Vulture's Quincy Jones Interview: A Closed Mind Is An Empty Mind
First off, let me just say that I adore and respect Quincy Jones. The man is an absolute legend, and he always will be. However, in his latest conversation with Vulture, his views on many different topics of popular culture were made widely known to the public, and while some were amusing and thought-provoking, I must admit that I've taken an issue with his criticisms on the current state of pop music. Namely his views on how current pop music is written, produced, and crafted overall.
I'm not an expert on how pop music is written. Nor am I "in-the-know" when it comes to the music industry. My experiences come from having an open mind, a pair of ears, and shedding the sweeping generalizations that plague a closed mind. I used to have a problem with the latter, but quickly realized how much I had been missing. It's not always as easy as making black and white statements. Even when you're the kind of mogul like Jones is in the music industry. Some of his answers just scream "retro" thinking to me, and as a result, he loses me fairly quickly. Let's break down some of the key quotes and where I disagree with what's being said.
"You're supposed to use everything from the past. If you know where you come from, it's easier to get where you're going."
This quote derives from a question about why songs aren't as quality as they once were. Here, it's not what Quincy's saying that I have an issue with. It's how he's saying what he's saying. Of course, having a knowledge of your past experiences is significantly beneficial to anyone. I think most people would agree with that. However, when I argue that it's how Quincy is saying it, it's because he's saying it in a way that's telling those in the industry to emulate what's already been done by everyone else. This is a notion I highly disagree with. This is music. There can be acknowledgements, leanings, inspirations, etc. But you don't have to use everything.
An earlier part of that quote talks about how producers are ignoring every single musical principle of previous musical generations. First of all, that can't possibly be true. Secondly, even if pop artists and producers did ignore a list of so-called principles, then what's wrong with that? What's the point in even being a musician if you have to follow these kinds of rules in order to not be blanketed by a total generalization? It's a criticism that makes no sense. It just makes me picture an up-and-coming musician studying books and listening to everyone else's principles and instructions, instead of feeling whatever they're coming up with in their own mind and soul. You can go to school, study sources, cite said sources, and write a paper. But if you're not putting your own thoughts forward, then what good are you? If Quincy had said that it's still important to carve your own path while still knowing your past, then that would be a perfectly legitimate statement. However, he doesn't say that. He says you must know and use everything and assumes that musical knowledge must be repeated over and over in order to have a significant impact in writing new music. How boring music would be if everyone followed that kind of advice. Music should be heterogeneous. Especially in a modern era where music is instantly accessible through several different avenues.
"It’s just loops, beats, rhymes and hooks. What is there for me to learn from that? There ain’t no fucking songs. The song is the power; the singer is the messenger. The greatest singer in the world cannot save a bad song. I learned that 50 years ago, and it’s the single greatest lesson I ever learned as a producer. If you don’t have a great song, it doesn’t matter what else you put around it."
Where do I start with this? I appreciate Quincy's don't-give-a-fuck attitude and all, but what's wrong with these components? You could deconstruct any popular song into components like these. They're not exclusive to contemporary music. It's just another blanket statement. Quincy has produced some legendary music with these components. Sure, there are songs out there that lack substance. There are no doubts about that. There are artists that are more interested in one major hit than one good album. But that isn't everyone. Jones literally says that the song is the power. If loops, beats, hooks, etc., are no good as far as songs are concerned, then where is that power? Every song has a beat. Countless songs have hooks/choruses/rhymes. You're talking about the backbone of so many different songs in so many eras, that the point is completely lost. Maybe Quincy doesn't like the fact that contemporary pop is focused upon these different kinds of components so often. But that's all about preference. Even in his evaluation of the role of the singer, the vocal is still a part of the dynamic of a song. Just like beats, choruses, arrangements, etc., are within the context of a song. Quite frankly, bad song or not, I think there's still plenty you can learn from a vocal performance, whether you think the song is awful or not.
"What is there for me to learn from that?" What can't you learn from these kinds of components? Musicians and composers are using technology in new and exciting ways, bringing refreshing approaches to beats, hooks, and looping techniques. The foundations have always been present, and yet, people are expanding upon these sounds in intriguing new ways. To disregard these advances because they are used in seemingly higher quantities is to close oneself off to what you're hoping to hear in the first place - that is, musical experiences you can learn from.
Quincy goes on to explain that he enjoys contemporary artists such as Chance The Rapper, Kendrick Lamar, and Bruno Mars. Apparently, those guys never use beats, rhymes, and hooks. At least I can understand his love for Bruno Mars. An artist that is basically lifted out of the 70's and 80's, with all the necessary moves and charisma that are needed from a pop icon under the mainstream microscope. Add to that mix a significant amount of compressed production quality, and you have a modern artist that should be flawless in Quincy's eyes and ears. It's unfortunate that several neo-soul/neo-R&B talents get ignored when they are actually pushing the envelope. Where is the acknowledgement for artists such as Miguel, Maxwell, Kimbra, Sampha, SZA, Childish Gambino, Daniel Caesar, NAO, Kelela, etc.? This is why generalizations don't work. If Quincy wanted to unleash a scathing evaluation of the mainstream music scene, then he should be a bit more specific in his choice of words.
"It’s not good. Everybody’s lazy. Alexandre Desplat — he’s good. He’s my brother. He was influenced by my scores."
This is a response to a question about film scoring and classical composers. This isn't technically about pop music, but it features the same generalizations. He mentions Bernard Herrmann (Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, etc.), and how newer composers aren't learning enough from what Herrmann has accomplished through his compositions. By logical conclusion, everyone is deemed "lazy" as a result. It's the same argument as before. At least he mentions Desplat, which is a nice nod, albeit one which already contradicts his point. There are plenty of composers out there doing wonderful things. Recently, we've had terrific work from Jóhannsson (who just passed away last week :( - R.I.P.) and Jon Brion on movie scores. Venture into the virtual world, and we have lovely work being done by gaming composers such as Piotr Musial, Mick Gordon, Jeremy Soule, etc. Studying Herrmann is not a prerequisite for composing a decent score. Nor is analyzing any other composer. Music is supposed to be about feel, not about emulation. It's unfortunate when someone has to talk about focusing on the past to have any kind of future. It shouldn't be that way. Yes, you can learn from the past. I'm not arguing with that point at all. But it isn't absolutely essential to know everything about past works/techniques in order to be able to achieve something extraordinary.
"Listen to the music — these guys don’t know what they’re doing. You’ve got to respect the gift God gave you by learning your craft."
Who says they aren't learning as they go along? Sure, there are musicians who know all about musical theory, production, etc., but you don't have to know everything about it. Look at Eddie Van Halen. One of the most celebrated guitarists in all of music. He doesn't know anything about musical theory. But he's made some of the most iconic records in rock history. Not to mention the fact that he actually appears as a guest on Thriller, which Jones produced. Things aren't so black and white, especially when it comes to music. I'm a bit surprised Quincy talks the way he does about contemporary music.
This isn't meant to be a big rant on what Quincy Jones has said. He's entitled to say whatever he wants about the music industry. He's much more a part of it than I am, or most likely ever will be. That being said, I still take issue with some of the things he's said. I believe it's important to give credit where it's due, considering how prolific artists can be in contemporary music. It's harmful to music when generalizations are made, and it's also ironic that Quincy keeps using the "lazy" criticism, when his blanket statements are lazy criticisms in themselves. Luckily, the music will go on just fine, and there are plenty of artists out there who are worth listening to. You'll find them. You'll continue to find them. I know I am.
Link to original article: http://www.vulture.com/2018/02/quincy-jones-in-conversation.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s1
