Richest bassist?

[pedro]

And again if it was about bass playing only, a lot of the super rich wouldn't be so rich

If being the key word above.

 

[Visirale]

Some of the touring bassist for hire make a nice penny.


And again if it was about bass playing only, a lot of the super rich wouldn't be so rich

Perhaps. But let's keep in mind Wooten still tours the country on a bus while Nate Watts owns an island in the Caribbean... Solo bass playing isn't nearly as marketable as popular music.

 

[JAUQO III-X]

Exactly and I don't see where OP indicates that the wealth had to come strictly from bass playing. He does speculate but I don't see that as criteria for the answering of the thread.

Although they probabely make most of it from songwriting or singing.

He did include the possibility that most of their wealth may come from songwriting, etc.

Solo bass playing isn't nearly as marketable as popular music.

I think we all know that(and no I'm not being sarcastic).

 

[firststringer]

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...

Sorry, but I don't think you can just throw out McCartney's longevity as if it shouldn't be part of the discussion because he owes everything he has to the foundation he built when he was with the Beatles. Whatever money he was able to invest originated with songs in which he played bass (for the most part).

No matter what else he did with the Beatles, he was still their bass player.

In terms of influence this is why I vote for McCartney over not only Jamerson, but everyone else - just like I give Ringo his props too (though others don't). They were two of the four guys in the most influential and popular band of all time. McCartney became the "face" of the bass (seriously - who ever paid attention to bass players before him?) and Ringo, well how many other drummers ever had songs written about them?

I realize a lot of that stuff was in the very early stages of Beatlemania and a lot of it was silly, but there is still no denying that sales of musical instruments skyrocketed after the Beatles made it big here in the states. And those sales have never come down. Things like that show that the affect, and influence they had.

On top of that - the fact that McCartney was a gifted melodist as a songwriter, and that he was able to translate that ability to his bass playing only serves to add to his influence and that, in turn, all contributed to his bottom line.

No pun intended...

 

[pedro]

He did include the possibility that most of their wealth may come from songwriting, etc.

Indeed he did speculate as to the sources of wealth but I didn't see where he set that up as an exclusionary criteria to who is the 'richest', otherwise he would not have included Sting and McCartney.

That asides, and just speculating, how much do you all think Paul McCartney could make as a hired bass player?

 

[Visirale]

Sorry, but I don't think you can just throw out McCartney's longevity as if it shouldn't be part of the discussion because he owes everything he has to the foundation he built when he was with the Beatles. Whatever money he was able to invest originated with songs in which he played bass (for the most part).

No matter what else he did with the Beatles, he was still their bass player.

In terms of influence this is why I vote for McCartney over not only Jamerson, but everyone else - just like I give Ringo his props too (though others don't). They were two of the four guys in the most influential and popular band of all time. McCartney became the "face" of the bass (seriously - who ever paid attention to bass players before him?) and Ringo, well how many other drummers ever had songs written about them?

I realize a lot of that stuff was in the very early stages of Beatlemania and a lot of it was silly, but there is still no denying that sales of musical instruments skyrocketed after the Beatles made it big here in the states. And those sales have never come down. Things like that show that the affect, and influence they had.

On top of that - the fact that McCartney was a gifted melodist as a songwriter, and that he was able to translate that ability to his bass playing only serves to add to his influence and that, in turn, all contributed to his bottom line.

No pun intended...

Congratulations on completely avoiding ACTUAL musical influence.

I'm not doubting their songwriting abilities, they were phenomenal. But as a bass player? He was good... but far from the most influential.

 

[Visirale]

And don't get me wrong. I respect him immensely. As far as this thread goes. I'm very in tune with money, being an entertainment mogul, and getting richer. All of these are very interesting to me. I'm just saying I respect him much more as a business model than a bassist.

 

[firststringer]

Congratulations on completely avoiding ACTUAL musical influence.

Is there really a need for sarcasm in a discussion over something like this?

I'm not doubting their songwriting abilities, they were phenomenal. But as a bass player? He was good... but far from the most influential.

I disagree. I think he was the most influential bass player ever because more people wanted to play bass after first seeing / hearing him play bass with the Beatles. His technical ability can be disputed (I happen to think his playing was great) - his influence on the perception and the importance of the instrument, I don't think can.

Loads of bigger and faster airplanes came after the Wright Brothers because they influenced people to build on the work they started, then others built on that work, and others still built on that and so on...

To me, that is how you gauge "influence".

 

[corinpills]

Congratulations on completely avoiding ACTUAL musical influence.

I'm not doubting their songwriting abilities, they were phenomenal. But as a bass player? He was good... but far from the most influential.

Straight up: 90% of the population did not know there was such a thing as a bass player until Paul McCartney came along. Once the Beatles happened, teenage boys started asking for guitars and basses for Christmas. the word "influential" doesn't just mean Dr. Licks sold you his book and the mainstream music student finally figured out who James Jamerson is. Influential could also mean that an entire generation of baby boomers who play bass started doing it because of one guy. It could refer to a huge boom of instrument manufacturers who cropped up directly as a result of the Beatles' popularity. They changed the national pastime from baseball to being in a band overnight. And every bass player who was big in the late 60's and early 70s- including geniuses from Florida and Philadelphia, initially picked it up because of McCartney. In U. S. popular culture, there simply was no such thing as bass until February, 1964. Bass meant upright, high school band, it was not cool.

