• 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.

Paul McCartney vs Gene Simmons

#61
Harper said:
I'm not sure how the most influential bassist in rock/pop history can be underrated.
Click to expand...

I don't really see him accepted as an influential bassist as much as a member of an influential band who played bass. There is a very big difference.

When bass players are asked who their influences are, you usually don't get McCartney. You get Wooten, Jaco, Stanley Clark, Geddy Lee, Les Claypool etc...

However, he is occasionally mentioned and I think he deserves to be mentioned more often.
 
#62
Someone wrote Kiss and Gene Simmons would be forgotten in 50 years. There is NO WAY POSSIBLE a band as Iconic as Kiss is forgotten. Too big of an overall performance influence. The makeup alone makes them long standing.

Any bass player that can play and sing gets extra props in my book.

Someone also put Wooten and Claypool in the same influence scope as Stanley Clarke, Geddy and Jaco. First off, Clarke, Rush/Geddy and Jaco, along with Marcus Miller, Babbit, Jamerson, Rainey, Laboriel and Weeks are in SO MANY MORE households than Victor Wooten or Claypool. I think your influence speaks higher when more people are able to access you or are able to hear you in a radio/TV format because the music is more marketable. Wooten and Claypool are great players but they are pretty much only known in the bass/special music arena. The others are always your house and everyone's house because their music stylings are far more widespread.
 
#63
TBird1958 said:
I think Mccartney and his fellow bandmates were better songwriters/composers and he's the better player - OTOH for me Gene and Kiss were far more interesting and inspiring, the first time I saw them was on ABC's "In Concert" as a 15 year old beginning bass player they left a far greater impression than Sir Paul.
Click to expand...
It was truly the opposite for me. Even though the Beatles had been broken up for 5 years when I bought my first record (1975 or so), I went right past all the new releases and picked up one of their albums. (I had a lot of exposure to them through my younger aunts and uncles when I was little.) While everyone else was talking about Skynyrd (I'm from Florida), Zep and Kiss, me and a few of my middle-school buddies were geeking out as we bought Sgt. Pepper's, Revolver, Abbey Road, etc.

The music captivated me. And when I got my own little stereo and a good pair of headphones (thanks Mom and George!), sitting in my room and listening to Paul's fat, moving basslines on those records made me want to play bass.:)

I never did get into Kiss, even though they did write a couple memorable tunes. Cheap Trick's more dorky brand of showmanship was more appealing to me and I liked their songs better.
 
#64
Nev375 said:
I don't really see him accepted as an influential bassist as much as a member of an influential band who played bass. There is a very big difference.

When bass players are asked who their influences are, you usually don't get McCartney. You get Wooten, Jaco, Stanley Clark, Geddy Lee, Les Claypool etc...

However, he is occasionally mentioned and I think he deserves to be mentioned more often.
Click to expand...

If you check out the profiles of members on TB, quite a number list McCartney as an influence. I'm not trying to promote him or not promote him, just stating what appears to be a fact to me.
 
#65
How about they both did what was necessary for their bands to do what they did??? Should it matter who was better or had better chops?

I can appreciate players with chops and crazy skills but the player that can play a song is what we should really care about.

Both Sir Paul and Gene could play the song!

Just a note to all my groove family...chops will get you talked about amongst your peers but,a SOLID GROOVE WILL GET YOU HIRED!!!

Peace!
 
#67
jcsgroove said:
How about they both did what was necessary for their bands to do what they did??? Should it matter who was better or had better chops?

I can appreciate players with chops and crazy skills but the player that can play a song is what we should really care about.

Both Sir Paul and Gene could play the song!

Just a note to all my groove family...chops will get you talked about amongst your peers but,a SOLID GROOVE WILL GET YOU HIRED!!!

Peace!
Click to expand...

JCsGroove - This is a great quote and really should serve as a closer for many, many bass conversations:

" Just a note to all my groove family...chops will get you talked about amongst your peers but,a SOLID GROOVE WILL GET YOU HIRED!!"

