• 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.

Richest bassist?

#81
Munjibunga said:
Paul's bass playing is a lot like his songwriting. He has a knack for writing catchy hooks and commercially viable songs, but neither he nor Lennon were musical geniuses as many like to think. They were good at writing songs that catch the fancy of a lot of people (the unwashed masses, as it were). People like Fagen and Becker write better music.

Nor were they virtuoso instrumentalists. There are thousands and thousands of people who play bass better than McCartney, many of them right here on TalkBass. Take Jauqo III-X. Please. Further, there are quadrillions of drummers who are better than Ringo, but what's that saying?
Click to expand...

Lennon and McCartney have touched more peoples lives with their music than anyone, ever. If the purpose of music is to touch peoples lives, which i believe it is, then aren't they the true geniuses? Yes, obviously Becker and Fagen are more knowledgable about harmony, form, arrangements, etc... but thier music lacks the indefinable ingredient that john and paul had that made their music not just well loved, but irresistible to anyone who heard it, not just the "unwashed masses" as you so offensively put it.

and when are people going to start realizing that greater skill on the instrument does not make someone a better musician. making MUSIC makes you a better musician. lets put these people on talkbass who you claim are 'better' than Sir Paul in the studio and see what they come up with.

i'm pretty sure it won't be Revolver.....
 
#83
kevbass5 said:
...greater skill on the instrument does not make someone a better musician. making MUSIC makes you a better musician....
Click to expand...

It's so tough sometimes to separate success as a measure of quality. But really, there are more and more badass instrumentalists out there every year, but so many of them can't compose a thing that's worth listening to. And what I didn't see mentioned about the Beatles is how freakin' prolific they were -- as a band, and individually. It's crazy to write so much great music, and the breadth of the styles of those songs is impressive too -- it all points to group of great musicians.

I was showing the missus some youtube videos of impressive solos and such, and she asked "are they all in bands?" So we tracked down their respective bands, and it quickly became clear why youtube was going to be the full extent of their fame -- not that there's anything wrong with that :-)

But when Mariah Carey eclipses the Beatles record of 20 #1 singles, are we going to call her an amazing musician...um...no.
 
#84
bassandbeyond said:
What's most remarkable to me is the fact that the world now has over 1000 billionaires, and NONE of them earned their fortune as a musician!

I believe Macca's recent divorce settlement estimated his fortune at around $800 million, most of which he earned through shrewd business and real estate investments. A list I recently saw of Britain's 25 richest musicians included some whose net worth was only in the 7 digits range. So I hope that none of us went into the music biz for the money, because it's still not artists who are taking the lion's share of music profits! :(
Click to expand...

Oh, there are plenty of big earners in the music business... or else it wouldn't exist. It just so happens that most of them aren't musicians.

Look at the hip hop and rap industry right now. The "big" earners are in the 50 millionish net worth range. Then look at Russel Simmons. Not really an artist, but he manages so much and expanded past music when the funds allowed for it... Now he's worth around 300 million. I'm sure in rock where bands can make 30-50 million a year, there are execs making a lot more.

And please, don't get too fanboyish with the Beatles. A lot of people liked them... some didn't. They aren't God's divine gift to man and they aren't rubbish either. The truth, as with most cases, is within a happy medium.

The Beatles made a lot of albums... they sold the most albums total, but their career was a lot longer and more prolific than some artists. For single album sales, their best seller (The White Album) is behind The Eagles, Michael Jackson, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Billy Joel, Garth Brooks, and Shania Twain. Success can be measured in a plethora of ways. One band is not the clear cut best... Elivs Presley and Madonna both have more certified singles than the Beatles. If someone doesn't like the Beatles, don't get indignant and use intangible evidence to support yourself...
 
#85
Munjibunga said:
Paul's bass playing is a lot like his songwriting. He has a knack for writing catchy hooks and commercially viable songs, but neither he nor Lennon were musical geniuses as many like to think. They were good at writing songs that catch the fancy of a lot of people (the unwashed masses, as it were). People like Fagen and Becker write better music.

Nor were they virtuoso instrumentalists. There are thousands and thousands of people who play bass better than McCartney, many of them right here on TalkBass. Take Jauqo III-X. Please. Further, there are quadrillions of drummers who are better than Ringo, but what's that saying?
Click to expand...

I agree with kevbass on this one.
You're equating musical quality with musical knowledge and ability. That's ridiculous. By that standard, Dream Theater is the best band of all time. A simple song that touches people beats show-offy wankage any day.
 
#86
Munjibunga said:
Paul's bass playing is a lot like his songwriting. He has a knack for writing catchy hooks and commercially viable songs, but neither he nor Lennon were musical geniuses as many like to think. They were good at writing songs that catch the fancy of a lot of people (the unwashed masses, as it were). People like Fagen and Becker write better music.
Click to expand...

