Adam Clayton Does Not Suck.

[deeptubes]

I think U2 are band full of rather blah musicians. My wife saw them with Muse a couple of years ago. I told her to pay close attention to what they play. That individually, there is really nothing special about them. She said "Yeah, yeah, whatever." When she came home, the first words out of her mouth were "You were right." It seems like the guys in U2 don't do anything to improve their skills, like they're complacent. Skillwise, it's like they are at the same level they were at 30 years ago. I just find them uninspiring. I've never heard a song by them and said " Man, that was awesome! I've gotta listen to that one again!" Their stuff just seems to be something that they did before, regurgitated, and rearranged into something else. Blah.

When I was teaching my wife to play bass, I told her to pick out some songs with some easy basslines. She didn't know what an easy bassline was, so I told her to pick out some U2 songs. She replied "Don't be a dick." "Just pick out a couple of U2 songs" "Ok." I showed them to her, and after learning them herself she realized how easy they are. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with refined simplicity (like The Police). But there's nothing refined about U2. They're just simple.

"But, that's just my opinon. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller

[Tampabass]

I love Jaco, and could go on about his abilities as an improviser, a fluent, INNOVATIVE bass player and composer. But I won't.

I also have long loved U2, and the kind of emotional intensity they created/create with their music, and the musical evolution they've made over the years - from the primal passion of "Boy" to the anthemic rock of "The Joshua Tree" to the radical makeovers of "The Fly" and the rest. I could go on about how integral Adam Clayton's playing was/is to that band. But I won't.

Both made/make musical art. Whether Jaco was technically more proficient or an infinitely better improviser (he was) than Adam Clayton is, is irrelevant. Whether U2 has sold a gazillion times more albums/CDs than Jaco did (they have) is also irrelevant.

[3rdBass]

.

[Tampabass]

the editor in me says: Nice poster, but check your spelling of "girlfriends"

[sotua]

Originally Posted by Duckwater

I don't think he sucks, he serves the music well. But I do think it's a bit ridiculous that a root-5th player in a radio-rock band has so many expensive signature models.

I don't think he has a signature model, does he? Google... oh, he does. A funky shaped P bass. Oh goody

He owns a bunch of Darryl Jones and Joe Osborne Laklands. Which is exactly what anybody here would do if they were made of money like Adam Clayton is.

[Ian the bassist]

Originally Posted by PlungerModerno

Art is a subjective thing. We'll never agree on what music we see as best - this is why there's lots of different types in the first place. To me, U2 is samey. Meaning its not what I like and I find it boring. I find the lack of variety in the bass (IMHO) to be insufferable after 1-2 songs. The whole band just isn't my cup of tea.
Your the example `I've never heard a single U2 song that made me think "god, this song is ok, but the bass playing is horrible" ' misses the point I think. At least as far as my criticisms go. I don't think he sucks, he's just Ok, and that's perfect for what I see as a just Ok band. not to my taste and technically solid at best. IMO I must emphasize. To anothers ears they could be like Booker T & the MG's in mine

I suck more than Clayton. But I can still rate him highly or not just as I can with any artist or work of art. I'm not right or wrong, just reacting to a work of art. Which, to me, feels more like a product - churned out with no real passion - than an album with fire (eg. led zeppelin I).
You are of course 100% correct to say complexity isn't a measure of artistic validity. But variety can be used to great effect in all musical styles. IMHO Clayton doesn't add the spice/groove/variation I so delight in.



+1

I know exactly what you mean. It's the spice that makes the song. To me many U2 songs sound like demos - basic song structure, heavily processed (even sounding in an unpleasant way) then covered in 500 guitar overdubs, none of which have what I call a delicious feel / hook. Maybe it's just me.

I'm Irish too. U2 are fairly popular here, but mainly with people who grew up with them. Those that are fans, even lifers, often make a point to distance themselves from the 'message' Bono spreads.
His problem is bad PR: constant holier than thou attitude/perceived attitude, and the biggie, the fact that he's extremely wealthy and philanthropic, but is perceived as "Do what I say not what I do" by many. In other words he earns a great deal of wealth and is not seen to share a significant fraction of it. Coupled with the `preaching' about poverty and injustice he is accused being a hypocrite. I've shared some of these views but have seen this general attitude to Bono and U2 as long as I recall (last 10 years certainly). I raised an eyebrow when he dodged his native countrys tax by moving the business to Monaco....
Not Fair to judge a band by their politics, but I can't help but share with you what everyone I speak to says about the Band & Bono (well 75%+ of people I speak to anyway).

