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

[-Asdfgh-]

Gave them discipline

That was my point about Epstein. There are people I've met who have written great songs, play as well, sing as well or better and are not never famous. It's also about Epstein ensuring that they got paid doing what they did early on. That helps too. I am not saying that he had anything to do with the music other than ensuring it had space to flourish and got to be heard. I think sometimes people underestimate how important that is. I am not sure it would have been the same had it been Most or Arden!

 

[-Asdfgh-]

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.

Yes, which is why I was a bit confused by other comments as I thought was a more recent interview not a contemporaneous one with the early Beatles. If he's apologised because he really doesn't think that's good.

 

[TyBo]

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.

The Stones certainly leaned more toward blues than the Beatles, no doubt about that. The Beatles leaned more toward pop and rock and roll, and actually spent time backing up some of the American acts they loved, when those people came over to England (or Germany) - including Little Richard, from whom they got the signature "Woooo ..." sung on tunes like "She Loves You".

Both the Stones and the Beatles spent plenty of time in clubs - that's where the Beatles honed their chops, playing clubs on the infamous Reeperbahn in Hamburg (dive-ier than any clubs the Stones were likely to have played, just for the record). So both bands were plenty good live (as the Beatles showed one last time in their well known "Rooftop Concert" for the Let it Be album).

It's simply a matter of personal taste as to which group one might prefer. I like 'em both, myself. The Stones lasted longer, but on the other hand, they didn't pack quite as much great songwriting into the Sixties as the Beatles did (no filler on those Beatles albums, generally, cool tunes all the way through) ... Stones had great tunes, but their albums from that era usually weren't as densely packed with them ... Let It Bleed might be an exception). Anyway ... the Beatles were a lot more rough and ready than they're often perceived to be, coming from "the wrong side of the tracks", with a background of playing some pretty rough joints, and playing with original rock and roll stars before they were themselves "discovered". It's funny how images influence perceptions.

 

[ShoeManiac]

For heavens sake, Quincy Jones HIMSELF has disavowed those "first impressions" quotes. On that basis alone, your point is moot. Not to mention the various other ways in which it's already been addressed ad infinitum throughout this long thread.

Thanks, wannabe mod.

Work on the reading comprehension.

 

[TyBo]

Thanks, wannabe mod.

Work on the reading comprehension.

Not sure how you get "wannabe mod" out of my quoted post, nor what you're getting at specifically with the rest of it. Dude, whatever.

 

[bobyoung53]

Yes, which is why I was a bit confused by other comments as I thought was a more recent interview not a contemporaneous one with the early Beatles. If he's apologised because he really doesn't think that's good.

I think the original interview was in 2018 and he apologized for one thing because all his daughters staged an 'intervention' (whatever that means, I've never known of him having a problem with drugs or alcohol), I think the apology was issued pretty quickly after the interview, i do not believe he actually took back his words though, it appeared to be just more of a love fest between the two. I think it was just an old man shooting his mouth off with his first impression of a bunch of 20 year old kids who were still learning the ropes obviously ignoring everything they did later on.

 

[TyBo]

I think the original interview was in 2018 and he apologized for one thing because all his daughters staged an 'intervention' (whatever that means, I've never known of him having a problem with drugs or alcohol), I think the apology was issued pretty quickly after the interview, i do not believe he actually took back his words though, it appeared to be just more of a love fest between the two. I think it was just an old man shooting his mouth off with his first impression of a bunch of 20 year old kids who were still learning the ropes obviously ignoring everything they did later on.

Well, Jones did refer to the quoted statements (made toward a lot of people, not just Beatles) as "the silly things I said", which sounds pretty close to taking them back. Beyond that, McCartney recounts that in Jones' apology to him directly, he said, "Paul, I didn’t really say that thing—I don’t know what happened, man. I never said that. You know I love you guys!” Which goes beyond taking it back. Maybe Jones was b essing because he was embarrassed, or maybe he really did feel he hadn't said the stuff about Paul and company that he was quoted as saying ... the point is, he does not stand behind those comments, and so it is inaccurate to lean on those comments as a considered objective assessment of the group's early playing abilities - both because Jones himself doesn't, and more importantly because the known facts clearly show that the Beatles, even early on, were NOT "the worst musicians in the world". This has been described in detail earlier in this thread, several times ...

