Quincy Jones says Paul McCartney was the worst bassist he ever heard

#1,441
Not ragging on Ringo at all, I'm actually a fan of his playing.
I meant to refer to the fact that Q has, apparently, apologized for past comments re: McCartney's playing, but has yet to do the same for similar comments made re: Ringo, afaik.





marchone said:
I almost "liked" your post. Till you started ragging on Ringo.

(But even Lennon quipped that Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles. Much less the world. Or something to that effect.)

:woot:
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: marchone
#1,442
wraub said:
You've repeated this several times, so... Do it. :)

Maybe you could record yourself playing a few songs named in this thread as some of the more challenging ones, and submit them here. While you're at it, write a few original Beatles- or McCartney-inspired songs, and submit those also.
Please bear in mind harmony with other instruments and voice (you sing too, right?) , as you can be playing all those, too.
I, for one, am curious. :)
Click to expand...


He's been trolling this thread for a while now, keeps posting basically the same thing over and over and over..........
 
#1,443
bobyoung53 said:
For one thing Paul had only been playing for a year when he saw him play, he saw McCartney in 1963 before he was even known over here in the US, how many of us here would have been seen as even a decent player in QJ's eyes after we had been playing only a year? If you read the whole article you will see that QJ was pretty much just shooting his mouth off about many different things to the point of his daughters getting together and pretty much forcing him to retract it which he did, even personally apologizing to McCartney. I mean who knows if he was being sincere to McCartney but come on, playing for only a year and you judge the guy's whole career? Sounds like jealousy to me.
Click to expand...
TyBo said:
If I were starting a band, I'd most definitely want McCartney in it (possibly even now, when he's around 80, but definitely when he was in his prime). You got a guy who plays solid and creative bass (as seen on hundreds of hits), also plays solid and creative guitar (as seen ...), and can cover the keys or the drums in a pinch ... oh, and can sing either lead or harmony, while playing those instruments ... oh, and is a front man with a certain charisma ... say, did y'know he writes killer original material, too? :bassist:

Ok, Quince, why don't you round up three friends and get up onstage to show us how that's done. ;) Silliness from Q, for which he later apologized. The jury's in, Paul has his place in history, as a bass player (as attested by dozens of today's top players), as a pop musician, and of course as a songwriter.
Click to expand...

:D
 
#1,444
bobyoung53 said:
For one thing Paul had only been playing for a year when he saw him play, he saw McCartney in 1963 before he was even known over here in the US, how many of us here would have been seen as even a decent player in QJ's eyes after we had been playing only a year? If you read the whole article you will see that QJ was pretty much just shooting his mouth off about many different things to the point of his daughters getting together and pretty much forcing him to retract it which he did, even personally apologizing to McCartney. I mean who knows if he was being sincere to McCartney but come on, playing for only a year and you judge the guy's whole career? Sounds like jealousy to me.
Click to expand...

:D

The lengths some continue to go to are comical at this point. This, from the OP:

"What were your first impressions of the Beatles?
That they were the worst musicians in the world. They were no-playing mother****ers. Paul was the worst bass player I ever heard. And Ringo? Don’t even talk about it".

Is the idea that the FIRST TIME he was aware of the Beatles was after Rubber Soul or the White album?
;)

It would help if you could point out exactly how this simply response to a VERY SPECIFIC question is judging Paul's ENTIRE CAREER? I simply don't see it and for the life of me can't see how you did.

It should be easy, the exact quote is right here. If you can't it's likely because he simply didn't do it... yet you and others continue to act as if he did? Is the refusal to see the question intentional? At this point, despite this being pointed out over a dozen times, it seems like it is.

Why? Why the refusal to look at this with clear eyes? I've been a fan of Paul's since I saw the first Ed Sullivan show like many my age yet that didn't make me turn this quote on it's head. This is truly a sign of the times.

:D
 
#1,446
Brad Johnson said:
:D

The lengths some continue to go to are comical at this point. This, from the OP:

"What were your first impressions of the Beatles?
That they were the worst musicians in the world. They were no-playing mother****ers. Paul was the worst bass player I ever heard. And Ringo? Don’t even talk about it".

Is the idea that the FIRST TIME he was aware of the Beatles was after Rubber Soul or the White album?
;)

It would help if you could point out exactly how this simply response to a VERY SPECIFIC question is judging Paul's ENTIRE CAREER? I simply don't see it and for the life of me can't see how you did.

It should be easy, the exact quote is right here. If you can't it's likely because he simply didn't do it... yet you and others continue to act as if he did? Is the refusal to see the question intentional? At this point, despite this being pointed out over a dozen times, it seems like it is.