P.S. not a massive Dubliners fan (or any trad/folk really) But a Thin Lizzy and Rory Gallagher fan since I was 12. Irish music has a tradition of greatness.

"Does anybody here have any Irish in them? Is there any of the girls'd like a little more Irish in them?" Phillip Lynott, Thin Lizzy, Emerald, Live and Dangerous.

Gerry McAvoy (Rory Gallaghers bassist) was a huge factor in my bass obsession at the beginning. He, and Phil would run rings around U2. Not that we'll ever know for certain
Can you feel that groove? Rory Gallagher - Jacknife Beat.wmv - YouTube

Couldn't agree more on that. I'm not a fan of the Dubliners either(or trad/folk). I just thought they have impacted the Irish scene FAR FAR more than U2 and deserve an honourable mention. The tax evasion was just a sneaky thing as well. Bono is a wanker. We all agree there

Damn straight. Even though Phil Lynott isn't the most technical of bass players.(He is still far more technical than Clayton ;P) He writes brilliant bass riffs. And even better songs. McAvoy. Well. His awesome stage presence and catchy lines are enough for me also Love the bass/guitar duel they did together on one of Rory's live videos. Can't remember what song it was in off the top of my head though. :/

[jumbodbassman]

I trade gigs with him anyday.... nough said

[Worldeeeter]

One word: longevity. They have been making records for over 30 years. Scary.
I agree that the music doesn't really give him a chance to do anything of interest, but even within their music, his bass lines are weak, and they aren't anything to write home about. I think the drummer is weak, too.
U2 aren't billionaires because they make good music. They're billionaires because they made music that lots of people enjoy listening to. This can be (and often is) absolutely awful music, which describes most of what U2 has cranked out.

[PlungerModerno]

Originally Posted by Ian the bassist

Couldn't agree more on that. I'm not a fan of the Dubliners either(or trad/folk). I just thought they have impacted the Irish scene FAR FAR more than U2 and deserve an honourable mention. The tax evasion was just a sneaky thing as well. Bono is a wanker. We all agree there

Damn straight. Even though Phil Lynott isn't the most technical of bass players.(He is still far more technical than Clayton ;P) He writes brilliant bass riffs. And even better songs. McAvoy. Well. His awesome stage presence and catchy lines are enough for me also Love the bass/guitar duel they did together on one of Rory's live videos. Can't remember what song it was in off the top of my head though. :/

Well that's an excuse to listen to rory live for an hour if ever there was one....
Best live performance Rory Gallagher - YouTube

>>>>EDIT. I knew McAvoy was good. But The last time I saw this gem I didn't play bass. (esp. 3:00, epic bass face!)
Rory Gallagher - Bullfrog Blues - YouTube

[Ian the bassist]

Originally Posted by PlungerModerno

Well that's an excuse to listen to rory live for an hour if ever there was one....
Best live performance Rory Gallagher - YouTube

>>>>EDIT. I knew McAvoy was good. But The last time I saw this gem I didn't play bass. (esp. 3:00, epic bass face!)
Rory Gallagher - Bullfrog Blues - YouTube

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000. One of the best raw guitar sounds live. Truly brilliant.

Edit. And another jillion more for finding that bass solo. haha

[PlungerModerno]

If you want to know why Rory Gallagher was a legendary showman (if there could be any doubt)


classic rory: Rory Gallagher Shadow Play Montreux 1979 - YouTube

P.S. I know the Dueling Guitars performance (or one of them).

I guess I'll have to watch several hours of some of the best live shows ever to find out. poor me!

DYUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUD E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viApu...eature=related

20 min in! It's epic! Starting new thread now!!!!! 1977. London. Guitar vs. Bass. Who will win??? :D

P.S.P.S. "I just find them uninspiring" that's deeptubes, and that's exactly how I feel about U2.

[Tupac]

Originally Posted by deeptubes

I think U2 are band full of rather blah musicians. My wife saw them with Muse a couple of years ago. I told her to pay close attention to what they play. That individually, there is really nothing special about them. She said "Yeah, yeah, whatever." When she came home, the first words out of her mouth were "You were right." It seems like the guys in U2 don't do anything to improve their skills, like they're complacent. Skillwise, it's like they are at the same level they were at 30 years ago. I just find them uninspiring. I've never heard a song by them and said " Man, that was awesome! I've gotta listen to that one again!" Their stuff just seems to be something that they did before, regurgitated, and rearranged into something else. Blah.

