Paul McCartney vs Gene Simmons

[Vinnyboonbots]

I hope everyone will read that title with the irony with which is was intended.

Obviously, it's a tongue in cheek lampoon of the many troll threads that pop up. But, it got me thinking...

The Beatles are the most covered composers of the last half century. In terms of the actual AMOUNT of songs they may be the most covered of all time. Almost everything they've done has been re-done. I read somewhere that "Yesterday" alone has over a thousand recorded versions. of it. This doesn't include all the indie recordings -- everything from solo bass versions to salsa band versions. Symphony orchestras have played Beatles music. Jazz artists, country artists, you name it.

Now ask yourself -- how many Kiss songs have been covered by other artists?

Okay, okay, not looking to start a war. But it is amazing to think of the immense scale of McCartney's influence.

 

[96tbird]

Yeah, the Beatles made beautiful, sometimes weird, sometimes shocking, always genuine original music; at least after they quit playing live. No surprise people are still drawn to the music.

Kiss mainly just just rocked out.

 

[skruch]

Just watched the "Tribute to George Harrison" DVD. WOW!

 

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

Well, since this thread was posted in the "Bassists" sub-forum, I'd like to say that the ultra-broad scope of The Beatles' music isn't due to McCartney's qualities as a bass player. Of course he has an awesome style as a bassist, but that's something that a non-bassist or non-musician hardly cares about. What really matters (in terms of the band's huge success) is the music as a whole, and the band's achievements weren't exclusively (not even mostly) because of McCartney's contributions as an instrumentalist (his compositional skills are a different story). Obviously, Kiss couldn't reach such level of significance, but it has nothing to do with Gene Simmons' abilities as a bass player. Same can be said about a whole lot of artists.

My opinion, of course. My apologies if your post has a different intention. That's how I read it.

 

[PlungerModerno]

McCartney 1,000,000, Simmons 0.

OK, they both had immense success, but IMO McCartney had the biggest influence, as a songwriter, a singer, a bassist, and a legend. Kiss might be more fun to see though

It's like comparing apples to oranges, and that's kinda true about a lot of music.

 

[Ric5]

Paul mcCartney was one of the greatest songwriters and singers of his era.

Gene Simmons was part of a circus-like act that included music.

Paul was the better musician, but Gene was a better business man.

 

[curbowkid]

I'm gonna toss my 2 cents in. I've never seen gene Simmons play a REAL stand out bass line or anything special at all. Paul is a better musician in my opinion, and gene is a better business man. I think that's basically all it is.

 

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

I'm gonna toss my 2 cents in. I've never seen gene Simmons play a REAL stand out bass line or anything special at all.

Well, as an isolated example, I think this performance can be compared to a McCartney work (again, in my opinion).

 

[emor]

Gene Simmons threads always remind me of this:

 

[GregC]

Paul mcCartney was one of the greatest songwriters and singers of his era.

Gene Simmons was part of a circus-like act that included music.

Paul was the better musician, but Gene was a better business man.

Sums it up nicely. Paul made me want to play bass. Gene made me NOT want to go into marketing.

 

[Vinnyboonbots]

Well, as an isolated example, I think this performance can be compared to a McCartney work (again, in my opinion).

A pretty forgettable song IMO. I guess walking diatonic 8th notes are regarded a notch about roots. Hardly special though. Stanley can sing . Solid drummer.

 

[DiabolusInMusic]

I am pretty sure Gene would win in a fight... and I don't even like the guy.

 

[FrednBass]

McCartney - Genius
Simmons - i kindda like 'Family Jewels'

 

[Revolver]

Gene Simmons a better businessman than McCartney?!?! I'd say their bank accounts say otherwise . . .

Not even going to comment on the bass playing/musicianship . . .

 

[Mystic Michael]

Now ask yourself -- how many Kiss songs have been covered by other artists?

No, I will not. Why would you even try to implant such an ugly thought into my mind?

And if the idea is to highlight the immense influence of The Beatles, what could possibly be the reason for referencing Kiss - of all things?

MM

 

[KevInDaBassment]

MY first thought reading the thread title was "I'll give this 5 minutes before mods move it to the 'Bass Humor and Gig Stories' section" lol

I'm sure some people have covered KISS songs, I know for a fact they have a few prominent tribute bands out there. Now comparing them to the Beatles is like comparing rocks to pomegranates....TOTALLY different categories IMHO. I try and veer away from making comparisons like that because they are so different and have had some influence in different realms. KISS was about showmanship and they had some decently catchy tunes that are fun to jam along on. Beatles were more artistic in their songwriting and how they constructed songs into an entire, relevant album. IMO, Ace Frehley was the only person in KISS that was truly talented

 

[JimmyM]

Not liking KISS is un-American.

 

[BawanaRik]

Listen to some of their songs without the bass. Maybe ome Together or Paper Back Writer. He drove alot of the music from down there.



I remember years ago my cirlce was talking how Frank Zappa would be the most remembered 20 century composer. He isn't.

Good music only goes so far. Tim Hardin's Reason To Believe is a great song. Yet cover old sold the originals. By far. In todays world I think people ( not the kind that populate TB) are as influenced by the arrangment as they are the song.

Well, since this thread was posted in the "Bassists" sub-forum, I'd like to say that the ultra-broad scope of The Beatles' music isn't due to McCartney's qualities as a bass player. Of course he has an awesome style as a bassist, but that's something that a non-bassist or non-musician hardly cares about. What really matters (in terms of the band's huge success) is the music as a whole, and the band's achievements weren't exclusively (not even mostly) because of McCartney's contributions as an instrumentalist (his compositional skills are a different story). Obviously, Kiss couldn't reach such level of significance, but it has nothing to do with Gene Simmons' abilities as a bass player. Same can be said about a whole lot of artists.

My opinion, of course. My apologies if your post has a different intention. That's how I read it.

 

[deeptubes]

Gene Simmons a better businessman than McCartney?!?! I'd say their bank accounts say otherwise . . .

Well, Gene does own the songs he wrote. Sony/ATV Music Publishing owns the Beatles tunes, except for "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You".

As bassists, Paul has some chops. Gene is just background filler.

 

[Renaissance]

I think Gene accomplished more with what he had to work with.