Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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
- Thread starter zack01
- Start date
- Status
No you can't, because there is no such thing. You cannot prove that one band are better than another. It's subjective, therefore how can you prove it?
And I notice how you somehow include theory in this. How is knowledge of theory any of deciding factor in how good someone is? Theory is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Theory is a means of understanding music, it's a tool, and helps one to further one's own musical development. It works well. But it's attendant to a greater function.
If a musician is great, they're great. If theory helped them, cool. If they don't know much theory, but they're still great, cool. I'm not about to judge anyone's greatness based on how much theory they know. I think knowing theory is a very good thing, but I won't deny anyone's greatness based on their lack of knowledge of theory.
The fact that you brought up "skills and theory", to me, reinforces my impression that you're interested in technicalities more than musicality.
But, just do us a favour, and stop pretending your opinions are fact. They ain't.
i sat here and read every single thread posted,i could'nt believe the closed minded-ness of some of these "BASS PLAYERS" its ok not to like someones "style" or their "music" but to say something as idiotic as "PAUL SUCKS!" or "HE'S OVER-RATED" is imbecilic.there are many bands/bassists that i cannot stomach but i would'nt say what they do suck's.I have been a musician for over 26 years(24 on drums and 2 on bass)i've seen alot of music come and go,i've seen alot of types of music fade away,i've seen tons of music openly ripped off and copied constantly,its painfully obvious that what the beatles did was'nt a fleeting fad. i think their music had some substance to last 40 plus years YA THINK?and as far as PAULS basslines they were'nt flashy,they were'nt all slap and pop nor were they the hardest lines to learn BUT they were brilliant and melodic and fit the song's spacing for it completely perfect.
its not always about speed or flashy technique,some styles are more melodically centered than others and to criticize ones bass-lines because of this "style" is narrow minded.i can see why some of our "MORE EXPERIENCED" TB. members got offended when certain things were said,they seen music come and go and to knock a music ICON when most bands today dont last more than a couple years would and does bother me.THERE ARE ALOT MORE BASSISTS OUT THERE OTHER THAN PAUL WHO DESERVE TO BE CRITIQUED ! but I find it kind of hard to to do that sort of thing when i am sitting in a bass web-site talking about famous bassists all the while i am UN-KNOWN !so before you knock another musician take a look at what your contributing to the music world THEN cast your vote !
its not always about speed or flashy technique,some styles are more melodically centered than others and to criticize ones bass-lines because of this "style" is narrow minded.i can see why some of our "MORE EXPERIENCED" TB. members got offended when certain things were said,they seen music come and go and to knock a music ICON when most bands today dont last more than a couple years would and does bother me.THERE ARE ALOT MORE BASSISTS OUT THERE OTHER THAN PAUL WHO DESERVE TO BE CRITIQUED ! but I find it kind of hard to to do that sort of thing when i am sitting in a bass web-site talking about famous bassists all the while i am UN-KNOWN !so before you knock another musician take a look at what your contributing to the music world THEN cast your vote !So its opinion if Paul is a skilled player or not? Is it opinion that 1+1=2? No its fact.
Its not really about theory, so you can forgett that if you like. Its about emotional depth, the beatles lack that.
And remember that it is your opinion that my facts only are my opinion. I still claim that 1+1=2 and that Paul isn't a very skilled bassplayer. Now try and disproov that if you can.
I don't know man I've heard a lot of worse bass players then paul. Paul's pretty good even technically.
Originally posted by geezer316
i sat here and read every single thread posted,i could'nt believe the closed minded-ness of some of these "BASS PLAYERS" its ok not to like someones "style" or their "music" but to say something as idiotic as "PAUL SUCKS!" or "HE'S OVER-RATED" is imbecilic.there are many bands/bassists that i cannot stomach but i would'nt say what they do suck's.I have been a musician for over 26 years(24 on drums and 2 on bass)i've seen alot of music come and go,i've seen alot of types of music fade away,i've seen tons of music openly ripped off and copied constantly,its painfully obvious that what the beatles did was'nt a fleeting fad. i think their music had some substance to last 40 plus years YA THINK?and as far as PAULS basslines they were'nt flashy,they were'nt all slap and pop nor were they the hardest lines to learn BUT they were brilliant and melodic and fit the song's spacing for it completely perfect.
I agree but I also think that we should see things for what they are. The beatles where simple entertainment and Paul is not a very skilled bassplayer. Its not the same as saying that they suck or that Paul suck. I might not be famous but I still accept the fact that I'm no bass master and I think that people should accept the fact that Paul is neither. The interesting part is why isn't Paul a great bassplayer? He certainly had all the posibilites in the world to evolve his playing abilites so why didn't he? Lack of passion maybe...? And sure its not about flashy basslines, its about hacing the ability to create freely, you will only have that ability once you reach a high level of skill. Why limit yourself?
Oy Vey.
I can't say it's a fact, but in 100 years, Cynic, Pestilence, Cannibal Corpse and all that kinda stuff will be forgotten about. I'll bet real money that McCartney and his work won't, and he'll still be regarded as a great bass player.