When I was teaching my wife to play bass, I told her to pick out some songs with some easy basslines. She didn't know what an easy bassline was, so I told her to pick out some U2 songs. She replied "Don't be a dick." "Just pick out a couple of U2 songs" "Ok." I showed them to her, and after learning them herself she realized how easy they are. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with refined simplicity (like The Police). But there's nothing refined about U2. They're just simple.

"But, that's just my opinon. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller

This.

[Clef_de_fa]

Originally Posted by Dean N

A blanket statement like this, on this site, is like dowsing yourself in gasoline and taunting a bunch of pyromaniacs.

What if you're in the minority of musicians because you prefer to craft simpler songs, and a bunch of them are massive radio hits? How can that possibly mean you suck? Or that your stuff is not art? There's a guy like that. Tom Petty. Simple guitar stuff. We all know he's not a real artist, or a fabulous musician, because he and his guitar guy (Mike Campbell) sure can't play blistering impressive stuff.

I don't care that I have a different taste than anyone or that I have a diffrent idea of what Art is and what sell-out are.

I don't know who is Tom Petty nor his guitar player.

Massive radio hit ? fast food music. It doesn't mean that you suck but you are in the game for something else than art, may it be money, fame, girls.

[Clef_de_fa]

Originally Posted by lfmn16

Being complicated doesn't make playing good, but neither does being simple. There is nothing noble or superior about sticking to root and 5th.

It's ironic that you post "Who are any of you to comment on what is or isn't art?" Yet you have no problem on defining what constitutes good bass playing as if there is a one size fits all definition.

You'll really know that you've grown up when your playing supports your musical goals, not someone else's definition of what makes good bass playing.

I always like what you have to say and you articulate your thought better than I.

[Worldeeeter]

I can't believe that someone actually had the gall to compare Adam Clayton to Jaco Pastorius. What a sad comparison...I won't even quote it because I want as few people to read that stupidity as possible.

[mellowinman]

Originally Posted by Clef_de_fa

Gene Simmons is way better at selling merchandise, investing money and create an image than being a bass player.

Roger Waters is the creative mind behind Pink Floyd, he is behind their concept how it will work, so bass playing seems to be an afterthought for him and the band.

Micheal Anthony, I don't know enough about him, but what I saw wasn't pretty, a drunk dude on a scene who seems to struggle playing is part OK and then a drunk solo.

Sid, yeah he was there only for his image.

All three of these guys are top professional bass players. They have played on songs recorded in pro studios, and no one said, "hey let's get someone else."

All three were in world famous bands BEFORE they got famous. All three played a part in helping to define the sound of their bands.

Their playing is excellent. Nothing to criticize at all.

[chuck norriss]

Naomi Campbell is fine. I'll trade places with him any day.

[bassistloaded21]

A real bass player plays what the song calls for. The idea of what a bass player is supposed to do has been totally perverted by the more gifted and more talented. A bass player that plays pocket and not alot of notes is the best player. You dont see all these bass players w crazy chops getting real gigs, they have to do their own thing, and theres a reason. I respect everyone, and everyones abilities, im not a strictly pocket bass player, but i know when to lay it. Its all about the music, not about your personal skills.

[wes stephenson]

Sorry bassistloaded21 but you are sorely mistaken. Lots and lots of bass players with ridiculous amounts of facility have top gigs. Not trying to be argumentative but that statement is wrong.

[PlungerModerno]

Originally Posted by mellowinman

All three of these guys are top professional bass players. They have played on songs recorded in pro studios, and no one said, "hey let's get someone else."

All three were in world famous bands BEFORE they got famous. All three played a part in helping to define the sound of their bands.

Their playing is excellent. Nothing to criticize at all.

I guess that's broadly true, although I've heard session bassists 'improved' some of Genes licks (recorded them on his behalf). mightn't be true. Not trying to knock a legendary performer.

I think fame is almost 100% independent of sucking or not. Jimi Hendrix would still be an amazing guitarist even if he only played to 500 people in his whole performing career.

I think that's subjective. Technical brilliance is not something I possess, or can accurately describe, but I'm pretty sure since we're all different we can all be fairly given constructive criticism - and improve. There is no such thing as perfection, or at least no one thing. We all want something different in music.