 

[58kites]

The Stones certainly leaned more toward blues than the Beatles, no doubt about that. The Beatles leaned more toward pop and rock and roll, and actually spent time backing up some of the American acts they loved, when those people came over to England (or Germany) - including Little Richard, from whom they got the signature "Woooo ..." sung on tunes like "She Loves You".

Both the Stones and the Beatles spent plenty of time in clubs - that's where the Beatles honed their chops, playing clubs on the infamous Reeperbahn in Hamburg (dive-ier than any clubs the Stones were likely to have played, just for the record). So both bands were plenty good live (as the Beatles showed one last time in their well known "Rooftop Concert" for the Let it Be album).

It's simply a matter of personal taste as to which group one might prefer. I like 'em both, myself. The Stones lasted longer, but on the other hand, they didn't pack quite as much great songwriting into the Sixties as the Beatles did (no filler on those Beatles albums, generally, cool tunes all the way through) ... Stones had great tunes, but their albums from that era usually weren't as densely packed with them ... Let It Bleed might be an exception). Anyway ... the Beatles were a lot more rough and ready than they're often perceived to be, coming from "the wrong side of the tracks", with a background of playing some pretty rough joints, and playing with original rock and roll stars before they were themselves "discovered". It's funny how images influence perceptions.

Yup, both bands played clubs before they got a record contract, like every band...then the Beatles stopped playing bars and then stopped playing live at all because they didn't want to, they said they were happier in the recording studio.
Which is why I would much rather have caught the Stones at a bar, they kill it playing blues and they have always liked playing live shows.
Rough and ready?....what is "rough and ready"? ...these people are musicians LOL.
I made no mention of which band I might prefer, I have all the records of both bands and found no filler on their Sixties recordings.

 

[Pirate Captain]

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.

you are joking right? I'll take this funky jam over some cheezy schmaltz like Yesterday ANY day

 

[Yango]

In my opinion, Quincy’s a bit of an arrogant prick. He’s definitely got that “jazz players lord over rock players” attitude.

I could listen to Paul and Ringo all day long. Quincy? Not a chance.

I guess he’s entitled to his opinion even if he is monumentally wrong.

 

[TyBo]

Yup, both bands played clubs before they got a record contract, like every band...then the Beatles stopped playing bars and then stopped playing live at all because they didn't want to, they said they were happier in the recording studio.
Which is why I would much rather have caught the Stones at a bar, they kill it playing blues and they have always liked playing live shows.
Rough and ready?....what is "rough and ready"? ...these people are musicians LOL.
I made no mention of which band I might prefer, I have all the records of both bands and found no filler on their Sixties recordings.

"Rough and ready" in the sense of coming from a hardscrabble background, and getting into the occasional fight (though I don't know that they won many of those ... still, they were a scrappy bunch). And rough and ready in the sense of playing dive bars frequented by crooks, prostitutes ... and tourists, of course . Brian Epstein cleaned the Beatles up for wider public consumption, with the suits and the bowing after performances, etc., which leaves a lot of people thinking that's who they were - that was a very consciously created image, at odds with ducktails and leather jackets they presented earlier on.

The biggest reason the Beatles stopped playing live, according to what they've said, was that they couldn't hear themselves over all the screaming, and so they just got tired of it. Totally understandable. Given their recorded output thereafter, I'd have to say they made a good choice.

If I want to hear blues, I'd more want to listen to Buddy Guy, or BB King, or Albert Collins, or for a more sophisticated take, Robben Ford. And so on. Of course, some of those guys are now dead ... but then again, I won't hold my breath waiting for the Stones to show up at a local venue any time soon. Personally, I like the Stones for their own rock and roll songs.

