A forgotten bass genius: Rutger Gunnarsson

[bass71]

ooh one my favourite subjects....ABBA basslines.

Yeah be careful with genius tag: but the guy has total natural ability..his notes just flow beautifully and are always dead right for the tune. Clever man.
Not to hijack the thread but Ive been listening more and more lately to pop session bassists from the 70's and boy did they use some good musicians back then.

Worthy of another thread me thinks.

 

[goff]

ooh one my favourite subjects....ABBA basslines.

Yeah be careful with genius tag: but the guy has total natural ability..his notes just flow beautifully and are always dead right for the tune. Clever man.
Not to hijack the thread but Ive been listening more and more lately to pop session bassists from the 70's and boy did they use some good musicians back then.

Worthy of another thread me thinks.

to revive this thread, rutger is a bass genius in that his lines are expertly played and conceived that really add power to the song.

murray head's one night in bangkok, constructed by the abba guys, with lyrics by sir tim rice is that example as already stated herein.

gunnarsson's counterpoint is just that, the space that occupies genius thought processes. his execution is smack dab in the pocket and what he does in between keeps the song afloat.

the song one night in bangkok is genius in it's own rite.

what so many construed as just another disco song, (because they didn't have a clue what the lyrics were) was acid mentality thrown onto the masses with tongue in cheek acerbity. that sadly is as true today as it was when the song first hit the airwaves.

you have to consider the reasons behind the collaboration.

"you'll find a God in every golden cloister.."

rutger's hagstrom:

 

[PJ Muzikmansky]

to revive this thread, rutger is a bass genius in that his lines are expertly played and conceived that really add power to the song.

murray head's one night in bangkok, constructed by the abba guys, with lyrics by sir tim rice is that example as already stated herein.

gunnarsson's counterpoint is just that, the space that occupies genius thought processes. his execution is smack dab in the pocket and what he does in between keeps the song afloat.

the song one night in bangkok is genius in it's own rite.

what so many construed as just another disco song, (because they didn't have a clue what the lyrics were) was acid mentality thrown onto the masses with tongue in cheek acerbity. that sadly is as true today as it was when the song first hit the airwaves.

you have to consider the reasons behind the collaboration.

"you'll find a God in every golden cloister.."

rutger's hagstrom:

You, like others here, are misusing the word 'genius'.

If you think Rutger Gunnarsson is a genius, then honestly, you're not leaving yourself much headroom to apply the word in it's proper context . You're lowering the bar almost to the point where the word ceases to have any meaning at all.

Now, this is not in any way intended to demean Rutger Gunnarsson. On the contrary, he's a very good player. I've always enjoyed his style, and the tone he coaxed out of that old jazz bass on all the ABBA stuff was very good. To be sure, he was always a first class performer and his contribution to Abba's overall success was significant.

Let's be frank though. Very few electric bassists truly deserve the epithet 'genius': Jaco perhaps ? Jamerson? Anthony Jackson? Those are three that immediately spring to mind, but 'ol Rutger here's not doing anything here that hundreds of other guys haven't done a hundred times before on a hundred other tunes.

What...are they all geniuses too? No...of course not. They're just very good players...like Rutger.

Let's stop misconstruing the true meaning of the word 'genius' to describe any old player just because we have an affinity for their particular style, otherwise before you know it, we'll be using the word to describe anyone who can string a few 16th notes together.

If there's something good to be said about his work on this tune it is this: He has great time, tone and he doesn't overplay. In other words, he serves the song well, just like any good player should be able to. Does that make him a genius ? No

 

[goff]

You, like others here, are misusing the word 'genius'.

If you think Rutger Gunnarson is a genius, then honestly, you're not leaving yourself much headroom to apply the word in it's proper context . You're lowering the bar almost to the point where the word ceases to have any meaning at all.

Now, this is not in any way intended to demean Rutger Gunnarson. On the contrary, he's a very good player. I've always enjoyed his style, and the tone he coaxed out of that old jazz bass on all the ABBA stuff was very good. To be sure, he was always a first class performer and his contribution to Abba's overall success was significant.

