncts) during the 1960s-70s, was driven largely by people who never attended music colleges, and therefore didn't know there were any rules to be observed. That's what made the music they created so fresh and exciting. Instrumental virtuosity wasn't a prerequisite when, as certainly was the case with The Beatles, creative genius and inventiveness would suffice (and not a little instrumental and vocal proficiency either). Quincy Jones knew full well he was talking hyperbolic rubbish - but he had a book to sell.
You think Quincy didn't learn his trade by playing in bands to large crowds, night after night, often two or three shows a night? Or that he wasn't a songwriter/composer and a good arranger in his own right, even at the age of twenty-five? You people are funny. Or just ignorant.
Excellent presentation, Fil. A few other points: Quincy Jones made this statement about the Beatles and Paul McCartney in particular: “They were no-playing motherfuckers. Paul [McCartney] was the worst bass player I ever heard.” I understand that Jones and his ilk are accustomed to a certain type of studio atmosphere. However, the Beatles pioneered melodies and their attendant sounds with very primitive equipment, even for that era. Several sources state that the studio equipment used in the places where they recorded was woefully archaic compared to what was then being used in the US. Yet they set the world on fire with their artistry and creativity with the tools at hand; neither Jones nor Buddy Rich ever came close to the renown enjoyed by those to whom they showed disdain. To make statements such as this about fellow artists is undignified, but what do I know.
Well, Michael Jackson's Thriller was the best selling album of all time for 40ish years. Produced by Quincy Jones so yes he's essentially immortal in the music world. There was surely some sprinted rivalry there to outrun the incredible achievement of those 4 lads from Liverpool.
@@Cajundaddydave Thanks for the reply, Cajundaddydave, and well said. My input in response is that Jones was not a performer or the centerpiece of that gorgeous album. MJ was. The Beatles were the creators, arrangers, producers, and performers on nearly all of their songs. By the way, I’m a Cajun, too, my friend. Born and raised in Lafourche Parish with Cajun French as my first language. 👍 Go Neville Brothers!
@@Cajundaddydave, That album was played by studio musicians of the highest caliber, like Jeff & Steve Porcaro, and Greg Phillinganes, and even Eddie Van Halen, and Steve Lukather on one track, and David Paich on another. People are not going to remember the producer.
Jazz fan here...excellent presentation FIL. I love the Beatles. But professionally, the Beatles fade into the background compared to several Jazz groups that I can name. You're talking about a good college basketball team versus a professional team. Head to head ,that's how to think about it. Maybe you're a Duke fan. But there's no way Duke could beat the Denver Nuggets. Nothing wrong with Duke, but Nuggets just play in a different league . And as FIL hinted at. Quincy has higher standards. Quincy has produced and conducted much more than Michael Jackson. Try Sinatra, or Miles Davis, and many more. So he's not chopped liver.
Creating a great melody and harmony that is interesting, original, and conveys emotion is much more challenging than a technical showcase. If you can do both, that's even more impressive, but many of the "shredders" seem incapable of the former.
Not to mention a great melody and harmony that are still well-remembered, revered, and on the lips or hummed along by people the moment they hear it 50-60 years later, and has inspired countless musicians in the intervening years.
@@oboogie2 Hold your head up, you silly girl Look what you've done When you find yourself in the thick of it Help yourself to a bit of what is all around you Silly girl
Arnold Palmer looked awful swinging a golf club. Walter Ray Williams looked awful rolling a bowling ball. So I guess you could say the Beatle’s results speak for themselves. Quincy is a jealous bum.
You’ve all heard of The Wrecking Crew? An LA group of studio musicians that played on everything from the Monkees to the Mamas and the Papas, to the Beach Boys, to the Byrds, and literally hundreds of other top ten artists in the 60s. Now, compare them to the Beatles… The songs are just as danceable, the grooves are just as cool, but the approach in the studio is totally different. The Beatles would go in to the studio and arrange the songs while they were being written; sometimes George or John or Paul would bring in a home demo recording to give the rest an idea of what they were looking for. They had been used to working together for years, and had done hundreds of hours together playing live club gigs in Germany and England. Often especially in the early days, the songs would be recorded and mixed the same day, or maybe recorded on Saturday and mixed on Sunday sort of thing. Now, the Wrecking Crew session guys, they would get called in as needed, so it wouldn’t always be the same group of four people, indeed the size of the group would vary depending on who was writing, recording, producing, etc. Sometimes the songwriters would come in with a “lead sheet” or “chord chart”, which might have the lyrics, the chords, the bars (measures) and the melody written down; maybe even a signature line here and there such as an intro melody or arrangement idea. But the session players would, sometimes very quickly, listen carefully to the song, talk with the producer or writer to get their ‘intent’ as to what they were looking for, they’d maybe run the song down once or twice and then start rolling tape. They would be shooting for getting a solid ‘bed track’ or ‘rhythm track’ with the basic instruments: bass, rhythm guitars, drums, keys; and then for them, the track would be done. Later the singers, and maybe orchestral strings or woodwinds, might be brought in, sometimes right away, sometimes next week; they would do their ‘overdubs’, and then the track would be ready for mixing, which would likely be on yet another day, maybe even at a different studio, that had a better sounding room for mixes or more choices of outboard gear like compressors, limiters, equalizers, reverb plates or chambers, etc. So you’ve got different types of players with different sets of skills for each of these approaches to recording. Could the Beatles, as individual players, have been able to handle the pressures of playing ‘tracks to order’ with the Wrecking Crew, or the Muscle Shoals guys? Maybe for a song or two, but overall I doubt it. Paul maybe, but the thing is, the studio guys all had to be pretty good sight readers (with a couple of exceptions), whereas none of The Beatles could read musical notation at all. And could the Session Player guys make it in the studio cutting tracks with the likes of The Beatles? Probably. A good example of this would be Billy Preston when he first comes on the scene in the Get Back film; he sets up pretty quietly and low key, doesn’t say much at first, just finds his piano parts and fits in. Later on, he’s loosened up quite a bit, is kidding around, laughing, ‘one of the guys’. John even says he should just ‘join the group’… Anyway, for what all that is worth, that's how I see the difference between these two different types of musicians that coexisted back in the day; guys that were in the group, VS guys that were studio players. Similar, but also very different sets of skills at play for each, albeit with a lot of 'crossover'...
Quincy Jones could work with the top crop of people, and that is why a poor chap with a horrible timbre could become so huge with just humming a simple melody. You know how that works, if the money is there in that place it means everybody will run to that corner even if it smells bad there.
On Dec. 9, 1980 concerning John Lennon, George Martin was asked, "What sort of musician was he?" George answered, "Well, by the standards of great musicians, he wasn't a great musican, but he was a great man. "
The amazing thing about the Beatles, is they created massive songs with what they have. Additionally, Lennon is still one of the best rhythm players that have ever existed.
He was wrong. Lennon was a phenomenal vocalist, and clearly a brilliant guitarist to have come up with works like Across the Universe. John Lennon was a GENIUS, eat it! Music is ultimately about composition. You can hire stunt players. You can't hire that many great writers, and writing takes as many years of development, assuming you even have the talent for it.
@knickertwistcopperby6066I have a musician cousin who doesn’t believe the Beatles wrote all those beautiful songs. He’s also a retired disgruntled barber who can’t forgive them for hurting barbers’ bottom line.
I think most of us do not have professional ears. I listen to what pleases me. The Beatles sound pleases me. The expression is more important than the search for "perfection", whatever that is. Billie Holliday did not have the greatest voice, but who else could sing "Strange Fruit" as powerfully as she? The search for technical perfection contradicts what music represents to many of us who are not professional musicians.
Nailed it, esp about BH. Jimi Hendrix, Steve Lukather, EVH, SRV, Satriani, Vai, they'd all have given their right arm to come up with John Lennon's dirty and nasty guitar line in Get Back.
First, Paul is a world class bass player who plays complex basslines that are often contrapuntal melodies and does so, live, while singing. Not exactly a bum. Second, John’s rhythm guitar is often very innovative, unique, and, yes, difficult, all of which he often did live while singing. Dig up Quincy Jones and have him play This Boy while singing live, and we’ll see who the terrible musician is. Third, George, while not a pyrotechnical wonder, composed wonderfully melodic and perfect solos that he could play live while singing. Maybe not awful. In fact, the whole point about The Beatles is that everything they did as individuals was meant to serve the song, not their egos. Which they did to perfection over and over again. Terrible musicians can’t do that. Now, as to Ringo. I’ve read The Abbey Road Recording Sessions from cover-to-cover and have no memory of him taking hours to lay down ANY drum track, not even when, during the sessions for the White Album, he was being dragged from studio-to-studio. Yes, the drum track for Helter Skelter was recorded by a no talent. Nonsense! Further, Mark Lewisohn states in that book-for which he listened to every scrap of recorded material by the group, track-by-track, overdub by overdub-that you can count the number of times a take breaks down, over the course of seven years, because of Ringo on the fingers of both hands. And a lot of those tracks are very complicated and are in all manner of time signatures and tempos. Not the work of a terrible drummer. Finally, it would have been difficult for any drummer to come in and play the track in a way that would have fooled Ringo into thinking he had played it because Ringo is a lefthanded drummer who plays a righthanded kit. He leads with his left hand, which is not what would be natural to most drummers. At best, Quincy was hallucinating when he related this anecdote. More likely, he wasn’t “telling it like it is,” but, rather, telling it like it wasn’t.
Exceptional video, well done mate! I have to say that the nuances between being a instrumentalist and a singer songwriter are totally different, and something that most fans and musicians don't really appreciate. it is also the difference between communicating and showing off. Absolutely love this video and will quote it in a response video, I will do this week on my tiny channel. Great job on explaining all of this in a fair, concise and clear way.
In one of the Miles interview, John, when asked about their instrumental ability, said they were "average, just average," but that Paul was one of the "most innovative bass players ever."
The combined artistic might of the Beatles dwarfs Quincy Jones, Quincy Jones is a great musician, but he's a small cog compared with what the Beatles achieved. The Beatles changed the musical landscape, along with Sir George Martin's help, they became the greatest group in history - looking at their back catalogue is mind boggling !!
I was 12 years old in '64 and my first hearing of "Love me do" would forever change how I thought about music . Gee this is different to all the "Bobby" songs, ie Vee,Rydell,Vinton. And so the revolution began. Sorry but you are wrong Quincy. My opinion only.
What did you want Lennon to say "Yeah, I'm great, me." There's this thing called humility which some people are blessed with. Something Quincy Jones clearly lacks.
Most people have never heard the names of the best musicians in the world. It's so silly to try and compare snd contrast and denigrate other writers, singers and musicians.
Yes. I never liked the Beatles, not when I was young, and still not now. BUT, that doesn't mean they were poor musicians, I'm not qualified to say that. Those who are are still using their subjective judgment in addition to objective points, and subjective can still change from year to year or performance, even. I don't think I even considered Eric Clapton a musician until the benefit for George Harrison, when something about the whole performance struck a cord with me, and now I look for his music, especially those with other musicians, such as JJ Cale. I'm sure others will tell me I'm wrong in my opinion, but that proves the point about the power of subjective opinion and not totally facts.
@@beckasmith6725It's like comparing singers, did Steve Marriott have a better voice than Mick Jagger? yes, does Karen Carpenter have a better voice than Elton John? yes, but it just doesn't matter, you can appreciate them equally.
