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

[-Asdfgh-]

I'm gonna keep saying this as long as some people keep outright ignoring it - as I just said on the previous page (with added emphasis here), " ... Not even Q himself stands behind that criticism. And it's not disrespecting Q to point out the holes in the quoted opinion, appeals to authority notwithstanding. And, one more time, I've been listening to Quincy's music for over half a century, I'm WELL aware of who he is and what he's done. Doesn't mean he's infallible, or doesn't talk out of his ass once in a blue moon."

The Beatles, objectively, were NOT "the worst musicians in the world", even back in the early Sixties. They performed hit after hit, and were tremendously effective in supporting their songs and putting them across (not to mention writing them and singing them. Go ahead, get together with three of your friends and do those songs as well as they did - harder than one might think, to do them that well.

Arguments dismissing Beatles defenders as "fanboys", or dismissing clear facts that exist both on video and in recordings and writings from that time, are simply not looking at this stuff rationally, to put it bluntly. As spelled out earlier at length, literally dozens of accomplished bassists state unequivocally the influence that the Beatles, and McCartney specifically, have had. I think such musicians know very well who influenced them.

If the Beatles aren't one's cup of tea (and while I like them, my favorite music comes from before their era), that's no good reason to ignore the historical fact of their enormous influence and musical accomplishment. Those Ed Sullivan appearances turned the world on its ear, and the pop charts were never the same afterwards.

I like the Beatles and own several albums, I just think sometimes people go a bit overboard. There were other very talented pop musicians at the time, and success is part talent, part work, part circumstance. I suspect Epstein was a significant part of why The Beatles was so successful. It's interesting that The Beatles individually didn't do that well, but I am not sure if that was because they needed each other, the moment had past, Yoko Ono or Epstein. Or all of those reasons or none of them.

Joe Meek did some revolutionary things but as The Beatles reached its creative zenith, Meek died.

The Beatles has a huge legacy, but a number of other primarily 1960s bands were still very influential, not least in Britain, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Small Faces. And each brought their own innovations to the pop and rock worlds.

 

[Guitalia]

Comments from those who didn't live through the unprecedented effect that the Beatles had on culture throughout the world: cute.

"I learned all about World War II in class this morning. Probably nothing compared to the fight in the cafeteria yesterday, though."

 

[TyBo]

I like the Beatles and own several albums, I just think sometimes people go a bit overboard. There were other very talented pop musicians at the time, and success is part talent, part work, part circumstance. I suspect Epstein was a significant part of why The Beatles was so successful. It's interesting that The Beatles individually didn't do that well, but I am not sure if that was because they needed each other, the moment had past, Yoko Ono or Epstein. Or all of those reasons or none of them. ...

The Beatles actually did do pretty well individually - all four of them, in fact, had hits individually after the Beatles disbanded. Even Ringo - turns out he has a certain charisma as a front man, too, having led many different incarnations of his All Starr Band on greatly successful tours. George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" drew widespread enthusiastic critical praise and had great financial success, and he had subsequent hits both on his own and as a major part of the Traveling Wilbury's band (he essentially wrote their biggest hit "Handle Me With Care", with some small input from others in the group). Paul McCartney has had numerous hits in his post-Beatles career, as did John Lennon ("Imagine" that ). Various Stones have put out solo albums - not a lot of hits there ... . Love the Stones, still, people who were around at the time know that they, and everyone else, were following in the Beatles' wake through most of the Sixties. There were certainly many, many talented musicians and groups back in that era, many which I loved listening to ... the Beatles were there firstest with the mostest, that's just how it went.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

The Beatles actually did do pretty well individually - all four of them, in fact, had hits individually after the Beatles disbanded.

I meant quality rather than sales, as sales can be because of the band you used to be in. I think Harrison did the best on quality, McCartney on sales, partly because he's lived longer, and Ringo the best at voice work . I can't stand anything Lennon did after the Beatles apart from Imagine, and yet he did great work when in The Beatles. And then there is Frog Chorus...

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Still, people who were around at the time know that they, and everyone else, were following in the Beatles' wake through most of the Sixties.

