Quincy Jones has lost his mind

[Steven43]

Over time, the conventional wisdom has become "The Beatles were the greatest band of all time" and as that mythologizing of them has aged, it's come with (a) occasional overstatements of their greatness presented as indisputable truth (looking your way Steven43

I made it clear that the comments in my posts about the individuals—John, Paul, George and Ringo—as well as The Beatles overall are not my own but are instead a generally agreed upon consensus of music historians and professional musicians. So while the comments might appear to be my personal opinions, they are not.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I made it clear that the comments in my posts about the individuals—John, Paul, George and Ringo—as well as The Beatles overall are not my own but are instead a generally agreed upon consensus of music historians and professional musicians. So while the comments might appear to be my personal opinions, they are not.

Which is thoroughly acknowledged in the first part you excerpted:

Over time, the conventional wisdom has become "The Beatles were the greatest band of all time"

As far as "I am speaking for everyone, not just myself" - I simply don't believe that you would get consensus on your statements any more than you would if you asked people to list the five best basketball players ever.

[OldPhiKap]

I think lots of jazz musicians feel that their musicianship is better than most rock and rollers, but that they don't get the credit.

Miles Davis once said that his band around the time of "I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.es Brew" was the greatest rock and roll band ever. And I don't doubt that he believed it. (With Chick Corea and John McLaughlin among others, he may actually be right).

[Mal]

OK, fine. This is tiresome and you're probably just trolling, but I'll play for the time being.

...is the consensus opinion of long-time music historians as well as musicians...

Is there such a thing? I mean, a survey or something where critics and musicians form some official consensus? Also, is there a problem with less-tenured music historians - why are only "long-time" historians included?

First of all, he may have the single most recognizable voice in popular music history

You are trolling, aren't you? Why am I even responding? I have literally never heard a single historian, writer, or musician who's not a Sunday morning Breakfast with The Beatles radio show host voice this, much less enough to say it's some sort of settled issue or whatever your appeal to authority is. Also, "may have" is not a declarative with any value.

and is thought of by many as rock’s quintessential lead vocalist.

Who has ever said this? For a guy who sang lead vocals on about half the songs his band pumped out? A man who famously didn't like the sound of his own voice and tried to alter it electronically and stylistically throughout his career? He's generally regarded more highly as a lead singer than Freddie Mercury? Robert Plante? Axl Rose? Janis Joplin? Roger Daltrey? Mick Jagger?

His guitar style is creative and distinctive

As noted above, this does not equal "great" or anything close to it.

George is also considered to be one of popular music’s best songwriters.

By whom? He wrote some good songs and was for a long time overshadowed and underrated as a writer. But to suggest he's one of the best and that this is generally accepted conventional wisdom is embarrassing overcompensation. A man who wrote no more than 3 songs widely regarded as "great" is one of pop music's best songwriters? I mean, where do you go after that top trio? "Taxman?" "My Sweet Love?" C'mon.

It is truly insane that these three gentlemen happened to be in a band together.

This sure sounds like a personal opinion. You promised there were no personal opinions here. Could you point me to the general consensus among critics and musicians that this was truly insane?

Countless drummers of fame and distinction list Ringo as one of their major influences.

Interested in this - could you provide some examples? I've already covered why the rest of your "intangibles" argument is not particularly compelling.

All in all, The Beatles were far and away the crown jewel of music history.

Beethoven? Pshaw! Mozart? Pretender. Armstrong? That guy's a hack. Hendrix? Pffft. This sort of rigid, unnuanced hypercertainty about matters aesthetic just totally derails discussions about what is ultimately a subjective topic.

[Steven43]

Which is thoroughly acknowledged in the first part you excerpted:



As far as "I am speaking for everyone, not just myself" - I simply don't believe that you would get consensus on your statements any more than you would if you asked people to list the five best basketball players ever.

Read Mal's comment again. Here it is: (a) occasional overstatements of their greatness presented as indisputable truth (looking your way Steven43).

I didn't present it as indisputable truth. I presented it as generally agreed upon consensus by the majority of music historians and professional musicians. I'm just passing on information, not presenting my opinion. Just look up Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Artists. Rolling Stone is basically the bible for rock and roll/popular music. They have access to 1000's of music historians and musicians. It's not one guy's opinion when they put out lists such as this. It's many many opinions added up to form a general consensus. Just look at the list and see who they have at #1. So while it is not indisputable truth, it is about as close as we're going to get to a generally agreed upon consensus.

[Steven43]

OK, fine. This is tiresome and you're probably just trolling, but I'll play for the time being.

Is there such a thing? I mean, a survey or something where critics and musicians form some official consensus? Also, is there a problem with less-tenured music historians - why are only "long-time" historians included?

