• 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

Old Fart

Old Fart

Mar 11, 2011
2,518
4,372
#1
I hope I don't get in trouble for starting this thread. The only other one I could find is closed. Apparently, there were children running amok in that thread. As in all Internet forums, productive discussions require that participants be respectful. Please.

Risking excommunication, I want to express a couple of thoughts about Mr. McCartney's contributions. Partly because I think his style goes right to the heart of an important principle to which some of us vigorously subscribe, and some of us eschew. He was one of the least flashy bass players of all time. Indeed, it can be difficult to learn McCartney bass lines because they are hard to hear. Hard to distinguish from the rest of the song. They don't stand out. Some of us ascribe to this very goal. We want to punctuate and move and steer the music.....from behind the curtain of other instruments. I see a fair bit of Mozart or Bach in McCartney. Very structural. Very classical. Very "true" to the scale of the particular piece of music.

I'd like to say one more thing. For those of you who are wondering whether he had the chops....whether perhaps he lacked technical proficiency, here is a very strong impression I have had since I myself became a Beatle fan in 1968: Before the Beatles became famous, they played their asses off for 2+ years in Hamburg and Liverpool. A quick listen to any of their earliest albums (particularly ones like Please Please Me and With The Beatles) and it should seem clear to you that this band had recently spent literally many thousands of hours playing together. They ate, slept and played music. Mr. McCartney did not lack technical proficiency. He was, very simply, not showing off his fabulous, amazing bass chops. He was way too talented and experienced to be interested in that. My humble opinion. I am not going to criticize those of you who are hoping to be flashy bass players. Just to say....Paul McCartney was not one of you.
 
#5
I cannot argue with you at all. Paul was/is a fantastic bassist, and many of us would not have picked up the instrument were it not for him.
On the eariler Beatles albums, as you said, his playing can be difficult to pick out. I think it was a matter of the way the songs in those days were recorded & mixed. An outstanding early bassline of his (to me) is on "All My Lovin'". A very nice walking line that you really have to listen closely to pick it out.
His later work, say from "Rubber Soul" ("Michelle" for instance) on, can be more easily distinguished due to the improved recording techniques being employed and also when he started using his Ric. "Paperback Writer" & its B-side "Rain" too had great bass parts that really were the centerpiece of the tunes. "Dear Prudence" also is outstanding...Way too many great ones to mention..
 
#6
O.F.: I agree with most of what you said. However, I disagree with your opinion that Paul's bass lines don't stand out. I have a different opinion than you on that.

Perhaps it is because I have been playing bass for 38 years and I just can't help it, but my ears always zero in on the bass lines of a song. IMO, Paul's bass lines always stand out.

If you are referring to some under-evolved neanderthal slap happy dweebus erectus maximus pounding the poor hell out of a bass with a "HEY EVERYONE....LOOK AT ME" attitude, then I completely agree with your assessment. Paul has way too much class and talent to stoop to such elementary-level tripe. He plays real music instead.
 
#7
Something I did recently for 'I Want You', 8hrs to pick apart, analyse, memorize and play to this point, not easy, and not that easy technically neither.

I read way back that Paul spent time with a relative whom played piano for silent movies back in the day, he spent time at these showings, I would imagine he soaked up quite a lot of interesting tonalities at quite an early age through this connection, music would have been a major part in silents.

YouTube - The Beatles - I Want You (She's So Heavy) Bass.
 
#9
I agree with everything except the fact that his bass lines are hard to hear. I have never had a problem hearing his bass. John's guitar playing is another story. He doesn't seem to stand out. In my opinion, what made The Beatles so great was the combination of song writing of Lennon and McCartney and the musicianship of McCartney and George Harrison. Lennon was an average guitar player who could write great songs. As far as musicianship is concerned, McCartney and Harrison were far above John and Ringo. Together, I believe they were the best band the world has ever or will ever see.
 
#10
Tanner5382 said:
You say you want people to have respect, yet I find your post to be a bit disrespectful.
Click to expand...

I do not mean to insult. That being said, flashy bass playing is not my cup of tea. Nor was it McCartney's. To each, his own. If one attempts to judge Mr. McCartney's bass playing by a flash-bass standard, he will fail. And yet, there are many of us who regard his bass contributions as.....well, as genius.

And BTW, again in my humble opinion (something tells me I am not alone here), McCartney and Lennon were not just good composers. Unless you think Gretsky was a "good hockey player" and MJ was a "good basketball player." In a period of about eight years, those guys cranked out about three albums per year that were packed to the brim with music you will hear (at least in elevators) for the rest of your lives.

Ahem. I wish I had your ear, Sactobass. I think you and Tangentmusic and myself might have similar observations. When I do finally piece together Paul's bass lines, I am commonly impressed.