Let's be frank though. Very few electric bassists truly deserve the epithet 'genius': Jaco perhaps ? Jamerson? Anthony Jackson? Those are three that immediately spring to mind, but 'ol Rutger here's not doing anything here that hundreds of other guys haven't done a hundred times before on a hundred other tunes.

What...are they all geniuses too? No...of course not. They're just very good players...like Rutger.

Let's stop misconstruing the true meaning of the word 'genius' to describe any old player just because we have an affinity for their particular style, otherwise before you know it, we'll be using the word to describe anyone who can string a few 16th notes together.

If there's something good to be said about his work on this tune it is this: He has great time, tone and he doesn't overplay. In other words, he serves the song well, just like any good player should be able to. Does that make him a genius ? No

if anyone is changing or lowering the word connotation it's you. as much as i think highly of jamerson, there was a period in his career where he could not get work because his style was not what the music producers at that phase were looking for in a bassist.

granted rutger may be doing many things other players can do, but then not every player can put them together without having heard what rutger ended up playing, first. and news flash, only rutger played bass on one night in bangkok and he will always have that spot sewn up.

most of the songs he played on were hits. abba's track record proves that. i don't see the need to redefine the word when genius can mean so many things. playing well, knowing the proper parts to fit to make a hit, and all of the above. to me, playing for the song vs just playing bass separates the wheat from the chaff. how many bassists have great chops, but song construction, they wouldn't know what to do.

all your explanation did was shuffle words around. a fallacy of argument called bifurcation. not everything is black or white, an all or nothing scenario. hope this helps. it's always so easy to say, "i can do that." yeah after someone showed you where to go.

 

[BazzTard]

makes sense that Abba songs had great bass, they were huge Beatles fans

 

[PJ Muzikmansky]

if anyone is changing or lowering the word connotation it's you. as much as i think highly of jamerson, there was a period in his career where he could not get work because his style was not what the music producers at that phase were looking for in a bassist.

granted rutger may be doing many things other players can do, but then not every player can put them together without having heard what rutger ended up playing, first. and news flash, only rutger played bass on one night in bangkok and he will always have that spot sewn up.

most of the songs he played on were hits. abba's track record proves that. i don't see the need to redefine the word when genius can mean so many things. playing well, knowing the proper parts to fit to make a hit, and all of the above. to me, playing for the song vs just playing bass separates the wheat from the chaff. how many bassists have great chops, but song construction, they wouldn't know what to do.

all your explanation did was shuffle words around. a fallacy of argument called bifurcation. not everything is black or white, an all or nothing scenario. hope this helps. it's always so easy to say, "i can do that." yeah after someone showed you where to go.

My former remarks stand. When it comes to playing bass, Rutger Gunnarsson - while a very good player - is definitely not a genius. Playing for the song vs just playing bass, and the ability to construct a great bass line does not make one a genius. It merely makes one a good bass player

 

[goff]

My former remarks stand. When it comes to playing bass, Rutger Gunnarson - while a very good player - is definitely not a genius. Playing for the song vs just playing bass, and the ability to construct a great bass line does not make one a genius. It merely makes one a good bass player

semantics...

you should do a search on how many other forums mention the genius of gunnarsson, hence the rest of us on this thread are in good company making you odd man out. he's also a producer/arranger so i don't know where you need to draw the line with music formulas and success. genius comes in many forms.

 

[PJ Muzikmansky]

semantics...

you should do a search on how many other forums mention the genius of gunnarsson, hence the rest of us on this thread are in good company making you odd man out. he's also a producer/arranger so i don't know where you need to draw the line with music formulas and success. genius comes in many forms.

Why? I know what 'genius' means.

Clearly, you do not.

To reiterate: When it comes to music, Rutger Gunnarsson...the bassplayer for ABBA, is not a genius...

Mozart was a genius; Bach was a genius; Beethoven was a genius; John Coltrane was a genius.

The fact that ...a) you have a man-crush on the guy, and ...b) dig the way he plays bass, in no way makes him a genius.

Goodbye

 

[Belka]

Again: When it comes to music, Rutger Gunnarsson...the bassplayer for ABBA, is not a genius...

Mozart was a genius; Bach was a genius; Beethoven was a genius; John Coltrane was a genius.

The fact that ...a) you have a man-crush on the guy, and ...b) dig the way he plays bass, in no way makes him a genius.

