@@SnerMerNer they wrote their own songs, played their own instruments, did things their way, and immortalized themselves. name a boy band like that. you're a boy band
Let's get this straight: being a great musician doesn't always mean you can play an instrument super well. Look at kurt Cobain or the Ramones or the Beatles. Just cuz someone plays well doesn't mean they can write a song people want to listen to. It's about creativity not technique. Of course being good at an instrument can help but that's not all you need.
The world is full of talented musicians who can perform circles around Q J or Beatles ,who have been virtually unknown until CZcams. But they'll never have the influence and most will fade off into oblivion. In my very humble opinion
Crystal Blue unlike the ramones the beatles wrote sophisticated arrangements with key changes modulation etc they were great musicians just not virtuosos of technique
With no monitor to boot. Paul’s one of the most inventive and unique bass players of all time. I say that having attended one the best music schools around.
miles david and jimmy hendrix wanted to form a band with paul mccartney. fame name part of it maybe,but respect. and love of mccartneys musicality mostly
Sid only got into the bad because he fit the style, not because he was a good bass player lmao. He's iconic no doubt but he was far from a great musician.
Max Matson Yeah, there are plenty of musicians who do that, Rush has an amazing bass player who also sings and their music is just as accessible and still way more technical than anything The Beatles made
@@landoakechi9406it's isn't about technicality it about how good a song is. Does rush have a song like hey Jude's,the long and winding road, while my guitar gently weeps,here comes the sun,?
Aruna K Would it kill them to have practiced though? Technicality isn’t everything, but it’s basically just good pop music, at least they don’t use the same chords every song though. The band is carried by the vocals and songwriting, but instrumentally, the band is pretty uninspired in that department
If you want to talk complexity in using instruments let's look at songs like strawberry Fields forever, While My Guitar Gently weeps, All my loving, Dear Prudence, Savoy truffle, Come together I could keep on listing examples. And music is all about songwriting and no one I repeat no one can write songs like Lennon, McCartney and Harrison. All other aspects of music like complex instrumentals comes secondary
Aruna K Don’t sit here saying it doesn’t matter and make me waste my time re-listening to these songs when I can see you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. Listen to YYZ by Rush and then come talk to me about complexity in the instruments, on a whole nother level
They weren’t groundbreaking musicians, they were groundbreaking artists. No finer songwriters than John Paul, and George, it wasn’t, to me, instrumental virtuosity that made them what they are, but rather artistic and creative capabilities in the craft of songwriting. Also phenomenal singers, and perhaps not virtuous players, but certainly they had a unique style of play that is part of the trademark
why is everything about virtuosity nowadays. I'll take soulful over virtuos any day. Music is about creating a story/adventure and fun. we've lost that.
To be fair, even given what you have just said, the Beatles composed songs in various modes, different time signatures and pioneered the future for pop, rock, metal, psychedelic and even progressive. They were fine musicians too in my humble opinion
Eddie Van Halen had technical mastery but also the creative spirit. Great combination. He also made history. The beatles had an incredibly high creative genius for songwriting. That is what makes them one of the greatest musicians. Creativity is the key. Without it, all the technical mastery is just a circus act.
Joe Lennon Phillips Not to mention how tight they were live... and without a decent P.A. or monitoring. This who's the best stuff is all just ego-tripping. It's mainly the realm of "jazz snobs" whose complex arrangements and self-indulgent solos only appeal to a minority of aficionados. It's all subjective anyhow... and it's completely irrelevant. The whole of The Beatles was far greater than the sum of the parts... as their subsequent solo careers clearly demonstrate. And I believe Quincy Jones eventually apologised for all these remarks anyway. Best to just listen to the records and watch the live performances and judge for yourself. Anyone who's been in a pop group for any length of time will tell you how hard it is to find the right combination of players who fit together perfectly. And Ringo's parts are awesome btw... so creative... some of the best pop drumming ever recorded imo. Can you imagine "Ticket To Ride" or "Come Together" played by Ginger Baker or Mitch Mitchell (especially when they were on smack)? I can't... I'm just so sick of the sour grapes and Ringo rubbishing... but you have to expect it... when you're that big there are always plenty of people wanting to tear you down in the hope that it will raise themselves up. Well, it won't...
Claiming The Beatles were "the worst musicians" and then citing an incident with Ringo to prove his statement is like saying Star Wars is bad because of a Jar Jar Binks line. McCartney no doubt is one of the most influential bass players of all time, he's a multi instrumentalist and while he's certainly not mastered every instrument to the point of genius, he's far above average on bass. Same goes for Harrison's guitar playing.
Also, Quincy is talking bullshit. The only album Quincy co-produced and arranged was “Sentimental Journey”, an album Ringo sung and *didn’t* play drums on!
He is low key telling you that the Beatles didnt play the tracks. There is plenty of evidence that the 'Wrecking Crew' played the studio albums and not the actual Beatles.
Can you talk about how he also said that modern pop music is trash. And then when they asked if there were any exceptions who where inovating in the genre he said"Bruno Mars. Chance the Rapper. Kendrick Lamar. And the Ed Sheeran record is great. Sam Smith too"
fotm07 Because people talk like that all the time and don't really mean what they say literally. Like adding flavor to your talk. No one here thinks Quincy is saying they were the worst musicians literally, but you bet your ass they'll still argue about how they were still good musicians, which is debatable considering the talent Quincy has worked with over his lifetime.
You have to understand where Quincy was coming from. He was friends with Ray Charles, studied string orchestration in Paris, was a talented jazz trumpeter and arranger and composer, worked with Duke Ellington and other masters of their craft, was vice-pres of Mercury records and scored his first film in 1964 when The Beatles were on Ed Sullivan. None of the Beatles were technically proficient. Paul was the natural of the group, and even as gifted as he is, was not on a pro level. None of them could read music, and Quincy was a serious composer. But here's the thing; John and Paul (and later George) could write pop melodies like motherfuckers. And they knew how to play and write for their strengths. They were creative as hell and took pop music and said it can be anything. Funny, weird, dark, bright and shiny or mysterious and cryptic. They were smart and had the good fortune to collaborate with George Martin and the Abbey Road engineers too. Back to what Quincy was saying though. That's real talk right there. The Beatles themselves would admit that from a technical standpoint, they were little more than a solid little dance band. That Ringo story rings absolutely true the more you know about them. Even in his All-Starr band, he just sits there playing the most rudimentary back-beats while Greg Bissonette plays the real shit all night. But here's the thing: pro drummers around the world cite Ringo as a huge influence. Why? Because his drumming fit the songs so well, and his style and sound were so unique. That kind of sums up the Beatles; they were mediocre players, but that wasn't the point. Quincy came from the old studio system of there's a singer, songwriters, an arranger, musicians, a producer, and engineers and you make the shit quickly because studio time is expensive, so everyone better be on top of their respective shit. Heavy cats. No room for mediocrity on the bandstand. Studio or live performance. Q is also a man who, having been born in 1933, has seen some proverbial shit. His no BS style is a bit hard to take sometimes, but you can be critical of someones art and not hate the artist, which i believe was his intent in the interview. He even says about Ringo, "Great guy, though". In the documentary on Netflix you can see him talking with Paul. But back in the 60's, in that studio, you gotta figure these guys came off as absolute amateurs to him.
Wonderfully put. Jazz and classical players have musicianship that is on another level. Popular music is a different skill set. Elvis couldn't play as well as Segovia. But who would you rather see in a black leather suit in 1968?
The beales were no slouches on music theory though. Sure, they didn't know how to read sheet music, but they did understand the concepts of musical theory, just without the exact terms.
He doesn't need attention. This was his first impressions. As well, someone who's done what Jone's has done wouldn't need to garner attention by being "controversial". Youre just bitter. Also, it's his opinion. If you like the Beatles, you still can.
Kody with a K I’m not bitter at all. I had a bunch of kids hate on the Beatles any time I mentioned them or the conversation of music came up. They never gave a reason why they disliked them and would just say because they suck. It brought them attention and they loved it. Now they hate on other things loved by the general masses just to get attention. Articles on why the Beatles are amazing are a dime a dozen. Articles hating on “the greatest band ever” gain so much attention. It’s obvious.
@@GarrettCroslin I agree with you but Quincy Jones is the last person who would be chasing fame by saying an outlandish or controversial thing. He doesnt need to. If he wants to do something, he can. This is just a tell all because he's at that age. I'm not trying to kiss his ass. I just think you're misguided in your assumptions on his motives. He doesn't need money, or fame, or a way "in"... he is the way in (in terms of making an album or what not). He's made his name. He also knows music. So his opinion has weight. He is a primary source.
Kody with a K I never said anything about him wanting money or fame. He’s just not someone whose opinion people should give a crap about. He may be talented as a musician but thinking that a fairly talented band is garbage and that an entire GENRE of music is beneath another is bull crap. I don’t care who he is. Music is subjective and people like different things. No form of music is better than another. Music is music. The man new his interview would fade in with the rest of interviews these days without him saying something controversial.
Bingo. Songwriting is the hardest part and the Beatles were groundbreaking for their time. Being a 'virtuoso' is of no point if you don't have a melody /composition of note.
Exactly! There are far more highly trained musicians in this world than there are great composers or songwriters. Also people tend to value music too much based on technical skills rather than the ability to write great melodies and be emotionally captivating in an idiosyncratic way. All respect to technically great musicians but I do personally value great composers and songwriters much more. You can of course be both but it's not at all necessary. That's why putting someone down just based on their lack of technical skills not only makes one look very condenscending but also like someone who's not really valuing music for its own sake. Great music can be complex but it can also be very simple.
Look up the Lennon interview where he says, technique-wise, he would look silly next to someone like BB King, but that he can make a guitar fkkn SPEAK. He can make it HOWL.
@simon templer Coming from the guy who clearly has some weird hate-boner for the Beatles...your profile is fucking weird man. And nah, MJ is a legend but wasn't consistently as innovative and influential as the Beatles
Even the Beatles first album was miles ahead of what was going on around it. Bands that wrote their own songs and used complex chord progressions (which dispensed with the three-chord rock n roll format of Elvis and Chuck Berry etc) were hitherto unheard of.
first beatles album didnt really have any complex chord progressions, neither was it miles ahead. It was pretty standard in terms of the rock n roll that existed. Solid songs but the innovation only came later on
margus kiis Look, Ringo wasn’t that talented of a drummer imo. Talented drumming would be Jimmy Cobb (Miles Davis quintet), Keith Moon (The Who) and John Bonham (Led Zeppelin), who, by the way, are a better band then the Beatles. You want GOOD keyboard players? Try Ray Manzerek (The Doors) or Richard Manuel (The Band). I don’t hate the Beatles (don’t like their rapid toxic fan base honestly) , but to say that they are in some way “brilliant” certainly overstates their musical abilities. If you REALLY listen to Sgt. Peppers, is it that good? Does it have the wow factor? Not really. Sure it’s production was ahead of it’s time and its cover art was unique but that’s about it. The mediocre music always gets lost amongst It’s cultural significance. I suspect most people feel like they have to like the Beatles because they’re told to. Yes the Beatles where the “first to do it”. I get it. But so where the Stones, Hendrix, The Who, and The Beach Boys, and they where all just as groundbreaking. In reality, The Beatles are kind of the first “boy band.” Like a 60s One Direction that had a few new recording techniques and then had a dramatic break up because Lennon was a selfish a**hole. Want groundbreaking? Try Miles Davis “Kind of Blue” the best selling jazz record of all time recorded in 1959, before the Beatles where even a band. A cornerstone of not only jazz but music, right up there with Beethoven’s 5th and Michael Jackson’s Thriller. Want brilliant? Listen to Bob Dylan’s 1966 “Blonde on Blonde.” That’s a REAL 60s album. Pure gold. And yes, Sgt. Peppers and Abbey Road are “influential.” But then again, so is Cardi B so I guess that’s not saying a whole a lot.