This was the quote from Quincy: “I remember once we were in the studio with George Martin, and Ringo had taken three hours for a four-bar thing he was trying to fix on a song,” the producer recalled. “He couldn’t get it. We said, ‘Mate, why don’t you get some lager and lime, some shepherd’s 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 didn’t sound so bad.’ And I said, ‘Yeah, motherf*cker, because it ain’t you.’ “ Let’s break that down: This session was from Ringo’s Sentimental Journey album, which was a collection of standards recorded entirely with studio musicians. Ringo only sang, he didn’t perform. George Martin was the producer. Quincy did the arrangement for “Love is a Many Splendored Thing” and no other songs. - Why would Ringo drum on this one song and nothing else on the entire album? - There is no way George Martin would “allow” Ringo to be treated in such a manner. - I’m sorry, but there is no way Ringo or any competent musician would not know his own drumming. - That’s pretty damn patronizing…go get a shepherds pie and a lager and lime at the pub? Okay, Yank…cool story. What we do know is that the track was recorded in LA and Ringo overdubbed his vocals. They were unhappy with that and so Quincy went to Abbey Road to record another version, to which Ringo added vocals. Strings and other instruments were added later. It sounds like QJ simply couldn’t settle on anything he liked and has fabricated this story to embarrass Ringo.
Absolutely. It’s a phony story. It’s a known fact that Ringo was a human metronome. In many cases the other Beatles would have to do multiple takes to get their parts down and Ringo usually got it in just a couple takes and was a fantastic steady consistent backup player.
@@johnclarke851 and not just that, listening to that track on the album shows it was a very basic pattern, minimal flourishes. There’s no way Ringo could have had trouble with it.
I was nuts about the Beatles, and I remember my mother saying that in 20 years, no one would remember their music. 20 years later I was in an elevator and the Muzak was playing a Beatles song---made me laugh out loud.
Yeah, his work will still be heard and you're just demonstrating massive ignorance, not intelligence. It's fine to be mad at what he says but not fine to make up bullshit out of stupidity.
@@jamescarter3196 I think Michael Jackson will be what people hear in 100 yrs time alongside the Beatles, only the future nerds will care about either QJ or George Martin.
This was such a kind and reasoned response. I am not the best singer in the world, I am definitely not the best guitarist or pianist. I write songs, accompanying myself on either guitar or piano. So...am I musician or not? Maybe I am the worst musician as well? Good grief! There are ballet dancers, ballroom dancers, modern dancers, dancers of various countries. Are they not ALL dancers? There is an aspect in music I do not appreciate- hyper criticism! As a piano teacher, isn't my goal to give them the skills to play for their whole lives at whatever level they achieve, playing the music they love? So what, if when they are 80 and still playing Chopin someone hears them and says, "They are heavy on the pedal!" Good grief! They are over 80 and still playing! Grrrr.....
Firstly, "musician" is a word that is clearly defined differently by different people and in different contexts. Secondly, I would ask *why* he would say that - what was his motivation? At best, it reflects a lack of character and discretion. At worst, a pettiness and lack of humility. The entire world didn't embrace The Beatles because they were "the worst" of anything. Their music will be around for a long, long time. Yeah, "reality check" was a very tactful way to describe it.
His motivation was jealousy. The Beatles were 100 times bigger tha Quincy. Because he could play more notes, he thought the crown should belong to him.
Fil - you have a natural ability to explain things that can be complicated - in an easy to understand manner. You are so good at engaging your viewers. I really enjoyed this - Thank You.
Quincy Jones was famously not a very good musician himself. And he was accustomed, as a producer, of dealing with studio pros, not rock bands. I consider McCartney an excellent musician and composer, and the rest of the Beatles were definitely okay musicians. Even go back and listen to their early stuff--it takes major energy.
McCartney was NOT a better musician than the other Beatles. You don't know what you are talking about. George was one of the best slide guitarists ever. listen to his playing on "Cheer Down". Your comment is trendy but not accurate.
@@nonrepublicrat George was good with the slide, but I would hesitate a long, LONG time before calling him "one of the best." Depends on how long your list of "the best" is, I suppose.
Quincy Jones shot zero on many. After years of claiming that Elvis was racist (absolute nonsense), I'm not surprised. Envy is really terrible. I like the Beatles although they are not my favourites. I have never found them very nice or friendly but nobody can deny they had a big role in music's history.
You nailed it with this comment. I was thinking the exact same thing. It appears that Quincy has some very serious issues going on here. His Elvis comments have been debunked through and through.
@@MG-rg3jo Exactly...if there is one thing absolutely sure is that Elvis was not a racist 🤣 He could like him or not but spreading such false accusations just made him ridiculous in my eyes. Even more considering the many testimonies of black people who have told only splendid things about Elvis and how he treated them... from his backing singers to famous people such as Muhammad Ali, James Brown, BB King, Sammy Davis Junior, Cissy Houston and many others.
@@MIB_63 well sorry...it's my personal perception. Honestly, I've always found them a bit unpleasant. I think they had a lot of talent in writing songs but vocally they never told me much. Obviously it's my personal taste. But there is no doubt that they made music history.
What Quincy Jones seems to forget is that he most likely would not have been in a studio producing records if not for the Beatles. Also, the Beatles never claimed to be the best musicians in the world but were a great BAND.
Fil, you did a great job of diplomatically analyzing Quincy Jones' comment. I wouldn't be as kind to Mr. Jones. Yes, he's used to working with virtuoso session players. I know a lot of them, along with classically trained musicians . . . none of which have .001% the talent of The Beatles. Those Fabs were pure geniuses. They were the very best at what they did. In addition to being the best, greatest band that ever existed . . . They wrote, recorded, and co-produced the greatest songs ever . . . and possible ever will be. They focused on the song . . . the feel . . . the vibe . . . melody and harmony and rhythm. They strived for originality . . . pushing the bar up, up, up. They were legendary vocalists as well. Instrument wise, Lennon was a gutsy rhythm player. Harrison wrote and played timeless riffs. Ringo was the king of feel and created unforgettable beats. McCartney could do it all, and I'd go as far as to say Sir Paul could be a virtuoso on any instrument if he focused on it. Quincy Jones was clearly jealous, IMO.
You're just blurting out a bunch of dipshit-fanboy nonsense about the Beatles, not elucidating a valid viewpoint. It's ridiculous how you people pretend the Beatles are so infallible that you can make up opposite-of-reality lies and act like you're smart for it.
Quincy is a complete ass for making such a comment. Nobody ever worked harder at their craft than the Beatles and nobody did more to popularize pop music than they did. Quincy doesn’t have much humility and it shows.
@themidnightchoir Practicing is the only means of working hard? Not playing night after night, many hours a night, for hundreds of nights, at a dive bar in a city where you don't speak the language. That's not hard work. Only practicing.
McCartney himself in an old Beatles interview from the sixties admitted they were not great musicians but they described themselves as just adequate. When asked why he thinks the fans love their music, he replied I guess they love adequate music.
Average musicians that were inspired musical geniuses. Not everyone is a Hendrix,Bonham,Entwhistle or other genius instrumentalist. Their vocals,harmonies and composition are damn near untouchable. As previously mentioned,McCartney was a very innovative bassist. I think "Q" is a bit jealous and is more jazz,soul oriented.
Lennon even said he didn't think he was technically good on the guitar. But he said he was an artist and you could give him a tuba and he could get something from it that was good.
Phil @ Wings of Pegasus - Thank you for that very insightful peek into the musical perspectives and experience of Quincy and Ringo. If we only had sensitive interpreters for all of our flawed, human interactions, we would learn to be more understanding and empathetic. Bless you.
The music of Van Halen was rubbish. If it wasn't for Eddie Van Halen himself, they wouldn't have made it as a band. What are they known for? Great songs and music? No, just that stupid tapping that Eddie did.
Look at McCartney's bass playing though, he is a master of that instrument and his lines were incredible. A band is about playing your part to create a sound greater than each individual by themselves.
Quincy could never create a catalogue of original music to match The Beatles. When all is said and done, The Beatles will be remembered 1000 years from now, Quincy who?
I like your analysis. It reminds me of a story that Leon Russell (a former member of the so-called "Wrecking Crew") used to tell. He asked George Harrison to play a guitar solo on one of his albums ("Wedding Album"). Leon was satisfied with the first take. George was not. So George recorded take after take (anyone of which would suffice for Leon). Eventually, Leon mentioned that there was one take that he really liked and suggested they listen to it again. Leon chose the first take (any would have done). He played it back to George and George agreed that it was the right take - job done! 🙂
If Jones wasn't a musician, what he said would have just been dopey. But he's an accomplished musician and to insult the Beatles with such unprofessional disrespect reveals deep things about Jones' head and heart. His foolishness makes me cringe.
Trumpet player to producer. That doesn’t make him an authority on pop and rock music. Jazz is a whole different beast, where harmonies and melodies aren’t valued. He sounds like our snobby parents who told us that we wouldn’t be listening to Elton John, Zeppelin, or Pink Floyd, as adults, yet 45 years later, I’m still playing those records (maybe a bit more Sabbath lately).
In reading a lot musicians comments on others, it seems par for the course. I seen each of the Beatles say horrible things about other successful musicians simply because they don't like them. Pete Townshend seems to hate everything. It goes on everywhere. Beatles fans shouldn't be so hurt about this.
Hey, Sinatra called the Beatles "fairies" and then later recorded some Beatles songs, so Jones wasn't the only one, BUT they all should know better because it's unprofessional
Beatles weren't virtuosos but they were pretty damn good. I mean listen to the last track of Abbey Road where they let the guitar solos rip. Worst musicians? I don't think so.
Another great post that gives a little insight into the recording/session process that I personally find extremely interesting, thanks again for another excellent video. As someone back in the late 70s to the early 90s who regularly bought music (on cassette, vinyl, CD) on my way home from the record/music shop I always checked the sleeve to find out what session musicians played on what tracks, and whenever with the likes of Greg Phillinganes, Lee Ritenour, Jay Graydon, Larry Carlton, Valerie Simpson, Anthony Jackson are just some of the musicians I looked to see if they played on a track, that would determine what track I would play first as soon as I got home, usually couldn't wait to get home, especially on any albums Quincy was involved with, the same for any Steely Dan album, they also picked the top musicians.
The Beatles have never claimed to be great musicians..... EVER! They were a team, a band, a group of four young lads who combined to make the best music ever. The best band ever....bar none!!!🙄🇬🇧
hardly a ‘team’...more like a ‘working model. they could hardly stand each other long enough to keep the money pouring in...had to go solo. not a single one played with another one again...some team. they were pure propaganda...produced for social engineering at a time they wanted to DIVIDE the new generation from the old. do your history!
The best band? Nah, not even close. Without George Martin, I doubt that the Beatles' music would have evolved much beyond their "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah" days. The Beatles' popularity largely stems from them being at the crest of the British Invasion in the early 60s.
One of the top session guys in the late 70’s early 80’s, Steve Lukather loved the Beatles as most session guys probably did. “The album changed my life? I don’t even have to think about that. It was With The Beatles (released in the US as Meet The Beatles). That album was the ‘on’ switch for me, and fifty years later I’m playing in a band with Ringo (Starr). It’s pretty crazy.” -SL So Quincy had a very narrow perspective indeed.
Look at Quincy becoming a patron of Jacob Collier in his early career - a musician who is truly virtuous on several instruments and can play absolutely anything perfectly - yet can’t write a song that moves an audience emotionally to save his life. The Beatles have written endless classics in comparison yet there technically ability is a fraction of Jacob’s.
You don't need to make dumb assumptions, George didn't think the Beatles were worth his time at first either. Try reading about instead of making up bullshit out of ignorance.
@@jamescarter3196 Thanks so much for the advice, especially since my comment was deemed by YOU to be dumb and ignorant. You can go on loving Q and I’ll continue to love the Beatles.
