Dr Magus
The Beatles took popular music in new directions with incredible vision, which is more than Quincy Jones ever did.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
thomasquinn 32989
Erm, no. Just check out his work with Ray Charles, to give but one example.
The Beatles were a pretty good band, but over time, their stature has been heavily inflated. Compare The Beatles in '64 with The Kinks in '64, and you'll notice that they're not as unique as you might think. Quincy Jones has had a *lot* of influence on popular music, from Frank Sinatra to Michael Jackson.
If you're going to use The Beatles to prove that Quincy Jones had less influence, you're doomed from the start.
The Beatles were a pretty good band, but over time, their stature has been heavily inflated. Compare The Beatles in '64 with The Kinks in '64, and you'll notice that they're not as unique as you might think. Quincy Jones has had a *lot* of influence on popular music, from Frank Sinatra to Michael Jackson.
If you're going to use The Beatles to prove that Quincy Jones had less influence, you're doomed from the start.
The Real Wizard
^ correct.
Furthermore - a fair portion of the things The Beatles did that are considered innovative should be credited to George Martin and Geoff Emerick, not the band.
Furthermore - a fair portion of the things The Beatles did that are considered innovative should be credited to George Martin and Geoff Emerick, not the band.
princesslina
I think the whole world is in turmoil!
Dr Magus
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Erm, no. Just check out his work with Ray Charles, to give but one example.
The Beatles were a pretty good band, but over time, their stature has been heavily inflated. Compare The Beatles in '64 with The Kinks in '64, and you'll notice that they're not as unique as you might think. Quincy Jones has had a *lot* of influence on popular music, from Frank Sinatra to Michael Jackson.
If you're going to use The Beatles to prove that Quincy Jones had less influence, you're doomed from the start.[/QUOTE]
What's the point of comparing the Beatles and The Kinks in '64 when they were still merely great songwriters? Loads of bands looked and sounded like the Beatles in '64, albeit without the great songs. How about comparing them in '66, '67 or '69 instead?
The Beatles influence can't be understated in the sixties and beyond.
I'm not saying Quincy Jones didn't do some big things but compared to The Beatles, musically and culturally, he pales.
Now, if you were talking about Led Zeppelin or David Bowie, i'd agree with you.
Erm, no. Just check out his work with Ray Charles, to give but one example.
The Beatles were a pretty good band, but over time, their stature has been heavily inflated. Compare The Beatles in '64 with The Kinks in '64, and you'll notice that they're not as unique as you might think. Quincy Jones has had a *lot* of influence on popular music, from Frank Sinatra to Michael Jackson.
If you're going to use The Beatles to prove that Quincy Jones had less influence, you're doomed from the start.[/QUOTE]
What's the point of comparing the Beatles and The Kinks in '64 when they were still merely great songwriters? Loads of bands looked and sounded like the Beatles in '64, albeit without the great songs. How about comparing them in '66, '67 or '69 instead?
The Beatles influence can't be understated in the sixties and beyond.
I'm not saying Quincy Jones didn't do some big things but compared to The Beatles, musically and culturally, he pales.
Now, if you were talking about Led Zeppelin or David Bowie, i'd agree with you.
Dr Magus
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
^ correct.
Furthermore - a fair portion of the things The Beatles did that are considered innovative should be credited to George Martin and Geoff Emerick, not the band.
[/QUOTE]
Of course George Martin was more than just a producer but without The Beatles he'd have been drumming his fingers in an empty studio.
^ correct.
Furthermore - a fair portion of the things The Beatles did that are considered innovative should be credited to George Martin and Geoff Emerick, not the band.
[/QUOTE]
Of course George Martin was more than just a producer but without The Beatles he'd have been drumming his fingers in an empty studio.
john bodega
It's really George Martin and Quincy Jones that one might try to compare, if any comparison were to be attempted.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Dr Magus wrote:[/b]
I'm not saying Quincy Jones didn't do some big things but compared to The Beatles, musically and culturally, he pales.[/QUOTE]
He produced Thriller. Plenty would argue that that single album was as influential on popular culture as The Beatles entire discography was.
For better or for worse, the Thriller video cemented the music video as the promotional tool for the decades to come.
(And ironically for this thread, it was Paul McCartney who encouraged Michael Jackson to embrace the medium.)
I'm not saying Quincy Jones didn't do some big things but compared to The Beatles, musically and culturally, he pales.[/QUOTE]
He produced Thriller. Plenty would argue that that single album was as influential on popular culture as The Beatles entire discography was.
For better or for worse, the Thriller video cemented the music video as the promotional tool for the decades to come.
(And ironically for this thread, it was Paul McCartney who encouraged Michael Jackson to embrace the medium.)
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Dr Magus wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
^ correct.
Furthermore - a fair portion of the things The Beatles did that are considered innovative should be credited to George Martin and Geoff Emerick, not the band.
[/QUOTE]
Of course George Martin was more than just a producer but without The Beatles he'd have been drumming his fingers in an empty studio.
[/QUOTE]
ha ! That's true.
But without Martin and Emerick, The Beatles would've been great songwriters with little technical wherewithal to see their ideas come to life.
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
^ correct.
Furthermore - a fair portion of the things The Beatles did that are considered innovative should be credited to George Martin and Geoff Emerick, not the band.
[/QUOTE]
Of course George Martin was more than just a producer but without The Beatles he'd have been drumming his fingers in an empty studio.
[/QUOTE]
ha ! That's true.
But without Martin and Emerick, The Beatles would've been great songwriters with little technical wherewithal to see their ideas come to life.