I always felt that The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were ploughing different furrows. Although they both started off with covers of US material The Beatles reduced that content earlier and faster but we generally more pop and generally less rough around the edges. You might have taken Paul McCartney to see your parents, but really one of The Rolling Stones. Of course, appearances can be deceptive and Lennon wasn't actually very nice... As for Stig... Or, Beatles as ultimately lovable scallywags, OBEs, etc. during the 1960s, Stones as actual dangers to your daughter.

 

[LBS-bass]

Maybe he was toasted when he said them?

Or maybe his disavowal means that he thought that at the time, but it isn't what he thinks now, and he's tired of having to explain that over and over.

I've seen videos of the fab four in those days and I might get crucified for this but it's a valid criticism. They were in a long line of musicians who learned to play better as they came along over time, but they didn't start out with a ton of skill. They mostly played simple, blues based covers of American Rock and Roll. Not sure why acknowledging that is a huge deal. None of them came out of the womb playing Abbey Road.

 

[58kites]

The Stones followed the Beatles in peoples minds, not in reality (other than Thier Satanic Majesties Request which was recorded as a bit of a joke).
The Stones always had tons of Blues Sex in their music, the Beatles had none.
I think George Martin had a lot to do with the Beatles making great records, Lennon and McCartney wrote great songs and George Martin took them to another level in the studio.
I would much rather have caught the Stones playing a bar than the Beatles.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Maybe he was toasted when he said them?

Well, you've still said things even then. It's just going to need to be a more contrite apology if you were off your trolley at the time...

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I would much rather have caught the Stones playing a bar than the Beatles.

I am envious of one of my uncles as he used to get to see The Rolling Stones playing in bars. And indeed, sometimes they would watch him in his band. (He was asked to join one of the other at the time up-and-coming bands but declined, focusing on his career instead as he was still an amateur. I'd like to say that if he had the rest would have been "history" but the band he was asked to join didn't make it that big in the end).

 

[TyBo]

Saying the Beatles were "the worst musicians in the world", as Jones was quoted (rightly or wrongly) as saying, can hardly be called a "valid criticism" of their playing, even in their early years. Harrison at one point described their music as "just posh skiffle, really," which is a good, slightly self deprecating way of putting it. That's still a long way from "worst musicians" or anything like that. They wrote very catchy songs, and put them across with energy and feeling in a way that grabbed people's ears all across the world, supporting those songs as (guess what) ... MUSICIANS ... in a way that worked very, very well. Yet again I would suggest getting together with three friends and performing those songs as effectively as the Fabs did. Not that easy - in fact, I've yet to hear anyone do that stuff better than they did. So how bad could they have been, realistically? Not bad at all, in point of fact. And naturally, they did develop further as they went along. But after their pre-fame apprenticeship in Hamburg playing 8 hours a night, night after night, they already knew a thing or two about playing to put a song across, even in their early years. A lot of people miss the fact that the whole point of their instrumental work was to support the songs they played. They did that very well indeed.

 

[bobyoung53]

The Stones followed the Beatles in peoples minds, not in reality (other than Thier Satanic Majesties Request which was recorded as a bit of a joke).
The Stones always had tons of Blues Sex in their music, the Beatles had none.
I think George Martin had a lot to do with the Beatles making great records, Lennon and McCartney wrote great songs and George Martin took them to another level in the studio.
I would much rather have caught the Stones playing a bar than the Beatles.

Trying to compare the Stones with The Beatles is like trying to compare oil and water. Lennon/McCartney wrote the Stones second British hit. Both were very good live when they were playing in the clubs.

 

[bobyoung53]

Well, you've still said things even then. It's just going to need to be a more contrite apology if you were off your trolley at the time...

Did you read all the other quotes from the same interview that I posted before, (post #1530 on the page before), he said a lot of stupid things that day. If he wasn't loaded he's getting a little senile, saying everything you're thinking whether it's right or wrong is a sign.