@@jamescarter3196 Because the music was new and he'd come from a very different background. The fact that he did go on to make some of the greatest music of all time with them is testament to their raw talent.
George Martin was given the Beatles because he had worked with the Goons and the suits wanted someone who could handle them it was like an arranged marriage that worked beautifully. Martin had the classical chops and open ears. The results changed music forever.
You are such a fine RUclipsr Fil regarding music and musicians you are always fair and diplomatic, something others should take a leaf out of your book. Well appreciated fil. Good man👍
Well discussed. "we're just 4 guys who did really well" - John Lennon. The Beatles wouldn't disagree with Quincy per say. They weren't really session artists (sans My Bonnie with Tony Sheridan). And yet they did their first album in one day. And it still holds up and had several #1 hits. When they did their own song, they perfected it. Covering a Beatles song is very hard because you are competing with a perfectly produced version of the song. If you riff on any part its a risk of marring perfection. They were great natural musicians
Such a comment is a perfect beginning to a discussion about what "music" and "musicians" might possibly mean, and all the ways it can be wonderful and impressive, and the different ways we individuals can appreciate the way in which people create music. It also shows what a strange and narrow environment the big-business recording studio is, compared to all the other places people make music. It's not the only arena in which music can occur, and its rules and expectations are far from the only rules and expectations by which we might choose to judge what is "good", or what we enjoy, about music.
@@SueKay-rq1lr It's kinda sad how 90% of the comments here are just taking swipes at Quincy Jones (often in very personal terms) and missing the points that Fil is making around the quote in the video. In the classical music community, this is about the difference between a violin player in the ranks of a symphony orchestra and a soloist standing in front of the same orchestra: they're not in the same place, mentally or musically. And if either of them is playing the fiddle at a live folk music event, he's going to sound different again. Ringo Starr was perfect for the Beatles, but no one is pretending that he had the speed and technical skills of Ian Paice, Alan White or Bernard Purdie. That kind of chops and power drumming were just not needed for the Beatles. Or even for Motown records in the 1960s.
LMAO at the idea that Quincy Jones would need to be jealous of anybody else. Let's see, he produced stuff that outsold the Beatles, and you're clueless.
Great update Fill yeah even people who aren’t into the Beatles there’s no getting away from the fact they did have a lot of talent. They were a brilliant band. The harmonising with John Paul and George was outstanding.
OMG, Fil! What you were saying about humans being able to hear notes and melodies at a particular speed crystallized why sometimes music just sounds like noise. I can't hear the "conversation." When introduced to a new form of music I can learn how to hear it -- I remember when I was 5 my mom brought home the first Beatles album I told her to "turn off that noise" (obviously I got over that!). But some genres still sound like noise to me. For some I think that's part of the point, right? To make as much noise as possible with a beat behind it. It's meant to be experienced viscerally rather than heard. Anyway, as usual you said something thought-provoking.
LMAO, such bullshit. The fanboyism is absolutely pathetic with some of you people, making up total bullshit just to pretend somebody's more talented than they are, it's childish. How is he on tuba? Can't play it, just like most other instruments, and what you're saying is just the goofiest suck-ass nonsense imaginable.
@@seed_drill7135 Well Ronnie Verrell was certainly the drummer who came in from another studio in the building and laid down in 5 minutes the feeling and time that Ringo could not grasp in 3 hours. Ringo came back from his shepherd's pie and could not even recognise that it was not him playing on the track...
@@roscius6204 Nope, it's a song by Rogers and Hart - I appreciate that you probably haven't heard of them or are familiar with that particular song, but they were a far more accomplished songwriting partnership than the Beatles ever were...
This is what he said about Elvis Presley after he died, " He was a racist mother." So I know he is a liar. It makes him feel better to speak badly about people he's jealous of, and that's the kind of person he is.
@jessiem276, Yeah it's all a matter of perspective. I've heard some blacks say that he ripped off their music but a whole bunch of others that were grateful to him for opening the door for their music to become more mainstream. Also heard that he grew up with a black nanny that he loved and actually bought her a nice house for her to live in! Doesn't sound very racist to me!
Jones also toured with some of the best jazz musicians of their time when he was younger so virtuosity was something he probably grew to expect. To expect rock musicians to play like jazz musicians is unfair. Keith Moon once went to jazz great Philly Jo Jones for lessons. Jones didn't know who he was and when Moon told him he was an advanced drummer, Jones asked him to play something. When Moon was done Jones asked him what he got paid to play like that. When Moon told him Jones said he's afraid he'd cost him money by teaching him how to play.
Thanks for your videos! I found your channel when I was revisiting John Bonhams drumming on "Good Times Bad Times". The opening drumming makes my hair go on end, so I keep going back to it. I just watched your video about "Everlasting Love" by The Love Affair and now I am hooked. Looking forward to this video because The Beatles are my favourite childhood band. I was born in 1969. Thanks again!
I loved the Beatles from the start. I loved most of the music that Quincy Jones produced too. I love almost all music but I take it as presented, not as critics say it should be! Thanks for your explanation of some things I did not understand about the business of music, Fil.
Hmmm. Two things: (1) In the recording log of the Beatles' EMI sessions, over eight years of recordings, a take was stopped because of Ringo a total of eight times. That is (to be a tad simplistic about it), Ringo dropped the beat on average around once a year. (2) Quincy who?
It's painful to become marginalized, and the pain affects your evaluation of every recording you've been a part of. Edit: And every recording you hear, or have ever heard, by the "new hotness."
In 1964 the Beatles released "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". 2 years, they released "Tomorrow Never Knows". We will never see artistic growth of that caliber at that speed ever again.
Seriously, you're that uninformed? 1973, Queen released "Keep Yourself Alive" and their debut album. 1975, Queen released "Bohemian Rhapsody" and their album 'A Night At The Opera'.
@@guessundheit6494 There was probably a nicer way to say that. Considering Genesis had already released The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway and Selling England By The Pound -- not to mention Yes or Pink Floyd, Night At the Opera was playing catchup. And I say this as a massive Queen fan.
@@guessundheit6494 Agree with you Queen on many points is the only band in the same league than the beatles in my opinion and there are many other wonderfull bands but the beatles and queen wrote so many big hits songs in differrent styles that s the point best regards from france
You hit the nail on the head, Fil. There is a lot more to being a great musician than technical proficiency at playing an instrument. In terms of playing in a band, one of the most important things in playing with a great band, is to "fit in" with the rest of the band. In terms of the musician and their instrument, what can they offer that will not only enhance what they are playing but fit in with what everybody else is doing. This ability cannot be overstated when playing in a band.
The Beatles proved that making memorable, marketable music that could be appreciated by the masses did not necessarily require instrumental virtuosity. They themselves said they were mediocre musicians. But so what? They created one of the greatest bodies of work ever. I’ve noticed it’s usually top notch musicians who care about The Beatles’ technical abilities. For the rest of us mortals it was the sum of the parts that resulted in such great MUSIC! Where are all the amazing songs and albums created by all these critics??? Well?
During the 1970's/1980's I went to several clubs during the Punk era and FEW of them could play their instruments BUT that was part of the draw. They were my own age, and everyone was grooving to whatever sound they were putting down. Why, because it was MY age group
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm an ex session player ....
I'm " technically" better than all my heroes. But I didn't innovate or write any hit records ...Ego is a hell of a thing.
Well said!
We need both for good music
Quincy was involved in many more hits than the Beatles
Ain't it just. You hit the nail on the head. I could with 10,000 hours practice become amazing at an instrument. It doesn't, however, make me in the least bit creative
Top session players often contributed ideas that helped make tunes into hits.
Have you all watched "Get Back"? Paul comes in, tired. Sits down. Starts faffing on the bass.
10 mins later, a riff is starting to appear. Then he suddenly sings, "Get back!". George and Ringo join in.
George joins in on guitar. Ringo starts drumming. John comes in and he joins in. All the parts start to come together (right now).
A few days later, "Get Back" is recorded and it's #1 in UK for 17 weeks. #1 in 15 countries.
Quincy Jones can bugger off.
That was amazing
Yeah, he had that in the bag already and people are just drinking the McCartney Kool-Ade if you imagine 'that's the moment where he created the song'. No dude, only children believe in Santa Claus and all of McCartney's posing.
Over me
McCartney said in the documentary that he had been playing with that at home for several days. So it didn't just happen in front of your eyes. But it is still a good bit of song writing and how he did it.
I agree
Glenn Campbell was a monster player
Ditto, ditto and ditto..The guy was a GREAT guitar player just ask his contemporaries..Coming from a so so musician i have to laugh.
If Glen Campbell was into metal. He be shredding
True. And Buddy Rich was a monster.
And he couldsing as well as he could play.
@@johnclarke851 I liked Gene Krupa and Sandy Nelson better than Buddy Rich. Hell, I liked Jerry L playing better than Rich.
I met Quincy Jones on a flight into Washington, DC. We were both sitting in the front of the plane and as we landed and were disembarking he dropped an old leather portfolio full of music sheets.
The paper was strewn all over the floor on the plane. I felt sorry for him and stopped to pick up the sheets to help him.
Instead of being grateful he screamed at the top of his lungs at me yelling “DON’T TOUCH THAT!”
I looked at him and shrugged my shoulders as if to say “Have fun picking up your paper pal!”
And walked off the plane.
Needless to say, I came away from the experience thinking he was a royal jerk!
It doesn’t surprise me that a guy like him couldn’t keep his rude opinions to himself!!
That reaction by QJ is no surprise. I have found that uptight disrespectul arrogance like that is a typical trait of most people who are so high on themselves that they have lost touch with the humanity of their fellow human beings. Consequently, most of them live a lonely existence because they are miserable people to spend time with.
He showed his arrogance to you , and that comment about the Beatles is full of arrogance , ignorance and downright jealousy.
Your'e band mind and jealous.
@@BrianRoberson-k7g Huh???
Good story.
As a pro muso I've met very, very many top players and artists, and they've pretty much all been great. One notable exception was in Sydney, Australia in 1985 when I was on tour. I tried to introduce myself (politely) to a female artist staying at the same hotel (Sebel Town House) and she was very rude indeed. A certain Ms Lee Jones...
The craziest part of this video is finding out Buddy Rich said Glen Campbell was a poor musician. The man was a member of The Wrecking Crew & universally acclaimed by fellow guitarists.
Buddy Rich also said that _all_ "pop" music (country music particularly) was garbage. He was a complete ass.
Campell could play any string instrment .
Buddy Rich was a world class asshole...he denigrated almost everyone.
Have you watched his rant on RUclips? He was appearing on the Mike Douglas show and Mike even tried to steer him away from his jackassery. He just kept on and on. As @johngerson said, he was a complete asshole.
Buddy Rich said that about almost every musician at one time or another. Often expressed face to face while on stage in the middle of a show.
I work in a music store, and there's a joke we tell: "The difference between a jazz musician and a rock musician? A rock musician plays 3 chords to 3,000 people, while a jazz musician plays 3,000 chords to an audience of 3 people. :-))
I would agree with that but nevertheless that was a completely unprofessional comment for QJ to make. Certainly jazz is top level musicianship without a doubt.
Always thought the Beatles' chord progressions were interesting. I mean what you said is true overall except the Beatles' songs were unique, they most definitely didn't tie themselves down to three chords. Conversely if you really look beyond the flashy virtuousity in jazz or fusion, there's often not much interesting or compelling going on chord-wise
There is a sad part all around . . .
Jazz (which I enjoy, and Jazz/Fusion) has an audience that has been dwindling for many years, sadly.