You are trolling, aren't you? Why am I even responding? I have literally never heard a single historian, writer, or musician who's not a Sunday morning Breakfast with The Beatles radio show host voice this, much less enough to say it's some sort of settled issue or whatever your appeal to authority is. Also, "may have" is not a declarative with any value.

Who has ever said this? For a guy who sang lead vocals on about half the songs his band pumped out? A man who famously didn't like the sound of his own voice and tried to alter it electronically and stylistically throughout his career? He's generally regarded more highly as a lead singer than Freddie Mercury? Robert Plante? Axl Rose? Janis Joplin? Roger Daltrey? Mick Jagger?

As noted above, this does not equal "great" or anything close to it.

By whom? He wrote some good songs and was for a long time overshadowed and underrated as a writer. But to suggest he's one of the best and that this is generally accepted conventional wisdom is embarrassing overcompensation. A man who wrote no more than 3 songs widely regarded as "great" is one of pop music's best songwriters? I mean, where do you go after that top trio? "Taxman?" "My Sweet Love?" C'mon.

This sure sounds like a personal opinion. You promised there were no personal opinions here. Could you point me to the general consensus among critics and musicians that this was truly insane?

Interested in this - could you provide some examples? I've already covered why the rest of your "intangibles" argument is not particularly compelling.

Beethoven? Pshaw! Mozart? Pretender. Armstrong? That guy's a hack. Hendrix? Pffft. This sort of rigid, unnuanced hypercertainty about matters aesthetic just totally derails discussions about what is ultimately a subjective topic.

Mal, although you make some noteworthy points (the less-tenured music historians point was a good one) there are otherwise too many glaring errors and misstatements contained within your post for me to want to take the time to refute. Especially after reading your thoroughly disappointing closing strawman argument of Beethoven, Mozart, Armstrong, Hendrix. The fact that you would deign to go there is precisely why I'm not particularly inspired to respond. Your previous posts seemed more compelling and even-handed. This is what can happen when emotion overtakes reason.

[Mal]

I didn't present it as indisputable truth.

You most certainly did, in tone at minimum. You appealed to authority, made any number of assertions not supported by such authority, and then went with "The greatest band that ever existed. There is no close second" and "the crown jewel of music history" as your closing statements.

A little nuance, like "Beauty's in the eye of the beholder, but I think it's generally accepted that a plurality of musicians and music historians, critics, etc. would list the Beatles as the 'best band of all time'" wouldn't have gotten anyone's attention because it acknowledges that there may be different takes and puts some boundaries on the breadth of your assertions. Calling one of the band members as "Mr. John Lennon," referring to them as "these three gentlemen..." and the like just tips your hand as a superfan.

[Steven43]

Which is thoroughly acknowledged in the first part you excerpted:



As far as "I am speaking for everyone, not just myself" - I simply don't believe that you would get consensus on your statements any more than you would if you asked people to list the five best basketball players ever.

1. Larry Bird
2. Larry Bird
3. Larry Bird
4. Larry Bird
5. Larry Bird

--Steven43

I'm making fun of myself, of course. If you remember any of my previous posts about Larry Bird vs. Lebron James you'll know what the joke is about. While I definitely do put Bird in my top 5 of all time, I also understand that unlike with rock/popular music, there is no generally agreed upon consensus of the top 5 basketball players.

[Mal]

Mal, although you make some noteworthy points (the less-tenured music historians point was a good one) there are otherwise too many glaring errors and misstatements contained within your post for me to want to take the time to refute. Especially after reading your thoroughly disappointing closing strawman argument of Beethoven, Mozart, Armstrong, Hendrix. The fact that you would deign to go there is precisely why I'm not particularly inspired to respond. Your previous posts seemed more compelling and even-handed. This is what can happen when emotion overtakes reason.

Please. There are several tried and true troll techniques here. Allude to "errors and misstatements" but not identify them and/or provide rebuttal and citation. Claim disappointment in change of tone in the other poster's writing. Can't be bothered to address any substantive points because the person saying "it's a little more nuanced than that" is being emotional. I mean, credit for not using the word "hysterical," I guess.

I'll consider the argument won, then. Thanks for the concession.

Oh, and that word, "strawman." I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Steven43]

Oh, and that word, "strawman." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes! The Princess Bride!! Great movie.

As for the rest...umm, no. Labeling someone a troll does not make it so. And no the argument is far from won on your part. I just honestly lost interest.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think we can all agree now: Quincy Jones is the greatest rock band of all time. I don't think so personally, but consensus is clear, ergo it is so.

[Steven43]

I think we can all agree now: Quincy Jones is the greatest rock band of all time. I don't think so personally, but consensus is clear, ergo it is so.

Sarcastic much?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Sarcastic much?

Just trying to clear the decks and move back to topic.

In the interest of closing the books on your posts, I would note that I Googled our question of best rock band and found answers ranging from Elvis to Imagine Dragons.

I also don't see why you would say picking the best basketball players of all time would be any different than rock bands.

