Quincy Jones

[Rudi]

This was brought to my attention. 

I know nothing of Jones, but this is as facinating as it is outrageous

 

http://www.vulture.com/2018/02/quincy-jones-in-conversation.html

Edited February 8, 2018 by Rudi
spell

[The S]

Yup, heard about it too, but hadn't read it, until now. V e r y interesting read, and unbelievably outspoken. Refreshing in a way but idk, I haven't made up my mind yet what I think of this interview and what's being said. I have to digest it all first. 

 

 

[Richard Tracey]

Yeah, I like Quincy - he is a legend, but some of his comments were a bit out of order. I’ll put it down to his age and not giving a damn what anyone thinks.

 

Like Steve, there are a few things I didn’t agree with. He is old school in his way of thinking of music and that is fine, but technology allows you to create music that you might not have been able to before. I was bursting with ideas, but until technology allowed me to do what I needed to get them out, they remained hidden.

[MikeRobinson]

Quincy Jones was/is what I would call "a supremely commercial artist."  He not only knew how to produce compelling music of his own, but he also knew how to provide great material to other artists – Michael Jackson comes to mind – and to help them turn those things into immensely-successful commercial products.

 

I daresay that a great many people today would never have become what they did become, had "Mr. Quincy Jones" not been involved.

[Rudi]

I understand (I think) his POV. But the Beatles were not trained musicians and its unrealistic to compare them to session musicians and the like. So to him they were of little use and therefore deemed 'not much good'. 

 

Me? I think they did fine doing thier own thing. 

[Richard Tracey]

This is the problem. Quincy is a producer, like George Martin. They understand music and can write music, but they are great at taking others music and making it better as they can hear what it needs.

 

But there are a lot of artists who can write fantastic music, having had no training and being self-taught, as they also understand what can make a song - e.g The Beatles. They all grew in their songwriting and playing abilities the more they played. They were good enough for what they wanted to achieve and George Martin helped to make them sound better.

 

A lot of session musicians are fantastic at what they do, but ask them to make their own music and they wouldn’t have a clue. It would probably sound almost identical to the song they play on.

 

I can’t understand why we can’t accept that there are different approaches to making music and that not one is better than the other.

[Just1L]

9 minutes ago, Richard Tracey said:

But there are a lot of artists who can write fantastic music, having had no training and being self-taught, as they also understand what can make a song

 

Wow! Thanks Richard. I'm blushing. LOL 

[Richard Tracey]

12 minutes ago, Just1L said:

 

Wow! Thanks Richard. I'm blushing. LOL 

 

I didn't want to name you Randy - but I'm glad you worked it out

[Richard Tracey]

5 minutes ago, fasstrack said:

It's more a question of being rounded---and prepared. Of course, no one can specialize in everything. But a musician could be CALLED ON to do project X, Y, or Z. If they turn it down b/c it ain't their thing---but have the training and experience to HANDLE it is one thing. Saying no for fear of failing b/c one lacks those things is another. 

 

The Beatles got by on talent, and spent lots of time in the studio realizing ideas and getting chops. But no way could they have handled the orchestration of, say, A Day in the Life w/o Martin. And after the breakup when McCartney wrote Liverpool Oratorio it had to be transcribed and the parts written by orchestrators. By contrast Stephen Sondheim uses Jonathan Tunick as orchestrator b/c it's hard enough just writing the songs and getting them right for the shows. But if it came to it, he's WAY more literate and ready to work with the written page than McCartney---creative and accomplished as he is. I get SO weary of rockers defending lack of knowledge with weak excuses like 'it's not necessary'. BS. You can always say 'it's not necessary' when you know how to do 'it'---that's informed decision-making. When you lack the know-how you'll forever be reliant on others to finish your ideas or projects for you...

 

If every musician or composer knew how to do everything, then there would be a lot of people out of a job as they wouldn't be required. Thats why a producer will use an engineer, who will use someone else and etc etc.

 

The specialise in certain parts of the process and become proficient in that. I love writing music, but I hate the nitty gritty of getting it perfect. I would like a George Martin who would handle it for me. But, I am trying to learn as I go along, there is just so much to learn and that doesn't leave a lot of time to do the thing I enjoy, which is the writing.