Progressive Rock and Metal doesn't have nearly the audience of Pop, & Country . . . BUT, has a International fanbase, and most tour the world. And many have those "3,000 chords", complexity, or melodic work. And usually an "Album" full of quality music . . . like the Jazzers. But again, most are not playing arenas, unless they play a festival, or they were HUGE at one time and carried it on (from current Yes, Genesis when they re-grouped, to Metallica, Ozzy, etc.).
"Songs" will always win. But some of us want the envelope pushed with musicians, and all that goes with it.
😂
@@tracyanne8616....If The Beatles had not been a white band from England but rather a black group from Africa he would be falling all over himself praising them to the skies.
I remember reading an interview of Paul McCartney a few years back. Paraphrasing the gist of it... he was playing Guitar Hero with his granddaughter and she was smoking him. In typical 10 year old girl style, she picked up the nuances of the game fast and was teasing her grandpa that she was better. At which point it looked at her and said, "Yeah, well I wrote all these songs."
Game Over.
So basically Quincy has the maturity of a 10 year old girl.
A Racist girl.
LOL. Good point.
100% correct. Embarrassing.
Hey ! Quincy was dating Ivanka when she was 24 and he was 72.
Perfectly expressed, thanks.
I was working from home on Monday, decided to have a Beatles day, played back to back records for eight hours straight. It was an absolute joy from beginning to end, that's what music should be.
You just perfectly explained what I've know all along... that it isn't how well you play an instrument, but how much passion and creativity you put into your music. Was Bob Dylan a great guitar player, or a great harmonica player, or did he have a great voice?? NO.
Melody is King!
@@joshcharlat850
Tell that to rappers!!
Brilliant comment, thank you - I do the same sometimes and it's always unbeatably wonderful.
I just took your advice and played their entire first album, "Meet the Beatles" on Spotify. It made my entire day.
There are thousands and thousands of “virtuosos” out there who can play every song they’ve ever heard note-for-note perfectly, but who couldn’t have CREATED those songs themselves.
And there my friend, lies the difference!!😁🇬🇧🇬🇧
Creating amazing music from scratch is the magic.... not the playing of it.
Yes sir 💯 % correct
You can more easily become a virtuoso than a Beatle.
There's a guy called Mozart who'd like to put you right on that.............
With all due respect to Q, he's about the last producer I'd ever want working on a rock and roll record.
I agree, but why?
@@JStephs1950 I don’t know your reason, mine is Lack of experience in the genre
@@CharlieTWilbury Mine is the difference is Quincy's musical world and that of the Beatles - plus, what does he mean exactly? The Beatles would have really sucked in a jazz band.
Have you ever watched/heard a professional classically trained musician try to play Rock 'n' Roll? They're terrible at it.
@@JStephs1950 Yngwie Malmsteen is classically trained and he nails rock music. I think you're talking about someone who is classically trained and has no background in even listening to rock, or any other blues-based music.
@@rikk319 Yngwie is awful. An endless stream of meaningless noise. There is nothing musical nor communicative about a constant blathering of sound. Ill take ONE NOTE from Peter Green over every freaking blithering nonsense that Malmsteen ever played.
It's completely different styles of music. You don't expect a Rock & Roll musician to excel at Jazz, just like you don't expect a Country singer to excel at Opera. They all require different skills.
Exactly.
Also: Quincy was never to jazz what The Beatles are to rock. Quincy is not even to rock what The Beatles are to jazz, and every other style of music! Quincy is one of those great music figures, someone who worked with everybody and definitely had an amazing career, but his influence is simply nowhere near as vast as The Beatles, not even close.
@@KKMDStyle 100% wrong, "KKMD". #1) He NEVER "dominated" the music industry, what are you babbling about? He was A producer, who had hits, but he NEVER "dominated". Ever! Was never "the" producer of the moment, not even in the late 70s-80s #2) Wrong! He WAS known a recording artist......he has a string of albums - many of them crappy - to prove it! #3). What he's REALLY known for is his ARRANGING. And his FILM COMPOSING. Got it, dopey? He certainly is known for his producing of Thriller - which I guarantee is the ONLY thing you know about Quincy Jones - and he produced those cheesy Leslie Gore records. But it's "Arranged by Quincy Jones" that you see more than anything. Got it? Your comment is a shallow end of the pool joke, made by an imbecile who obviously knows NOTHING about music. Because you don't like music! You hate to listen to it! You like to TALK about it, but you hate to put in your ears.
Lots of us can play guitar better than the Beatles. But we're not the Beatles. To focus on their instrumental skill is to give yourself a PhD in point-missing.
@@paddymeboy They were the most successful band because of their songwriting. But the average superfan would never say that. Many of them truly believe that Ringo is the best drummer. John, Paul and George are the best singers, and Paul is the best bass player and they would justify that based on nothing more than the fame of The Beatles.
I appreciate how fair and non judgemental you are. So refreshing and nice.
I think he went too far. The statements by QJ are offensive and very unfair. They weren't virtuosos - and so many rock musicians were/are not - but calling them the worst "no playing MFs" of all time is offensive and ignorant in the extreme.
@@mplant1999 Yes indeed. But I appreciate that Fil didn't retaliate. That's how feuds and wars start. I'd rather let it go and have peace. Let people have their say. It doesn't change the facts.
@@anitapaulsen3282 Very good point! I agree entirely.
"Worst musicians in the world." That is ridiculously stupid to say.
yes - i am 65 year old - i never heard of quincy jones - why would i care what this nobody thinks - i was never a big beatles fan but this guy just sounds bitter - maybe because no one knows who he is
@@rigpa10 Er... being 65, being into music, and never hearing of Quincy Jones is not something to be proud of! He has a track record as one of the greatest producers of all. But that doesn't stop him saying stupid stuff. Clearly The Beatles were not the worst musicians in the world, nor were they bad musicians, and they had real unique abilities as musicians and singers, even if they were not the most technically competent to do sessions for other people.
Session musicians who crossed over into performers and writers include Elton John, Rick Wakeman, Jimmy Page, Glenn Campbell
Let me compare music to sports. Wayne Gretzky is arguably the best hockey player in history. He owns multiple records. By rights, he shouldn’t have been that good. He wasn’t the fastest skater, didn’t have the hardest shot, wasn’t at all physical…but what he DID have was a high hockey IQ. He succeeded with his brain. Same as the Beatles…they had a very high musical brain…and that counts for everything. QJ was careless saying what he did. It comes off as jealousy.
@@guynicoletti5811 I think they mostly had a lot of appeal for teenaged girls and they looked just rebellious enough for the middle class teens without going too far. Good melodies. Some great melodies. Not very interesting in the rhythm department.
@@pamelah848 that was early stuff. They continued to grow and learn and be creative. The ‘girl’ attraction pretty well went by the wayside when they stopped touring to concentrate on the music and recording. The point I was making was that they were brilliant musically without being individual musical virtuosos because they had good music instincts.
One of the things that slowed the Beatles down in the studio is that they were often being highly experimental, trying stuff no one had ever done before. That's a different kettle of fish than playing rhythm guitar in a style that you've been practicing every day for the last 20 years.
Great comment!
Not only trying different things on their instruments but also pioneering technical hardware.
Well said!
True, but even the simplest , least experimental arrangement was something they worked out in the studio, a time consuming process, 4 opinions finding common ground.
Also - from that perspective, were expectations properly set with the whole crew? Did Quincy expect them to bring 12 songs fully formed on day 1?
Seems like a silly, attention seeking, argument from Quincy. It's akin to criticizing the world's best author for being a mediocre typist.
This. Exactly.
A very good comment, I personally think the Beatles are the William Shakespeare of music and like Shakespeare they will never be forgotten
HA-HA-HA- I like that!
What a great analogy!
Great insightful comment.
My goodness, I can’t imagine my musical world, or popular music in general, without The Beatles, I certainly can’t say the same about Quincy!
And there you have it...👍
Absolutely correct
Quincy who?
@knickertwistcopperby6066 Cmon we just love the music WTF?
I can and do. 🙂
Quincy Jones saying that is the jazziest quote I ever heard. I even met many jazzmen in my musical journey who pretended to be able to write an entire Beatles album in one night. They never composed one interesting song to this day.
Are saying it would be good music if it sold? I've never equated good music or any art with sales. I love The Beatles and not knocking them at all but I think the times had a lot to do with The Beatles success. The market wasn't flooded as it is now. Rock 'n roll was still in it's infancy and had new plenty of room for new bands and for bands to develop the genre. Which The Beatles definitely did.
@@Cyrano66 yes of course.... how can you say it is good if only 5 appreciate it and purchase it. Of course if you like it you will buy it.
To this day, with the exception of maybe zeppelin, no band or artist wrote and composed as many songs that sounded as good as the Beatles, so I don't think timing was the only thing the Beatles had in their favour. I mean, the Beatles have 5 albums certified as classics, excluding anything they made before rubber soul as well as mmt. I don't think even Floyd, Dylan or Zeppelin had that many classics. Music is subjective ofcourse, this is just my opinion and that of many others.
I feel like the main lesson from this situation is that having a good "ear" for music is more important than just being able to play. If you separate those things, I can see how you could say that the Beatles don't know how to play the instruments as well as some other professionals. But they were geniuses with composition.
@@Cyrano66the right band members in the right time window
Actually I think being able to write songs at the level the Beatles did, and then performing at the level they did, singing and playing, is on another level!
Great comment!
Why there has never been another!
One of the best comments on here...thx! 😊
Virtuoso on their instrument they were not. I'm hard pressed to come up with better song writers. Why can't we just appreciate them for who they were.
The Beatles were four self contained guys with the perfect chemistry
People will still be talking about them hundreds of years from now
Word !
I remember Steve Vai said something like this: You can be a good player, but creating music is another different muscle. Even Al dimeola made a CD Tribute to the Beatles... He is a fan... We are not worthy
Grant Green's cover of A Day in the Life comes to mind as well...
They never claimed to be the best musicians but they were definitely the best song writers. Many technical musicians are a little jealous of successful bands. You nailed the explanation brother!
The Beatles were excellent at Lyrics and they were able to Harmonize and blend their voices. They were Master's at put a song together.
The Beatles were just great artists. They wrote wonderful, meaningful, emotive songs that were incredibly memorable. Not something most jazz players are interested in.
My goodness. What an asinine thing to say for Quincy Jones. I've learned a few of their songs on guitar & piano...& have been a fan since childhood. There are so many tricky, unique, & beautiful instrumental parts to their songs -- not just their top notch singing & harmonizing. Everything from Blackbird, Here comes the Sun, I Feel Fine, Michelle, Penny Lane, Norwegian Wood, Eleanor Rigby, Something, etc. Amazing chord changes, hooks, short solos.
From those songs... yes... to what? You didn't finish your sentence, joey
@@99tonnes,
Is being pedantic really important in this context? I understood what he was saying, despite the sentence structure.
@@SuziQ. Well, you call it pedantic. But imagine if Paul McC had written, say, "Blackbird singing when it's not that light/ Hey hey blackbird hope you feel all right/All your life/you probably wanted to fly around a bit"...It's not as good, is it?
I did understand joey - I just wondered why he didn't bother putting "to" in the middle of his list. Although it wasn't really an appropriate use of the 'from...to' construction anyway, as there was no progression in the order - he starts and ends with two 1969 George songs, with a random selection of favourites in between.
You call it pedantic, but you could also think that a tiny effort can go a long way.The difference between the Beatles and Rory Storm and the Hurricanes is that the Beatles made a tiny bit more effort. (Discuss, with examples, in not more than 250 words.)
OK, I was just being pedantic! I don't think it has to be "important" to justify a bit of pedantry. After all, this whole thread is just a bunch of people getting worked up over a passing remark someone made about the Beatles - is that really important?
Nice of you to come and stand up for joey, anyway. Peace and love, as Ringo always says.