Goodbye

I think that as a whole, ABBA were genius, and he was part of that, but didn't they actually have another English bass player who played on just as many tracks as Gunnarson did but didn't get so much credit?

Whatever, but those ABBA basslines combined funk with melodicism that few other players (save perhaps Jaco and Anthony Jackson were doing at the time, you won't find much playing like that in pop music today. He was no virtuoso, for sure, but it's geniusness in its own understated,played for the song whilst still being flashy way.

 

[Belka]

It seems I was correct - an English bassist called Mike Watson played on, amongst others, Mamma Mia, The Winner Takes It All, SOS and Gimme Gimme Gimme A Man After Midnight. an American called Arnold Paseiro, who'd played with George McRae, apparently did Voulez Vous. So if there was genius there it was more than one guy providing it.

 

[Belka]

Maybe it's safe to say that if they are not genius, they are, at the very least, 'brilliant'.

 

[PJ Muzikmansky]

I think that as a whole, ABBA were genius, and he was part of that, but didn't they actually have another English bass player who played on just as many tracks as Gunnarson did but didn't get so much credit?

Whatever, but those ABBA basslines combined funk with melodicism that few other players (save perhaps Jaco and Anthony Jackson were doing at the time, you won't find much playing like that in pop music today. He was no virtuoso, for sure, but it's geniusness in its own understated,played for the song whilst still being flashy way.

Well, firstly, you'll get no argument from me about ABBA. In terms of song writing, pop sensibilities and musicianship, Benny and Bjorn were almost up there with the Beatles - but back to Gunnarsson: firstly, there's no genius in playing 'for the song' in 'an understated manner'. Thats bass-playing 101 and countless players have, and continue to play that way. Now as I've previously stated, I'm not denying he was a great player, for indeed he was, but let's just cut the crap shall we: he wasn't doing anything a boat-load of other bass players weren't also doing at the time and to elevate him, as Goff has done, to the level of 'genius' because he played some good bass lines for ABBA is, frankly, absurd.

And you're right, Mike Watson , the English guy, played on some of ABBA's early stuff...

 

[PJ Muzikmansky]

It seems I was correct - an English bassist called Mike Watson played on, amongst others, Mamma Mia, The Winner Takes It All, SOS and Gimme Gimme Gimme A Man After Midnight. an American called Arnold Paseiro, who'd played with George McRae, apparently did Voulez Vous. So if there was genius there it was more than one guy providing it.

Thankyou Belka...you've brought some much-needed perspective into this discussion

 

[goff]

Why? I know what 'genius' means.

Clearly, you do not.

To reiterate: When it comes to music, Rutger Gunnarsson...the bassplayer for ABBA, is not a genius...

Mozart was a genius; Bach was a genius; Beethoven was a genius; John Coltrane was a genius.

The fact that ...a) you have a man-crush on the guy, and ...b) dig the way he plays bass, in no way makes him a genius.

Goodbye

problem with some people is that they equate something old with being the only benchmark. you have your ideas on what genius "is" as well as do others.

for you to force your precepts on others shows that not only are you ignorant of your failings, you use fallacy of argument as your goal post, namely dicto simpliciter.

to some people given the atmosphere of the day people like abba are more relevant than mozart and given that even though according to you mozart is a genius, his music does not occupy the curiosity of the masses. to punch through the density of the day is where the genius lies at this point. and having said that, no one other than you has stated (or implied) rutger as being another mozart... or not. that is your implication. just like no one is saying an emerald is a diamond.


you on the other hand are taking the genius comment and holding it up to your touchstone. no one asked you to redefine the word. you chose that uphill battle all by your lonesome.

in the times that people like rutger live, he and they, if you want to include ulvaeus bjorn and watson are modern day genii. a jewel is a jewel none the less. not all jewels are diamonds yet each has it's own place in the jewel category. is not a ruby a precious jewel as well as an emerald?

so for you to brag you know what a genius is, is like bragging you think only diamonds are precious jewels and that the other jewels do not count.

again you are overlaying your opinion on the "genius" word and are qualifying it from your perspective only. this was a gentle discussion until you popped in and decided to scold a few people for driving on your border.

vangough was not considered a genius in his time. even his own mother used his paintings to plug up a hole in her backyard fence and he only sold a painting or two. so where the focus lies at the moment should not define the entire scope of the issue.


and then you took belka's post and decided to graft his post with your thrust to prove what a genius is. what did belka's post have to do with anything as regarding genius? it didn't! it just mentioned that watson played on other hits.

