• 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

#41
I often looked at my callouses as developement and, or the breaking of early bad habits. First it was the index finger and then the ring finger. It took me a while to incorporate my pinkie due to a dislocation injury years earlier. When I finally had resolved that I need that thing for fluenency of movement, I just listened to the "thump" for a while. When the notes finally started to sound clear with some consistancy, it was just another developement to be happy about. Isn't music great?!
 
#43
Well, I have listened to almost all of the Beatles albums over a course of a few years, and my impression always is that he almost always sounds too "poppy", too eager to please.

Not questioning his technique, just the feel.
 
#48
Old Fart said:
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.
Click to expand...

When you start to read the accounts of the studio personell who had a chance to witness it, this is exactly what McCartney did. He usually saved composing the bass line for last, and spent considerable amounts of time getting every note and nuance just so (at least after the first few full-length recordings, which were made very quickly). It makes sense. Many of his bass lines are just as creative as the songs they support.
 
#51
This is an excellent thread (so far). At the heart of the issue (and this is something that has been discussed in other threads, too,) is the idea of differences between a creative genius and a technical genius. The basic question is which is better? I think the answer can only be subjective. However, more and more I see assumptions that the technical trumps the creative.

In a book about bassists which I read recently, the author says something to the effect that McCartney wasn't the most technical bass player in the world, but he was the most famous. He then goes on (in my opinion) to make statements which make me think he prefers the technical over the creative. If I had to choose, I'd take the creative over the technical. When I listen to bass playing, I'd prefer something that sounds great and makes the song great, rather than something which is more of a display of technical virtuosity. I suppose each has its place. And this isn't taking into account that sometimes the creative and technical exist at the same time. Personally, I'd say Paul McCartney himself falls into that category, even if he doesn't usually try to play a million notes a minute. What I see as a problem is the assumption that someone such as Paul McCartney couldn't be way more technical if he really wanted to be. I'm not saying every bassist who is creatively brilliant could also be technically brilliant. But I think many can, and this certainly includes Paul. I think he could have done just about anything he really wanted to, especially if he had concentrated on the bass to the exclusion of almost everything else. In other words, if had only played bass, and had not sung and composed songs, too.
 
#52
Rocker949 said:
This is an excellent thread (so far). At the heart of the issue (and this is something that has been discussed in other threads, too,) is the idea of differences between a creative genius and a technical genius. The basic question is which is better? I think the answer can only be subjective. However, more and more I see assumptions that the technical trumps the creative.

In a book about bassists which I read recently, the author says something to the effect that McCartney wasn't the most technical bass player in the world, but he was the most famous. He then goes on (in my opinion) to make statements which make me think he prefers the technical over the creative. If I had to choose, I'd take the creative over the technical. When I listen to bass playing, I'd prefer something that sounds great and makes the song great, rather than something which is more of a display of technical virtuosity. I suppose each has its place. And this isn't taking into account that sometimes the creative and technical exist at the same time. Personally, I'd say Paul McCartney himself falls into that category, even if he doesn't usually try to play a million notes a minute. What I see as a problem is the assumption that someone such as Paul McCartney couldn't be way more technical if he really wanted to be. I'm not saying every bassist who is creatively brilliant could also be technically brilliant. But I think many can, and this certainly includes Paul. I think he could have done just about anything he really wanted to, especially if he had concentrated on the bass to the exclusion of almost everything else. In other words, if had only played bass, and had not sung and composed songs, too.
Click to expand...

Great points there.
I'll add that facets of his playing are quite "technical", such as his conscious deployment of long vs. short notes, and his fantastic time. The former might come under "compositional ability" but you also have to have control over the instrument to phrase the way he does and not lose the flow.
Just off the top of my head, "Lovely Rita":
 
#56
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...

Most drummers I know (the ones that are worth a damn anyway) LOVE Ringo! The Beatles would ABSOLUTELY have sounded very different with anybody else. The man knew how to serve the song and didn't try to sound like everyone else.
 
#58
Paul came from an era when "bass players" knew what they were suppose to do in a rock/pop band...............be a part of the band and PLAY BASS! Instead of like soooo many of today's bass players who want to be a soloist (a show-off)! A lead player. A "look at me" bassist!

Paul's bass lines are very intelligent! He could play basics like Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Lucy in the Sky or complex melody lines like in Come Together, Something In the Way She Moves, She's So Heavy. His choppy lines in Yer Blues is fantastic!

Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about Paul as a bass player is that he could sing and play bass at the same time!!!!!! Geeezzzsss! Try that, people!!!!

I was listening to him play bass to the live version of I Saw Her Standing There at Shea Stadium 1966 (I think.). He was singing lead vocals to that song and playing the bass at the same time. A very, very fast song and done even faster live. Even though it's a fairly simple bass line, I can hardly even keep up with the break neck speed of this live version.............but was not only playing bass at high speed but he was singing too...........damn it! A very talented bass player, singer, song writer!!!!!!! Many, many Beatles songs are MUST LEARN for us bassist!!!!

They don't make bass player like Sir Paul anymore!!!!

Viva Los Beatles!!!!! Viva Sir Paul!!!!
 
#60
pedro said:
Yea but you said it sounds too poppy and since 'pop' is what he plays that would seem to me to be what is called for. To me its like saying Willie Dixon sounded too bluesy.
Click to expand...

It wasn't "pop" at the time. It was considered rock. Unfortunatlely music has changed to the point where the definitions of pop and rock are different than what they used to be. In the 1970's, artists like Peter Frampton, .38 Special and others were called rock and the Jacksons and Osmonds were pop. By today's standards there are many people who would call Frampton and .38 Special pop. Today, if a vocalist isn't screaming and the guitars aren't distorted and drop tuned, then it must be pop. Not really fair to compare the rock of 40 or 50 years ago with what is called rock today. Without The Beatles influencing so many bands, rock might not be what it is today.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back