 

[bobyoung53]

"Rough and ready" in the sense of coming from a hardscrabble background, and getting into the occasional fight (though I don't know that they won many of those ... still, they were a scrappy bunch). And rough and ready in the sense of playing dive bars frequented by crooks, prostitutes ... and tourists, of course . Brian Epstein cleaned the Beatles up for wider public consumption, with the suits and the bowing after performances, etc., which leaves a lot of people thinking that's who they were - that was a very consciously created image, at odds with ducktails and leather jackets they presented earlier on.

The biggest reason the Beatles stopped playing live, according to what they've said, was that they couldn't hear themselves over all the screaming, and so they just got tired of it. Totally understandable. Given their recorded output thereafter, I'd have to say they made a good choice.

If I want to hear blues, I'd more want to listen to Buddy Guy, or BB King, or Albert Collins, or for a more sophisticated take, Robben Ford. And so on. Of course, some of those guys are now dead ... but then again, I won't hold my breath waiting for the Stones to show up at a local venue any time soon. Personally, I like the Stones for their own rock and roll songs.

And the funny thing is that most of the Stones came from comparatively well off circumstances compared to most of the Beatles. I love both bands and have most of all the stuff they did.

 

[58kites]

"Rough and ready" in the sense of coming from a hardscrabble background, and getting into the occasional fight (though I don't know that they won many of those ... still, they were a scrappy bunch). And rough and ready in the sense of playing dive bars frequented by crooks, prostitutes ... and tourists, of course . Brian Epstein cleaned the Beatles up for wider public consumption, with the suits and the bowing after performances, etc., which leaves a lot of people thinking that's who they were - that was a very consciously created image, at odds with ducktails and leather jackets they presented earlier on.

The biggest reason the Beatles stopped playing live, according to what they've said, was that they couldn't hear themselves over all the screaming, and so they just got tired of it. Totally understandable. Given their recorded output thereafter, I'd have to say they made a good choice.

If I want to hear blues, I'd more want to listen to Buddy Guy, or BB King, or Albert Collins, or for a more sophisticated take, Robben Ford. And so on. Of course, some of those guys are now dead ... but then again, I won't hold my breath waiting for the Stones to show up at a local venue any time soon. Personally, I like the Stones for their own rock and roll songs.

We've all read bio's of the beginnings of these two bands, nowhere did I read that any of the Beatles were getting into fist-fights alongside crooks and prostitutes.
Now, you're speculating how many fights the scrappy Beatles won or lost in the bars of Germany?....really?
We aren't talking about black blues legends, we're talking about the Beatles and the Stones when they were both still a band, one of those bands had four members who had played with Alexis Korner's Blues Incorporated and the other did not.
I'd rather hear Little Red Rooster or Stop Breakin' Down than Tutti Frutti or Roll Over Beethoven in a bar.
Just saying, the Stones would be more fun to see/hear in a bar than the Beatles....IMO, my personal taste, YMMV.

 

[TyBo]

We've all read bio's of the beginnings of these two bands, nowhere did I read that any of the Beatles were getting into fist-fights alongside crooks and prostitutes.
Now, you're speculating how many fights the scrappy Beatles won or lost in the bars of Germany?....really?
We aren't talking about black blues legends, we're talking about the Beatles and the Stones when they were both still a band, one of those bands had four members who had played with Alexis Korner's Blues Incorporated and the other did not.
I'd rather hear Little Red Rooster or Stop Breakin' Down than Tutti Frutti or Roll Over Beethoven in a bar.
Just saying, the Stones would be more fun to see/hear in a bar than the Beatles....IMO, my personal taste, YMMV.

You're misstating what I said about the "rough and ready" comment, mashing two different points into one, to claim I said something I didn't. Classy. Dude, whatever. What I actually said is there to see. The larger point is that the Beatles' image as they became famous was significantly different from how they actually were prior to that. And that they were said to be quite a wild bar band, when they were playing in Hamburg.