That my friends is an awesome quote!
 
#68
Nev375 said:
I don't really see him accepted as an influential bassist as much as a member of an influential band who played bass. There is a very big difference.

When bass players are asked who their influences are, you usually don't get McCartney. You get Wooten, Jaco, Stanley Clark, Geddy Lee, Les Claypool etc...
Click to expand...

Besides the fact that I see McCartney's name pop up often on "influences" lists, a casual listen to almost any radio in the world tells the real story. You will hear more McCartney influence in the recorded bass lines of almost any genre than you will the influence of the bassists you named combined.
 
#69
Nev375 said:
I don't really see him accepted as an influential bassist as much as a member of an influential band who played bass. There is a very big difference.

When bass players are asked who their influences are, you usually don't get McCartney. You get Wooten, Jaco, Stanley Clark, Geddy Lee, Les Claypool etc...

However, he is occasionally mentioned and I think he deserves to be mentioned more often.
Click to expand...

You might have a valid point bro but,not to start a fight but just proving another point...ask any one of those players on that list you mentioned and see if they mention McCartney as a bassist they'd listen to and consider him a great player...I've personally heard Stanley and Victor speak of Sir Paul as one of the greats of all time and how his playing is so melodic,tasteful,etc...Think about that for just a sec.
 
#72
Well.... Paul Mc made his dollars from music sales and song royalties. Gene and Company made their dollars pimping extremely exciting concerts and selling paraphernalia. It was Rock & Roll meets Circus, meets fireworks display, meets monster trucks driving thru your living room. Ive never seen anyones face painted like Paul Mc! LOL!!
 
#77
KISS was my first concert, and I bought every album up until the "solo" albums. I was 13 at that concert, and it blew my mind.

After YEARS of rocking, I would say KISS has the following REALLY GOOD songs:

Goin' Blind
Strange Ways
Black Diamond
Nothing to Lose (although I cringed when I realized what he meant by "thought about the back door" and the overall point of the song)
Let me Go, Rock and Roll
She
Rock and Roll all Night (although I wouldn't care if I never heard it again)
Detroit Rock City
Beth
Hard Luck Woman

and for me, that's it. I think the rest of their catalog is pure crap, and I mean REALLY REALLY ANNOYING BAD CRAP.

So for MY taste, (and I realize taste is subjective,) KISS has 10 good songs on 20 or so albums.

The Beatles have less than 10 BAD songs on well over 20 albums, depending on how you count them.

And the Beatles have composed some of the greatest songs in the history of rock and roll, both as Lennon/McCartney, Harrison (in the Beatles,) and Lennon, McCartney AND Harrison as solo artists.
 
#79
Gene may be a great player but I'll never know because I've found the Kiss stuff so banal that I've never really listened to it. Paul wrote great pop tunes. I've never noticed his bass playing either. That might be a compliment actually.
 
#80
mellowinman said:
KISS was my first concert, and I bought every album up until the "solo" albums. I was 13 at that concert, and it blew my mind.

After YEARS of rocking, I would say KISS has the following REALLY GOOD songs:

Goin' Blind
Strange Ways
Black Diamond
Nothing to Lose (although I cringed when I realized what he meant by "thought about the back door" and the overall point of the song)
Let me Go, Rock and Roll
She
Rock and Roll all Night (although I wouldn't care if I never heard it again)
Detroit Rock City
Beth
Hard Luck Woman

and for me, that's it. I think the rest of their catalog is pure crap, and I mean REALLY REALLY ANNOYING BAD CRAP.

So for MY taste, (and I realize taste is subjective,) KISS has 10 good songs on 20 or so albums.

The Beatles have less than 10 BAD songs on well over 20 albums, depending on how you count them.

And the Beatles have composed some of the greatest songs in the history of rock and roll, both as Lennon/McCartney, Harrison (in the Beatles,) and Lennon, McCartney AND Harrison as solo artists.
Click to expand...

You sir, have hit the nail on the head with that list... couldn't agree more!
Fishheadjoe
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back