Richest bassist?

[Visirale]

Originally Posted by kevbass5

and i just saw the absurd statement that there's "nothing jaw dropping about his bass playing"

Paul is easily the most influential and copied player out there. He set the gold standard for taste, tone, feel and melody. Maybe you need to take a closer listen to the music.

Actually, I believe that was Jamerson.

But he never made much money.


I think Rickey Minor is doing well for himself, but it's more for his production than his bass playing. Look at his clients: http://www.rickeyminor.com/html/creditlist.html

Not the richest, but definitely doing the kind of work I wanna do.

[JimmyM]

Boy, that's a tough one...Jamerson vs. McCartney in the influence dept. Jamerson was fantastic and McCartney even stole from him. But McCartney was the first bassist rock star whom everybody knew, plus he was an influential and unique player. Nobody knew Jamerson until he died, unfortunately. Slight edge to McCartney, IMHO.

[BuffaloBass]

Originally Posted by Rudyboy98

I have my doubts about that.

I don't think he's a great player either, he just happens to be a Beatle. That's just my opinion.

You're less than thrity or thirty five yrs old arent you? Sorry but you have no historical reference. And I'm thinking maybe Jamerson from that early era as well, I hit SUBMIT, and what do I see Jimmy typin on: Macca v Jamerson. NO DOUBT! Both very VERY influential at that time and thereafter. I wouldnt give Sir Paul the nod in that one, if you look at what the two spurred on in bass playing per se. But to argue is futile, two BIG influencers.

[Visirale]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

Boy, that's a tough one...Jamerson vs. McCartney in the influence dept. Jamerson was fantastic and McCartney even stole from him. But McCartney was the first bassist rock star whom everybody knew, plus he was an influential and unique player. Nobody knew Jamerson until he died, unfortunately. Slight edge to McCartney, IMHO.

I agree in some regards. Jamerson was more of a bassist's bassist. Most legitimate studies of electric bass include both men, and both are fine bassists.

I just view Jamerson as Bass 101 and McCartney as Bass 102, even though McCartney was much more well known. Although I wonder if the entire listening base for all of the Motown Artists' recordings was close to the listening base of just the Beatles...

[pedro]

Originally Posted by Chris Sheaffer

How about Jack Bruce ?

One of my hero's and a great player but I sincerely doubt he's the financial league of Sting or McCartney.

[kevbass5]

whatever paul's net worth is, we all know one thing for sure:

he thought of giving it all away
to a registered charity

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by kevbass5

whatever paul's net worth is, we all know one thing for sure:

he thought of giving it all away
to a registered charity

Beats giving it away to a one legged demented shrew of a wife. "My son has to fly in B class instead of being with me in A class!" What a psycho!

[pedro]

I'm of the opinion that McCartney and Jamerson had a lot in common bass playing wise. Its clear that McCartney was listening to Jamerson even in the early days (Beatles covered at least a few Motown tunes early on) and probably not even knowing the name of the guy he was digging. But when I listen (for example) to 'Something' I hear Jamerson influence in it. Same with much of Sgt Peppers. He didn't bring the same syncopation and groove but the melodic development is there.

My $.02.

[corinpills]

Regarding McCartney's net worth in regards to the findings in his divorce. I believe in a divorce case, it is considered quite advantageous to lower the perception of one's net worth. Someone with the ability to hire the shrewdest financial advisors in the world, and with a long history of fiduciary acumen (say, for instance, someone who snapped up a few hundred extra shares of the Beatles' publishing company in 1967 without telling his writing partner), someone like that might conceivably lower the court's perception of his net worth by 10 or 20 million pounds.

[bassist 4 life]

CT&Birdsong

[LowBSix]

Sir Paul McCartney is it!

[MAJOR METAL]

Paul,Flea,Jason Newsted would all have to be up there.

[Sneckumhaw]

Originally Posted by kevbass5

paul is the only musician, bassist or otherwise, who is a billionaire.

so no one comes close.

This guy's got it.

[Sneckumhaw]

Originally Posted by Rudyboy98

I have my doubts about that.

I don't think he's a great player either, he just happens to be a Beatle. That's just my opinion.

He may be extremely rich...but not due to his bass playing. There's nothing jaw dropping about his playing at all.

I vote for Tom Hamilton from Aerosmith-if you just want to talk about bass players-real bass players. Aerosmith is one of the top paid bands IN THE WORLD.

2nd runner up would have to be Michael Anthony from Van Halen

This guy doesn't.

[DocBop]

Originally Posted by lawsonman

Sir Paul by a landslide.Michael Jackson bought the publishing rights which gives him 50% of the revenues generated by the Beatles song catalog.I believe George Harrison songs were excluded.Sir Paul and Lennons estate split the other 50%.

The Beatles early music was published I believe by Northern Music and they gave up the rights to get signed. They published their later tunes themselves and have control of those. The old Northern Music tunes are what Michael Jackson owns. I believe McCartney owns other artists music besides his own. Buying catalogs of music is one of the ways the rich get richer.

[pedro]

I believe McCartney owns other artists music besides his own.

He owns just about everything else from Broadway shows 'to the University of Wisconsin Fight song.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by kevbass5

and i just saw the absurd statement that there's "nothing jaw dropping about his bass playing"

Paul is easily the most influential and copied player out there. He set the gold standard for taste, tone, feel and melody. Maybe you need to take a closer listen to the music.

Paul's bass playing is a lot like his songwriting. He has a knack for writing catchy hooks and commercially viable songs, but neither he nor Lennon were musical geniuses as many like to think. They were good at writing songs that catch the fancy of a lot of people (the unwashed masses, as it were). People like Fagen and Becker write better music.

Nor were they virtuoso instrumentalists. There are thousands and thousands of people who play bass better than McCartney, many of them right here on TalkBass. Take Jauqo III-X. Please. Further, there are quadrillions of drummers who are better than Ringo, but what's that saying?

[Visirale]

From my limited experience in music business, ASCAP royalties make a lot of people rich... and give a lot of money to smaller people if they can write decently. My old guitarist's dad was a blues writer in the 70s. He was just chilling at home one day and got a check in the mail for around 30 grand because someone wanted to buy his tune.

Supposedly royalties are collected every time a song is played... if you write hits or own them, you make the big bucks .

[bassandbeyond]

What's most remarkable to me is the fact that the world now has over 1000 billionaires, and NONE of them earned their fortune as a musician!

I believe Macca's recent divorce settlement estimated his fortune at around $800 million, most of which he earned through shrewd business and real estate investments. A list I recently saw of Britain's 25 richest musicians included some whose net worth was only in the 7 digits range. So I hope that none of us went into the music biz for the money, because it's still not artists who are taking the lion's share of music profits!

[Sneckumhaw]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

People like Fagen and Becker write better music.