@@99tonnes Oh, I see! You think he misused the "from...to" construction. Perhaps he merely meant he liked everything from each of the listed songs. You could still complain, of course, but it would be about something else.
@@drs-xj3pb That's a great point! "Everything from" would be an unusual way to express that (compared to say "everything about") - but then, kudos to joey for originality! It just illustrates how innovation is sometimes harshly judged by those who are not ready for it. One thinks of the riot that supposedly greeted the first performance of Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring'. Igor had the last laugh there, for sure!
Now, what else can I complain about? Well, I prefer Fil's videos where he talks us through the intricacies of performance rather than goes on about whether one great musician's dissing of a great band's technical skills is justified or not. On the other hand, I love the way the fans get all hot under the collar about it as if it somehow threatened the Beatles or meant that QJ was a bad guy. Will that do?
Quincy Jones also said that Hendrix sucked and that George Johnson of the Brothers Johnson was far superior. Quincy has always been an arrogant asshole. I'll never forgive him for dragging a sick and near the end of his life Miles Davis out to do a concert that did nothing for his legacy except tack on a sad ending and allow Quincy to bask in Miles aura. I have no respect for him.
Agree 100%
he wrote the Sanford & Son theme song, let's give him a little credit for that brain worm
Give the brother some love. After all, he married a white woman.
He's also always been close to the darker side of celebrity. You know the one... the Hollyweird one.
@@20alphabet So did OJ. How'd that work out?
A musician buddy of mine said something profound back when we were in a band together in college. I remember it to this day and the realization has shaped both of our lives. "Great players are a dime a dozen, great songwriters are the precious commodity."
At the time he said this quote, Quincy had a documentary to promote. One of the easiest ways to get attention from the press is to say something negative about someone who is more famous than you are. Also, I once heard Paul McCartney in an interview asked about his guitar playing. He basically said he wasn't a professional guitar player (I'm pretty sure he considers himself a pro bass player though). He said he could play the songs he writes on guitar but that he was not up to the level of session players on the guitar. I think these guys had somewhat realistic understandings of their instrumental abilities. I also recall John saying that he was no Eric Clapton but that he could communicate with his guitar which is what music is anyway.
Exactly. But the batshit crazy thing about it is that Quincy complained about Ringo's drumming on a record that he didn't play drums on. Ringo only sang on Sentimental Journey, a deliberate decision to be just the singer. Dementia?
John also said that perhaps it would have been better for Frank Sinatra if he was a plumber - when FS spent years “reducing” him as Q.J. is now trying to do.
I think it's pretty common for these great artists to claim someone else is better. They've all done it. Hendrix once claimed Terry kath of Chicago was the best he'd seen. We were blessed with a time that created true great musicians. No autotune or other bs. The real thing!!!👍🎹🎸☮️
@@mgebi1 It's pretty common for not pretty common.
He said some nasty egocentric coke addled things about other people too, shame that he felt the need to lower himself.
Oddly enough, Eddie van Halen wanted to learn from Glen Campbell and asked Alice Cooper (who was Campbell's friend) who made it happen and he had a lesson with Glen.
Glen Campbell was a member of the infamous band of US session musicians called 'The Wrecking Crew' ... One wonders who was in the UK equivalent?!
@@md-ps2hx People such as Elvis Costello's Dad, perhaps. Jimmy Page was doing session work for years, but who knows what ever happened to him? There was a music and recording scene in the UK before the Beatles, full of talent. Research Peter Asher, a Brit who went to the US, who demanded that the Record labels name and credit the musicians that followed the Wrecking Crew, perhaps fostering the virtuoso talent of the US and helping to craft so much of what followed after the 60s.
Alice Cooper, in an interview, said that Glen Campbell was one of the top 5 guitarists in the world.
If there's anyone who knows the highest quality music in the WORLD, it's Alice... Cooper..???
@@md-ps2hxBig Jim Sullivan and Vic Flick . Check them out.
Members of Beatles were good enough to play their songs,which were among the best songs ever made...
All the time , remember "Love me do "........
Not all the time , remember "Love me do " ........
no Wrecking Crew here
Anyone who has tried to play Beatles material will realise how subtly complex and different their compositions are. Their use of chords and changes was diverse and unusual for the time. They developed their skills in playing live over hundreds of performances
Outtakes prove they played, they discuss chords and time changes etc
I think a true artist isn't always someone with extreme technical ability. But someone who works extremely well within their own limitations, who works with what they've got. Someone whose creativity overcompensates for whatever it is they are lacking. If they've got a cheap guitar that's missing a string and they can't afford a new string, they have to find another note to make it work. The blues and soul food both come from that perseverance and creativity. Great job Fil! I always admire your patience and diplomacy and your great knowledge of music. Don't ever lose that, man.
I would not give Quincy a pass. They were great musicians and it’s not about being a studio musician. Being tasteful and melodic is just as important in being a great musician than just technical skills. I am sure many of the musicians Quincy used could never do what the Beatles did. Jimmy Paige was considered a very good studio musician and great player but he wasn’t always technically perfect in Zeppelin. Saying that the Beatles especially Paul is one of the worst musicians is just ignorance from Quincy.
Dude, you just contradicted yourself. Saying it's melody not about musicianship. They weren't "great" on their instruments, but good enough.
I think Quincy said that because Faul, the fake Paul McCartney since 1966 when Paul died in a car crash, isn't a very good musician, certainly not like the original. The real Paul's last album was "Rubber Soul." Look at the changes after that. Read attorney, Tina Foster's book, "Plastic Macca" and decide for yourself. I didn't want to believe it but I never like Paul after the Beatles broke up and probably before that. Also, "Justice for James Paul McCartney" is an excellent site and also on YT.
@@pjmurphy920😂
@@pjmurphy920 👈Found the Wacka-Doodle. 🐔 🐥
@@pjmurphy920Perhaps YOU should read a few more books!
it's exhausting when people rank virtuosity over expression.
@anotherjoshua The Beatles led to prog rock. Beatles-->Moody Blues-->Yes. Stones led to nasty rock. The Rolling Stones-->Velvet Underground-->The Stooges.
A lot more hard practice goes into perfecting the former, and maybe some feel a little credit is due for that. Meanwhile, I can appreciate Ray Brown, Stanley Clark, but especially Paul McCartney when it comes to finding the perfect bass part.
@@johnpolitis7929 beg to differ. The Rolling Stones are extremely melodic. And just the right parts imo. Just a little rough around the edges.
@@daroob true can say the same for Velvet Undreground they could occasionally be melodic / rough around the edges, more so Stones though
Amen
Paul McCartney was always a great bassist. As far as composing rock music, Lennon and McCartney are pure gold. Their interesting chord changes were way ahead of the American rockers in the 1960's.
Exactly
Great...completely subjective, based on song catalog. No one thinks he was top tier.
Yes, Paul is highly regarded as a bassist, and Ringo is as a drummer by his peers. Lennon's (especially) chord changes were solid gold. George Harrison, well, he is also highly regarded. Quincy gets no pass from me on this.
Chord changes and chord voicings especially!
@@lauraallen55 "gets no pass" is a stupidly-meaningless thing to say and everybody needs to quit pretending your ignorance is intelligence
Very well put. This channel has been such a refreshing find for me. Your perspectives and technical knowledge is something that I, a 65 year old live engineer from the 80s, can understand and relate to.
People get sidetracked by technical abilities. Most bands do not rise to success based upon one musician’s individual talent. Typically it’s a collaboration of their talents.
In the Beatles, we see they’re a mix of all things good. I think every technically oriented musician can take any Beatles song and technically do it better. That said, it’s the human element that makes a song something we want to listen too. Thats why live vocals are often more appreciated than canned autotuned vocals.
The Beatles were entertainers who learnt their craft playing live in front of the most demanding of club goers in Germany.
Song writing is a craft that many instrumentalists are not capable of doing.
I can't speak for places other than the UK, but the revolutionary progress in rock music (and all its other adjuncts) during the 1960s-70s, was driven largely by people who never attended music colleges, and therefore didn't know there were any rules to be observed. That's what made the music they created so fresh and exciting. Instrumental virtuosity wasn't a prerequisite when, as certainly was the case with The Beatles, creative genius and inventiveness would suffice (and not a little instrumental and vocal proficiency either). Quincy Jones knew full well he was talking hyperbolic rubbish - but he had a book to sell.
Yes, sometimes behind a cage while the patrons where throwing beer bottles!
You think Quincy didn't learn his trade by playing in bands to large crowds, night after night, often two or three shows a night? Or that he wasn't a songwriter/composer and a good arranger in his own right, even at the age of twenty-five?
You people are funny. Or just ignorant.
@@thomascroft5076 That is simply not true, Virtually all the keyboard players from that time were classically trained
Excellent presentation, Fil. A few other points: Quincy Jones made this statement about the Beatles and Paul McCartney in particular: “They were no-playing motherfuckers. Paul [McCartney] was the worst bass player I ever heard.” I understand that Jones and his ilk are accustomed to a certain type of studio atmosphere. However, the Beatles pioneered melodies and their attendant sounds with very primitive equipment, even for that era. Several sources state that the studio equipment used in the places where they recorded was woefully archaic compared to what was then being used in the US. Yet they set the world on fire with their artistry and creativity with the tools at hand; neither Jones nor Buddy Rich ever came close to the renown enjoyed by those to whom they showed disdain. To make statements such as this about fellow artists is undignified, but what do I know.
Well, Michael Jackson's Thriller was the best selling album of all time for 40ish years. Produced by Quincy Jones so yes he's essentially immortal in the music world. There was surely some sprinted rivalry there to outrun the incredible achievement of those 4 lads from Liverpool.
@@Cajundaddydave Thanks for the reply, Cajundaddydave, and well said. My input in response is that Jones was not a performer or the centerpiece of that gorgeous album. MJ was. The Beatles were the creators, arrangers, producers, and performers on nearly all of their songs. By the way, I’m a Cajun, too, my friend. Born and raised in Lafourche Parish with Cajun French as my first language. 👍 Go Neville Brothers!
@@Cajundaddydave,
That album was played by studio musicians of the highest caliber, like Jeff & Steve Porcaro, and Greg Phillinganes, and even Eddie Van Halen, and Steve Lukather on one track, and David Paich on another.
People are not going to remember the producer.
The best translation of what Quincy Jones said is "I don't understand this music, it's too fresh for my very orthodox perspective"
Jazz fan here...excellent presentation FIL.
I love the Beatles. But professionally, the Beatles fade into the background compared to several Jazz groups that I can name.
You're talking about a good college basketball team versus a professional team. Head to head ,that's how to think about it.
Maybe you're a Duke fan. But there's no way Duke could beat the Denver Nuggets.
Nothing wrong with Duke, but Nuggets just play in a different league .
And as FIL hinted at. Quincy has higher standards.
Quincy has produced and conducted much more than Michael Jackson.
Try Sinatra, or Miles Davis, and many more.
So he's not chopped liver.
Creating a great melody and harmony that is interesting, original, and conveys emotion is much more challenging than a technical showcase. If you can do both, that's even more impressive, but many of the "shredders" seem incapable of the former.
Not to mention a great melody and harmony that are still well-remembered, revered, and on the lips or hummed along by people the moment they hear it 50-60 years later, and has inspired countless musicians in the intervening years.
@@oboogie2 Hold your head up, you silly girl
Look what you've done
When you find yourself in the thick of it
Help yourself to a bit of what is all around you
Silly girl
Yep. Put on a Joe Satriani or Yngwie Malmsteen etc record is not something I'm ever going to say.