Jarrett Lawrenson Utter rubbish. If the Beatles were just a 'boy band' how is it their songbook is full of popular classics written by Lennon and McCartney? They were great musicians, songwriters and performers. To compare them with Miles Davis is ridiculous. Most people have never heard of Miles Davis. The Beatles Were the 60s. Unfortunately you're letting your own musical preferences and prejudices cloud your judgement of a band that is almost universally admired by saying "well they weren't as skilled musicians as x and y." But then x and y weren't as skilled as Debussy, Ravel or Stravinsky, that rationale takes you nowhere.
@@yeetusmymeatus4008 Hahahaha, senseless banging (Moon) is talented drumming??? Great joke. It seems you have never been in any rock band. Such a stupid banging is interesting to watch BUT it is just a useless crap musically. In fact, in studio Pete had to play drum parts instead Moon on several song. Bonham is quite overrated too but he was at least useful drummer. He worked well, although his style was limited. Ringo is a brilliant drummer. He is able to get into every song and play just as needed. Just listen his drumming on "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and especially on "John Lennon and Plastic Ono Band". The last one is his masterwork. Amazing. Primitive -- yes. But so amazingly primitive. Compare it to ULTRAbooooring "pro" drumming by Andy White (the future Yes man) on "Imagine" which basically ruined all the album. Ringo Starr is a pure genius of drumming. I don`t like Pepper actually, I think it is massively overrated. Maybe the keyboards- full sound was amazing in 1967 but the songs on album are mediocre. John had writer`s bloc and Paul had to fill album almost alone. What did Stones first???? NOTHING but the stupid quasy rebel image. The babyface Jagger and some rebel. Great joke. I have never understand the The Beatles as boy band ideas. Their music from 1963 to 1967 was rough, square, industrial, male, strange. Compare it to The Beatles to Billy J Kramer or Cliff Richard, the real girly heartthrobs. Beatles even looked ugly, Macca was just exception. They behaved badass too. Listen their interviews too. Beatles really groundbreaking albums were "Revolver" and "The Beatles" (1968). Those sound really amazing in 2019 too. Those albums are still rocking.
All of this is absurd. When I studied at Berklee we were taught Paul McCartney bass lines because they are absolutely brilliant. He played the guitar on Blackbird and the solo on Taxman. His bass runs on I Want You (She's So Heavy) sound like an arpeggiated Moog patch. Ringo is the most underrated drummer I know of - his fills are fascinating and very distinctive because he leads with his left hand. And his performance on Rain. There is too much to get into here, I don't have the time. Suffice to say that the views in this video are just absurd.
He is not saying, that they are NOW at this point, the worst of all time. He said, when he met them - he was like "oh shit, they are the worst i ever saw". And he is coming from Jazz angle, like bald man said. But he is not saying anything like "i still think, they are the worst" and etc.
@@singlesideman Why? I mean, if you can show me WHERE EXACTLY he is still to this day thinking that they are the worst, i will understand you, but i am not. And believe me, i don't agree with him.
I understand that. He had hinted at bisexuality in his interviews; and also, was very close to Michael Jackson. For me it was more so Richard Pryor being name dropped, because in a comedy central roast, Pryor is seen saying to his friend, "and thats when i fucked my first faggot, ill say it before anyone else holds it over my head." Whats more is that this was in an illuminati video, where he mentions certain words that only became identifiable after the Pizzagate scandal. What Quincy Jones did was more so confirm that video - check it out. czcams.com/video/t1Fc1VeV8iQ/video.html
Anthony, I think we only heard a fragment of his opinion on The Beatles. He was asked what his first impression of the Beatles was. And anyone who knows even a little bit about the Beatles knows that their early music wasn't particularly inspired. It wasn't until we got to Rubber Soul and onward that they cared less about making a pop hit and more about creative expression. So maybe Q's opinion changed from his initial impression.
Wasn't "inspired"? What the hell are you talking about? Are you not thinking this through, and thinking you can compare what they did in 1963 to music of today, even though you are supposed to be thinking in terms of comparing them to anything that had come before or was out when the Beatles hit? They were far superior to anything when Jones met them.
I stand by what I said. The Beatles were HEAVILY influenced by Rockabilly and R&B in the United States and that was the popular music in America nearly a decade before them. Lennon himself said that if there was no Elvis, then there wouldn't be the Beatles as we know them. They basically turned R&B into Pop music, but that doesn't mean that the music they were doing was "inspired." In my opinion, the first few albums ("Please Please Me", "With the Beatles") just made an already existing genre of music more accessible to the American teenager. You can't tell me that the music that the Beatles made in 1963 was "far superior" than Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, and Elvis Presley. Hell, they even dressed like Buddy Holly in the early days.
...and actually they all significantly improved as instrumentalists over the span of their career, which can be traced on their records if listened carefully. Paul's bass wasn't memorable on the first few records, but on "Abbey Road" he truly shines like a professional and inspired bass player.
Musicianship gets boring very fast...I get bored very easily of Pagannini and Liszt...That's why Pop still rules...A good song is a good song...period...
I was taught in my college musical history class that The Beatles were the most influential music act ever. Even if you believe that's a stretch it's not far off, they earned their place in history
Quincy Jones actually liked The Beatles and went as far as to say that they were 'the most incredible songwriters that ever lived.' In this interview he was just referring to their lack of technical ability during their early years.
Well they sold by far the most records of any artist in history, hundreds of major artists name them as their inspiration-so good luck arguing there's anyone else _more_ influential.
To me, being a songwriting power house is way more impressive than being some technical shred wizard. Why doesn't he shit on Stevie Wonder while he's at it? Stevie isn't known for his shredding either. But he was a master songwriter. I've seen plenty of jazz musician shred their asses off but when I ask to hear something they wrote, it's always the same answer. "Oh I'm working on something right now".
During their era, McCartney was consistently rated in jazz polls as #1 in the world. But I guess they didn't know anything about jazz. When asked, Lennon said they were "adequate" musicians. Asked what explained their popularity, he answered, "Perhaps people prefer adequate musicians." They were actually better than adequate.
It's just hyperbole. The Beatles are famously excellent musicians and literally the best song writing duo of the twentieth century. I mean the way Quincy sums up ALL rock and roll is indicative of his own bias.
Saying the Beatles were bad musicians completely misses the point of them being a studio band, who’s musical vision and intuition were perfectly in line with what the public were looking for. This just feels like pettiness from a talented musician throwing stones at less talented superstars, upset his most recognizable song is more often referred to as “The Austin Powers theme”
Quincy Jones produced most of michael Jackson’s biggest hits, and worked with some of the biggest names in music in the 20th century. No one knows him as “the guy who ddI the Austin powers theme”.
strafer why not? it’s hard to make a really great pop song. Im more impressed by consistently memorable pop artists than i am most experimental types tbh. It seems relatively easy to make something that does away w melodies and traditional structures than it is to come up w a melody that will still be relevant and catchy 40 years down the road.
Chris yes I agree it can be hard to make a catchy pop song but they generally aren’t hard to play which is why I said that since he is eluding to mastery of an instrument as quality of the musician. No mention of creativity at all. When I think of catchy melodies, Paul Mcartney is one of the first names I think of. For him to say Paul is a bad musician sounds over the top. It’s not like Quincy is writing Russian esq early 19th century classical piano pieces that only a handful of people on earth can play.
George was a brilliant guitarist he also played sitar. Paul is a brilliant multi instrumentalist. As well bass he plays lead guitar, piano. Ringo is revered by many drummers. John could play guitar and keyboard but he was above all an artist, a poet and a songwriter.
If you play jazz professionally, You are a very good musician. like, bottomline dude. I like the Beatles too man but jazz is just a difficult genre to learn than rock, and a jazz musician is most likely going to be better than a rock musician.
Just Aname. Ringo was not the most technical drummer. But he was and is a great for knowing how to play to the music. There are a lot of very talented drummers out there that over do it. Ringo played exactly what the song needed. And that isn’t always easy to find.
@@justaname1862 Hes one of the best drummers on the world. The dude is a metronome, and had creative phrases that always played for the song and composition. Dude is untouchable. 1 note from Ringo is worth thousands ftom any other drummer, and the dollar value only supports that claim.
@Lunar Orbit jazz and rock are originated as the music of slave descendants. They cannot be compared to Classical which is the music of European nobility and is scientifically proven to increase intelligence
One of the greatest Jazz musicians of all time held Paul McCartney as one of his favorite composers, and he recorded his own version of Black Bird. His name just happens to be Jaco Pastorius. In case you don't know he is the greatest bass player of all time!
I respect Quincy Jones but he sounds quite bitter when talking about the Beatles. He sounds like a snob and those are the worst kind of musicians. Either that or he is becoming old and senile. By insulting the Beatles not only is he insulting them he is insulting everybody who listens to and enjoys their music. The Beatles are great musicians. They made music that resonates with people.
@Michael Sprague What do you mean all their songs sound like Octopuses Garden and Eleanor Rigby? They had a large variety in their songwriting. Also I never said the Beatles were particularly complex. Some of their songs are, some aren’t.
Donair Don So you hated the Beatles songs you heard on the radio and then liked those same songs you heard on the albums?! Or did you discover really good songs on their albums that you never heard on the radio?
The Beatles were fine rock ‘n’ roll musicians. They never claimed to be at a jazz level. Quincy comes off in this interview as s mean senile bitter old man. Quincy Jones would’ve loved to been able to written a song at the level of something or yesterday. He didn’t have the talent to do so and he’s frankly jealous. His ravings are not cute or honest or even entertaining. In fact they come across as envious and self absorbed.
@@johnmaughan2875 Not really though. He only co-wrote one song on the album (PYT), but he did produce it all. Michael and Rod Temperton wrote basically all of it.
I don't see any problem with that. The question was "What was your first impression of them?" and his answer is exactly that, paraphrased: "The first time I met them and saw them play, I thought they were the worst musician in the world" He's not commenting on anything else than what he thought of them at the time. He's not saying that they were the worst musician, he's not saying that they are, he's saying what he thought.
TonyTony it's telling that out of all the material in this interview ripe for discussion y'all pick the hyperbole he chose to use to describe his initial thoughts upon hearing the band instead of say, MJ stealing music.
4:37 That makes sense though because Jimi seems like a pretty asocial and timid person who instead of going out with friends would just stay home and play the guitar. There's a quote floating around about how they asked him at a party if he wanted to try acid and he said "no thanks, but you don't happen to have any LSD do you?"