 

[bobyoung53]

I like the Beatles and own several albums, I just think sometimes people go a bit overboard. There were other very talented pop musicians at the time, and success is part talent, part work, part circumstance. I suspect Epstein was a significant part of why The Beatles was so successful. It's interesting that The Beatles individually didn't do that well, but I am not sure if that was because they needed each other, the moment had past, Yoko Ono or Epstein.

The Beatles were so successful because they were probably among the top 10 songwriters in history. Epstein had nothing to do with their music, he got them off the ground that's all. Gave them discipline, Martin had a lot to do with their finished product, their sound but he didn't write or arrange any of those songs. I suspect you were not around when they were current, younger people have a hard time realizing just what an impact they had on that whole decade and how many musicians nowadays stand on their shoulders without even realizing it.

 

[micguy]

Listen/ try to play the parts on Sgt. Peppers. I will agree that Victor Wooten has more chops than Paul did, but the parts that Paul played are far from simple, and worked really well for the music.

Plus, Paul could write a catchy tune with the best of them. At a rather young age....

Once Quincy writes and performs a song that’s better than Yesterday, he can talk. But for now, he can sit down and keep quiet.

 

[58kites]

Trying to compare the Stones with The Beatles is like trying to compare oil and water.
Lennon/McCartney wrote the Stones second British hit.
Both were very good live when they were playing in the clubs.

I agree, but since the comparison was made here already, (as they always have been and always will be)...
The Stones were still playing after hours in bars long after the Beatles had quit playing live anywhere and were no longer a band.
The Stones were a far more interesting live act (my opinion) than many, many rock bands.
Never seen footage of Beatles gigging in a bar really, their material lends itself less to live jamming IMO.
The Stones playing with Muddy Waters in 1981 at the Checkerboard Lounge worked, that couldn't happen with the Beatles.
Charlie, Bill and Nicky Hopkins playing on the London Howlin' Wolf Sessions made sense, no Beatle would have made sense there.
Mick singing blues with the Red Devils is interesting and it fit perfectly.
The Stones recordings from the El Mocambo club were great fun.
Comparing the Stones live to the Beatles live is like comparing spicy tasty oil to water.

 

[bobyoung53]

I agree, but since the comparison was made here already, (as they always have been and always will be)...
The Stones were still playing after hours in bars long after the Beatles had quit playing live anywhere and were no longer a band.
The Stones were a far more interesting live act (my opinion) than many, many rock bands.
Never seen footage of Beatles gigging in a bar really, their material lends itself less to live jamming IMO.
The Stones playing with Muddy Waters in 1981 at the Checkerboard Lounge worked, that couldn't happen with the Beatles.
Charlie, Bill and Nicky Hopkins playing on the London Howlin' Wolf Sessions made sense, no Beatle would have made sense there.
Mick singing blues with the Red Devils is interesting and it fit perfectly.
The Stones recordings from the El Mocambo club were great fun.
Comparing the Stones live to the Beatles live is like comparing oil to water.

I love the Stones and you are correct there is a lot more live Stones stuff around from way back, I have some bootleg stuff at home but The Beatles were good live too, they were live on the Ed Sullivan show.
The Stones actually played live in a little club called Sir Morgan's Cove in 1981 in worcester, MA, our manager and our lead singer got in, the singer thought he was Mick Jagger for two or three months afterward.

 

[Stevorebob]

Talented or not, them Beat’s made music people wanted to hear, and they did it like few others ever have or ever will. Doesn't really matter much whether some bloke or two today doesn’t like them or thinks they don’t have the chops. They achieved something.

 

[58kites]

I don't care what Quincy Jones said, if he didn't hear the magic of the Beatles he is tone deaf or a liar, and we know he isn't tone deaf.
I think when he said it he might have been feeling jealous that Lennon/McCartney wrote a giant pile of songs that will last forever and they will forever sit very high in the minds of most music lovers.
Songs that can be covered by anyone and still be great songs, songs that can be covered by any instrument of group of instruments and sound great.

 

[bass12]

I’m starting to think that both Paul and Quincy are going to die before this thread will.

 

[keyboardguy]