Arnold Palmer looked awful swinging a golf club. Walter Ray Williams looked awful rolling a bowling ball. So I guess you could say the Beatle’s results speak for themselves. Quincy is a jealous bum.
@@129jasper1 Actually, I dont equate the two. Joe is quite melodic and incredibly well phrased. Malmsteen? "uh.....could you play more notes please"?
You’ve all heard of The Wrecking Crew? An LA group of studio musicians that played on everything from the Monkees to the Mamas and the Papas, to the Beach Boys, to the Byrds, and literally hundreds of other top ten artists in the 60s. Now, compare them to the Beatles… The songs are just as danceable, the grooves are just as cool, but the approach in the studio is totally different. The Beatles would go in to the studio and arrange the songs while they were being written; sometimes George or John or Paul would bring in a home demo recording to give the rest an idea of what they were looking for. They had been used to working together for years, and had done hundreds of hours together playing live club gigs in Germany and England. Often especially in the early days, the songs would be recorded and mixed the same day, or maybe recorded on Saturday and mixed on Sunday sort of thing.
Now, the Wrecking Crew session guys, they would get called in as needed, so it wouldn’t always be the same group of four people, indeed the size of the group would vary depending on who was writing, recording, producing, etc. Sometimes the songwriters would come in with a “lead sheet” or “chord chart”, which might have the lyrics, the chords, the bars (measures) and the melody written down; maybe even a signature line here and there such as an intro melody or arrangement idea. But the session players would, sometimes very quickly, listen carefully to the song, talk with the producer or writer to get their ‘intent’ as to what they were looking for, they’d maybe run the song down once or twice and then start rolling tape. They would be shooting for getting a solid ‘bed track’ or ‘rhythm track’ with the basic instruments: bass, rhythm guitars, drums, keys; and then for them, the track would be done. Later the singers, and maybe orchestral strings or woodwinds, might be brought in, sometimes right away, sometimes next week; they would do their ‘overdubs’, and then the track would be ready for mixing, which would likely be on yet another day, maybe even at a different studio, that had a better sounding room for mixes or more choices of outboard gear like compressors, limiters, equalizers, reverb plates or chambers, etc.
So you’ve got different types of players with different sets of skills for each of these approaches to recording. Could the Beatles, as individual players, have been able to handle the pressures of playing ‘tracks to order’ with the Wrecking Crew, or the Muscle Shoals guys? Maybe for a song or two, but overall I doubt it. Paul maybe, but the thing is, the studio guys all had to be pretty good sight readers (with a couple of exceptions), whereas none of The Beatles could read musical notation at all. And could the Session Player guys make it in the studio cutting tracks with the likes of The Beatles? Probably. A good example of this would be Billy Preston when he first comes on the scene in the Get Back film; he sets up pretty quietly and low key, doesn’t say much at first, just finds his piano parts and fits in. Later on, he’s loosened up quite a bit, is kidding around, laughing, ‘one of the guys’. John even says he should just ‘join the group’…
Anyway, for what all that is worth, that's how I see the difference between these two different types of musicians that coexisted back in the day; guys that were in the group, VS guys that were studio players. Similar, but also very different sets of skills at play for each, albeit with a lot of 'crossover'...
Quincy Jones talks a lot of 💩 on people. That’s one of the things he’ll be remembered for. Bitter.
@samhugh4965
Buddy Rich did the same, the
times I've read about him, or
saw him in interviews.
Nobody is going to remember Quincy Jones in 100 years. People will still be talking about and analyzing the Beatles in 100 years.
If Quincy Jones had produced the Beatles, rather than George Martin, then we wouldn't be talking about the Beatles.
Quincy Jones could work with the top crop of people, and that is why a poor chap with a horrible timbre could become so huge with just humming a simple melody. You know how that works, if the money is there in that place it means everybody will run to that corner even if it smells bad there.
@@BenLapke Except for the Sanford And Son theme. That will ALWAYS be remembered.
On Dec. 9, 1980 concerning John Lennon, George Martin was asked, "What sort of musician was he?" George answered, "Well, by the standards of great musicians, he wasn't a great musican, but he was a great man. "
The amazing thing about the Beatles, is they created massive songs with what they have. Additionally, Lennon is still one of the best rhythm players that have ever existed.
He was wrong. Lennon was a phenomenal vocalist, and clearly a brilliant guitarist to have come up with works like Across the Universe. John Lennon was a GENIUS, eat it! Music is ultimately about composition. You can hire stunt players. You can't hire that many great writers, and writing takes as many years of development, assuming you even have the talent for it.
@@foto21 Agreeed. You might as well accuse Kobe Bryant of being a bad athlete because he plays ping pong poorly.
Bless his heart!
@knickertwistcopperby6066I have a musician cousin who doesn’t believe the Beatles wrote all those beautiful songs. He’s also a retired disgruntled barber who can’t forgive them for hurting barbers’ bottom line.
I think most of us do not have professional ears. I listen to what pleases me. The Beatles sound pleases me. The expression is more important than the search for "perfection", whatever that is. Billie Holliday did not have the greatest voice, but who else could sing "Strange Fruit" as powerfully as she? The search for technical perfection contradicts what music represents to many of us who are not professional musicians.
Nailed it, esp about BH. Jimi Hendrix, Steve Lukather, EVH, SRV, Satriani, Vai, they'd all have given their right arm to come up with John Lennon's dirty and nasty guitar line in Get Back.
Terrific video Fil. You make a wonderful case and explanation for this quote. Very well thought out and presented. Thanks!
I was and am way worse than any of the Beatles and can prove it.
We'll take your word for it and BELIEVE YOU!
me too!
Lol. Good one
best comment
same here!
First, Paul is a world class bass player who plays complex basslines that are often contrapuntal melodies and does so, live, while singing. Not exactly a bum. Second, John’s rhythm guitar is often very innovative, unique, and, yes, difficult, all of which he often did live while singing. Dig up Quincy Jones and have him play This Boy while singing live, and we’ll see who the terrible musician is. Third, George, while not a pyrotechnical wonder, composed wonderfully melodic and perfect solos that he could play live while singing. Maybe not awful. In fact, the whole point about The Beatles is that everything they did as individuals was meant to serve the song, not their egos. Which they did to perfection over and over again. Terrible musicians can’t do that.
Now, as to Ringo. I’ve read The Abbey Road Recording Sessions from cover-to-cover and have no memory of him taking hours to lay down ANY drum track, not even when, during the sessions for the White Album, he was being dragged from studio-to-studio. Yes, the drum track for Helter Skelter was recorded by a no talent. Nonsense!
Further, Mark Lewisohn states in that book-for which he listened to every scrap of recorded material by the group, track-by-track, overdub by overdub-that you can count the number of times a take breaks down, over the course of seven years, because of Ringo on the fingers of both hands. And a lot of those tracks are very complicated and are in all manner of time signatures and tempos. Not the work of a terrible drummer.
Finally, it would have been difficult for any drummer to come in and play the track in a way that would have fooled Ringo into thinking he had played it because Ringo is a lefthanded drummer who plays a righthanded kit. He leads with his left hand, which is not what would be natural to most drummers.
At best, Quincy was hallucinating when he related this anecdote. More likely, he wasn’t “telling it like it is,” but, rather, telling it like it wasn’t.
Quincy need to sit in the corner and play the spoons!!! Just Old and Senile....................
Good commentary. Especially salient the fact that Ringo is a leftie and plays a right hand drum set.
If and when Ringo took time to finish a drum part, it's because he was *_composing_* the part.
I think you've missed the point. Fil understood it and was able to differentiate. You're too defensive. Calm down and try to be objective.
@@Cyrano66 ?
Exceptional video, well done mate! I have to say that the nuances between being a instrumentalist and a singer songwriter are totally different, and something that most fans and musicians don't really appreciate. it is also the difference between communicating and showing off. Absolutely love this video and will quote it in a response video, I will do this week on my tiny channel. Great job on explaining all of this in a fair, concise and clear way.
In one of the Miles interview, John, when asked about their instrumental ability, said they were "average, just average," but that Paul was one of the "most innovative bass players ever."
Are you telling me Quincy Jones never had a hard time getting something down, I call bullsh*t bigtime bullsh*t.
What information do you have to share here? What facts are you going from?
He was a producer, and a composer, but not a much of a musician. Now he’s 91, and re-writing history.
@@jamescarter3196 Logic? Reality maybe?
The guys who worked with him would beg to differ
The combined artistic might of the Beatles dwarfs Quincy Jones, Quincy Jones is a great musician, but he's a small cog compared with what the Beatles achieved. The Beatles changed the musical landscape, along with Sir George Martin's help, they became the greatest group in history - looking at their back catalogue is mind boggling !!
They are one of the great bands.
Stevie Wonder has written more hit songs than the beatles. Research it!!!
I was 12 years old in '64 and my first hearing of "Love me do" would forever change how I thought about music . Gee this is different to all the "Bobby" songs, ie Vee,Rydell,Vinton. And so the revolution began. Sorry but you are wrong Quincy. My opinion only.
You can say anything you like about Quincy, right or wrong... he set the bar.
John Lennon freely admitted that he didn't consider himself a real great musician he was a musician but he was mostly a singer songwriter
Agree to Completely disagree
What did you want Lennon to say "Yeah, I'm great, me."
There's this thing called humility which some people are blessed with. Something Quincy Jones clearly lacks.
Most people have never heard the names of the best musicians in the world. It's so silly to try and compare snd contrast and denigrate other writers, singers and musicians.
Yes. I never liked the Beatles, not when I was young, and still not now. BUT, that doesn't mean they were poor musicians, I'm not qualified to say that. Those who are are still using their subjective judgment in addition to objective points, and subjective can still change from year to year or performance, even. I don't think I even considered Eric Clapton a musician until the benefit for George Harrison, when something about the whole performance struck a cord with me, and now I look for his music, especially those with other musicians, such as JJ Cale. I'm sure others will tell me I'm wrong in my opinion, but that proves the point about the power of subjective opinion and not totally facts.
@@beckasmith6725It's like comparing singers, did Steve Marriott have a better voice than Mick Jagger? yes, does Karen Carpenter have a better voice than Elton John? yes, but it just doesn't matter, you can appreciate them equally.
This was the quote from Quincy:
“I remember once we were in the studio with George Martin, and Ringo had taken three hours for a four-bar thing he was trying to fix on a song,” the producer recalled. “He couldn’t get it. We said, ‘Mate, why don’t you get some lager and lime, some shepherd’s 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 didn’t sound so bad.’ And I said, ‘Yeah, motherf*cker, because it ain’t you.’ “
Let’s break that down:
This session was from Ringo’s Sentimental Journey album, which was a collection of standards recorded entirely with studio musicians. Ringo only sang, he didn’t perform.
George Martin was the producer. Quincy did the arrangement for “Love is a Many Splendored Thing” and no other songs.
- Why would Ringo drum on this one song and nothing else on the entire album?
- There is no way George Martin would “allow” Ringo to be treated in such a manner.
- I’m sorry, but there is no way Ringo or any competent musician would not know his own drumming.
- That’s pretty damn patronizing…go get a shepherds pie and a lager and lime at the pub? Okay, Yank…cool story.
What we do know is that the track was recorded in LA and Ringo overdubbed his vocals. They were unhappy with that and so Quincy went to Abbey Road to record another version, to which Ringo added vocals. Strings and other instruments were added later. It sounds like QJ simply couldn’t settle on anything he liked and has fabricated this story to embarrass Ringo.
Great comment!
Thanks!
Absolutely. It’s a phony story. It’s a known fact that Ringo was a human metronome. In many cases the other Beatles would have to do multiple takes to get their parts down and Ringo usually got it in just a couple takes and was a fantastic steady consistent backup player.