Produced and wrote for Leslie Gore in the 60s and later George Benson and then Michael Jackson records. Very talented but just bonkers. Ringo may not have gotten the 4x4 but his style was suited well for the Beatles. Jazz v Rock, apples and oranges.
I've read books on George Harrison and through interviews, he always said he felt he wasn't that great, he was the first to say it. He often said that he felt novice or starstruck by many other musicians and that he couldn't compar, which makes George seem cool and down to earth, cause he was talented, in his own right.
@@joerod0 Oh yes,a lot of people know who Quincy Jones is.Beatles were great,Quincy is great.Musicians do criticize each other.John Lennon even criticized the Beatles musicianship on occasion.
Craig Ezell Less everyday. And I'll criticize anyone I want. But I won't call them a motherfucker while doing so... Seeing since he is in the recording business. Which is quite a bit different than being a pro musician or even an amateur for that matter. The name of the game is hit songs, radio play, and longevity of said songs. Whose music sold the most and is still in daily rotation? Jones had his day and sold a lot of music but the volume and longevity of it has long since peaked. The Beatles are still charting... As far as Quincy Jones ability as a musician and producer he is in the top few. But judging by this interview, as well as others I've read, he leaves a lot to be desired, and quite honestly he's a despicable human being...
30 BELOW Of course Quincy would say that about rock and the Beatles Quincy came out of the jazz scene. Jazz musicians are superior to rock musicians in a technical regard. all the jazz musicians from that era including bill Evans, and others talked a lot of mess about rock. Rock is a dead music just like jazz though. Both are irrelevant genres in the long term.
You are correct. The Beatles were not known as "musicians" in the traditional/trained sense. They were just great songwriters and gelled as a band. It comes down to how well they executed the songs in the studio and the techniques they used given the minimal technology available at the time. At the opening, I think you meant you were envious of Quincy. Envy is when you want something that someone else has. Jealousy is a fear of losing something you already have. Thanks for this review. Keep up the good work.
The beatles did it in just 7 years, they made the British invasion, made two albums a year making films and going on to do continuous concerts how they divided their work time writing songs which were both amazing and extraordinary albums. I don't care if you hate the beatles, it still won't change the best band in the world and best selling album to date
Just because they’ve sold a bunch of albums doesn’t mean they’re good. There are plenty of better musicians who are/were way better than The Beatles. There is such as a thing as overrated. The Beatles are probably the best example of that word.
Despite them being undeniably the most influential band in history, that still wouldn't make them the best. I never really agreed with "most influential = best" or whatever, as I find other things like skill, creativity, complexity, emotion and other things to be a better indicator of quality. Jimi Hendrix isn't the greatest guitarist of all time due to his influence, but his creativity and virtuosity, at least to me. Except for their later work, I find a lot of The Beatles' work to be above average pop-rock, but it never really left an impact on me. If I were to name the best band of all time, I'd give that honour to say, Pink Floyd. And by the way, I'm pretty sure some other artists/bands would've done most, if not all the things that The Beatles did, had they not existed, or had just stuck to making silly pop music.
Paul was the worst bass player he's ever heard? Are you kidding me? Yes granted, Paul was not a technical bass player like John Entwistle or Geddy Lee, but he had good ear for melody and knew which line would fit for each song. I dare you to listen to "Hey Bulldog" and "Rain" and still tell me Paul McCartney isn't a good bass player!
Kennet he had a good ear for melody, you mean like every musician should. Go listen to Jaco if you want to hear someone that can really make that instrument sing
With all due respect, sir. Quincy is one of the most influential musicians on the planet and he has earned the right to talk as much shit about other people as humanly possible. He's a legend.
@@joshnippleton3449 he's got a right to his opinion, and so do you and I. Quincy is salty because while technically brilliant he never matched the songwriting ability and popularity of the Beatles. Quincy's comments belittle himself more than anyone else in my opinion. Of course, being a beatles fan I am somewhat biased!
@@ronnyraygunz8718 all these opinions are just wrong though. What Quincy said on his interview was his experience with the beatles when they first met. In other words, his "first impression" of them. No amount of global success is gonna change their first ever encounter.
@@ronnyraygunz8718 What he did musically was way more superior to what the Beatles have done in their entire discography. I'd even go so far as to say that he's the most influential artist of the century.
McCartney and Harrison are in most people's top 20 to top 10 musicians at Bass and Lead Guitar respectively. Jones made no sense claiming they were the worst in the world.
Aruna K Not everything, just that there are bands with leagues better bassists and leads than The Beatles have, which is why I say if you have them in your top 20, you don’t know shit
Weeb of Your Nightmares It’s all subjective my guy. There’s no right or wrong way to make a top 10 list of the best guitarists/drummers/etc. Those people are just listing what *they* prefer and it doesn’t make you smarter than them just because their opinions don’t align with yours. And it’s a stretch to say that they don’t know anything when that couldn’t be farther from the truth. You definitely have a right to your opinion and I’m not saying you can’t have one, but the way you came off in your responses makes it seems like you shit on anyone who thinks otherwise. It’s all relative and not everyone’s gonna have the same opinion as you. It doesn’t make them dumber for it
Albin Lundholm yah people are stupid Paul is a great musician and John was an amazing lyricist and what they did for pop music and rock music was push it forward and make if more than just music. They made it art with Sgt pepper and revolver and rubber soul. People need to appreciate them and stop it with this shit talking. If people don't like them as much as me or others then fine but just give a little respect seriously and Paul was a hella great bassist but yah he did more too
I believe Paul said Ringo's greatest strength was adaptability. Him and John could being him pretty much anything and he'd figure something out pretty quick.
The Beatles would not have been The Beatles without him. People who aren't drummers, or who don't understand music, don't realize that the drums are the backbone of any song.
The real myth is that the Beatles weren't great instrumentalists. That's really how they got their start, mastering other people's music and often playing it better than the original artists. And just because you turn 80 doesn't mean you suddenly stop caring. Sometimes people get bitter. McCartney was an extremely good bass player. Listen to Come Together. Also, Quincy is the same guy who thinks Marlyn Monroe wasn’t that pretty.
Marilyn is more charming than she is pretty. If she wasn't as confident and beloved as she was, I don't think she'd be seen as that pretty today? At least not to me. Beauty is highly subjective anyway, more so than music.
Sure they none of them were the best at the instruments they played. But, that doesn’t make them bad musicians. Paraphrasing on something John said, I’m a musician man, give me a tuba and I’ll get something out of it. What I take from this is, it doesn’t matter the skill, it’s what you write. And nobody was better at that than the Beatles. If I practiced for a couple years I could probably be a more technically skilled guitarist than John ever was, and he never was a technically great guitarist. But will I ever come close to being 1% of the musician John was? No. Ringo is not the most skilled drummer ever. But he was the perfect drummer for the Beatles. Replace him with a John Bonham or whatever drummer you want to say, and it messes up the dynamics, and their songs don’t work the same way. Let’s look at a hot topic, Greta Van Fleet. I like them, and I don’t think it’s crazy to say that they are probably more skilled at their instruments than the Beatles were. They don’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles.
Just remember,a lot of groups in the 1960's had session Musicians play on their album cuts,not the Beatles,they played 99% of their own instruments on their albums,save for a trumpet or horn on Revolver,and they played live on Ed Sullivan,while most groups were playing with the instruments recorded over,and also they did not have all the technology they have today,back then it was 2 guitars,a bass,and drums,with 2 speakers,they also were in their early 20's,to me that's pretty damm remarkable!,do you see Justin Bieber playing an instrument,or any other boy bands,no.
Actually, Anthony, scores of musicians and fans through the years have cited Paul McCartney as one of the best and most innovative rock bassists in history. The fact that you, of all people, would dismiss him is deeply disappointing. And no, George was not the "musician's musician" of the band. In addition to bass, Paul could and did play guitar, drums and piano for many of their sessions, and he often played lead guitar parts when George couldn't.
SirHatchporch I’ve also had the opinion that George was the most underrated Beatle. However I’m still of the opinion John is the most “talented” one just because his first two albums after the Beatles split up are masterpieces imo.
I remember reading in a guitar mag how Kirk Hammett of Metallica said he hated the Beatles, they suck, etc. Somewhat offended, I said out loud to my wife," You know what Kirk Hammett said about the Beatles? She said, "Who?" I said, " Uhhh....nevermind."
They transitioned from "She Loves You" to "Sergeant Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band"! During 1986, I heard on the radio "I'll Be Back" and "All I've Gotta Do"! They were GOOD musicians with a gifted producer to created cool MODALS
I agree they were not virtuosos. As a teenager, and after seriously getting into their music and understanding that old school rock, mostly 60s and 70s was definitely the best era in rock history and that I was not gonna find that quality, in the early 2000s, I started exploring bands with real virtuosos like Led Zeppelin, The Who and Cream, Santana and Jimi Hendrix. However, for some reason, I still loved the Beatles more than those other bands and the reason was #1: their incredible ability to create 100% original melodies that got glued in my head from just a first hearing, and because their exquisite work at recording studio; songs like Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day In The Life, Eleanor Rigby, Because or Here Comes The Sun, are a few examples of a perfect combination of John, Paul and George's incredible imagination and George Martin's ability to make their ideas posible. Blues based hard rock bands like or Cream or Led Zeppelin were awesome but their sound was pretty average to my ears, a little bit too raw. The Beatles, in the other hand were not as talented to make jaw dropping solos, but their imagination and sound mixing was beyond any other band at that moment, only The Beach Boys Hendrix, and Pink Floyd were taking things that seriously.
yup, bashing something for coult is the fakest shit, and its usually very easily depictable when they have nothing solid to back it up when you ask why they don't like them (or about any band that is popular to hate atm, really).
Sure, the Beatles have been glorified, but idk anyone in their right mind that considered the Beatles “virtuosic musicians.” So his statements aren’t really that outlandish or “counter to popular opinion”. The fact is, the Beatles served a purpose, and that purpose was not to make intricate jazz music. Quincy’s take just strikes me as very surface level and shallow.
Quincy's take is elitist and bitter. Just the fact that he shit on Hendrix for not wanting to be his pawn in his own music project shows that he has a mountain of insecurity and bitterness. Also McCartney is a "virtuoso". He played piano, drums, bass and guitar all exceptionally well. He composed on piano, played the mellotron, experimented on synthesizers. He even played rag time style, folks style, composed period pieces, composed a whole musical, did a lot of the production and instruments to his countless solo albums, so if that's not virtuoso I don't know what is.
@@BigMacSoss So TRUE Martini....sooooooo True...None of the Beatles members were great musicians...just average...it was the early marketing machine that made them......and the 12yo Girls.
Wrong, he's being truthful and is tired of the bullshit. He's not responsible if what he is saying is controversial because that's a matter of other people find controversial.
nah julius he's too old to give a fuck whether the pop culture of today still considers him relevant so he's willing to be real about shit instead of being diplomatic
The good thing about the Beatles was the fact that they themselves admitted that they're not very complex song writers. Especially John was pretty open about it and called their skills mediocre.