[Richard Tracey]

47 minutes ago, fasstrack said:

And Richard, this may seem like it's off-topic but it's really the same thing:

 

OK, it's obvious we play, compose and respect way different musics, right? Here's a common ground between rock and jazz: solos. If a player stumbles or the notes don't quite come out soloing the listener has to become an editor or mind-reader---and might just shut it out. OTOH if it's played as well as it's felt you've made your point---and they get it, no sweat.

 

That's what technique IS---having things come out. If notes come out who cares if you stood on your head or whatever else to make them do it. It's good and hearable.

 

Now make a leap of faith to a player (or writer) who has ideas but lacks the craft to get them out. If they can't notate they'd damn well better be masterful at either singing the lines or fingering those notes for the other players. Not being able to notate robs that musician of one option that could've saved stress and studio time.

 

In my ignorant youth I had a teacher who helped a lot, Marshall Brown. He had taught young musicians before me who have made big names for themselves in jazz. Marshall made me do so many things foundation skill-wise. Rhythm guitar was a big one, and really changed my life. But I had a (typical, for a young player) notion that I wanted to stay 'lyrical' and if I practiced technique---which I lacked b/c my ideas weren't always realized---heard---I'd somehow lose that native thing. Marshall looked at me like the young fool I was and said

 

'If you're REALLY that lyrical, all the technique in the world can't hurt you'.

 

THAT'S what I mean...

 

I can actually agree with a lot of that. I think the writer still needs to have something that they can get out there. I can play by ear, so I can hear a song and pick it up on the keyboard. I can hum a song or sing it and play it on the keyboard. What I can't do is hum a note and instinctively tell you that the note is for eg a Em. I could spend a couple of minutes at the keyboard and then tell you that, but I am not that way inclined.

 

Mark (M57) and David as well as a few others on the site could tell me what I was playing by listening. I think that is a great gift to have and that comes from knowing music and theory. To me, I can still play it without knowing it and it is just another thing that I would have to learn that would take me away from doing what I love.

 

At some point I will make an effort to learn the Theory. I might even take piano lessons - I am really thinking about drum lessons to get a better understanding - and then I'll learn guitar. These are all things I want to do and will, but only when the ideas start to dry up for a couple of minutes.

 

 

[Richard Tracey]

2 minutes ago, fasstrack said:

I teach music to children as young as 5. I have an 8-year-old, very bright and musical, I gave a children's theory book to as a present. I explained why she needed to learn the basics of how music is constructed like this: 'If you were fixing watches you'd want to take at least one watch apart to see what's inside---so you can do your job better. And you also don't want to just finger the notes with no understand of what they mean, do you?'. She got it.

 

I think doing it by ear is fine---but if you're not inquisitive enough to find out what you've played is----if only to be able to explain it simply to others---that to me is self-limiting and counter to the creative spirit even.

 

But we're getting repetitious and possibly boring people...

 

I know what I'm playing and know enough about which chords/notes go with each other, as I have picked that up.

 

My daughter is learning piano, so is going through the grades - she also does the national youth choir and doing music at school. That is a good age to learn. I am at the stage in life where I want to know everything yesterday. I don't look at manuals for things, I just get stuck in and just do it.

[Rudi]

2 hours ago, fasstrack said:

It's more a question of being rounded---and prepared. Of course, no one can specialize in everything. But a musician could be CALLED ON to do project X, Y, or Z. If they turn it down b/c it ain't their thing---but have the training and experience to HANDLE it is one thing. Saying no for fear of failing b/c one lacks skills is another. 

 

The Beatles got by on talent, and spent lots of time in the studio realizing ideas and getting chops. But no way could they have handled the orchestration of, say, A Day in the Life w/o Martin. And after the breakup when McCartney wrote Liverpool Oratorio it had to be transcribed and the parts written by orchestrators. By contrast Stephen Sondheim uses Jonathan Tunick as orchestrator b/c it's hard enough just writing the songs and getting them right for the shows. But if it came to it, he's WAY more literate and ready to work with the written page than McCartney---creative and accomplished as he is. I get SO weary of rockers defending lack of knowledge with weak excuses like 'it's not necessary'. BS. You can always say 'it's not necessary' when you know how to do 'it'---that's informed decision-making. When you lack the know-how you'll forever be reliant on others to finish your ideas or projects for you...

