For those of you who think The Beatles didn't rock and Hofners s@@k:

Great album !

 

I thought his bass tone was key to their overall sound.

Good tune!

 

hi Bob

Yes the Beatles rocked!

But even remastered the Höfner still sounds like a Höfner!


Can I have a "carrots" option?


greetings

Wise(b)ass

 

I think the only people that would ever hate on Paul's tone are the same people who claim to hate The Beatles, which is weird, considering the impact that they had and how a lot of other bands would not otherwise exist without them.

 

Never "got" their music. While I appreciate and respect their talent and their innovation, I can honestly say I don't like the Beatles.
Rock on.

 

Obviously, opinions here (and otherwise vary on the Beatles). However, if I were looking to pick a tune to show that they rocked out or that Paul's bass playing was great, this would hardly be my first choice. The song sounds very dated, and all Paul is playing is 1/5 throughout the song.

 

I think the sales speak loudly here.

 

Even though the Beatles had a bunch of endorsement contracts they still rocked
The Hofner had a great low static thump that allowed Paul to play fast or slow and really to what the song needed
Love those songs
Love that bass sound

 

"rocked hard" is definitely not how I would describe that
It would be great for Muzak.

 

I think when others say they don't like something, what they're really saying is they don't understand it. In my classical music life , I'd be quick to dismiss opera until it became apparent to me that I didn't really know opera, so now my answer is just that. That there are some things, usually overtures, the instrumental segments of some operas I like, but I'd be hypocritical to make a blanket dismissal of the whole genre because I don't really know it nor have I been inclined to fully give it a chance.

 

Not a Beatles fan but nothing wrong with Paul's tone on this one (or any of their stuff, really).

 

please define "rock" and "suck"...

if "rocked" means "I like it" and "suck" means "I don't like it", then it's all just taste. Anyone who argues about personal taste in music has their attic windows wide open.

 

This thread is like saying "for all of you who think vanilla ice cream doesn't taste good, you should really try this vanilla" shortly followed by the replies of "if you don't like vanilla, you are just mislead and uneducated".

I don't enjoy vanilla ice cream, I don't enjoy the Beatles. This really should mean nothing to the zillions of fans of both.

Let me be my curmudgeonly self dangit!

 

I totally disagree. What you're basically saying, is if you understand something, you'll like it. To me that can't be further from the truth. People like and dislike things for many, many reasons.

 

The Beatles recorded so many songs, in so many different styles, it's easy to find a Beatles song that sounds like or directly influences (Insert your favorite band here). I just can't understand how you could blanket "not like" a group like that. It's like saying you don't like F#, I don't understand it.

 

Not exactly the first song that comes to mind as one to demonstrate how the Beatles rocked!

Could you please elaborate? In all of my Beatles reading, I've heard only of a handshake agreement between their manager and VOX that the Beatles would appear in public with only VOX amplification as long as he was their manager.

 

If you want to show the Beatles rock side, this would not be the song to play. Helter Skelter, Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End, there are many more to choose from. By the way Hofner was not the only bass Paul used; there was that Rickenbacker too (later music).

 

I can appreciate their talent and enormous impact on music but much prefer The Stones.