And while we're at it, I also do not subscribe to the fairly common perception that Mr. Starr was a poor drummer. Okay, he was no Neil Peart. He was the right drummer for the Beatles. When someone asks what was the greatest rock and roll band of all time, I assume they mean 'besides the Beatles.' They were in a class by themselves. To suggest their rhythm section was weak......doesn't pass the Straight Face Test.
 
#11
Rockmusician said:
I agree with everything except the fact that his bass lines are hard to hear. I have never had a problem hearing his bass. John's guitar playing is another story. He doesn't seem to stand out. In my opinion, what made The Beatles so great was the combination of song writing of Lennon and McCartney and the musicianship of McCartney and George Harrison. Lennon was an average guitar player who could write great songs. As far as musicianship is concerned, McCartney and Harrison were far above John and Ringo. Together, I believe they were the best band the world has ever or will ever see.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this, except I would say the best 'pop' band. That's not to belittle pop music, it is important, and I absolutely love The Beatles. I was taught to read by using their lyrics as a child. They've been a part of almost every day of my life, but it gets impossible to decide who's the greatest band when you're comparing such different things. E.g The Beatles and Art Blakey & The Jazz Messengers. Comparison becomes redundant.
 
#12
I learned how to play bass listening to his lines.

There were a few in particular that really hit me...
Silly Love Songs, corny song but a strong, supportive part

Let 'em In, so simple but just perfect note placement and duration. I'd play this one over and over just trying to lock in with the groove.

There are others...
 
#13
Old Fart said:
I wish I had your ear, Sactobass. I think you and Tangentmusic and myself might have similar observations. When I do finally piece together Paul's bass lines, I am commonly impressed.
Click to expand...

LOL! I am *ALWAYS* impressed! Whenever I sit down to learn Paul's bass lines note for note, as soon as I am done with learning the song, I look at the CD player in amazement and say under my breath...."wow, that guy is amazing."
 
#14
I would agree that as the Beatles progressed, both in terms of playing skills and recording techniques, McCartney's bass lines became more adventurous and more easily heard. The man definitely developed some chops. Listen to the bridge of "Taxman", or "I Want You", or any number of songs, and you'll hear some intricate lines that are just right for the song.
 
#15
Old Fart said:
I'd like to say one more thing. For those of you who are wondering whether he had the chops....whether perhaps he lacked technical proficiency, here is a very strong impression I have had since I myself became a Beatle fan in 1968: Before the Beatles became famous, they played their asses off for 2+ years in Hamburg and Liverpool. A quick listen to any of their earliest albums (particularly ones like Please Please Me and With The Beatles) and it should seem clear to you that this band had recently spent literally many thousands of hours playing together. They ate, slept and played music. Mr. McCartney did not lack technical proficiency. He was, very simply, not showing off his fabulous, amazing bass chops. He was way too talented and experienced to be interested in that. My humble opinion. I am not going to criticize those of you who are hoping to be flashy bass players. Just to say....Paul McCartney was not one of you.
Click to expand...

I think Paul was/is a great player, very tasteful. Whether he plays a lot of notes or just a few, he always plays the right notes. Those are the chops that matter.
 
#17
Old Fart said:
I do not mean to insult. That being said, flashy bass playing is not my cup of tea. Nor was it McCartney's. To each, his own. If one attempts to judge Mr. McCartney's bass playing by a flash-bass standard, he will fail. And yet, there are many of us who regard his bass contributions as.....well, as genius.

And BTW, again in my humble opinion (something tells me I am not alone here), McCartney and Lennon were not just good composers. Unless you think Gretsky was a "good hockey player" and MJ was a "good basketball player." In a period of about eight years, those guys cranked out about three albums per year that were packed to the brim with music you will hear (at least in elevators) for the rest of your lives.

Ahem. I wish I had your ear, Sactobass. I think you and Tangentmusic and myself might have similar observations. When I do finally piece together Paul's bass lines, I am commonly impressed.

And while we're at it, I also do not subscribe to the fairly common perception that Mr. Starr was a poor drummer. Okay, he was no Neil Peart. He was the right drummer for the Beatles. When someone asks what was the greatest rock and roll band of all time, I assume they mean 'besides the Beatles.' They were in a class by themselves. To suggest their rhythm section was weak......doesn't pass the Straight Face Test.
Click to expand...

Now that I re-read what I have posted, I feel I was a little insulting myself. Sorry about that. I'm not into flashy slappity-slap playing either. By the way, McCartney's one of my favorite players. I just felt it may be a bit insulting to the people who play that style, but it's no big deal. My apologies. I also second your opinion about Ringo. Like McCartney he played for the music, and was(is) solid as a rock. I never got why people dis him.
 
#20
SactoBass said:
I think Mastermold hit the nail right smack on the head with this comment.
Click to expand...

Thanks man. I should add that I feel that way about Victor Wooten too, his slap playing isn't clicks and garbage notes. It's not the style (slap, finger, pick, etc.) it's the musical sense of the player IMO. Same for drummers, guitarists, etc. I could listen to Steve Jordan's groove all day. He has the feel.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back