I think it's important to remember that the Beatles were never pompous about their musical abilities. There are a few interviews and clips in which one or the other mentions how they didn't know much in the beginning. One of my favourite stories is the one about them catching a bus across London, with their guitars I assume, to visit a guy who knew how to play a B7 chord. In the early days they were raw, but they were a tight outfit that rocked the clubs they played in. All of them said they improved later in the piece :-)
The Beatles were more than song writing, they could make music sound good and could easily play pastiches of a variety of genres. They were not virtuosos, they were artist. When you listen to the break down of any of their recordings the individual performances come through as ordinary and rough, with a lot of fudging. Yet when it's incorporated together it sounds fantastic. This is almost the reverse of many band performances where there can be great virtuoso work going on that gets lost in the mix and ends up sounding awful. They knew how to play as a team, and how to make great sound together. Missed notes don't matter if you can't hear them. All of the performances by the Beatles added to each other and complemented. This is most notable by Ringo. His drumming is simple - yet it is almost always exactly what is needed. The roughness of the Beatles playing was also their charm. All of the time they were on the border of parody, always playing with a sense of not taking their work too seriously and trying to make it fun and interesting and understandable. They had what so many professional musicians don't get or understand, the ability to communicate through their music. They were never constrained by expectations of the norm, and instead just did what made sense to them. It is that originality that makes them great artists and thus great musicians. I think that the song 'Imagine' is a great example of how simple is beautiful. 'Imagine' can be played powerfully with just piano and voice, and the piano part is simple, very simple, and yet it is a great piece of music - that is what true musicianship is.
Too long, didn't read, just wanna say that the Beatles did suck and were nothing more than a marketing scheme that stole their sound from black American musicians and you dummos lapped that shit up.
The members of The Beatles weren't virtuosos, but the band's musical IQ was off the charts. Their harmonic knowledge and ability to create these beautiful/dark/luscious soundscapes is still among the best to do it in any genre, but especially pop music.
He is a jazz legend and the GOAT of all producers. Everything he touch or was associated with musically (wide and broad across genre) was absolutely gold between 1967 through 1985.
Ringo's drums on "Ticket to Ride" is brilliant and way ahead of its time. They were an extraordinary band, the sum of which was greater than its parts. Just listen to Abbey Road. Stellar song writing and great instrumental playing. I suspect dementia is taking over Quincy's brain.
He is right tho, I mean all they do is fly around and eat insects
Underrated comment.
God, I fucking hate Beetles, the Beatles are cool though
No those are Beetles, different band
Beetles don’t eat insects dude
This made me crack the fuck up dude 😂
I'm a worse musician than the Beatles
HeatRayz Video yea me too
Same
definitely same
no way
Likewise
What makes the Beatles incredible is how they go from boy band “I wanna hold your hand” to Abbey Road
and how they go from twist and shout to tommorow never knows
They weren't a boy band, stupid. They lived thu more shit before IWHYH than you will your entire life, stupid
frank facts ... they were a boy band. Deal with it.
@@SnerMerNer they wrote their own songs, played their own instruments, did things their way, and immortalized themselves. name a boy band like that. you're a boy band
All in 7 short years.....
The Beatles went from She Loves You to Tomorrow Never Knows and Eleanor Rigby in two years and people have the nerve to call them overrated
Quincy Jones Calls Lil Pump "The BEST Musician in the World"
Really?
are you trying to make a point or somethin’?
That's just objectively right
Finnesse King
I want this to actually happen.
In 30 years from now: "Anthony Fantano Calls My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy "The WORST Album in the World""
is every comment section just people stealing other people's comments? My god this shit is endless.
Killian O'Donnell yes killian stfu
its not even gonna be anthoyn any more anthony will turn full CAL
Killian O'Donnell lol they have no shred of creativity
not the worst lp in the world, but MBDTF is definitely not going to stand the test of time
Let's get this straight: being a great musician doesn't always mean you can play an instrument super well. Look at kurt Cobain or the Ramones or the Beatles. Just cuz someone plays well doesn't mean they can write a song people want to listen to. It's about creativity not technique. Of course being good at an instrument can help but that's not all you need.
The world is full of talented musicians who can perform circles around Q J or Beatles ,who have been virtually unknown until CZcams. But they'll never have the influence and most will fade off into oblivion. In my very humble opinion
Ramones suck
That's a really good point. Same goes for art & film.
Crystal Blue unlike the ramones the beatles wrote sophisticated arrangements with key changes modulation etc they were great musicians just not virtuosos of technique
You got that right that's why there's only one KING OF R&R!!
Playing melodies on bass while singing another melody like Paul does is damn near amazing. And I'm a musician. Quincy is def losing it. 😂😂😂😂
With no monitor to boot. Paul’s one of the most inventive and unique bass players of all time. I say that having attended one the best music schools around.
Exactly, I watched many bands copy "Just Seventeen", sung by bass players who just pumped while singing and running when not.
miles david and jimmy hendrix wanted to form a band with paul mccartney. fame name part of it maybe,but respect. and love of mccartneys musicality mostly
Rush does what they do way better and as a 3-piece band. Would it have killed them to practice more?
@@landoakechi9406 K troll. Rush is good too
Shitting on the Beatles has become quite a trend lately, hasn't it?
Jealousy causes many trends.
I never could get into them...definitely not a trend for me...
@@superreverbfreak yeah but you not liking them is fine, I don't like a lot of bands too, but calling them worst musicians of all time is just weird
Traf Law agreed
No, I just think the trend of liking them is disapearing...
So Paul McCartney is the worst bassist he's heard, well nobody let him hear Sid Vicious.
Sid Vicious was amazing though
Or Mark Hoppus 😆
Amazingly stupid, yeah.
Sid only got into the bad because he fit the style, not because he was a good bass player lmao. He's iconic no doubt but he was far from a great musician.
Touche'. Sid couldn't play himself out of a paper bag. Glen Matlock was the bassist for the Pistols, Sid was more like a Flavor Flav of punk music.
I like the fact that this is probably the only video that isn’t filled with memes in the comment section
I think Paul's bass playing is fucking good! also considering the fact that he can sing well while doing it.
Max Matson Yeah, there are plenty of musicians who do that, Rush has an amazing bass player who also sings and their music is just as accessible and still way more technical than anything The Beatles made
@@landoakechi9406it's isn't about technicality it about how good a song is. Does rush have a song like hey Jude's,the long and winding road, while my guitar gently weeps,here comes the sun,?
Aruna K Would it kill them to have practiced though? Technicality isn’t everything, but it’s basically just good pop music, at least they don’t use the same chords every song though. The band is carried by the vocals and songwriting, but instrumentally, the band is pretty uninspired in that department
If you want to talk complexity in using instruments let's look at songs like strawberry Fields forever, While My Guitar Gently weeps, All my loving, Dear Prudence, Savoy truffle, Come together I could keep on listing examples. And music is all about songwriting and no one I repeat no one can write songs like Lennon, McCartney and Harrison. All other aspects of music like complex instrumentals comes secondary
Aruna K Don’t sit here saying it doesn’t matter and make me waste my time re-listening to these songs when I can see you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. Listen to YYZ by Rush and then come talk to me about complexity in the instruments, on a whole nother level
Fantano will be saying this about MBDTF in 40 years
what
QUINCY STATEMENT ON THE BEATLES IS BACKING UP WHY? MICHAEL JACKSON DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE UP THE CATALOG.
In 40 years, Thriller (Michael Jackson/Quincy Jones) will still be the best selling album of all time. Checkmate.
fantano will be saying this about botdf in 10 years
why does best-selling album mean anything? The best-selling albums are all the Grammy nominees. Do you tend to love Grammy nominees?
They weren’t groundbreaking musicians, they were groundbreaking artists. No finer songwriters than John Paul, and George, it wasn’t, to me, instrumental virtuosity that made them what they are, but rather artistic and creative capabilities in the craft of songwriting. Also phenomenal singers, and perhaps not virtuous players, but certainly they had a unique style of play that is part of the trademark
why is everything about virtuosity nowadays. I'll take soulful over virtuos any day. Music is about creating a story/adventure and fun. we've lost that.
To be fair, even given what you have just said, the Beatles composed songs in various modes, different time signatures and pioneered the future for pop, rock, metal, psychedelic and even progressive. They were fine musicians too in my humble opinion
Eddie Van Halen had technical mastery but also the creative spirit. Great combination. He also made history. The beatles had an incredibly high creative genius for songwriting. That is what makes them one of the greatest musicians. Creativity is the key. Without it, all the technical mastery is just a circus act.
I mean Paul McCartney is certainly a virtuous player, especially by standards of the time. The others not so much, yeah, but still
Joe Lennon Phillips Not to mention how tight they were live... and without a decent P.A. or monitoring. This who's the best stuff is all just ego-tripping. It's mainly the realm of "jazz snobs" whose complex arrangements and self-indulgent solos only appeal to a minority of aficionados. It's all subjective anyhow... and it's completely irrelevant. The whole of The Beatles was far greater than the sum of the parts... as their subsequent solo careers clearly demonstrate. And I believe Quincy Jones eventually apologised for all these remarks anyway. Best to just listen to the records and watch the live performances and judge for yourself. Anyone who's been in a pop group for any length of time will tell you how hard it is to find the right combination of players who fit together perfectly. And Ringo's parts are awesome btw... so creative... some of the best pop drumming ever recorded imo. Can you imagine "Ticket To Ride" or "Come Together" played by Ginger Baker or Mitch Mitchell (especially when they were on smack)? I can't... I'm just so sick of the sour grapes and Ringo rubbishing... but you have to expect it... when you're that big there are always plenty of people wanting to tear you down in the hope that it will raise themselves up. Well, it won't...
Claiming The Beatles were "the worst musicians" and then citing an incident with Ringo to prove his statement is like saying Star Wars is bad because of a Jar Jar Binks line.
McCartney no doubt is one of the most influential bass players of all time, he's a multi instrumentalist and while he's certainly not mastered every instrument to the point of genius, he's far above average on bass.
Same goes for Harrison's guitar playing.
Also, Quincy is talking bullshit. The only album Quincy co-produced and arranged was “Sentimental Journey”, an album Ringo sung and *didn’t* play drums on!
Quincy is an artist, musician, producer so I guess he has a bit more knowledge
He is low key telling you that the Beatles didnt play the tracks. There is plenty of evidence that the 'Wrecking Crew' played the studio albums and not the actual Beatles.
@@rick5787 yeah right, you seen Get Back?😂
@@hannahg8439 Have you? They sucked in it. Even had other artists come into the studio... wth? Lol
Sounds like someone's a lil salty that they're gonna be remembered as the Austin Powers Theme guy
You're talking about the same man who produced Frank Sinatra AND Michael Jackson. Trust me I think he's sleeping fine at night about this lmaooooo
Wtf you talking about he produced some of the greatest albums of history, he is probably more recognized than George martin
My how that joke flew far over some heads
I didn't even know he wrote that
AidanHicksTV nah he’s the Austin powers guy
Can you talk about how he also said that modern pop music is trash. And then when they asked if there were any exceptions who where inovating in the genre he said"Bruno Mars. Chance the Rapper. Kendrick Lamar. And the Ed Sheeran record is great. Sam Smith too"
KING GEEDRA lol all those performers are trash
Andrew Killen Kendrick is trash? Ok dood
ed sheeran makes hella gay music tho
thats such a safe answer also ed sheeran is trash
and that mark ronson is an interesting producer...lol
Roses are red,
John Lennons' in heaven,
Quincy gave Abbey Road a 1,
But DAMN got a seven???