 

Fair comment. However, I dont think this addresses what I said. The Beatles could not have cut it as session players. Toulouse-Lautrec could not have cut it as a Basketball power forward. Jones was measuring the Beatles according to his own business centric criterea. You dont go winkle picking in the Kalahari. 

 

As for studio time:

Until Sgt Pepper, the Beatles didnt spend a lot of time in the Studio. They were writting on the road as best they could for a lot of thier early career. George Martin was a true and valuable collaberator and yes, a realiser of the groups ideas. However the early guide recordings for Sgt Pepper were revealed by Martin during the Arena documentary 50th Anniversary. The songs were essentially complete, lacking mostly only the soundscape constructions of George. 

 

[Rudi]

46 minutes ago, fasstrack said:

Don't get me wrong---I'm a huge fan. Their growth from street roughs writing puerile songs about young love to the level of sophistication they ended up with is nothing short of astonishing. 

 

I sometimes wonder, though, if John Lennon---always with his nose in a book---would've applied himself more to music study---could he have gone even farther than he did? I think so... 

 

I suspect John was perhaps a bit lazy? He was a natural talent and he knew it. He once said "If there is such thing as a genius, I am one. And if there isnt, then I dont care". Some of his songs seemed almost magical to me.

 

On the Arena doc I mentioned, George Martin said that John didnt recognise the structure of his own work. He then put on John's 'Good Morning' and identified all the running time changes as they were occurring in the song. John was unaware of these changes but he created them naturally nevertheless. 

 

Ringo describes Mc Cartney as the workaholic. He would rouse them and make them work. Paul was always ambitious.

 

A friend and musical collaberator of mine considers Paul as the more talented of the two. We disagree on that. To me Paul is a master craftsman, and John was an artist. 

 

I rarely listen to the Beatles and havnt done for many years, but they were important to me at that vital 'young age' when I was beginning to love music.

 

I confess I never heard of (or noticed) Quincy Jones until this film was shown to me. He is unquestionably inciteful, intelligent and wise. He doesnt need the shock power of arrogance. I wonder if its an old habit carried forward or ongoing frustration that's responsible. Maybe it isnt really arrogance, but oversized character? He's facinating all the same.

 

 

[Richard Tracey]

3 hours ago, Rudi said:

 

Fair comment. However, I dont think this addresses what I said. The Beatles could not have cut it as session players. Toulouse-Lautrec could not have cut it as a Basketball power forward. Jones was measuring the Beatles according to his own business centric criterea. You dont go winkle picking in the Kalahari. 

 

As for studio time:

Until Sgt Pepper, the Beatles didnt spend a lot of time in the Studio. They were writting on the road as best they could for a lot of thier early career. George Martin was a true and valuable collaberator and yes, a realiser of the groups ideas. However the early guide recordings for Sgt Pepper were revealed by Martin during the Arena documentary 50th Anniversary. The songs were essentially complete, lacking mostly only the soundscape constructions of George. 

 

 

I've watched a few programmes about the Sgt Pepper album and it is amazing just how many ideas John and Paul actually brought to the table. They, along with George Martin and his team, created a lot of the standards we know today from those sessions. Things they learned on the job, because they wanted to get it to sound the way they imagined it.

 

For me, A Day In The Life is a triumph in what can be produced if you have the imagination and songwriting skill. They took two totally different pieces of music and managed to work out a way to get them to fit together. That was genius as far as I am concerned and that idea was from The Beatles, not the person with all the musical theory background.

[Richard Tracey]

2 hours ago, fasstrack said:

Don't get me wrong---I'm a huge fan. Their growth from street roughs writing puerile songs about young love to the level of sophistication they ended up with is nothing short of astonishing. 

 

I sometimes wonder, though, if John Lennon---always with his nose in a book---would've applied himself more to music study---could he have gone even farther than he did? I think so... 