ANOTHER FALLACY OF ARGUMENT. EQUIVOCATION.

>>
Belka said: ↑
It seems I was correct - an English bassist called Mike Watson played on, amongst others, Mamma Mia, The Winner Takes It All, SOS and Gimme Gimme Gimme A Man After Midnight. an American called Arnold Paseiro, who'd played with George McRae, apparently did Voulez Vous. So if there was genius there it was more than one guy providing it.
Thankyou Belka...you've brought some much-needed perspective into this discussion>>

like i said semantics. and with fallacies of argument committed by you all over the place.

you may know what a genius is...to you..but at least i know what i'm talking about.

you don't.

so go back to your band tufnel:

you came here to "mach" people's use of a generic word.

the word genius does not only belong to the likes of mozart.

goodbye to you..

 

[A.K.]

Another thing (this may have already been mentioned): Rutger was a highly trained musician who did string arrangements for Benny and Bjorn.

He's one of the best pop/rock bassists of the late Seventies and early Eighties. He also played on their "Chess" rock opera. Great playing there, too.

 

[goff]

Another thing (this may have already been mentioned): Rutger was a highly trained musician who did string arrangements for Benny and Bjorn.

He's one of the best pop/rock bassists of the late Seventies and early Eighties. He also played on their "Chess" rock opera. Great playing there, too.

yes, and glad you mentioned chess as one night in bangkok is a brilliant piece amongst andersson, ulvaeus, and rice, with rutger playing bass. hence one of the reasons for this thread.

the song is even more apropos today from a lyrical standpoint at least. the music arrangements soar. god is in the details.

 

[PJ Muzikmansky]

problem with some people is that they equate something old with being the only benchmark. you have your ideas on what genius "is" as well as do others.

for you to force your precepts on others shows that not only are you ignorant of your failings, you use fallacy of argument as your goal post, namely dicto simpliciter.

to some people given the atmosphere of the day people like abba are more relevant than mozart and given that even though according to you mozart is a genius, his music does not occupy the curiosity of the masses. to punch through the density of the day is where the genius lies at this point. and having said that, no one other than you has stated (or implied) rutger as being another mozart... or not. that is your implication. just like no one is saying an emerald is a diamond.


you on the other hand are taking the genius comment and holding it up to your touchstone. no one asked you to redefine the word. you chose that uphill battle all by your lonesome.

in the times that people like rutger live, he and they, if you want to include ulvaeus bjorn and watson are modern day genii. a jewel is a jewel none the less. not all jewels are diamonds yet each has it's own place in the jewel category. is not a ruby a precious jewel as well as an emerald?

so for you to brag you know what a genius is, is like bragging you think only diamonds are precious jewels and that the other jewels do not count.

again you are overlaying your opinion on the "genius" word and are qualifying it from your perspective only. this was a gentle discussion until you popped in and decided to scold a few people for driving on your border.

vangough was not considered a genius in his time. even his own mother used his paintings to plug up a hole in her backyard fence and he only sold a painting or two. so where the focus lies at the moment should not define the entire scope of the issue.


and then you took belka's post and decided to graft his post with your thrust to prove what a genius is. what did belka's post have to do with anything as regarding genius? it didn't! it just mentioned that watson played on other hits.

ANOTHER FALLACY OF ARGUMENT. EQUIVOCATION.

>>
Belka said: ↑
It seems I was correct - an English bassist called Mike Watson played on, amongst others, Mamma Mia, The Winner Takes It All, SOS and Gimme Gimme Gimme A Man After Midnight. an American called Arnold Paseiro, who'd played with George McRae, apparently did Voulez Vous. So if there was genius there it was more than one guy providing it.
Thankyou Belka...you've brought some much-needed perspective into this discussion>>

like i said semantics. and with fallacies of argument committed by you all over the place.

you may know what a genius is...to you..but at least i know what i'm talking about.

you don't.

so go back to your band tufnel:

you came here to "mach" people's use of a generic word.

the word genius does not only belong to the likes of mozart.

goodbye to you..

