• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Adam Clayton Does Not Suck.

#44
but of course - Adam Clayton Does Not Suck. I agree. Who wouldn't?
I'm a huge fan of U2, and Adam plays precisely what's needed for their music. He's confident, steady, professional.
He's not my favorite bassist by any stretch, and plenty of other great rock and jazz bass players could eat his lunch, in terms of his technical skills (strictly based on what he's demonstrated on stage and on recordings).
But that doesn't mean any of those guys would be at all right for U2. A successful band, particularly one as ginormously successful as U2, is far more about the unique talents/personalities of the band and the group's collective vision than the technical playing ability of any one group member.
And who are these people in the "bass community" who are laughing at Adam Clayton's playing?
I've never met any. I suspect they're a figment of the OP's imagination.
But if I did meet any, I'd have to laugh at them.
 
#47
Clef_de_fa said:
He may make more money than Jaco or any other virtuoso player/band but this doesn't mean anything. It just says that people prefer very simple mainstream stuff than art.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking, put slightly better of course:smug:
Then I realize it isn't the simplicity of U2's material that makes me see it as a product first and art a very distant second.
It's the monotony I see in it (The lack of motion or rawness... and a softness (esp vocal & guitar) that just doesn't convince me/ reach me.)

Clayton is part of a... formulaic band. Often his tone and understated play are the only part of U2's songs I can enjoy. I am not a fan of U2's material, new or old, but have given them more than a couple of chances. with or without you has a perfectly chosen functional bass tone I dig.

The reason I like his bass playing is it stands out in their material as sincere. I just miss the contrast I'm used to in most other bassists work. I'm not suggesting he tap / slap 16ths at 180bpm, but my ears get very tired of listening to the same type of song, sounding the same (to me) every time. Come to think of it that's what I dislike in all of U2's material. Of course not really digging it from the start doesn't help.:rolleyes:

I can't help but respect the man. Being heard with the edges very.... unhelpful (IMHO drab) guitar effects is no easy feat.
:D
 
#48
madrob said:
Making lots of money does not = good music/art!!!!

:hiding:
Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing out the obvious, which often gets missed. It's funny how in every discussion about how good someone is, this ridiculous argument always comes up.

This and the "serve the song" BS. Maybe a better bass player would have served the song better. We have these iconic bass lines in our heads from hearing them 10,000,000 times. A different bass line could have been better, worse, or just different. We'll never know.

Besides, I don't think anyone said he was bad. Some people are just average. There's nothing wrong with that. Average isn't bad.
 
#49
Look-at-me bass playing does not equal musicianship. Adam Clayton may or may not be a technical beast on bass; who knows? Dub bass players play fewer notes and more repetitive parts than he does; do they suck worse? I don't care for U2's music, but nothing I've heard sounds as if he doesn't know what he's doing.

Brian Eno says that when he and U2 went backstage to meet Frank Sinatra at a concert shortly before Sinatra retired from performing, they asked him questions like "Was Gene Krupa's time always that solid?" Eno says that Sinatra suddenly looked fully awake for the first time that night; it was obvious that it was the first time in many years that he'd had a real peer-to-peer musician's conversation about drummers, bass players, etc.
 
#52
Adam Clayton tends to play simple basslines. This is how U2 writes their songs. Sure he could come up with more creative stuff. He probably does, but they have struck upon a very successful formula that makes them a lot of money, so they're not going to break it. But with that said, whether Adam plays simple basslines, or whether he plays really intricate and difficult lines, there's much more to the bassplayer than just the difficulty of his lines. There's the tone of his bass and amp. There's placement of his notes and consistency within the rhythm, but apart from all the musical aspects there's the person himself as a professional. He's part of a big company. The fact that he's still U2's bassplayer says a lot about Adam Clayton as a person. Based upon the fact that he's still a money earning member of the band, I would say that they enjoy working with him, that he's professional, reliable, and probably easy to get along with. It's not just how you play on stage, but how you play off stage that earns your paycheck. So, while I tend to dislike U2, I would never bash another bass player because his basslines aren't showy, or complicated enough to satisfy the arrogant musician snobs paying to see him.
 
#56
knarleybass said:
so, if it's main stream it's not art? and if no one has heard of it it is art?
Click to expand...

If you're looking for art you won't find it in mainstream music because in the mainstream world it is more about how many people you can reach and how much money you can do with your product.

Your band may not be recognized but if you strive to be rock star, you are more looking to be popular than trying to express yourself, pushing the limit of the language, developpe a new technic. So you will be playing music taht will have an appeal to many people as possible, this mean you will go less complicated stuff because I don't think jazz stuff or trying to play serialism music isn't the way to go ... you may be more playing rock or pop songs.
 
#57
Picasso was pretty mainstream and popular during his lifetime, was he not an artist?
Radiohead also at one point very mainstream in their lifetime, not art?
Rush, not art?
Metallica, not art?

what is so wrong with being in the main stream, and reaching as many people as possible? and why can't anyone do that with their art? Did Eddy VanHalen, Jimi Hendrix, or Bob Marley mould themselves and their bands to fit into a mainstream genre?

I don't want to come off as antagonistic, I am just trying to understand the statement "Art can't be mainstream"
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyohars
#59
Clef_de_fa said:
If you're looking for art you won't find it in mainstream music because in the mainstream world it is more about how many people you can reach and how much money you can do with your product.

Your band may not be recognized but if you strive to be rock star, you are more looking to be popular than trying to express yourself, pushing the limit of the language, developpe a new technic. So you will be playing music taht will have an appeal to many people as possible, this mean you will go less complicated stuff because I don't think jazz stuff or trying to play serialism music isn't the way to go ... you may be more playing rock or pop songs.
Click to expand...

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. :rolleyes:
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back