• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
#141
I just find it hard to imagine that with all he's done in his career, Paul feels like he needs the ego gratification from asserting his ownership of any particular Beatles song. I can't see Keith Richards, for instance, getting pissed because the credit on Satisfaction reads Jagger/Richards, since Keith came up with the riff and the riff IS the defining element of that song. I know it's different because Paul wrote Yesterday all by himself, but so what? You made a deal, stick to it. Maybe if he stopped worrying about stuff like this, he could come up with some songs that are better than the crap on his last few albums. Run Devil Run is the notable exception, but he didn't write most of those.
 
#142
I wonder what his real reasons are.

To be fair, though, Satisfaction is a different issue - the riff is *not* the song, only a part of the song. There is a big difference between coming up with the riff, and writing the entire song yourself.
 
#143
I know it's different, and I didn't say the riff in Satisfaction was the song, but it is the defining element of the song. When people think about Satisfaction, that ten-note fuzz guitar riff is the first thing that comes to mind. It's not the best example, granted, but the bottom line still comes back to one simple question: why does McCartney care? He's told everyone who'll listen for many, many years that he wrote Yesterday, and nobody doubts him. Lennon never laid any sort of claim to that song. We can wonder what his "real" reasons are for changing the credits, but it seems like a big ego trip to me, and I would think Paul was beyond that by now.
 
#145
This is going to sound really strange, but here it is.

I never really paid much attention to Paul's aptitude/skills on the bass until like the white album came out.

The early stuff I had heard on such crappy radios or phonographs that I was really not that aware of what was going on with his basslines.

In my earlier years the only Beatle album I owned was Abbey Road (please don't throw any "Stones" at me). About a year ago I bought the CD "The Beatles/1962-1966" and played on a reasonably decent system, I was saying to myself, "this guy is pretty good on bass" (how many really "good" bass players were around at that time? - well, a few yeah). I think it's like one person said here, his bass lines were so integral to the songs, they didn't necessasarily stand out, but what he played made the songs what they were (a musicly tasteful and skillful foundation to the songs--who could ask for more--well, Les Claypool could for one).

Yeah, bass playing has come a long way (well, some people's has), but Paul was one of the people that got it going in a good direction.
 
#151
The way I always viewed Paul was that he was first and foremost a song writer. It's interesting to note that John and Paul had a rivalry going on who could come up with the best song, but NOT a rivalry going on who could be the best on their instrument.

So I think that Paul viewed the bass and bass playing in general as secondary to the song itself. And that meant that he had to come up with the MOST appropriate bass line and not the flashiest or hardest or fastest or whatever.

I love the bass line in eight days a week. So simple...yes, but boy does that line PROPEL the song forward. I have a hard time thinking of that song without that walking line. Yet, at other times, like help and the night before - the feel and use of the bass is so totally different and so right for the song.

I reject the notion that simple = bad or somehow inherently inferior to complicated and hard. After years of studying songwriting and composers I have come to the conclusion that knowing when NOT to add notes is every bit as important as knowing when TO add them. (Thank you John Cage)

Could Paul have written flashier or harder bass lines for may of the famous Beatle songs - sure. And then some folks would have a higher opinion of his bass playing abilities.

But the songs...I think the songs would have suffered to a man who was trying to be, and is, a great song writer.

So my view is different in this one respect: If you are playing music that someone else has written, you can certainly find another bass player who you think is better. If on the other hand, you are WRITING music, your opinion of Paul's skills and playing is much higher.

IMHO.
 
#153
thats an interesting take on things. I agree if you don't take away sometimes then no one will notice when it comes back in. I didn't see anyone bring up the notion that simple is bad nor have I ever had anyone worth playing with bring that up. On occasion I will hear a horn player complain about simple chords over String friendly keys. But that doesn't bother me cause I know it takes more thought for them to change keys.

Look I don't really think Paul sucks. I've played his music for various programs and concerts and what not he's a fine bass player he plays strong lines. he's the paul chambers of electric bass. He just has strong feel for Time and melodic structure. I think his bass playing on "something" is pretty slick.

I'm just sick of hearing about him. Almost as sick of him as I am of Vic and Les. Check out Fima Ephron.
 
#156
Of course Paul was more concerned on writing the songs than to playing the bass. I just mentioned I saw her... because that's one of the beatles' songs that has the most strong bass line. And he did know when to put a note on a part of the song. I think none of the beatles was concerned about playing the best they could their instruments...
And simple really doesn't mean bad... Right now I'm listening to Lady Madonna, from "Paul is Live", and I'm paying attention... quite a simple bass line for a great song. And not only the bass, but all the instruments.
 
#159
Lennon/Mccartney or Mccartney/Lennon??

1. Please please me Mccartney/Lennon
2. then Lennon wanted Lennon/Mccartney and Mccartney said yes.

3. On Wings over America Mccartney/Lennon
4. No on Back in the US Mccartney/Lennon

You see already on Wings over America 1976 Mccartney changed it for this Live album and if Lennon hated it he would certainly have told mccartney that but no one said anything but now Mrs Yoko Ono have something against it.......is it because she wants some money.........

I would have wanted that Julian would have taken Johns "voice" instead of Yoko. He understands music and he dont have this anger against the other Beatles members as Yoko have.


This is not a money thing for Paul he dont earn more because his name stands first but what he want is that people understands that he wrote some pretty good songs too.

There are people who thinks that the only thing Paul did was to rent the studio.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back