@@johnclarke851 and not just that, listening to that track on the album shows it was a very basic pattern, minimal flourishes. There’s no way Ringo could have had trouble with it.
Thanks for that information
In 100 years the Beatles will still be heard - will Quincy?
I was nuts about the Beatles, and I remember my mother saying that in 20 years, no one would remember their music. 20 years later I was in an elevator and the Muzak was playing a Beatles song---made me laugh out loud.
Yeah, his work will still be heard and you're just demonstrating massive ignorance, not intelligence. It's fine to be mad at what he says but not fine to make up bullshit out of stupidity.
@@jamescarter3196 F Quincy Jones, he's just a jealous a - hole
@@jamescarter3196 I think Michael Jackson will be what people hear in 100 yrs time alongside the Beatles, only the future nerds will care about either QJ or George Martin.
Quincy who??!
And still Paul McCartney paid handsome tribute to Quincy Jones upon his recent death. Some are true gentlemen. Others, less so...
Hit the nail right on the head there.
This was such a kind and reasoned response. I am not the best singer in the world, I am definitely not the best guitarist or pianist. I write songs, accompanying myself on either guitar or piano. So...am I musician or not? Maybe I am the worst musician as well? Good grief! There are ballet dancers, ballroom dancers, modern dancers, dancers of various countries. Are they not ALL dancers? There is an aspect in music I do not appreciate- hyper criticism! As a piano teacher, isn't my goal to give them the skills to play for their whole lives at whatever level they achieve, playing the music they love? So what, if when they are 80 and still playing Chopin someone hears them and says, "They are heavy on the pedal!" Good grief! They are over 80 and still playing! Grrrr.....
There’s a quote which I’ll have to paraphrase but it states if only the birds with the most perfect songs “sing” the forests would be silent.
@@robinmaloney1069 Good quote!
Firstly, "musician" is a word that is clearly defined differently by different people and in different contexts. Secondly, I would ask *why* he would say that - what was his motivation? At best, it reflects a lack of character and discretion. At worst, a pettiness and lack of humility. The entire world didn't embrace The Beatles because they were "the worst" of anything. Their music will be around for a long, long time. Yeah, "reality check" was a very tactful way to describe it.
Paul got with his wife-to-be, actress Peggy Lipton, before Quincy got with her.
His motivation was jealousy. The Beatles were 100 times bigger tha Quincy. Because he could play more notes, he thought the crown should belong to him.
You are right; the entire world did not embrace the Beatles.
@@johnholmes912 No artist or band is loved by all, but the Beatles came closer to universal acclaim than almost anyone.
@@johnholmes912 of course. But probably not because they were "the worst musicians in the world."
Fil - you have a natural ability to explain things that can be complicated - in an easy to understand manner. You are so good at engaging your viewers. I really enjoyed this - Thank You.
I feel disrespected. . . I AM THE WORST MUSICIAN IN THE WORLD. Quincy needs to listen to me then reevaluate. . .
ha-ha, great comment ... fits the main point made in the video
😂😂😂😂 Oh come on! You can’t be that bad, can you?
@@MsAppassionata You have no idea. . . When your LP tells you that you need MORE Paul, you know you're in trouble.
I might have to battle you for the title🤣
@@1oolabob Dammit! I knew there would be a challenger! Maybe we should form a band. . .
Quincy Jones was famously not a very good musician himself. And he was accustomed, as a producer, of dealing with studio pros, not rock bands. I consider McCartney an excellent musician and composer, and the rest of the Beatles were definitely okay musicians. Even go back and listen to their early stuff--it takes major energy.
John Lennon was as great a composer as McCartney.
Yeah Jones only a decent trumpet player. He has a lot of nerve criticizing others.
McCartney was NOT a better musician than the other Beatles. You don't know what you are talking about. George was one of the best slide guitarists ever. listen to his playing on "Cheer Down". Your comment is trendy but not accurate.
@@nonrepublicrat George was good with the slide, but I would hesitate a long, LONG time before calling him "one of the best." Depends on how long your list of "the best" is, I suppose.
Well everybody that worked with QJ said that he was a great musician.
Quincy Jones shot zero on many. After years of claiming that Elvis was racist (absolute nonsense), I'm not surprised. Envy is really terrible. I like the Beatles although they are not my favourites. I have never found them very nice or friendly but nobody can deny they had a big role in music's history.
You nailed it with this comment. I was thinking the exact same thing. It appears that Quincy has some very serious issues going on here. His Elvis comments have been debunked through and through.
@@MG-rg3jo Exactly...if there is one thing absolutely sure is that Elvis was not a racist 🤣 He could like him or not but spreading such false accusations just made him ridiculous in my eyes. Even more considering the many testimonies of black people who have told only splendid things about Elvis and how he treated them... from his backing singers to famous people such as Muhammad Ali, James Brown, BB King, Sammy Davis Junior, Cissy Houston and many others.
@@MG-rg3jo
Seems I heard Quincy has Dementia.
"Never found them nice or friendly"? Beatles was all about love, positivity and good vibes. Are we talking about the same group?
@@MIB_63 well sorry...it's my personal perception. Honestly, I've always found them a bit unpleasant. I think they had a lot of talent in writing songs but vocally they never told me much. Obviously it's my personal taste. But there is no doubt that they made music history.
What Quincy Jones seems to forget is that he most likely would not have been in a studio producing records if not for the Beatles. Also, the Beatles never claimed to be the best musicians in the world but were a great BAND.
Fil, you did a great job of diplomatically analyzing Quincy Jones' comment. I wouldn't be as kind to Mr. Jones. Yes, he's used to working with virtuoso session players. I know a lot of them, along with classically trained musicians . . . none of which have .001% the talent of The Beatles. Those Fabs were pure geniuses. They were the very best at what they did. In addition to being the best, greatest band that ever existed . . . They wrote, recorded, and co-produced the greatest songs ever . . . and possible ever will be. They focused on the song . . . the feel . . . the vibe . . . melody and harmony and rhythm. They strived for originality . . . pushing the bar up, up, up. They were legendary vocalists as well. Instrument wise, Lennon was a gutsy rhythm player. Harrison wrote and played timeless riffs. Ringo was the king of feel and created unforgettable beats. McCartney could do it all, and I'd go as far as to say Sir Paul could be a virtuoso on any instrument if he focused on it. Quincy Jones was clearly jealous, IMO.
You're just blurting out a bunch of dipshit-fanboy nonsense about the Beatles, not elucidating a valid viewpoint. It's ridiculous how you people pretend the Beatles are so infallible that you can make up opposite-of-reality lies and act like you're smart for it.
Keep in mind that Paul McCartney dated and banged Jones's to-be wife, actress Peggy Lipton, before Quincy got with her.
Why would Quincy be jealous? He's held in ridiculously high esteem in the world of music and is incredibly rich.
Quincy is a complete ass for making such a comment. Nobody ever worked harder at their craft than the Beatles and nobody did more to popularize pop music than they did. Quincy doesn’t have much humility and it shows.
Yes! And I'm sure some of the "Virtuoso " musicians that Quincy admired ,covered at least one Beatles song in their careers. Probably "Yesterday ". 😊
Burt Bacharach and Hal David certainly worked harder at their craft ricks - and it shows.
@themidnightchoir Missing the point.
@themidnightchoir Practicing is the only means of working hard? Not playing night after night, many hours a night, for hundreds of nights, at a dive bar in a city where you don't speak the language. That's not hard work. Only practicing.
@themidnightchoir He was too busy composing While My Guitar Gently Weeps and Something.
McCartney himself in an old Beatles interview from the sixties admitted they were not great musicians but they described themselves as just adequate. When asked why he thinks the fans love their music, he replied I guess they love adequate music.
The Beatles were PERFECT musicians, they played the right notes, in the most economical way.
What rubbish. Just listen to Revolver and the vast range of invention in composition.
Mcartney is regarded by many professional bass players as one of the best bass players of all time
Average musicians that were inspired musical geniuses. Not everyone is a Hendrix,Bonham,Entwhistle or other genius instrumentalist. Their vocals,harmonies and composition are damn near untouchable. As previously mentioned,McCartney was a very innovative bassist. I think "Q" is a bit jealous and is more jazz,soul oriented.
Lennon even said he didn't think he was technically good on the guitar. But he said he was an artist and you could give him a tuba and he could get something from it that was good.
Phil @ Wings of Pegasus - Thank you for that very insightful peek into the musical perspectives and experience of Quincy and Ringo. If we only had sensitive interpreters for all of our flawed, human interactions, we would learn to be more understanding and empathetic. Bless you.
Fil, this was a very interesting discussion ! You have presented the facts and given us an objective viewpoint ! Well done , Fil ! 💜
The Beatles were songwriters. That was their strength.
McCartney is a brilliant musician …one of the best ever
Songwriters and (together with George Martin) absolute geniuses in the recordings studio. Nobody else comes close.
Bingo!
The music of Van Halen was rubbish. If it wasn't for Eddie Van Halen himself, they wouldn't have made it as a band. What are they known for? Great songs and music? No, just that stupid tapping that Eddie did.
They were great musicians as well.
Look at McCartney's bass playing though, he is a master of that instrument and his lines were incredible. A band is about playing your part to create a sound greater than each individual by themselves.
And he could sing lead and or harmony flawlessly while playing those bass lines
He aint bad on the ole piano , drums and guitar as well
Quincy could never create a catalogue of original music to match The Beatles. When all is said and done, The Beatles will be remembered 1000 years from now, Quincy who?
I like your analysis. It reminds me of a story that Leon Russell (a former member of the so-called "Wrecking Crew") used to tell. He asked George Harrison to play a guitar solo on one of his albums ("Wedding Album"). Leon was satisfied with the first take. George was not. So George recorded take after take (anyone of which would suffice for Leon). Eventually, Leon mentioned that there was one take that he really liked and suggested they listen to it again. Leon chose the first take (any would have done). He played it back to George and George agreed that it was the right take - job done! 🙂
If we haven't got creativity we tend to technicality
In a nutshell👍
There's always a measure of emotion in Quincy's comment that can't be ignored also. Fil your points are spot on.
Maybe Paul McCartney should ask Quincy Jones to compose a few songs & then call him the worst composer in the world
If Jones wasn't a musician, what he said would have just been dopey. But he's an accomplished musician and to insult the Beatles with such unprofessional disrespect reveals deep things about Jones' head and heart. His foolishness makes me cringe.
Trumpet player to producer. That doesn’t make him an authority on pop and rock music. Jazz is a whole different beast, where harmonies and melodies aren’t valued.
He sounds like our snobby parents who told us that we wouldn’t be listening to Elton John, Zeppelin, or Pink Floyd, as adults, yet 45 years later, I’m still playing those records (maybe a bit more Sabbath lately).
In reading a lot musicians comments on others, it seems par for the course. I seen each of the Beatles say horrible things about other successful musicians simply because they don't like them. Pete Townshend seems to hate everything. It goes on everywhere. Beatles fans shouldn't be so hurt about this.
Hey, Sinatra called the Beatles "fairies" and then later recorded some Beatles songs, so Jones wasn't the only one, BUT they all should know better because it's unprofessional
Beatles forever!!! I don't care what anyone says. Quincy can kiss my grits. 😅
Bravo!
Agree 100%
Well said Roxanne!!!👍
Beatles weren't virtuosos but they were pretty damn good. I mean listen to the last track of Abbey Road where they let the guitar solos rip. Worst musicians? I don't think so.