You like blues covers like Little Red Rooster in a bar band better than old time rock and roll covers like Roll Over Beethoven in that setting. That's cool, personal taste. I couldn't say ahead of time which I'd like better, would depend on the actual performance itself ... which for most bands might vary from one night to another. What I'd really want to hear would be some swinging jump blues, some Louis Jordan, or Joe Turner, or Ray Charles, etc. To each his own.

 

[micguy]

you are joking right? I'll take this funky jam over some cheezy schmaltz like Yesterday ANY day

Not joking at all. We disagree; I’m OK with that.

 

[dougjwray]

Stu Sutcliffe died from a brain hemorrage a while after being kicked in the head in a street fight in Hamburg. Lennon and Harrison were also involved in that fight.
It's well established that the Beatles came from humble beginnings (although Lennon grew up in a more middleclass neighborhood than the other three), and that the street where they played in Hamburg was absolutely notorious for prostitutes and mobsters. They also used amphetamines heavily during this period.
The Stones were actually more well off -- Jagger was a London School of Economics student -- and their "bad boy" image was created by their manager, Andrew Loog Oldham, as a deliberate move to set them apart from the Beatles and create their own niche in the scene. For example, it was decided that they would not wear uniforms onstage, but rather their streetclothes. Keith Richards talks about all of this in his autobiography.
Just trying to set the record straight.

 

[58kites]

Beatles and Stones members life histories (and marketing strategies) has been written about for fifty years, most folks who are at all curious have read lots and lots about it.
Stu Sutcliffe died on April 10, 1962 after he left the Beatles in July 1961 to continue his studies at Art College.
No head trauma causes cerebral bleeding and death that long after injury, it had nothing to do with any scrappy rough and ready fight story.
Preluden was an over the counter diet pill, tons of musicians were taking lots of drugs at the time, nothing terribly unusual.
As we all know, musicians and substance abuse was common a number of decades before the Beatles or Stones came along.
For a long time, Keith has talked about a lot of stuff to lots of people who wrote it down.
The record is rarely straight with most rock n roll stories.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Beatles and Stones members life histories (and marketing strategies) has been written about for fifty years, most folks who are at all curious have read lots and lots about it.
Stu Sutcliffe died on April 10, 1962 after he left the Beatles in July 1961 to continue his studies at Art College.
No head trauma causes cerebral bleeding and death that long after injury, it had nothing to do with any scrappy rough and ready fight story.
Preluden was an over the counter diet pill, tons of musicians were taking lots of drugs at the time, nothing terribly unusual.
As we all know, musicians and substance abuse was common a number of decades before the Beatles or Stones came along.
For a long time, Keith has talked about a lot of stuff to lots of people who wrote it down.
The record is rarely straight with most rock n roll stories.

The chances of death, including from cerebral bleeding, are higher for years after head trauma. Death rate is increased for at least 7 years after head injury: a prospective study

 

[-Asdfgh-]

You're misstating what I said about the "rough and ready" comment, mashing two different points into one, to claim I said something I didn't. Classy. Dude, whatever. What I actually said is there to see. The larger point is that the Beatles' image as they became famous was significantly different from how they actually were prior to that. And that they were said to be quite a wild bar band, when they were playing in Hamburg.

You like blues covers like Little Red Rooster in a bar band better than old time rock and roll covers like Roll Over Beethoven in that setting. That's cool, personal taste. I couldn't say ahead of time which I'd like better, would depend on the actual performance itself ... which for most bands might vary from one night to another. What I'd really want to hear would be some swinging jump blues, some Louis Jordan, or Joe Turner, or Ray Charles, etc. To each his own.

The marketing of the bands is interesting as it is, as noted, counter to their actual backgrounds, on the whole.

But then you have Tony Iommi, seeming marketed as an evil satanist, but apparently actually quite nice and a Christian.

 

[Seanmo]

I really miss all the incredibly ignorant comments made by jealous fans of (bands other than the Beatles). So I'm necrothreading so that some other geniuses can entertain us with comments that suggest the best-selling band of 2000-2009 (which hadn't recorded together since 1969) isn't the greatest of all-time by a wide margin.

Please continue.