At least you tried.
squaredeck
Roses are red
And John Lennon is dead
He was an atheist
I think you're misled
Yoko "Oh No!"
Damn is a five at least
squaredeck
Roses are red
Yoko was shit
That's it.
All the Beatles said they weren't virtuoso players. It was their songs,that mattered.
Considering Paul couldnt read music, he did okay for himself. John, George, and Ringo were a perfect match for Paul and they pulled it off
LETS ARGUE with quincy jones
not really much to argue about, anyone that is taking quincy seriously is just doing it to make people angry
mlskrsk he dated ivanka dude. Just admit it
fotm07 Or maybe, without his over-exaggeration, what Quincy said is actually reasonable?
how does that make any sense? that's like saying, "if he said something else, then he would have a point"
fotm07 Because people talk like that all the time and don't really mean what they say literally. Like adding flavor to your talk. No one here thinks Quincy is saying they were the worst musicians literally, but you bet your ass they'll still argue about how they were still good musicians, which is debatable considering the talent Quincy has worked with over his lifetime.
You have to understand where Quincy was coming from. He was friends with Ray Charles, studied string orchestration in Paris, was a talented jazz trumpeter and arranger and composer, worked with Duke Ellington and other masters of their craft, was vice-pres of Mercury records and scored his first film in 1964 when The Beatles were on Ed Sullivan. None of the Beatles were technically proficient. Paul was the natural of the group, and even as gifted as he is, was not on a pro level. None of them could read music, and Quincy was a serious composer.
But here's the thing; John and Paul (and later George) could write pop melodies like motherfuckers. And they knew how to play and write for their strengths. They were creative as hell and took pop music and said it can be anything. Funny, weird, dark, bright and shiny or mysterious and cryptic. They were smart and had the good fortune to collaborate with George Martin and the Abbey Road engineers too.
Back to what Quincy was saying though. That's real talk right there. The Beatles themselves would admit that from a technical standpoint, they were little more than a solid little dance band. That Ringo story rings absolutely true the more you know about them. Even in his All-Starr band, he just sits there playing the most rudimentary back-beats while Greg Bissonette plays the real shit all night. But here's the thing: pro drummers around the world cite Ringo as a huge influence. Why? Because his drumming fit the songs so well, and his style and sound were so unique. That kind of sums up the Beatles; they were mediocre players, but that wasn't the point.
Quincy came from the old studio system of there's a singer, songwriters, an arranger, musicians, a producer, and engineers and you make the shit quickly because studio time is expensive, so everyone better be on top of their respective shit. Heavy cats. No room for mediocrity on the bandstand. Studio or live performance.
Q is also a man who, having been born in 1933, has seen some proverbial shit. His no BS style is a bit hard to take sometimes, but you can be critical of someones art and not hate the artist, which i believe was his intent in the interview. He even says about Ringo, "Great guy, though". In the documentary on Netflix you can see him talking with Paul. But back in the 60's, in that studio, you gotta figure these guys came off as absolute amateurs to him.
Exactly.
Wonderfully put. Jazz and classical players have musicianship that is on another level. Popular music is a different skill set. Elvis couldn't play as well as Segovia. But who would you rather see in a black leather suit in 1968?
Maybe
The beales were no slouches on music theory though. Sure, they didn't know how to read sheet music, but they did understand the concepts of musical theory, just without the exact terms.
How does Quincy not know that technique is not musicianship?
Quincy Jones and other people: “I’m running low on attention. How could I get some?” “Oooh, I’ve got an idea.”
He doesn't need attention. This was his first impressions. As well, someone who's done what Jone's has done wouldn't need to garner attention by being "controversial". Youre just bitter. Also, it's his opinion. If you like the Beatles, you still can.
Kody with a K I’m not bitter at all. I had a bunch of kids hate on the Beatles any time I mentioned them or the conversation of music came up. They never gave a reason why they disliked them and would just say because they suck. It brought them attention and they loved it. Now they hate on other things loved by the general masses just to get attention. Articles on why the Beatles are amazing are a dime a dozen. Articles hating on “the greatest band ever” gain so much attention. It’s obvious.
@@GarrettCroslin I agree with you but Quincy Jones is the last person who would be chasing fame by saying an outlandish or controversial thing. He doesnt need to. If he wants to do something, he can. This is just a tell all because he's at that age. I'm not trying to kiss his ass. I just think you're misguided in your assumptions on his motives. He doesn't need money, or fame, or a way "in"... he is the way in (in terms of making an album or what not). He's made his name. He also knows music. So his opinion has weight. He is a primary source.
Kody with a K I never said anything about him wanting money or fame. He’s just not someone whose opinion people should give a crap about. He may be talented as a musician but thinking that a fairly talented band is garbage and that an entire GENRE of music is beneath another is bull crap. I don’t care who he is. Music is subjective and people like different things. No form of music is better than another. Music is music. The man new his interview would fade in with the rest of interviews these days without him saying something controversial.
Post in the comments section?
Good songwriters tho - and that's a far rarer talent.
Bingo. Songwriting is the hardest part and the Beatles were groundbreaking for their time. Being a 'virtuoso' is of no point if you don't have a melody /composition of note.
Exactly! There are far more highly trained musicians in this world than there are great composers or songwriters. Also people tend to value music too much based on technical skills rather than the ability to write great melodies and be emotionally captivating in an idiosyncratic way. All respect to technically great musicians but I do personally value great composers and songwriters much more. You can of course be both but it's not at all necessary. That's why putting someone down just based on their lack of technical skills not only makes one look very condenscending but also like someone who's not really valuing music for its own sake. Great music can be complex but it can also be very simple.
"He's at a point in his life where he just doesn't give a fuck anymore. I can't wait to get there" BIG MOOD
BRO SAME
Yessir that’s the life
Damn Anthony, first you give DAMN a 7 now you're giving Revolver a 7 and calling Quincy a stupid n-word
Marshmellow Vibes If Anthony said that Revolver was a 7/10, I would go myself into his house just to tell him he needed mental help.
Quincy IS acting like a stupid N-word.
HE'S CONFIRM TO BE A TRUMP SUPPORTER AND DOESN'T LIKE MUSIC AT ALL!, HE ONLY DOES IT FOR THE MONEY
Hahahaha
💀💀
Rashida is fine. He did that
luckyjinxer gotta agree with you on this one
Peggy Lee did that
Look up the Lennon interview where he says, technique-wise, he would look silly next to someone like BB King, but that he can make a guitar fkkn SPEAK. He can make it HOWL.
That's why Michael Jackson bought The Beatles Catalogue
Not anymore
ALL CAPS when you spell the man's name
@simon templer Coming from the guy who clearly has some weird hate-boner for the Beatles...your profile is fucking weird man. And nah, MJ is a legend but wasn't consistently as innovative and influential as the Beatles
Wasn't even close
He bought it because the beatles were popular and made money not because they were decent musicians
To be fair, he was referring to them very early on in their careers
and he was just talking bout his first opinions
Even the Beatles first album was miles ahead of what was going on around it. Bands that wrote their own songs and used complex chord progressions (which dispensed with the three-chord rock n roll format of Elvis and Chuck Berry etc) were hitherto unheard of.
And it's not like he shit on their songwriting abilities which have always been pretty fantastic for the most part.
positive comment complex chord progressions? do u even know what it means?
first beatles album didnt really have any complex chord progressions, neither was it miles ahead. It was pretty standard in terms of the rock n roll that existed. Solid songs but the innovation only came later on
Bullshit. Ringo is a brilliant drummer. Macca is skilled bass player. Macca and Lennon were very good keyboard players.
margus kiis Look, Ringo wasn’t that talented of a drummer imo. Talented drumming would be Jimmy Cobb (Miles Davis quintet), Keith Moon (The Who) and John Bonham (Led Zeppelin), who, by the way, are a better band then the Beatles. You want GOOD keyboard players? Try Ray Manzerek (The Doors) or Richard Manuel (The Band). I don’t hate the Beatles (don’t like their rapid toxic fan base honestly) , but to say that they are in some way “brilliant” certainly overstates their musical abilities. If you REALLY listen to Sgt. Peppers, is it that good? Does it have the wow factor? Not really. Sure it’s production was ahead of it’s time and its cover art was unique but that’s about it. The mediocre music always gets lost amongst It’s cultural significance. I suspect most people feel like they have to like the Beatles because they’re told to. Yes the Beatles where the “first to do it”. I get it. But so where the Stones, Hendrix, The Who, and The Beach Boys, and they where all just as groundbreaking. In reality, The Beatles are kind of the first “boy band.” Like a 60s One Direction that had a few new recording techniques and then had a dramatic break up because Lennon was a selfish a**hole. Want groundbreaking? Try Miles Davis “Kind of Blue” the best selling jazz record of all time recorded in 1959, before the Beatles where even a band. A cornerstone of not only jazz but music, right up there with Beethoven’s 5th and Michael Jackson’s Thriller. Want brilliant? Listen to Bob Dylan’s 1966 “Blonde on Blonde.” That’s a REAL 60s album. Pure gold. And yes, Sgt. Peppers and Abbey Road are “influential.” But then again, so is Cardi B so I guess that’s not saying a whole a lot.
Jarrett Lawrenson
Utter rubbish. If the Beatles were just a 'boy band' how is it their songbook is full of popular classics written by Lennon and McCartney?
They were great musicians, songwriters and performers.
To compare them with Miles Davis is ridiculous. Most people have never heard of Miles Davis. The Beatles Were the 60s.
Unfortunately you're letting your own musical preferences and prejudices cloud your judgement of a band that is almost universally admired by saying "well they weren't as skilled musicians as x and y."
But then x and y weren't as skilled as Debussy, Ravel or Stravinsky, that rationale takes you nowhere.
@@yeetusmymeatus4008 Hahahaha, senseless banging (Moon) is talented drumming??? Great joke. It seems you have never been in any rock band. Such a stupid banging is interesting to watch BUT it is just a useless crap musically. In fact, in studio Pete had to play drum parts instead Moon on several song. Bonham is quite overrated too but he was at least useful drummer. He worked well, although his style was limited. Ringo is a brilliant drummer. He is able to get into every song and play just as needed. Just listen his drumming on "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and especially on "John Lennon and Plastic Ono Band". The last one is his masterwork. Amazing. Primitive -- yes. But so amazingly primitive. Compare it to ULTRAbooooring "pro" drumming by Andy White (the future Yes man) on "Imagine" which basically ruined all the album. Ringo Starr is a pure genius of drumming.
I don`t like Pepper actually, I think it is massively overrated. Maybe the keyboards- full sound was amazing in 1967 but the songs on album are mediocre. John had writer`s bloc and Paul had to fill album almost alone.
What did Stones first???? NOTHING but the stupid quasy rebel image. The babyface Jagger and some rebel. Great joke.