Why? Why the refusal to look at this with clear eyes? I've been a fan of Paul's since I saw the first Ed Sullivan show like many my age yet that didn't make me turn this quote on it's head. This is truly a sign of the times.
:D
Click to expand...
Uh, if you've been paying attention, you'll see that numerous people here have used the Quincy Jones comment as a jumping off point to trash McCartney's playing generally. So an insistence on a very specific timeline for when McCartney might have gotten good kinda misses the point as far as that goes. Moreover, Q made his statement with no further qualification such as, "Then later on, the Beatles showed considerable ability as musicians," or whatever - instead leaving it as a stand alone statement which clearly invited the public reaction that his comments got. Beyond which, the Beatles, even in their very early, pre-Ed Sullivan days, already had the musical talent to fire up crowds from Hamburg to Liverpool and beyond, in a way that their contemporaries did not - HARDLY rating a categorization as "The worst musicians in the world. They were no-playing mother****ers."

As I said in an earlier post (with a linked 1963 video example) ... Okay, Q, grab three of your friends and go drive 'em crazy like the Beatles did - let's see it, put up or shut up. Nope, can't do it, he has a different skill set, and his comment was judging the Beatles in terms of those skills, rather than the ones they DID have (which Q did not have). Annnnd ... beyond that, Jones himself later apologized for his remarks, both publicly and privately (as McCartney has mentioned). And so on. McCartney has had an amazing musical career, and was not a "no playing mother****er" from very early on. (Ringo too).
 
#1,447
TyBo said:
Uh, if you've been paying attention, you'll see that numerous people here have used the Quincy Jones comment as a jumping off point to trash McCartney's playing generally. So an insistence on a very specific timeline for when McCartney might have gotten good kinda misses the point as far as that goes. Moreover, Q made his statement with no further qualification such as, "Then later on, the Beatles showed considerable ability as musicians," or whatever - instead leaving it as a stand alone statement which clearly invited the public reaction that his comments got. Beyond which, the Beatles, even in their very early, pre-Ed Sullivan days, already had the musical talent to fire up crowds from Hamburg to Liverpool and beyond, in a way that their contemporaries did not - HARDLY rating a categorization as "The worst musicians in the world. They were no-playing mother****ers."

As I said in an earlier post (with a linked 1963 video example) ... Okay, Q, grab three of your friends and go drive 'em crazy like the Beatles did - let's see it, put up or shut up. Nope, can't do it, he has a different skill set, and his comment was judging the Beatles in terms of those skills, rather than the ones they DID have (which Q did not have). Annnnd ... beyond that, Jones himself later apologized for his remarks, both publicly and privately (as McCartney has mentioned). And so on. McCartney has had an amazing musical career, and was not a "no playing mother****er" from very early on. (Ringo too).
Click to expand...

Uh, if I have been paying attention? Hilarious. I'm one of the minority that has.
:D

What others said after Quincy couldn't be more pointless. So Quincy catches heat because of that? That's as silly as the rest of this thread. You did your part. The challenge for Q to be a Beatle equivalent was particularly goofy. Unless you seriously think that's the bar for a critical opinion. At this point nothing would surprise me.

Just because he later apologized doesn't mean it wasn't true at the time. The struggle continues.
:D
 
Last edited:
#1,448
"What others said" constitutes a large part of this thread, and constitutes a large part of what I and others have responded to, in addition to responses focusing specifically on what Quincy Jones said. So no, it's not pointless to address those comments. There's more than one thing going on there.

Part of Jones' apology was basically to say that his quoted appraisal was just him talking crap. Which kinda does take away from the truth of that quote. Anyway, it's a silly argument - McCartney's abilities, yesterday and today (so to speak :)) were and are self evident. I'm not sure why there's an impulse to distort the basic reality, but believe what you want.
 
#1,449
TyBo said:
"What others said" constitutes a large part of this thread, and constitutes a large part of what I and others have responded to, in addition to responses focusing specifically on what Quincy Jones said. So no, it's not pointless to address those comments. There's more than one thing going on there.

Part of Jones' apology was basically to say that his quoted appraisal was just him talking crap. Which kinda does take away from the truth of that quote. Anyway, it's a silly argument - McCartney's abilities, yesterday and today (so to speak :)) were and are self evident. I'm not sure why there's an impulse to distort the basic reality, but believe what you want.
Click to expand...

As you clearly do.
:D

A large part of this thread is people ignoring what he actually said and talking out of their butts. I'd be willing to bet that many are fans who likely don't even remember a world before the Beatles. They proudly have no clue who Q is. So they go off halfcocked and stay there.

Fun stuff.
:D
 
#1,451
:D

As someone who owns a number of records (yeah, records :) ) with Quincy Jones as arranger and player, I'm very well aware of who he is. And, my favorite music actually comes from before the Beatles hit our shores here in the U.S.. But I'm not about to let that blind me to what they did, or what sort of musical abilities they did have.

