Bass lines by Sir Paul.

[jongor]

Originally posted by incognito89x
...After listening and anylizing them for a month I was so impressed with everything about them. It really makes today's, and pretty much every other modern band look just bland and boring....

...The band as a whole still is so much better than everything out there today. (at least of the rock type genre)

Few bands today have so much meaning behind their music, or so much going on in their music as they did....

You should also listen closely to, and study The Police and Stings playing. For me, I started playing because of Paul, and naturally moved to Sting, who's bass parts are always amazing even at their most sparse....

 

[Da_Niet]

Originally posted by teleharmonium
Da_Niet wrote: " He did his part for the group and was an adequate skinsman, but it could have been in his seat, too."

I beg to differ. Ringo was and is an absolutely incredible drummer, I know of no one that could have filled his shoes, period. Very few people appreciate how great of a musician he is, but you can get some inkling of it from the fact that everything he ever played with those guys sounds great yet not exactly the same as any other song, his playing always drives the song while providing an intoxicating swing and structural definition and counterpoint that reveal a heavy sense of composition and sensitivity on his part. His sound, the way he set up his kit, and many aspects of his playing revolutionized rock/pop drums forever. He could be heavy as hell or light as a feather, nearly invisible as a separate entity and mesmerizingly articulate at the same time. When those guys played they became one big instrument, that is most certainly not something you hear every day.

I think that it is a matter of preference, tele, on your part. I like Ringo's playing on most of the Fab Four's recordings, but even he knew his limitations. That said, without his touch, those classic songs just wouldn't sound the same, would they?

 

[JimK]

Originally posted by jongor
...who's bass parts are always amazing even at their most sparse.

That would be called minimalism.

 

[JimK]

Originally posted by Da_Niet
That said, without his touch, those classic songs just wouldn't sound the same, would they?

Unless it was Bernard Purdie playin' 'em!



Whaddayathink of Andy White's playing on the Anthology I version of "Please, Please Me"?
...more busier, eh?

 

[Coypu]

Originally posted by JimK
A lot of time has passed since Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Ellington, Bird, Diz, Tatum, Monk, Powell, Miles, Mingus, Hendrix, Joplin, Stevie, Marvin Gaye, Zappa, etc.
The innovators of any era will always sound 'fresh'...not so sure if today's progress is all that.
So, IMO, The Beatles sound even 'better' today when compared to what passes as Pop-Rock.

I'm a big Holdsworth/Johnson/Wackerman fan...Holdsworth is good but he's no Coltrane.

Well, most older jazz does actually sound old and outdated (Listen to Django Rheinhart for a hilarious example of music that sounds outdated). The same goes with most rock and pop. There are ofcourse exceptions with a few geniouses as Bach and Schoenberg but people like them are rare. To say that beatles possess the same genious as Bach is absurd. But sure, if you compare beatles to pop and rock of today they defiantely look and sound like a great band, but if you compare them with other genres that have moved forward then that is not the case.

I agree, Holdsworth is no Coltrane, he is just Holdsworth, a genious is his own right just as Coltrane was.

 

[JimK]

I wasn't comparing The Beatles to Bach...you are.
In any event-
You don't view The Beatles as innovators?
...even from a recording/studio standpoint?
You don't see Revolver as raising the bar
for Pop-Rock?
Now that's absurd.

Sorry, I don't hear "most older Jazz sounding old & outdated"; if an artist was playing 'on the edge & in the moment'(as most of the older Jazz did)...the recording, to my ears, sounds 'current'.
To each his own; I'll take Django over most of today's technicians.

You can have the last word...

 

[Coypu]

Originally posted by JimK
I wasn't comparing The Beatles to Bach...you are.
In any event-
You don't view The Beatles as innovators?
...even from a recording/studio standpoint?
You don't see Revolver as raising the bar
for Pop-Rock?
Now that's absurd.

Sorry, I don't hear "most older Jazz sounding old & outdated"; if an artist was playing 'on the edge & in the moment'(as most of the older Jazz did)...the recording, to my ears, sounds 'current'.
To each his own; I'll take Django over most of today's technicians.

You can have the last word...

Sure, they where innovators, but so was Nirvana, it really doesn't make it great music.

I think Glenn Gould summed the recording deal pretty well (read my signature)...

 

[Da_Niet]

Originally posted by JimK
Unless it was Bernard Purdie playin' 'em!



Whaddayathink of Andy White's playing on the Anthology I version of "Please, Please Me"?
...more busier, eh?

...........or how about Pete Best on the earlier version of, "Love Me Do"? I kinda thought it was interesting to hear that little shuffle with the snare, during Lennon's harmonica solo.

 

[Hobbes]

Someone was mentioning him playing guitar on their records earlier. I didn't know that he played on "And Your Bird Can Sing", but he did play the solos for "Taxman." Plus, he played drums for "The Ballad of John and Yoko."

As for his bass playing, I love the stuff he laid down. He played some really good, melodic bass lines that really added something extra to the song, e.g. the bassline to "Something" is a melody on its own. Also, he didn't seem to mind just holding back and keeping it simple and tight when necessary, such as on "Get Back."