I have never understand the The Beatles as boy band ideas. Their music from 1963 to 1967 was rough, square, industrial, male, strange. Compare it to The Beatles to Billy J Kramer or Cliff Richard, the real girly heartthrobs. Beatles even looked ugly, Macca was just exception. They behaved badass too. Listen their interviews too.
Beatles really groundbreaking albums were "Revolver" and "The Beatles" (1968). Those sound really amazing in 2019 too. Those albums are still rocking.
Jarrett Lawrenson was on board until you said sgt. Peppers “wasn’t that good”
I don’t think you guys have listened to much rock at all...
All of this is absurd. When I studied at Berklee we were taught Paul McCartney bass lines because they are absolutely brilliant. He played the guitar on Blackbird and the solo on Taxman. His bass runs on I Want You (She's So Heavy) sound like an arpeggiated Moog patch. Ringo is the most underrated drummer I know of - his fills are fascinating and very distinctive because he leads with his left hand. And his performance on Rain. There is too much to get into here, I don't have the time. Suffice to say that the views in this video are just absurd.
He is not saying, that they are NOW at this point, the worst of all time. He said, when he met them - he was like "oh shit, they are the worst i ever saw". And he is coming from Jazz angle, like bald man said. But he is not saying anything like "i still think, they are the worst" and etc.
@@jackcravford8744 I am a composer. I am not getting into a discussion with you about this.
@@singlesideman Why? I mean, if you can show me WHERE EXACTLY he is still to this day thinking that they are the worst, i will understand you, but i am not. And believe me, i don't agree with him.
And it was only John and Paul on ballad of John and yoko they even said they weren’t the greatest musicians but John said we got the sound we wanted
Couldn’t agree more. He just sounds like a bitter old man shouting get off my lawn. The sky is blue and the Beatles are the GOAT. Not opinion..FACT
The Marlon Brando comment was the wildest.
John Hurtado read that as Melon Brando, didn't even question it
John Hurtado noooooo why? marlon did not!!!!! noooooo, oh, but if he was....it didnt change the talent!
John Hurtado its literally no secret that he was bisexual
I understand that. He had hinted at bisexuality in his interviews; and also, was very close to Michael Jackson. For me it was more so Richard Pryor being name dropped, because in a comedy central roast, Pryor is seen saying to his friend, "and thats when i fucked my first faggot, ill say it before anyone else holds it over my head." Whats more is that this was in an illuminati video, where he mentions certain words that only became identifiable after the Pizzagate scandal. What Quincy Jones did was more so confirm that video - check it out. czcams.com/video/t1Fc1VeV8iQ/video.html
Anthony, I think we only heard a fragment of his opinion on The Beatles. He was asked what his first impression of the Beatles was. And anyone who knows even a little bit about the Beatles knows that their early music wasn't particularly inspired. It wasn't until we got to Rubber Soul and onward that they cared less about making a pop hit and more about creative expression. So maybe Q's opinion changed from his initial impression.
Charlie S yep. Even george martin said that the beatles' songwriting was rubbish
Wasn't "inspired"? What the hell are you talking about? Are you not thinking this through, and thinking you can compare what they did in 1963 to music of today, even though you are supposed to be thinking in terms of comparing them to anything that had come before or was out when the Beatles hit? They were far superior to anything when Jones met them.
I stand by what I said. The Beatles were HEAVILY influenced by Rockabilly and R&B in the United States and that was the popular music in America nearly a decade before them. Lennon himself said that if there was no Elvis, then there wouldn't be the Beatles as we know them. They basically turned R&B into Pop music, but that doesn't mean that the music they were doing was "inspired." In my opinion, the first few albums ("Please Please Me", "With the Beatles") just made an already existing genre of music more accessible to the American teenager. You can't tell me that the music that the Beatles made in 1963 was "far superior" than Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, and Elvis Presley. Hell, they even dressed like Buddy Holly in the early days.
...and actually they all significantly improved as instrumentalists over the span of their career, which can be traced on their records if listened carefully. Paul's bass wasn't memorable on the first few records, but on "Abbey Road" he truly shines like a professional and inspired bass player.
Charlie S
Their pop hits were still brilliant.
Writing good pop songs is still an art.
The best thing Quincy Jones ever made was rashida Jones
Nah. She is annoying as hell. At least he produced Thriller.
Definitely do-able!
Not Important Absolutely! ❤️
Dam straight
He only composed the greatest song in history!
The problem is that people don't differentiate between songwriting talent and musicianship
Between ability and taste
Musicianship gets boring very fast...I get bored very easily of Pagannini and Liszt...That's why Pop still rules...A good song is a good song...period...
I was taught in my college musical history class that The Beatles were the most influential music act ever. Even if you believe that's a stretch it's not far off, they earned their place in history
RedLightning17 I think Quincy Jones would know more then your little class but alwhite if you say so.
Quincy Jones actually liked The Beatles and went as far as to say that they were 'the most incredible songwriters that ever lived.' In this interview he was just referring to their lack of technical ability during their early years.
Influential yes. Good no.
Influential? Yes. Good? Debatable
Well they sold by far the most records of any artist in history, hundreds of major artists name them as their inspiration-so good luck arguing there's anyone else _more_ influential.
To me, being a songwriting power house is way more impressive than being some technical shred wizard. Why doesn't he shit on Stevie Wonder while he's at it? Stevie isn't known for his shredding either. But he was a master songwriter. I've seen plenty of jazz musician shred their asses off but when I ask to hear something they wrote, it's always the same answer. "Oh I'm working on something right now".
jbulletc Is songwriting in Jazz music even that important though? Some jazz music is just instrumental.
Some people think it is. A lot of jazz standards are fantastic examples of excellent and clever songwriting.
No, Stevie actually has technical abilities. The Beatles have very little chops.
U said it
Dog Jr i really think you dont know all their work if you say that b.s
Actually Paul’s bass playing was pretty mad in that regard he is actually a really really fantastic technically skilled player.
ECCO and don't forget the great Harrison on the guitar
During their era, McCartney was consistently rated in jazz polls as #1 in the world. But I guess they didn't know anything about jazz.
When asked, Lennon said they were "adequate" musicians. Asked what explained their popularity, he answered, "Perhaps people prefer adequate musicians."
They were actually better than adequate.
how can that be true when nickleback exists
Márk Mikolay did you read the article? He said when he first met them he thought they were the worse Nickelback wasn't around back then.
lol I got busted
It's just hyperbole. The Beatles are famously excellent musicians and literally the best song writing duo of the twentieth century. I mean the way Quincy sums up ALL rock and roll is indicative of his own bias.
Shut up Jaden Smith!
Honestly this whole Nickelback narrative is so played out and corny that it has actually outlived the "era" of the band.
Saying the Beatles were bad musicians completely misses the point of them being a studio band, who’s musical vision and intuition were perfectly in line with what the public were looking for. This just feels like pettiness from a talented musician throwing stones at less talented superstars, upset his most recognizable song is more often referred to as “The Austin Powers theme”
Quincy Jones produced most of michael Jackson’s biggest hits, and worked with some of the biggest names in music in the 20th century. No one knows him as “the guy who ddI the Austin powers theme”.
Chris I wouldn’t use pop music as an example of musical prowess
strafer why not? it’s hard to make a really great pop song. Im more impressed by consistently memorable pop artists than i am most experimental types tbh. It seems relatively easy to make something that does away w melodies and traditional structures than it is to come up w a melody that will still be relevant and catchy 40 years down the road.
Chris yes I agree it can be hard to make a catchy pop song but they generally aren’t hard to play which is why I said that since he is eluding to mastery of an instrument as quality of the musician. No mention of creativity at all. When I think of catchy melodies, Paul Mcartney is one of the first names I think of. For him to say Paul is a bad musician sounds over the top. It’s not like Quincy is writing Russian esq early 19th century classical piano pieces that only a handful of people on earth can play.
Chris
Yep. MJ's songs as catchy and popular as they are.... Suck!
Ok. I like a lot of the first two albums.
George was a brilliant guitarist he also played sitar.
Paul is a brilliant multi instrumentalist. As well bass he plays lead guitar, piano.
Ringo is revered by many drummers.
John could play guitar and keyboard but he was above all an artist, a poet and a songwriter.
Just because you play jazz doesn’t mean you’re good
If music was just a mere virtuosity, then yes
If you play jazz professionally, You are a very good musician. like, bottomline dude. I like the Beatles too man but jazz is just a difficult genre to learn than rock, and a jazz musician is most likely going to be better than a rock musician.
Ringo was actually quite a good drummer. And a lot of criticism against him is unfounded.
BAHAHAHA...🤣🤣🤣Unfounded? Ringo is just an average drummer! The whole world knows that...apart from Boy Band Fans
Just Aname. Ringo was not the most technical drummer. But he was and is a great for knowing how to play to the music. There are a lot of very talented drummers out there that over do it. Ringo played exactly what the song needed. And that isn’t always easy to find.
@@justaname1862 Hes one of the best drummers on the world. The dude is a metronome, and had creative phrases that always played for the song and composition.
Dude is untouchable.
1 note from Ringo is worth thousands ftom any other drummer, and the dollar value only supports that claim.
@@thegrassman993 That excuse is used all the time to make up for his lack of ability...its the oldest excuse in the book
@@archologyzero Bahahaha😂😂😂
Musicians study Jazz to play it. But a gifted writer has it from the get go. Paul and John where gifted.
@Lunar Orbit JAZZ AND CLASSICAL IN THE SAME LEAGUE? XDDD
@@kornelmi21454 huh?
The beatles were mediocre musicians and recycled generic pop chord progressions
@Lunar Orbit jazz and rock are originated as the music of slave descendants. They cannot be compared to Classical which is the music of European nobility and is scientifically proven to increase intelligence
Fuckin' A!!
One of the greatest Jazz musicians of all time held Paul McCartney as one of his favorite composers, and he recorded his own version of Black Bird. His name just happens to be Jaco Pastorius. In case you don't know he is the greatest bass player of all time!
I respect Quincy Jones but he sounds quite bitter when talking about the Beatles. He sounds like a snob and those are the worst kind of musicians. Either that or he is becoming old and senile. By insulting the Beatles not only is he insulting them he is insulting everybody who listens to and enjoys their music. The Beatles are great musicians. They made music that resonates with people.
Fuck the beatles
@@y0urcheapthrill may I inquire what kind of music you listen to?
The Beatles, more like: The Shittles roflolmao
rekt
@Michael Sprague Yeah bro nothing screams nursery rhyme more than Helter Skelter, A Day in the Life, Come Together, and While my Guitar Gently Weeps.
@Michael Sprague What do you mean all their songs sound like Octopuses Garden and Eleanor Rigby? They had a large variety in their songwriting. Also I never said the Beatles were particularly complex. Some of their songs are, some aren’t.
I used to hate the beatles too. I get it. Then I actually listened to all their albums and realized I was a dumbass
Donair Don I'm in the same boat. I'm eating my words right now
Yeah same....i used to hear 1 or 2 song during my childhood...now as an adult , just wow...they ahead of their time
Donair Don So you hated the Beatles songs you heard on the radio and then liked those same songs you heard on the albums?! Or did you discover really good songs on their albums that you never heard on the radio?
