• 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.

Mike porcaro better than Gene Simons?

#201
HI

No Eric. Didnt say that, did I? Thats mostly what I heard. Im 44 years old. I grew up hearing it. LOL. Thats why I dont care for them like i stated. I was listening to other stuff.

Funny thing, alot of what I liked was thought to be sterile, non-commercail, etc. I enjoyed Rush, Yes, Zappa, Earth, Wind, and Fire. I was inspired by the bassists in these bands. As I got into my teens I listened to alot of metal. Priest, Maiden, etc. Also into alot of fusion. Ponty, Bill Bruford. Was always trying to become the best bassist I could and gravitated toward the technical guys. I appreciate the simpler players as I grew older and enjoy most all music know and really appreciate the groove guys. GS doesnt do it for me. Sorry. I wouldnt go if they were playing across the street. To each their own.

Rob
 
#203
Geez... lot of anger here.

Just thought I'd stick my head back in and point out that acknowledging that jazz musicians might just be/usually are better all-round players than outright rock musicians doesn't make the person a snob for saying it. It makes them a realist. Again, lots of room between Porcaro and "...sucks". And it doesn't make rock any less fun to dance/sing/drive/f**k to.

And, so far, the only poster who's made any reference to any jazz musician is NOT one of the posters who questioned Simmons' discography.

Don't get so bent out of shape.
 
#204
Auriaprottu said:
Geez... lot of anger here.

Just thought I'd stick my head back in and point out that acknowledging that jazz musicians might just be/usually are better all-round players than outright rock musicians doesn't make the person a snob for saying it. It makes them a realist. Again, lots of room between Porcaro and "...sucks". And it doesn't make rock any less fun to dance/sing/drive/f**k to.

And, so far, the only poster who's made any reference to any jazz musician is NOT one of the posters who questioned Simmons' discography.

Don't get so bent out of shape.
Click to expand...

Just becuase they use the knowledge of theory better?? That makes them better bassists??
 
#206
Stingray19 said:
Just becuase they use the knowledge of theory better?? That makes them better bassists??
Click to expand...

Friend... at what point does this end? We could just as easily be talking about Oteil Burbridge or Jimmy Haslip versus Sid Vicious if you want to try make it that doggone subjective.

It's a musical instrument, just like a cello or an oboe. It's no wonder musicians on other instruments don't respect it (or the electric guitar) as such, because it's pretty clear that a lot of us don't respect it ourselves.

How many people here would go to a pawn shop, buy an oboe, figure out how to get seven or eight notes out of it without studying the instrument formally, join a website of oboe enthusiasts and then successfully shoehorn their equally untutored oboe heroes into any "best" thread because there are more fans of his work than there are of the true masters? I'll answer: it would never (nevah, evah, evah) happen.

This elevation of mediocre technique happens only in popular music from whatever culture. The serious stuff almost always requires technique and study. And whenever someone says it plain, they get called a snob. That's BS.

I'm glad there's rock out there. I love it. It doesn't mean that I think the guys who play it are great talents. Great talent is not required for great rock. And that's okay.
 
#207
fenderfunker said:
Auriaprottu, you can't win on this thread. No matter how reasonable, or diplomatically you phrase something, someone will take issue. It is a circular argument. Gene and Mike have given pleasure to many people. But as a serious musician, I know which one I'd prefer to listen to.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to see that. Just saw your post, BTW. Thanks. I'm so damn tired of the noise from the P-nut gallery :D (see? I do have a sense of humor) about who's the best. None of them are.
 
#208
Auriaprottu said:
Friend... at what point does this end? We could just as easily be talking about Oteil Burbridge or Jimmy Haslip versus Sid Vicious if you want to try make it that doggone subjective.

It's a musical instrument, just like a cello or an oboe. It's no wonder musicians on other instruments don't respect it (or the electric guitar) as such, because it's pretty clear that a lot of us don't respect it ourselves.

How many people here would go to a pawn shop, buy an oboe, figure out how to get seven or eight notes out of it without studying the instrument formally, join a website of oboe enthusiasts and then successfully shoehorn their equally untutored oboe heroes into any "best" thread because there are more fans of his work than there are of the true masters? I'll answer: it would never (nevah, evah, evah) happen.

This elevation of mediocre technique happens only in popular music from whatever culture. The serious stuff almost always requires technique and study. And whenever someone says it plain, they get called a snob. That's BS.

I'm glad there's rock out there. I love it. It doesn't mean that I think the guys who play it are great talents. Great talent is not required for great rock. And that's okay.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't trying to argue with you, I was moreso asking you your view on why jazz players are better.

Maybe I should've specifid that. :hmm:
 
#209
Stingray19 said:
Just becuase they use the knowledge of theory better?? That makes them better bassists??
Click to expand...

Define "better".

More 'Versatile'?
More 'Adaptable'?
More 'Well rounded'?
More 'Knowledgeable'?
More 'Highly paid'?
More 'Interesting to listen to'?
More 'Popular'?
More 'Extensive repertoire'
More 'Contribution to advancement of the bass'?

??? How many would Gene tick? How many would Mike tick?
 
#213
It's okay if some people don't like the same things you do. Really, it is.

Like Rob, I heard their early work. I see people describing Simmon's bass work as McCartney-esque... IMO McCartney is one of the greats at constructing pop basslines. Simmons is no McCartney. IMO.

What I don't get is the anger in response to reading an opinion like mine. I'm not a jazz snob either, I listen to damn near anything. There were far more interesting rock bands that were contemporaries of Kiss to me. I didn't hate them... they were what they were.

Kisss is a highly successful entreprise financially. I'm under no illusion that that somehow has a bearing on talent. I heard far more talented groups >>>IMO<<< back then. One of my favorite bassists back then wore a cape fairly often... see, I'm not against theatrics.
;)
 
#214
fourstringburn said:
Just have to ask, What is the definition of a musican?
Click to expand...
I get the feeling OP's friend thinks it involves sticking out your tongue, spitting fire, spitting blood and dressing up like a circus side show to make millions of dollars and having your face on lunchboxes. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but music is a sideline.

I honestly can't tell the difference between these two guys

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Disclaimer: I loved Kiss, and they got me interested in music...when I was 8.
 
#216
gene-simmons-dog.jpg
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back