Another great post that gives a little insight into the recording/session process that I personally find extremely interesting, thanks again for another excellent video. As someone back in the late 70s to the early 90s who regularly bought music (on cassette, vinyl, CD) on my way home from the record/music shop I always checked the sleeve to find out what session musicians played on what tracks, and whenever with the likes of Greg Phillinganes, Lee Ritenour, Jay Graydon, Larry Carlton, Valerie Simpson, Anthony Jackson are just some of the musicians I looked to see if they played on a track, that would determine what track I would play first as soon as I got home, usually couldn't wait to get home, especially on any albums Quincy was involved with, the same for any Steely Dan album, they also picked the top musicians.
The Beatles have never claimed to be great musicians..... EVER! They were a team, a band, a group of four young lads who combined to make the best music ever. The best band ever....bar none!!!🙄🇬🇧
hardly a ‘team’...more like a ‘working model.
they could hardly stand each other long enough to keep the money pouring in...had to go solo.
not a single one played with another one again...some team.
they were pure propaganda...produced for social engineering at a time they wanted to DIVIDE the new generation from the old.
do your history!
Simple, mediocre pop songs; hardly the "best music ever".
The best band? Nah, not even close. Without George Martin, I doubt that the Beatles' music would have evolved much beyond their "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah" days. The Beatles' popularity largely stems from them being at the crest of the British Invasion in the early 60s.
@@SamCosentino George Martin was indeed the fifth Beatle, he was most definitely was part of the team!!😁
@@BadgerBotherer1 A Day In The Life..... just saying....
One of the top session guys in the late 70’s early 80’s, Steve Lukather
loved the Beatles as most session guys probably did.
“The album changed my life? I don’t even have to think about that. It was With The Beatles (released in the US as Meet The Beatles). That album was the ‘on’ switch for me, and fifty years later I’m playing in a band with Ringo (Starr). It’s pretty crazy.”
-SL
So Quincy had a very narrow perspective indeed.
He wasn't thinking about what changed Steve Lukathers life.
Also Steve and Eddie Van played on Michael J songs.
They were good enough players to play on the recordings, at a time when most record companies almost always used session players.
Look at Quincy becoming a patron of Jacob Collier in his early career - a musician who is truly virtuous on several instruments and can play absolutely anything perfectly - yet can’t write a song that moves an audience emotionally to save his life.
The Beatles have written endless classics in comparison yet there technically ability is a fraction of Jacob’s.
And I’m sure Quincy feels George Martin was a hack as well.
You don't need to make dumb assumptions, George didn't think the Beatles were worth his time at first either. Try reading about instead of making up bullshit out of ignorance.
@@jamescarter3196
Thanks so much for the advice, especially since my comment was deemed by YOU to be dumb and ignorant. You can go on loving Q and I’ll continue to love the Beatles.
@@jamescarter3196 Because the music was new and he'd come from a very different background. The fact that he did go on to make some of the greatest music of all time with them is testament to their raw talent.
George Martin was given the Beatles because he had worked with the Goons and the suits wanted someone who could handle them it was like an arranged marriage that worked beautifully. Martin had the classical chops and open ears. The results changed music forever.
@@donaldanderson6604 I've never heard The Beatles talk much about it but I imagine they would have loved George Martin's Goons connection.
You are such a fine RUclipsr Fil regarding music and musicians you are always fair and diplomatic, something others should take a leaf out of your book. Well appreciated fil. Good man👍
Well discussed. "we're just 4 guys who did really well" - John Lennon. The Beatles wouldn't disagree with Quincy per say. They weren't really session artists (sans My Bonnie with Tony Sheridan). And yet they did their first album in one day. And it still holds up and had several #1 hits. When they did their own song, they perfected it. Covering a Beatles song is very hard because you are competing with a perfectly produced version of the song. If you riff on any part its a risk of marring perfection. They were great natural musicians
Fil, your videos are really, really good! This one was fascinating. You have opened my eyes in so many ways. Thank you.
Such a comment is a perfect beginning to a discussion about what "music" and "musicians" might possibly mean, and all the ways it can be wonderful and impressive, and the different ways we individuals can appreciate the way in which people create music.
It also shows what a strange and narrow environment the big-business recording studio is, compared to all the other places people make music. It's not the only arena in which music can occur, and its rules and expectations are far from the only rules and expectations by which we might choose to judge what is "good", or what we enjoy, about music.
Mr. Jones's comment is a little reminder of what we were taught as kids, which is: If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
I do agree, however, read some comments and you will be disappointed. ☹️
@@SueKay-rq1lr It's kinda sad how 90% of the comments here are just taking swipes at Quincy Jones (often in very personal terms) and missing the points that Fil is making around the quote in the video. In the classical music community, this is about the difference between a violin player in the ranks of a symphony orchestra and a soloist standing in front of the same orchestra: they're not in the same place, mentally or musically. And if either of them is playing the fiddle at a live folk music event, he's going to sound different again.
Ringo Starr was perfect for the Beatles, but no one is pretending that he had the speed and technical skills of Ian Paice, Alan White or Bernard Purdie. That kind of chops and power drumming were just not needed for the Beatles. Or even for Motown records in the 1960s.
CC to Quincy Jones's pal Hilary Clinton, voted Most Admired Women in America several times.
George Harrison was a killer guitar player. Every solo is absolutely iconic
except the one on All You Need Is Love
@@evertvdb000 what’s wrong with that beautiful solo? He sings the melody through the guitar. It’s sweet and lovely
NO
Don't forget too- some very good guitar solos (on Beatles records) were actually done by Paul. For example, all the lead guitar in 'Taxman'.
@@allinthemind2006 nah, it's not his usual high standard.
I played a gig at Quincy Jones’ house back in the 70’s. I can only imagine what he really thought of us.
I heard a quote by I think John Lennon where he admitted they were mediocre musicians but when they played together the magic happened
Oh, jealousy is such an ugly trait.
LMAO at the idea that Quincy Jones would need to be jealous of anybody else. Let's see, he produced stuff that outsold the Beatles, and you're clueless.
You got it. And that's all there is to it...
@@jamescarter3196 Many great baseball managers failed as players.
@@jamescarter3196 What outsold the Beatles?
wrong
Great update Fill yeah even people who aren’t into the Beatles there’s no getting away from the fact they did have a lot of talent. They were a brilliant band. The harmonising with John Paul and George was outstanding.
OMG, Fil! What you were saying about humans being able to hear notes and melodies at a particular speed crystallized why sometimes music just sounds like noise. I can't hear the "conversation." When introduced to a new form of music I can learn how to hear it -- I remember when I was 5 my mom brought home the first Beatles album I told her to "turn off that noise" (obviously I got over that!). But some genres still sound like noise to me. For some I think that's part of the point, right? To make as much noise as possible with a beat behind it. It's meant to be experienced viscerally rather than heard.
Anyway, as usual you said something thought-provoking.
McCartney can play any instrument and play it well. Ringo was underrated and any musician will tell you that
Any musician except Bernie Purdue who goes around lying that he played on Beatles studio recordings.
LMAO, such bullshit. The fanboyism is absolutely pathetic with some of you people, making up total bullshit just to pretend somebody's more talented than they are, it's childish. How is he on tuba? Can't play it, just like most other instruments, and what you're saying is just the goofiest suck-ass nonsense imaginable.
@@seed_drill7135 Well Ronnie Verrell was certainly the drummer who came in from another studio in the building and laid down in 5 minutes the feeling and time that Ringo could not grasp in 3 hours. Ringo came back from his shepherd's pie and could not even recognise that it was not him playing on the track...
@@johnnyonenote376 What's your one note Johnny...G flat major fail?
@@roscius6204 Nope, it's a song by Rogers and Hart - I appreciate that you probably haven't heard of them or are familiar with that particular song, but they were a far more accomplished songwriting partnership than the Beatles ever were...
This is what he said about Elvis Presley after he died, " He was a racist mother." So I know he is a liar. It makes him feel better to speak badly about people he's jealous of, and that's the kind of person he is.
I'm pretty sure Elvis wasn't a mother, either.
@jessiem276, Yeah it's all a matter of perspective. I've heard some blacks say that he ripped off their music but a whole bunch of others that were grateful to him for opening the door for their music to become more mainstream. Also heard that he grew up with a black nanny that he loved and actually bought her a nice house for her to live in! Doesn't sound very racist to me!
@@Emondotcalm I agree!
@drs-xj3pb I believe you know what he meant when he said "mother"... as in "mf."
@@drs-xj3pb :)
Jones also toured with some of the best jazz musicians of their time when he was younger so virtuosity was something he probably grew to expect. To expect rock musicians to play like jazz musicians is unfair. Keith Moon once went to jazz great Philly Jo Jones for lessons. Jones didn't know who he was and when Moon told him he was an advanced drummer, Jones asked him to play something. When Moon was done Jones asked him what he got paid to play like that. When Moon told him Jones said he's afraid he'd cost him money by teaching him how to play.
Thanks for your videos! I found your channel when I was revisiting John Bonhams drumming on "Good Times Bad Times". The opening drumming makes my hair go on end, so I keep going back to it. I just watched your video about "Everlasting Love" by The Love Affair and now I am hooked. Looking forward to this video because The Beatles are my favourite childhood band. I was born in 1969. Thanks again!
I loved the Beatles from the start. I loved most of the music that Quincy Jones produced too. I love almost all music but I take it as presented, not as critics say it should be! Thanks for your explanation of some things I did not understand about the business of music, Fil.
Hmmm. Two things:
(1) In the recording log of the Beatles' EMI sessions, over eight years of recordings, a take was stopped because of Ringo a total of eight times. That is (to be a tad simplistic about it), Ringo dropped the beat on average around once a year.
(2) Quincy who?
It's painful to become marginalized, and the pain affects your evaluation of every recording you've been a part of.
Edit: And every recording you hear, or have ever heard, by the "new hotness."
In 1964 the Beatles released "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". 2 years, they released "Tomorrow Never Knows". We will never see artistic growth of that caliber at that speed ever again.
True. But I Want To Hold Your Hand is incredibly sophisticated too.
Seriously, you're that uninformed?
1973, Queen released "Keep Yourself Alive" and their debut album.
1975, Queen released "Bohemian Rhapsody" and their album 'A Night At The Opera'.
@@guessundheit6494 There was probably a nicer way to say that. Considering Genesis had already released The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway and Selling England By The Pound -- not to mention Yes or Pink Floyd, Night At the Opera was playing catchup. And I say this as a massive Queen fan.
@@guessundheit6494 Agree with you Queen on many points is the only band in the same league than the beatles in my opinion and there are many other wonderfull bands but the beatles and queen wrote so many big hits songs in differrent styles that s the point best regards from france
100% FACT! The Beatles set the table and cooked the feast. All the other bands were just catching their crumbs.
You hit the nail on the head, Fil. There is a lot more to being a great musician than technical proficiency at playing an instrument. In terms of playing in a band, one of the most important things in playing with a great band, is to "fit in" with the rest of the band. In terms of the musician and their instrument, what can they offer that will not only enhance what they are playing but fit in with what everybody else is doing. This ability cannot be overstated when playing in a band.
The Beatles proved that making memorable, marketable music that could be appreciated by the masses did not necessarily require instrumental virtuosity. They themselves said they were mediocre musicians. But so what? They created one of the greatest bodies of work ever. I’ve noticed it’s usually top notch musicians who care about The Beatles’ technical abilities. For the rest of us mortals it was the sum of the parts that resulted in such great MUSIC! Where are all the amazing songs and albums created by all these critics??? Well?
How many bands developed and matured as musicians and songwriters as fast as Beatles did in only 8 years?!
During the 1970's/1980's I went to several clubs during the Punk era and FEW of them could play their instruments BUT that was part of the draw. They were my own age, and everyone was grooving to whatever sound they were putting down. Why, because it was MY age group