What's your criteria? Live performance? Cultural impact? Album sales? Instrument mastery?

What's "rock band" imply?

With basketball players, some folks will choose scorers, most championships, highest postseason win percentage, number of wins, blah blah.

Look at our message board where we discuss twelve kids for six months with the same data sets and criteria - we can't even agree on who is the MOTM for two hours.

[Mal]

Yes! The Princess Bride!! Great movie.

As for the rest...umm, no. Labeling someone a troll does not make it so. And no the argument is far from won on your part. I just honestly lost interest.

Yet you're still here and responding. If you'd lost interest, you could have said as much. Instead, you tried to end the conversation by claiming another poster's argument is full of inaccuracies, providing no specifics or backup for that claim, and following that up with an allegation that said poster is suffering some debilitating emotional overheating or somesuch, in contrast to your hyperobjectivity. Those don't really feel like good faith from here.

Trust me, I don't really care all that much about this particular issue and I have no great amount of emotion wrapped up in it. I dislike ungrounded hyperbole, though, it's been a slow day at the office, and this is fun. That said, I do have to go get some actual work done. I'll check in another day - happy to re-engage on this if you ever find yourself interested again.

[nmduke2001]

As much fun as it is to argue about the Beatles, I'm shocked that no one has mentioned that Jones allegedly dated Ivanka Trump. Not Ivana, Ivanka.

[dudog84]

As much fun as it is to argue about the Beatles, I'm shocked that no one has mentioned that Jones allegedly dated Ivanka Trump. Not Ivana, Ivanka.

Because that's PPB material.

[Devilwin]

OK, fine. This is tiresome and you're probably just trolling, but I'll play for the time being.

Is there such a thing? I mean, a survey or something where critics and musicians form some official consensus? Also, is there a problem with less-tenured music historians - why are only "long-time" historians included?

You are trolling, aren't you? Why am I even responding? I have literally never heard a single historian, writer, or musician who's not a Sunday morning Breakfast with The Beatles radio show host voice this, much less enough to say it's some sort of settled issue or whatever your appeal to authority is. Also, "may have" is not a declarative with any value.

Who has ever said this? For a guy who sang lead vocals on about half the songs his band pumped out? A man who famously didn't like the sound of his own voice and tried to alter it electronically and stylistically throughout his career? He's generally regarded more highly as a lead singer than Freddie Mercury? Robert Plante? Axl Rose? Janis Joplin? Roger Daltrey? Mick Jagger?

As noted above, this does not equal "great" or anything close to it.

By whom? He wrote some good songs and was for a long time overshadowed and underrated as a writer. But to suggest he's one of the best and that this is generally accepted conventional wisdom is embarrassing overcompensation. A man who wrote no more than 3 songs widely regarded as "great" is one of pop music's best songwriters? I mean, where do you go after that top trio? "Taxman?" "My Sweet Love?" C'mon.

This sure sounds like a personal opinion. You promised there were no personal opinions here. Could you point me to the general consensus among critics and musicians that this was truly insane?

Interested in this - could you provide some examples? I've already covered why the rest of your "intangibles" argument is not particularly compelling.

Beethoven? Pshaw! Mozart? Pretender. Armstrong? That guy's a hack. Hendrix? Pffft. This sort of rigid, unnuanced hypercertainty about matters aesthetic just totally derails discussions about what is ultimately a subjective topic.

On Harrison's great songs..He had many more than three. My Sweet Lord. Taxman. While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Something. Here Comes The Sun. If I Needed Someone. I Need You. What Is Life. Think For Yourself. All Things Must Pass. I, Me, Mine. It's All Too Much. And there were more..

[cato]

As much fun as it is to argue about the Beatles, I'm shocked that no one has mentioned that Jones allegedly dated Ivanka Trump. Not Ivana, Ivanka.

This came up at dinner over the weekend, and my wife and one of her friends did some quick math and called shenanigans. They made a pretty compelling argument that no way, no how did that happen.

[lotusland]

Who has ever said this? For a guy who sang lead vocals on about half the songs his band pumped out? A man who famously didn't like the sound of his own voice and tried to alter it electronically and stylistically throughout his career? He's generally regarded more highly as a lead singer than Freddie Mercury? Robert Plante? Axl Rose? Janis Joplin? Roger Daltrey? Mick Jagger?

One of those singers does not belong and It’s not Janis (the only female).

The Beatles were great songwriters and recording artists. They were arguably the greatest songwriters and/or recording artists ever. George was good guitarists but certainly not among the Rock Gods (nor as accomplished as the great jazz, Blues or Bluegrass players. I’m a Stones guy but I would say the same about Mick and Keith. Brian Jones, Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood were all far better players than George or Keef. But it’s the songwriting that makes legends (and fortunes) so George, John and Keith have no reason to hang their heads.

[OldPhiKap]

What the hell happened to this thread?