I actually used to like The Beatles, but then I listened to all their albums and realized that I hated them.
Hambone Jones That's ok.some people don't like Beethoven and Mozart.
The Beatles were fine rock ‘n’ roll musicians. They never claimed to be at a jazz level. Quincy comes off in this interview as s mean senile bitter old man. Quincy Jones would’ve loved to been able to written a song at the level of something or yesterday. He didn’t have the talent to do so and he’s frankly jealous. His ravings are not cute or honest or even entertaining. In fact they come across as envious and self absorbed.
Daniel Achille The dude cowrote the best selling album of all time...
Nah.
@@johnmaughan2875 What album would that be?
@@jeremyc9593 Thriller by Michael Jackson
@@johnmaughan2875 Not really though. He only co-wrote one song on the album (PYT), but he did produce it all. Michael and Rod Temperton wrote basically all of it.
the fact tht theres an actual DEBATE on whether or not The Beatles were good or not is baffling to me
There is a genuine debate about *how* good they were. I personally think that although they were a very good band, they are overestimated.
@@brandonkey181 overestimated how?
@@McLovin-bq2sh *OMG THE BEATLES IS THE BEST BAND OF ALL TIME !!!!*
@@brandonkey181 army said bts a kpop group
@@brandonkey181 That's cause they are tho lol
The worst musicians in the world? He's insane.
It's a sensationalist statement
I don't see any problem with that. The question was "What was your first impression of them?" and his answer is exactly that, paraphrased: "The first time I met them and saw them play, I thought they were the worst musician in the world"
He's not commenting on anything else than what he thought of them at the time. He's not saying that they were the worst musician, he's not saying that they are, he's saying what he thought.
Hyperbole. (Kinda like your "He's Insane." comment) he wasn't being literal.
I may be black, but Quincy Jones bout to catch these hands if I see him after this.
RedLightning17 Cool. I’m black and Quincy about to catch this dap tbh.
The Beatles were ok The Temptations were better
ur whitewashed from a fellow smarter black man
Candido yeah but The Beatles we're better than The Beetles
SlowlyRollingBoulderDash thanks for letting me know my sentence had an error you a real one 😂
He was literally just talking about their musical ability, not their talent as composers. Y'all just wanna be mad to be mad
newt I noticed that too
newt thank you for being the only one in the comments to point that out 👍
newt
And ? It is still an absurd.
Even Considering their Musical ability, they were far from being the WORST.
Like, Come on.
TonyTony it's telling that out of all the material in this interview ripe for discussion y'all pick the hyperbole he chose to use to describe his initial thoughts upon hearing the band instead of say, MJ stealing music.
Plus this was just his first impressions and it was early in their career..
4:37 That makes sense though because Jimi seems like a pretty asocial and timid person who instead of going out with friends would just stay home and play the guitar. There's a quote floating around about how they asked him at a party if he wanted to try acid and he said "no thanks, but you don't happen to have any LSD do you?"
I've heard Quincy Jones many times. I literally can't remember a single song he ever did.
Same
Ai No Corrida is known. And you know he is a producer, right.
Also this is someone who does not agree with his statement.
Fresh Prince?
Produced and wrote for Leslie Gore in the 60s and later George Benson and then Michael Jackson records. Very talented but just bonkers. Ringo may not have gotten the 4x4 but his style was suited well for the Beatles. Jazz v Rock, apples and oranges.
he's just salty. it reminds me of when king buzzo of the Melvins talks shit about Nirvana.
Do 'I Hate Mars Bars'.
dom jm jajaj funy ihe reference
pussy
Stale joke, gtfo of here.
MemeRetro Yes.
I like that David Bowie song.
I've read books on George Harrison and through interviews, he always said he felt he wasn't that great, he was the first to say it. He often said that he felt novice or starstruck by many other musicians and that he couldn't compar, which makes George seem cool and down to earth, cause he was talented, in his own right.
Lenin Partida he wrote and led the most popular Beatles song of all time, Here Comes the Sun
@@maximilian6830 One of the greatest song of all time, period
The Beatles weren’t virtuosos by any means, but they didn’t have to be. Their songs will be around long after Quincy Jones has been forgotten
Donald Roberts
He already is, and no one cares who Quincy Jones is.
@@joerod0 Oh yes,a lot of people know who Quincy Jones is.Beatles were great,Quincy is great.Musicians do criticize each other.John Lennon even criticized the Beatles musicianship on occasion.
Craig Ezell
Less everyday. And I'll criticize anyone I want. But I won't call them a motherfucker while doing so...
Seeing since he is in the recording business. Which is quite a bit different than being a pro musician or even an amateur for that matter. The name of the game is hit songs, radio play, and longevity of said songs. Whose music sold the most and is still in daily rotation? Jones had his day and sold a lot of music but the volume and longevity of it has long since peaked. The Beatles are still charting...
As far as Quincy Jones ability as a musician and producer he is in the top few. But judging by this interview, as well as others I've read, he leaves a lot to be desired, and quite honestly he's a despicable human being...
The Beatles weren’t very good musicians, and were better song writers. Quincy Jones is also a legendary composer. not sure why he will be forgotten.
30 BELOW Of course Quincy would say that about rock and the Beatles Quincy came out of the jazz scene. Jazz musicians are superior to rock musicians in a technical regard. all the jazz musicians from that era including bill Evans, and others talked a lot of mess about rock. Rock is a dead music just like jazz though. Both are irrelevant genres in the long term.
You are correct. The Beatles were not known as "musicians" in the traditional/trained sense. They were just great songwriters and gelled as a band. It comes down to how well they executed the songs in the studio and the techniques they used given the minimal technology available at the time. At the opening, I think you meant you were envious of Quincy. Envy is when you want something that someone else has. Jealousy is a fear of losing something you already have. Thanks for this review. Keep up the good work.
Do a Beatles Worst to Best
This is the best interview of all time
I'm feeling strong 8 to decent 9 on this one.
Also GQ is epic
Andrés Baez Lmao I loved it
No it isn't.
It is
The beatles did it in just 7 years, they made the British invasion, made two albums a year making films and going on to do continuous concerts how they divided their work time writing songs which were both amazing and extraordinary albums. I don't care if you hate the beatles, it still won't change the best band in the world and best selling album to date
@Ryan Akwar no, I’m pretty sure it’s The Eagle’s greatest hits.
I think you mean best selling band overall to date. But nonetheless their albums are up there...
@Scottish Lad ur a clown
Just because they’ve sold a bunch of albums doesn’t mean they’re good. There are plenty of better musicians who are/were way better than The Beatles.
There is such as a thing as overrated. The Beatles are probably the best example of that word.
Despite them being undeniably the most influential band in history, that still wouldn't make them the best. I never really agreed with "most influential = best" or whatever, as I find other things like skill, creativity, complexity, emotion and other things to be a better indicator of quality. Jimi Hendrix isn't the greatest guitarist of all time due to his influence, but his creativity and virtuosity, at least to me.
Except for their later work, I find a lot of The Beatles' work to be above average pop-rock, but it never really left an impact on me. If I were to name the best band of all time, I'd give that honour to say, Pink Floyd.
And by the way, I'm pretty sure some other artists/bands would've done most, if not all the things that The Beatles did, had they not existed, or had just stuck to making silly pop music.
The Americans still haven't been able to get over being shown how to play their own music !!
Peter Maxwell
Ooookay boomer
@@MiG9D Frank Zappa said they (the English) re-invented the wheel ( rock), and rolled it right back across our foot, ouch !!
Necrotickle people are still saying boomer? Lmao
@@fatherkarl9291 Your smooth brain must not be able to process how moronic your comment is.
You must be new here...
Necrotickle not funny didn’t laugh. In fact I cringed.
Paul was the worst bass player he's ever heard? Are you kidding me? Yes granted, Paul was not a technical bass player like John Entwistle or Geddy Lee, but he had good ear for melody and knew which line would fit for each song. I dare you to listen to "Hey Bulldog" and "Rain" and still tell me Paul McCartney isn't a good bass player!
He never said he was the worst.
"Paul was the worst bass player I ever heard." - Quincy Jones
I was speaking of Anthony.
Kennet he had a good ear for melody, you mean like every musician should. Go listen to Jaco if you want to hear someone that can really make that instrument sing
He's good, especially at writing, his bass lines were very well written just not technically impressive.
Ha I guess Paul McCartney was so terrible according to Quincy but didn't seem to mind Paul collaborating with MJ on Thriller.
Lol
Triggered.
S. Lee He didn't say he was bad at writing songs, but a bad musician. You can come up with a song without playing any instrument
He sang on The Girl Is Mine, which is the song on Thriller being referred to here
Also songwriting ability is a huge part of being a musician
There is a big difference great playing and great writing. Great playing creates a great moment, but great writing last forever.
Quincy has exposed himself as extremely jealous in his old age.
Emphasis on "First Impression"
With all due respect, sir. Quincy is one of the most influential musicians on the planet and he has earned the right to talk as much shit about other people as humanly possible. He's a legend.
@@joshnippleton3449 he's got a right to his opinion, and so do you and I. Quincy is salty because while technically brilliant he never matched the songwriting ability and popularity of the Beatles. Quincy's comments belittle himself more than anyone else in my opinion. Of course, being a beatles fan I am somewhat biased!
@@ronnyraygunz8718 all these opinions are just wrong though. What Quincy said on his interview was his experience with the beatles when they first met. In other words, his "first impression" of them. No amount of global success is gonna change their first ever encounter.
@@ronnyraygunz8718 What he did musically was way more superior to what the Beatles have done in their entire discography. I'd even go so far as to say that he's the most influential artist of the century.
McCartney and Harrison are in most people's top 20 to top 10 musicians at Bass and Lead Guitar respectively. Jones made no sense claiming they were the worst in the world.
easy2120 That’s because most people don’t know what an actual good bass and lead guitarist should sound like
@@landoakechi9406 Yeah and you know everything
Aruna K Not everything, just that there are bands with leagues better bassists and leads than The Beatles have, which is why I say if you have them in your top 20, you don’t know shit
Weeb of Your Nightmares It’s all subjective my guy. There’s no right or wrong way to make a top 10 list of the best guitarists/drummers/etc. Those people are just listing what *they* prefer and it doesn’t make you smarter than them just because their opinions don’t align with yours. And it’s a stretch to say that they don’t know anything when that couldn’t be farther from the truth. You definitely have a right to your opinion and I’m not saying you can’t have one, but the way you came off in your responses makes it seems like you shit on anyone who thinks otherwise. It’s all relative and not everyone’s gonna have the same opinion as you. It doesn’t make them dumber for it
Tito Yeah it does
How was Paul not a musician's musician? He could play it all
chaosmos24 And the guitar, and piano, and probably the drums
Sure, but the bass is where he truly shined to me. So melodic and tasteful.
+Albin Lundholm Band on the Run drums, man.