As stated, the above implies a strong objective claim that Fagen and Becker are better than Lennon and McCartney. Can you demonstrate in purely objective terms why this might be the case? What are your objective standards for musical ability? Please list them.

Munjibunga said:
Nor were they virtuoso instrumentalists. There are thousands and thousands of people who play bass better than McCartney, many of them right here on TalkBass. Take Jauqo III-X. Please. Further, there are quadrillions of drummers who are better than Ringo, but what's that saying?
Click to expand...

Is virtuosity the defining characteristic of good musicianship? That would seem to imply that Yngwie Malmsteen is among the absolute best musicians in the world? Or could there be other, possible more relevant, criteria?

The above opinion seems to discount many of the aspects of musicianship which I deem more important than mere technical proficiency, things like feel, and the ability to move someone with your music. By the above analysis, we could weed out the best musicians solely by counting notes per minute, number of modes played, etc... but then music isn't a competitive sport, now is it.....
 
#89
DWBass said:
Wow! I thought this post was about who the richest 'bass player' was (I.E. someone who earns a living by playing bass) and not a thread about Paul McCartney and his influence on bassdom!
Click to expand...

We are getting a little off topic aren't we?
But to wrap this up I think McCartney is definetly the richest bass player, becuase he played bass with the Beatles. As far as what everyone is saying about him being the 'best' that wasn't the discussion was it? I think music is too precious to label some better than others. Paul obviously does not make his music all about fancy licks and the like. What he found was something that worked for their songs. This is ultimately what we all do, just in a different way
 
#90
kevbass5 said:
oh and please, i beg you, name me one drummer out there today who doesn't owe something to Ringo
Click to expand...


Bernard Purdie

Billy Cobham

Ginger Baker

Cozy Powell

Narada Micheal Walden

and so many more.

No disrespect to Ringo but it's a known fact that he really wasn't a big influence on drummers the way most Beatles fanatics would like to believe.
 
#91
DWBass said:
Wow! I thought this post was about who the richest 'bass player' was (I.E. someone who earns a living by playing bass) and not a thread about Paul McCartney and his influence on bassdom!
Click to expand...

SOOOORRRRRRRYYYYYY!!!

Seriously, does anyone really care if this thread veers off a little? I hardly think it's a big deal if a trivial thread like this one veers off into another realm.
 
#92
"Paul,Flea,Jason Newsted would all have to be up there."

Why? The money in the music biz is mostly in owning publishing rights to the songs. Basically, the artist whose name is on the product only gets paid when the recording sells (yes there are exceptions, but the money is in selling records for the band or artist). How that gets divided up by the band if it's a cooperative entity depends on how it's set up. But the copyright holder gets paid evertime that record sells too. And when someone else covers the song. And when it gets played on the radio. And on TV. And used in a movie. And when a legal copy of the tablature sells. And a copy of the sheet music. That's why McCartney is the richest bass player. PLus he's a well-known tightwad. He bought the Hofner because it was cheap. He turned down the Rick when Rickenbacker first offered it to him because they wanted to sell it to him (they gave it to him a year later). He used the Yahama because they gave it to him. Linda bought the Wal for him. He just doesn't buy stuff (except for lingerie and roses for first dates...).

He owns his own publishing for the post-Northern Songs catalogs, and he bought up a lot of other copyrights when they became available (that's why he owns Buddy Hollly's catalog- he bought it as a package with a lot of other valuable copyrights). The reported reason he doesn't own the Northern Songs catalog is that when it became available he felt he needed to talk to Yoko about it rather than just buy it outright. And Michael Jackson bought the Northern Songs catalog while McCartney's people were getting in touch with Yoko.

There is no way that Flea has written enough songs, invested enough money, and sold enough product to be where McCartney is. And I don't think Jason has song-writing credits enough to come even close to Flea, let alone McCartney.

jte
 
#100
This is silly - leaving aside the McCartney/Jamerson debate (I vote for Jamerson!), the serious $$ is in songwriting. So while McCartney is an important bassist, the moment you start putting songwriting into the equation, you're mixing apples and oranges.

That's why Sting and McCartney crack that 2000 VH1 list dredged up by Dave Plays Bass.

As for bassists who are not writing -- and therefore aren't mkaing so much $$$ as to crop up on "Rich Folks" lists, you're not likely to have reliable data. Anecdotes concerning proceeds from specific tours or contracts provide limited guidance.

As for studio players, who of us can tap into Secondary Markets Fund or Recording Industry Fund data under AFM contracts, which provide a healthy royalty stream for bassists who do motion picture or high-end record-date work over the course of many years?

And let's not forget the effect of longevity - McCartney not only made a pile of $$$, but has had many years to invest it - and my understanding is that he's ALWAYS had good advice in that regard, going back to his former brother-in-law George Eastman being a NYC corporate lawyer.

Enough with the puerile speculations...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back