Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bassists [BG]' started by zack01, Aug 3, 2002.
What do you think of Pauls bass skills??
He gets the point across & gets the job done.
...provided he doesn't lose his plectrum.
(Listen to the outtakes/false start on "One After 909" from the 1st Anthology discs).
i think he's melodic and tactful. fit the music perfectly. just like everything else about the beatles.
I'm not going to say he's a bad bassist, he's been playing longer than I've been alive, so I'll give him credit for being a skilled bassist. But I don't particularly like his groove.
Then again, I never really liked the beatles at all.
From 1966 to 1969, he was the greatest white bassist in pop.
By his own admission, he stopped worrying about his basslines after he went solo, because he was too busy being a touring musician, and a frontman to boot.
But when he was "trying," from Revolver to Abbey Road, he was the best.
Today he coasts.
My friend, prepare to be eaten alive for that very comment,,,,,
Not by me of course, the beatles were waaaay before my time....so they dont do much for me.
Elanor rigby is an amzingly good song tho...
My parents LOVE the Beatles, so I couldn't possibly like them.. lol kidding
Listen to the bridge in "Taxman", and you tell me.
- a guy who was forced to play the bass
- a guy who cut his teeth a guitarist
- a guy who has impeccable vocal and songwriting skills and excellent stage presence....
........I admire him greatly.
One reason he doesn't get the props he deserves among younger players is that, unlike more modern rock where the bass functions on equal footing with the other instruments, his basslines were so tastefully, melodically, woven into the songs that they are often hard to separate from the main melodies or WERE the main melodies, (the hard driving bassline in "8 Days a Week" comes to mind).
Additionally, he made being the bassist a "respectable" position in a band and later blew all of we bassists' minds when he picked up the Rick for the "Sgt. Pepper's" album.
I never liked his bass playing, although I'm not very educated on the subject. The thing that always comes to mind for me is "wussy". I don't mean to spark controversy, but I think of Paul as a "wussy" bass player. He's skilled and all (a superior bass player to me, I'm sure), but I just don't like his style.
I'm mostly reffering to his solo stuff when I say this, but I do hold The Beatles as the most over rated band in the history of modern music. Now I'm not attacking anyone's tastes--these are just my feelings. I don't think they're bad, just not that good. I don't think they deserve as much recognition as they got and continue to get. It's not because they're from a generation past or anything--almost all of the stuff I listen to is from the '50's, '60's, or emulating those styles. I know I may take a lot of heat for saying this, but I needed to say it.
Oh ho-ho... you gonna get it now!
C'mon now, 'wussy'? He really added that great sound to some songs. You wanna talk wussy, lets talk root note bashers who dare not stray away from the guitarist.
...I dunno, Revolver is pretty good example of Avant-Pop(not that my opinion is any more 'educated' than most).
Who else in that time frame was doing stuff like-
"I'm Only Sleeping"...with backwards guitars
"Love You To"...ethnic, Middle Eastern vibe
"And Your Bird Can Sing"...double-tracked guitar solo
"Tomorrow Never Knows"...psychedelic Rock?
Then there's the "drug songs"-
"Got To Get You Into My Life"
Again, this is mid-'60s; if there's anything else that was this daring & bold in the POP arena, educate me.
There was a reason Revolver put Brian Wilson in the bed for 2 years, ya know...
Also, how 'bout educating me on what's "wussy" about McCartney's bass playing?
The note choice?
The Beatles...overrated?? Hmmm...
I can appreciate your not necessarily liking them; if you're into harder things, for instance, I imagine they do come off a bit soft. But overrated? C'mon...rock and roll as we know it would not exist if not for the Beatles. It's that simple.
Frankly, it is the Rolling Stones who are obscenely overrated. But that's just my opinion.
The 60s Paul was an excellent bassist but I dont even think of the 2002 Paul as a bass player.
I got the new Paul McCartney album, "Driving Rain," for my birthday last year and, although he's not breaking any new ground, I think his bass playing is great on that album.
I've never been a huge fan of his solo work but I would also say the song, "Silly Love Songs," has one of the coolest bass lines ever recorded and ranks up there with his best bass lines.
He has a similar legacy to James Jamerson.
Very melodic - and in some ways, he actually carried some of the tunes, but if you're not a musician, you wouldn't see/hear this.
Paul deserves a very special place in bass history.
Wouldn't it be smart to get educated on the subject before making comments like that??
> Frankly, it is the Rolling Stones who are obscenely overrated. But that's just my opinion.
I think I found a friend. I have never uttered it publicly, because it's almost sacriligious, but I agree 110%.
(And, if you are a drummer, as I am, you almost have to giggle at Charlie Watts.)
I am not a drummer, but I've always paid attention to them.
The drummers in my favorite bands include the likes of Keith Moon, Jerry Shirley, Jim Bonfanti, Topper Headon, Mike Giles, Ringo Starr, Stewart Copeland, etc. Having heard them, I do have to giggle at Charlie Watts. Then I gag when I read critics fawn all over his "legendary" backbeat...*choke*
Ringo was never technically proficient, but very tasteful. All Charlie did was count to four. In fact, Watts was so "good" that Mick felt compelled to call in Sly and Robbie to provide some funk to stuff like "Undercover Of The Night."
Not bad bass lines, though...you just never knew who was playing for them. Was it Wyman? Richards? Wood? A Jamaican session man? Whatever.
no sacrelig here, bud. i personally think that the stones suck - maybe 3 songs out of their whole catalog i like.