 

The thing is - those 'Love' songs are what made them huge. If you read up on what makes a hit song, it is talking about subjects that the majority of the listening public can associate with. That is why it is best not to tailor a song towards a demographic and leave it to the listener's imagination - then they can put themselves in the shoes of the protagonist.

 

I think John Lennon just loved writing music. Between him and Paul they wrote over 700 pieces of music. Where do you find the time to study music in amongst that and all the touring they did to make money.

[Richard Tracey]

1 hour ago, Rudi said:

 

I suspect John was perhaps a bit lazy? He was a natural talent and he knew it. He once said "If there is such thing as a genius, I am one. And if there isnt, then I dont care". Some of his songs seemed almost magical to me.

 

On the Arena doc I mentioned, George Martin said that John didnt recognise the structure of his own work. He then put on John's 'Good Morning' and identified all the running time changes as they were occurring in the song. John was unaware of these changes but he created them naturally nevertheless. 

 

Ringo describes Mc Cartney as the workaholic. He would rouse them and make them work. Paul was always ambitious.

 

A friend and musical collaberator of mine considers Paul as the more talented of the two. We disagree on that. To me Paul is a master craftsman, and John was an artist. 

 

I rarely listen to the Beatles and havnt done for many years, but they were important to me at that vital 'young age' when I was beginning to love music.

 

I confess I never heard of (or noticed) Quincy Jones until this film was shown to me. He is unquestionably inciteful, intelligent and wise. He doesnt need the shock power of arrogance. I wonder if its an old habit carried forward or ongoing frustration that's responsible. Maybe it isnt really arrogance, but oversized character? He's facinating all the same.

 

 

 

I agree with everything there Rudi - for me I preferred John to Paul, although Paul wrote some fantastic songs. John just appeared more willing to take a risk in his songwriting, whereas Paul appeared more straight.

 

Quincy Jones is a talent, the way George Martin was a talent. They can identify in someone else's music what is needed to take it from good to great. I wasn't a massive fan of his own music, but everyone he produced, sounded better for his involvement. Michael Jackson definitely benefited from Quincy working with him.

 

[Richard Tracey]

She’s Leaving Home was a McCartney write. I can’t remember at the moment what the song was based on, but there was a story behind it. It was on one of the programmes I watched about them years ago.

[Rudi]

I've Just remembered.

 

George Martin had an interesting point to make about John's lack of formal musical knowledge.

George used the example of the well known piano riff from Imagine. There is a 'wrong' note in there. George said that trained musicians would not write/play the riff with the bum note in there. It would be instinctive to sharpen & correct it. However if the riff were to conform to the scale, it would be less effective.

 

Now, let me put this into perspective. I am not suggesting that this would apply to anyone but a tiny minority of 'natural' musicians. Fastrack is right about more knowledge being more enabling. But it is possible, albeit rare, for the above type of example to trump formality. Ok, its also possible, but again rare, to have a trained musician who can choose to step out of the constraints of musical structure and accomplish the same thing. 

 

When creating/writing music. I sometimes create chords by assembling the notes until I like the way it sounds. For 37 odd years, I would follow this up by figuring out what the chord was. It was useful when writting it down etc.

 

For about the last 10 years though, I have stopped doing this. I will still create custom chords, but no longer bother to figure out what the upper partials are. They are now just a bunch of harmonising notes. Sure, they are still chords, but I choose to think about them differently. This is made easier with modern recording aids, because I dont have to write everything down. If I forget a chord, I can just learn it back off the recording. Obviously this is only ok when working alone. 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2018 by Rudi

[Richard Tracey]

59 minutes ago, fasstrack said:

That song is so sad it gives me chills. I've played it as a solo instrumental for years b/c the melody is so beautiful---but it can't cut nearly as deep w/o the words...

 

‘I think the song was based on a story in a newspaper or something like that.

[Richard Tracey]

3 minutes ago, fasstrack said:

"I read the news today, oh boy....'...

 

‘Yeah, I’m remembering the story now. This one was a Lennon song, but McCartney helped out. John and read the story in a newspaper and the lyrics came from that article.

 

I was getting mixed up with When I’m Sixty-Four, that was a Paul write.