LOL...you've gone to extraordinary efforts to prove me wrong here, almost like cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer, and have also been - by adducing the rules of logical argument and thus calling my attempts at introducing what I consider to be quite reasonable simple analogies 'fallacious' - quite condescending in the process. Look, my proposition is quite simple. The fact that one is a very good bass player, musician, arranger - whatever - does not necessarily make one a genius. You're simply conflating 'talent' with 'genius'. People do it all the time. There are thousands of extraordinarily talented musicians out there - Rutger Gunnarson being one of them. My wife is also. She's an extraordinarily gifted orchestral cellist, arranger, music teacher etc. She's recorded and performed with some heavyweight artists. She writes string arrangements for musical productions. She can sight read like you wouldn't believe. She's very very talented. But she's NOT a genius.

Consider this:

"Genius is a talent for producing something for which no determinate rule can be given, not a predisposition consisting of a skill for something that can be learned by following some rule or other" -Immanuel Kant

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see"- Arthur Schopenhauer

I couldn't have put it better myself

 

[goff]

LOL...you've gone to extraordinary efforts to prove me wrong here, almost like cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer, and have also been - by adducing the rules of logical argument and thus calling my attempts at introducing what I consider to be quite reasonable simple analogies 'fallacious' - quite condescending in the process. Look, my proposition is quite simple. The fact that one is a very good bass player, musician, arranger - whatever - does not necessarily make one a genius. You're simply conflating 'talent' with 'genius'. People do it all the time. There are thousands of extraordinarily talented musicians out there - Rutger Gunnarson being one of them. My wife is also. She's an extraordinarily gifted orchestral cellist, arranger, music teacher etc. She's recorded and performed with some heavyweight artists. She writes string arrangements for musical productions. She can sight read like you wouldn't believe. She's very very talented. But she's NOT a genius.

Consider this:

"Genius is a talent for producing something for which no determinate rule can be given, not a predisposition consisting of a skill for something that can be learned by following some rule or other" -Immanuel Kant

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see"- Arthur Schopenhauer

geeze, more fallacy of A...

big deal, no one asked you to change the direction of the thread by delineating what is meant by genius. in chasing your own tail you have shown that you don't know which is your head or your ass.

you keep having to repeat your words to prove something that isn't really the focus of this thread. it was started as an appreciation for the work of one artist, not to present a dissertation on what constitutes a genius.

so where is the genius in your case now?

you are fallacious in your attempts because you can't understand that the word "genius" was used as just a word that actually encompasses certain attributes not the kant or schopenhauer version, that you insist on for some reason, you need to shove it down our throats.


another fallacy of argument, ipse dixit you have blindly stepped in hook line and stinker...

for that matter there are many geniuses in the insane asylum so should we go quantifying kant in that respect? maybe there are those there that can take your views as verbatim?

you're gilding the lily, pokey. so go find gumby man..


"diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggie until you can find a rock.."
will rogers.

you're off topic besides..so let's get back on topic or get off the thread and go start your own "what is a genius" thread.
don't hi-ass the thread... jack!

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

walk a mile in rutger's shoes why don't you pj?

 

[bass71]

ABBA's "One of use" bass line is true masterpiece for me. I listened it so many times and there is always someting "uncatchable" amazing in it, i don't know is it octave pick in right time, fantastic textured line.
I'm glad there are more people who recognize this also.

Me to and I totally agree. I'm prepared to make a direct comparison between Jammerson's originality and the equal originality of the way he plays that bass line. It's so packed full of perfectly timed nuances, ghost notes and hammers...exquisite bass playing par excellence.

 

[goff]

Me to and I totally agree. I'm prepared to make a direct comparison between Jammerson's originality and the equal originality of the way he plays that bass line. It's so packed full of perfectly timed nuances, ghost notes and hammers...exquisite bass playing par excellence.

i tend to agree with this. the parts played are unusual mixed in with some usual, some really "off the wall" lines yet making for a different direction. when one appreciates someone's playing you have to go with what you hear.