Again, a lot of this bruhaha boils down to what sort of criteria are being used to assess the Beatles' abilities. They were not technicians, clearly, but that being said, they also very clearly were not "the worst musicians in the world", which is just a silly assertion - I know some people who are worse musicians than McCartney and the Beatles, as I suspect many of us do. They did have "a particular set of skills" which made them a nightmare for those competing with them for airplay :) . And, again, Jones himself has acknowledged the he was talking crap there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Watchootognbout
#1,456
Well, let's explore this? Who's had the most hits? Hard to say. Paul with the Beatles in the Hot 100- 20 No. 1 Hits, 34 Top 10 Hits, 71 Songs. The Billboard 200 - 19 No. 1 Hits, 32 Top 10 Hits, 59 Songs. Billboard Artist 100 - 1 top ten 1 song. Plus others as a solo artist.

Quincy Jones? A rock of Gibraltar in the music world with a record 80 Grammy Award nominations, 28 Grammys, and a Grammy Legend Award in 1992. Many of those were for other artists he produced records for but his signature is all over them. The list of performers he's produced for reads like a who's who of the music world. His producing work and film score work is way too long to list here.

Net worth of Quincy Jones? Reported to be $500 million. Net worth of Paul McCartney? $1.5 BILLION more than double of Quincy's. Hall of Fame? They're both in there but Sir Paul was inducted before Quincy.

In the end everyone has their opinion and is free to speak their mind. Quincy's music creds are big enough for his opinions on musicians to be considered valid. OTOH Paul McCartney's volume of work both with the Beatles and solo show beyond a doubt he's a quality songwriter as well as a great performer. I've always believed Paul to be a singer and songwriter first and a bassist second. He's competent on bass and since the digital re-mastering of the early Beatles stuff, you can easily hear that he does some nice stuff. Even more surprising considering the gear he had to work with early on.

So who's right? They both are.
 
#1,457
"They were the worst musicians in the world" Despite Quincy Jones' many talents and achievements, that statement is very clearly wrong and counterfactual, no matter what period of the Beatles careers one looks at. So in that way, a "both sides are right" argument is simply incorrect. Quincy Jones was wrong to say flatly what he said, without any further context, and he's admitted that he was just talking smack when he said it. There's no real case to be made for the view he expressed (and then apologized for).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Watchootognbout
#1,458
TyBo said:
:D

As someone who owns a number of records (yeah, records :) ) with Quincy Jones as arranger and player, I'm very well aware of who he is. And, my favorite music actually comes from before the Beatles hit our shores here in the U.S.. But I'm not about to let that blind me to what they did, or what sort of musical abilities they did have.

Again, a lot of this bruhaha boils down to what sort of criteria are being used to assess the Beatles' abilities. They were not technicians, clearly, but that being said, they also very clearly were not "the worst musicians in the world", which is just a silly assertion - I know some people who are worse musicians than McCartney and the Beatles, as I suspect many of us do. They did have "a particular set of skills" which made them a nightmare for those competing with them for airplay :) . And, again, Jones himself has acknowledged the he was talking crap there.
Click to expand...

It just blinds you to the fact that in the BEGINNING, like most musicians, they did not START OUT fully formed.
:D
 
#1,459
TyBo said:
"They were the worst musicians in the world" Despite Quincy Jones' many talents and achievements, that statement is very clearly wrong and counterfactual, no matter what period of the Beatles careers one looks at. So in that way, a "both sides are right" argument is simply incorrect. Quincy Jones was wrong to say flatly what he said, without any further context, and he's admitted that he was just talking smack when he said it. There's no real case to be made for the view he expressed (and then apologized for).
Click to expand...

Prove it. Q saw them when he saw them. What exactly did he see THEN? Unless you know. which you clearly don't, your assumption is baseless. Yet you keep digging in.

This will seemingly never sink in with you.

:D
 
#1,460
60bass said:
Well, let's explore this? Who's had the most hits? Hard to say. Paul with the Beatles in the Hot 100- 20 No. 1 Hits, 34 Top 10 Hits, 71 Songs. The Billboard 200 - 19 No. 1 Hits, 32 Top 10 Hits, 59 Songs. Billboard Artist 100 - 1 top ten 1 song. Plus others as a solo artist.

Quincy Jones? A rock of Gibraltar in the music world with a record 80 Grammy Award nominations, 28 Grammys, and a Grammy Legend Award in 1992. Many of those were for other artists he produced records for but his signature is all over them. The list of performers he's produced for reads like a who's who of the music world. His producing work and film score work is way too long to list here.

Net worth of Quincy Jones? Reported to be $500 million. Net worth of Paul McCartney? $1.5 BILLION more than double of Quincy's. Hall of Fame? They're both in there but Sir Paul was inducted before Quincy.

In the end everyone has their opinion and is free to speak their mind. Quincy's music creds are big enough for his opinions on musicians to be considered valid. OTOH Paul McCartney's volume of work both with the Beatles and solo show beyond a doubt he's a quality songwriter as well as a great performer. I've always believed Paul to be a singer and songwriter first and a bassist second. He's competent on bass and since the digital re-mastering of the early Beatles stuff, you can easily hear that he does some nice stuff. Even more surprising considering the gear he had to work with early on.

So who's right? They both are.
Click to expand...

So if Quincy heard the Beatles pre-Hamburg he heard their body of work?

Got it.
:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back