Albin Lundholm he made a full album by himself
Albin Lundholm yah people are stupid Paul is a great musician and John was an amazing lyricist and what they did for pop music and rock music was push it forward and make if more than just music. They made it art with Sgt pepper and revolver and rubber soul. People need to appreciate them and stop it with this shit talking. If people don't like them as much as me or others then fine but just give a little respect seriously and Paul was a hella great bassist but yah he did more too
Ringo’s my favorite drummers, and, like you said, he wasn’t a flashy musician, but he played with the song
I believe Paul said Ringo's greatest strength was adaptability. Him and John could being him pretty much anything and he'd figure something out pretty quick.
The Beatles would not have been The Beatles without him. People who aren't drummers, or who don't understand music, don't realize that the drums are the backbone of any song.
The real myth is that the Beatles weren't great instrumentalists. That's really how they got their start, mastering other people's music and often playing it better than the original artists. And just because you turn 80 doesn't mean you suddenly stop caring. Sometimes people get bitter. McCartney was an extremely good bass player. Listen to Come Together. Also, Quincy is the same guy who thinks Marlyn Monroe wasn’t that pretty.
You’re right until the last sentence. Marilyn Monroe is like a 6/10
Repeat Flex Offender if you’re gay
gutenbird she’s not even more attractive than most instagram models, big L
Repeat Flex Offender True. But that’s because photoshop hadn’t been invented.
Marilyn is more charming than she is pretty. If she wasn't as confident and beloved as she was, I don't think she'd be seen as that pretty today?
At least not to me. Beauty is highly subjective anyway, more so than music.
Corey Feldman > Beetles
Corey Feldman > music
Accurate
According to Quincy Jones, that's true.
Cal Chuchesta > Betles
Beatles > Beetles
Beatle songs sound like dirty dishes, he's about to clean it in the kitchen. WOOAH
did you really just quote Jaden smith lmao
Sure they none of them were the best at the instruments they played. But, that doesn’t make them bad musicians. Paraphrasing on something John said, I’m a musician man, give me a tuba and I’ll get something out of it. What I take from this is, it doesn’t matter the skill, it’s what you write. And nobody was better at that than the Beatles. If I practiced for a couple years I could probably be a more technically skilled guitarist than John ever was, and he never was a technically great guitarist. But will I ever come close to being 1% of the musician John was? No. Ringo is not the most skilled drummer ever. But he was the perfect drummer for the Beatles. Replace him with a John Bonham or whatever drummer you want to say, and it messes up the dynamics, and their songs don’t work the same way. Let’s look at a hot topic, Greta Van Fleet. I like them, and I don’t think it’s crazy to say that they are probably more skilled at their instruments than the Beatles were. They don’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles.
Just remember,a lot of groups in the 1960's had session Musicians play on their album cuts,not the Beatles,they played 99% of their own instruments on their albums,save for a trumpet or horn on Revolver,and they played live on Ed Sullivan,while most groups were playing with the instruments recorded over,and also they did not have all the technology they have today,back then it was 2 guitars,a bass,and drums,with 2 speakers,they also were in their early 20's,to me that's pretty damm remarkable!,do you see Justin Bieber playing an instrument,or any other boy bands,no.
no one has fully watched this video yet
the real comment is in the comments
Liam Quinn Duuude!
This guy knows what's up.
Lmao I’m reading this with the video paused at 7:33
Actually, Anthony, scores of musicians and fans through the years have cited Paul McCartney as one of the best and most innovative rock bassists in history. The fact that you, of all people, would dismiss him is deeply disappointing. And no, George was not the "musician's musician" of the band. In addition to bass, Paul could and did play guitar, drums and piano for many of their sessions, and he often played lead guitar parts when George couldn't.
Have you heard George's solos?
santiago pichiringo all I'm saying is the isolated bass and drums to dear prudence is fucking dope shit
SirHatchporch dude just admit he sucks
Paul isn't bad, but George is better, and far more likeable.
SirHatchporch I’ve also had the opinion that George was the most underrated Beatle. However I’m still of the opinion John is the most “talented” one just because his first two albums after the Beatles split up are masterpieces imo.
I remember reading in a guitar mag how Kirk Hammett of Metallica said he hated the Beatles, they suck, etc. Somewhat offended, I said out loud to my wife," You know what Kirk Hammett said about the Beatles? She said, "Who?" I said, " Uhhh....nevermind."
Hahahaha... vsry good.
Don't think Hammet ever said that. I couldn't find it.
They transitioned from "She Loves You" to "Sergeant Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band"! During 1986, I heard on the radio "I'll Be Back" and "All I've Gotta Do"! They were GOOD musicians with a gifted producer to created cool MODALS
I agree they were not virtuosos. As a teenager, and after seriously getting into their music and understanding that old school rock, mostly 60s and 70s was definitely the best era in rock history and that I was not gonna find that quality, in the early 2000s, I started exploring bands with real virtuosos like Led Zeppelin, The Who and Cream, Santana and Jimi Hendrix. However, for some reason, I still loved the Beatles more than those other bands and the reason was #1: their incredible ability to create 100% original melodies that got glued in my head from just a first hearing, and because their exquisite work at recording studio; songs like Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day In The Life, Eleanor Rigby, Because or Here Comes The Sun, are a few examples of a perfect combination of John, Paul and George's incredible imagination and George Martin's ability to make their ideas posible. Blues based hard rock bands like or Cream or Led Zeppelin were awesome but their sound was pretty average to my ears, a little bit too raw. The Beatles, in the other hand were not as talented to make jaw dropping solos, but their imagination and sound mixing was beyond any other band at that moment, only The Beach Boys Hendrix, and Pink Floyd were taking things that seriously.
Tragic time we are living in where people are just bashing The Beatles to look cool and wise
yup, bashing something for coult is the fakest shit, and its usually very easily depictable when they have nothing solid to back it up when you ask why they don't like them (or about any band that is popular to hate atm, really).
Pretty sure Quincy Jones was and still is the shit
When you're the most famous and influential artist of all time, being placed on the chopping block becomes common.
The Beatles weren't just great songwriters, they were also very creative in how they manipulated sounds.
Man, I wish you scrolled to the end of the article. Now I have to go to the actual article to read the rest. :/
Sure, the Beatles have been glorified, but idk anyone in their right mind that considered the Beatles “virtuosic musicians.” So his statements aren’t really that outlandish or “counter to popular opinion”. The fact is, the Beatles served a purpose, and that purpose was not to make intricate jazz music. Quincy’s take just strikes me as very surface level and shallow.
Quincy's take is elitist and bitter. Just the fact that he shit on Hendrix for not wanting to be his pawn in his own music project shows that he has a mountain of insecurity and bitterness. Also McCartney is a "virtuoso". He played piano, drums, bass and guitar all exceptionally well. He composed on piano, played the mellotron, experimented on synthesizers. He even played rag time style, folks style, composed period pieces, composed a whole musical, did a lot of the production and instruments to his countless solo albums, so if that's not virtuoso I don't know what is.
@@BigMacSoss Look up the definition of virtuoso and then get back to me.
@@BigMacSoss bruh you just got fucked
Quincy's take was just the truth!
@@BigMacSoss So TRUE Martini....sooooooo True...None of the Beatles members were great musicians...just average...it was the early marketing machine that made them......and the 12yo Girls.
The Beatles are to Quincy as Kid Cudi is to Melon
The Beatles didn't write good songs. they wrote one masterpiece after the other.
Jones doesn't, never had a fraction of the talent of the Beatles.
I mean... he is talented... but he essentially just wants to get more press I suppose.
Well I mean he says John coltrane didn’t do anything groundbreaking and shit, so, whatevs
TheZooropaBaby he’s just being controversial because he’s old and people are caring less and less about him I feel
Lmao how can anyone even think to say that.
Did we read the same piece? He was praising Coltrane for his knolwedge
Wrong, he's being truthful and is tired of the bullshit. He's not responsible if what he is saying is controversial because that's a matter of other people find controversial.
nah julius he's too old to give a fuck whether the pop culture of today still considers him relevant so he's willing to be real about shit instead of being diplomatic
When you reach 80 will you re-review MBDTF?
Hipsters being trolled by an old man is totally hilarious.
The good thing about the Beatles was the fact that they themselves admitted that they're not very complex song writers. Especially John was pretty open about it and called their skills mediocre.
I think it's important to remember that the Beatles were never pompous about their musical abilities. There are a few interviews and clips in which one or the other mentions how they didn't know much in the beginning. One of my favourite stories is the one about them catching a bus across London, with their guitars I assume, to visit a guy who knew how to play a B7 chord. In the early days they were raw, but they were a tight outfit that rocked the clubs they played in. All of them said they improved later in the piece :-)
The Beatles were more than song writing, they could make music sound good and could easily play pastiches of a variety of genres. They were not virtuosos, they were artist. When you listen to the break down of any of their recordings the individual performances come through as ordinary and rough, with a lot of fudging. Yet when it's incorporated together it sounds fantastic. This is almost the reverse of many band performances where there can be great virtuoso work going on that gets lost in the mix and ends up sounding awful. They knew how to play as a team, and how to make great sound together. Missed notes don't matter if you can't hear them. All of the performances by the Beatles added to each other and complemented. This is most notable by Ringo. His drumming is simple - yet it is almost always exactly what is needed. The roughness of the Beatles playing was also their charm. All of the time they were on the border of parody, always playing with a sense of not taking their work too seriously and trying to make it fun and interesting and understandable. They had what so many professional musicians don't get or understand, the ability to communicate through their music. They were never constrained by expectations of the norm, and instead just did what made sense to them. It is that originality that makes them great artists and thus great musicians.
I think that the song 'Imagine' is a great example of how simple is beautiful. 'Imagine' can be played powerfully with just piano and voice, and the piano part is simple, very simple, and yet it is a great piece of music - that is what true musicianship is.
Dave Smith Well said - couldn’t have said it better myself
👏👏👏👏👏
I was gonna read this long ass comment but then I realized it was an exhaustive circle jerk
Brandon Butterfield you are an exhaustive circlejerk
Too long, didn't read, just wanna say that the Beatles did suck and were nothing more than a marketing scheme that stole their sound from black American musicians and you dummos lapped that shit up.
They inadvertantly became the industry standard by which all other musicians were measured.
The members of The Beatles weren't virtuosos, but the band's musical IQ was off the charts. Their harmonic knowledge and ability to create these beautiful/dark/luscious soundscapes is still among the best to do it in any genre, but especially pop music.
when you hear Ringo play you know its him. I rest my case
mark coers ...except he did get a gig in a Liverpool pub. Multiple.
@@markcoers9429 bruh you just got fucked for not doing research
@@thenaysays hahahaha im laughing
@@thegirlinquestion eyloo bebe
Myke C-Town calls TheNeedleDrop "The WORST music critic in the world"?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Quincy Jones is about the only guy who could talk shit like that. The man’s a legend.
Didn't know he was such a snob though.
He is a jazz legend and the GOAT of all producers. Everything he touch or was associated with musically (wide and broad across genre) was absolutely gold between 1967 through 1985.
Ringo's drums on "Ticket to Ride" is brilliant and way ahead of its time. They were an extraordinary band, the sum of which was greater than its parts. Just listen to Abbey Road. Stellar song writing and great instrumental playing. I suspect dementia is taking over Quincy's brain.