Geez. I guess "Bell Lillies in a Copper Vase" by Van Gogh isn't truly important art because his technique didn't allow him to paint exactly like a photograph.
No offense to the great prodecer Neil Kernon - Cannibal Corpse's money is as green as anyone else's.
I can't say it's a fact, but in 100 years, Cynic, Pestilence, Cannibal Corpse and all that kinda stuff will be forgotten about. I'll bet real money that McCartney and his work won't, and he'll still be regarded as a great bass player.
Geez. I guess "Bell Lillies in a Copper Vase" by Van Gogh isn't truly important art because his technique didn't allow him to paint exactly like a photograph.
No offense to the great prodecer Neil Kernon - Cannibal Corpse's money is as green as anyone else's.
Disprove it? He has good timing, he made a great tone, and composed and performed some beautiful melodic bass lines to complement his songs.
How's that?
Lack Emotional depth??
Try "Hey Jude", or "Something" or "Ballad of John and Yoko"
Here's a "fact" for you, the beatles are the most copied influential band in the past 30+ years. Oasis, Radiohead, Aerosmith, Jimi Hendrix, Tom Petty, George Benson etc. (not enuff time to make this list) have all been greatly influenced by the fab 4.
Beatle songs have been re-recorded by other artists more than anyone else. I believe yesterday is the single most re-recorded tune ever.
Even Jaco played Beatle tunes, ever heard him do Blackbird?
The Chairman of the Board Frank his own bad self said he thought "Something" was the greatest love song ever written.
So I guess all of the above are nuts and your the sane one. yeah...
Peace
Hitler will probably be remembered for over a 1000 years but does it make him a great man? (Well sure in some aspects but you get my point)
Van Gogh had other qualities that made up for it. (See my Burzum example.)
Well Cannibal Corpse and beatles are pretty similar since they both aimed to entertain people, I do however respect CC more since they are more hardworking and do their best to improve themselves.
Ok I'll bite.
Listen to all of the Sgt Pepper & Abbey Road albums.
Here are some specific examples from those albums, and others:
Day Tripper - not that easy to play that smoothly
Rain
Taxman - check the bridge in particular
Getting Better - great tone
With A Little Help From My Friends - great tone, again
Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite! - Good melodic line, and he plays this melodic, and not entirely un-challenging line beautifully
Something - Again, superb melodic line, beautifully executed, and not undemanding, when you consider how smoothly and elegantly he played it
mmmm I'm gonna go with The Funk brothers for the most copied seeing as how the Beatles copied them. But the Beatles were very influential 
.
"something" is a great bass line "saw her standing there" has a nice even 16th note bass line. I know I'm gonna get bitten on who played bass on what but I'm gonna say "come together" and "Norweign Wood" all great stuff. especially Something just a beautiful bass line. My favorite adaptation of it is fima ephron's on the screaming headless torsos self titled album.
personally, and I may get in trouble for this, I think you're just being difficult copy cop. Paul's a decent bass player. I'm curious as to who else you knock. Jamerson? Weeks? Jemott? Watt? come on those guys are the heart of bass. and Mcartney is right up there. how about this for a statement
If you listen to anything with a rock influence, you are listening to Paul Mcartney's influence on things.
and all this was said by someone who can't stand the beatles so you can recognize it to be the truth
. "something" is a great bass line "saw her standing there" has a nice even 16th note bass line. I know I'm gonna get bitten on who played bass on what but I'm gonna say "come together" and "Norweign Wood" all great stuff. especially Something just a beautiful bass line. My favorite adaptation of it is fima ephron's on the screaming headless torsos self titled album.
personally, and I may get in trouble for this, I think you're just being difficult copy cop. Paul's a decent bass player. I'm curious as to who else you knock. Jamerson? Weeks? Jemott? Watt? come on those guys are the heart of bass. and Mcartney is right up there. how about this for a statement
If you listen to anything with a rock influence, you are listening to Paul Mcartney's influence on things.
and all this was said by someone who can't stand the beatles so you can recognize it to be the truth
Uh, what is this distinction you're making between the purpose of music such as that of The Beatles, and that of, oh, say Glenn Gould? You seem to be suggesting that Gould's music in some way aims to touch the soul whereas The Beatles' music is simply to entertain?
Well what is the difference anyway?
Music is music is music. It touches the soul. Whether it's The Beatles or Beethoven.
whats wrong with his technique? he's comfortable there's no finger noise he plays with his pinky. when he plays with a pick (which is almost all the time) he has a nice relaxed look you don't hear too much plastic. Very steve swallow? where's the sloppiness come in? when I think of sloppy I think of Les Claypool or Fieldy.
Are you gonna back that up?
What is "bad technique" anyway? He got a great sound, so obviously his technique works?
And what do you mean by "technical skill"? He could play in time, his playing was very clean - and he could play fast when he wanted to (like I said, the bridge of Taxman).
You throw out these next-to-meaningless jabs with nothing to back them up.
How about some evidence?
yeah just keep you and I off religion and we get along just fun. Paul's a decent player. Even I will admit that. I think whats real nice is in guys like Oteil burbridge and anthony jackson you can hear paul's influence cross over to their more jazz based styles
- Status