No disrespect, but you just sound like you don't know the history of our instrument very well.

 

[pedro]

Is there really a need for sarcasm in a discussion over something like this?



I disagree. I think he was the most influential bass player ever because more people wanted to play bass after first seeing / hearing him play bass with the Beatles. His technical ability can be disputed (I happen to think his playing was great) - his influence on the perception and the importance of the instrument, I don't think can.

Loads of bigger and faster airplanes came after the Wright Brothers because they influenced people to build on the work they started, then others built on that work, and others still built on that and so on...

To me, that is how you gauge "influence".

Ditto.

 

[Visirale]

Is there really a need for sarcasm in a discussion over something like this?



I disagree. I think he was the most influential bass player ever because more people wanted to play bass after first seeing / hearing him play bass with the Beatles. His technical ability can be disputed (I happen to think his playing was great) - his influence on the perception and the importance of the instrument, I don't think can.

Loads of bigger and faster airplanes came after the Wright Brothers because they influenced people to build on the work they started, then others built on that work, and others still built on that and so on...

To me, that is how you gauge "influence".

I'll give you inspirational. Even most influential in rock music. But for the other 60 percent of modern popular music, Jamerson is king.

This is more off topic, perhaps we should have a Jamerson vs. McCartney debate in a new thread?

 

[JAUQO III-X]

In U. S. popular culture, there simply was no such thing as bass until February, 1964.

There where mobs of young ears digging the sounds of bass way before the Beatles came along. They just didn't have a name and a face.

And we all know how the incredibly invisible but heard around the world bass lines of James Jamerson influenced so many, even Paul.

 

[Visirale]

Straight up: 90% of the population did not know there was such a thing as a bass player until Paul McCartney came along. Once the Beatles happened, teenage boys started asking for guitars and basses for Christmas. the word "influential" doesn't just mean Dr. Licks sold you his book and the mainstream music student finally figured out who James Jamerson is. Influential could also mean that an entire generation of baby boomers who play bass started doing it because of one guy. It could refer to a huge boom of instrument manufacturers who cropped up directly as a result of the Beatles' popularity. They changed the national pastime from baseball to being in a band overnight. And every bass player who was big in the late 60's and early 70s- including geniuses from Florida and Philadelphia, initially picked it up because of McCartney. In U. S. popular culture, there simply was no such thing as bass until February, 1964. Bass meant upright, high school band, it was not cool.

No disrespect, but you just sound like you don't know the history of our instrument very well.

No offense, but you're dealing with the popular masses and not the core musicians. The electric bass existed for years before that whether it was popular or not. There were players, and very notable players that had a great influence on McCartney himself.

Yes, I am a music student, and yes I have the Dr. Licks book on him, but I knew about him well before that. People were dancing to Motown hits several years before the Beatles had been heard of.

 

[Robert Strickland]

I think it is Steve Boisen, the well-known crossover bassist from Florida.

 

[pedro]

I guess it depends to some degree as to how one defines 'influential'. Having grown up playing during the 60's, its my recollection that very few bass players I knew at the time said that they had picked up bass because of 'that guy at Motown'. Quite a few though, did pick it up because of McCartney.

There is no question in my mind that McCartney was listening to Jamerson and was definitely influenced by what he heard.

(pedro wondering what any of this has to do with the original question.)

 

[JAUQO III-X]

(pedro wondering what any of this has to do with the original question.)

Because it's the direction the thread has turned.

 

[pedro]

Because it's the direction the thread has turned.

LOL!! True.

 

[JAUQO III-X]

LOL!! True.

 

[corinpills]

And I'm telling you that when I was your age, there were about 150 people in the world who knew the name James Jamerson. This is no disrespect to him at all, there's simply no arguing how great his lines are and I grew up playing them, but the worship of James Jamerson is revisionist and a relatively new phenomena. Very few people knew who played on those records until Dr. Licks did his thing- which I believe may have started with an article in one of the guitar magazines. And that wasn't like everybody read the article and started having Jamerson T- shirts printed. It was like a curio, like there's a guy in Wichita with the world's biggest ball of twine and hey, do you know the name of the guy who played bass at Motown? Once the book came out, it became part of the curriculum at Berklee and later BIT and for a lot of private teachers, so the influence spread like wildfire, as is right. It's wonderful and much deserved recognition, but try to appreciate the context of how that recognition has evolved. Now it's quite normal to hear a teenage bass player cite James as an influence, it would have been incomprehensible when I was 17 or 18. It would literally have been like "Oh yeah, well the Easter Bunny is my favorite drummer".

And yes, of course the electric bass existed before McCartney, but it was certainly one weird teenager who aspired to play it. It was right up there with the french horn for getting chicks. There were no bass magazines, websites or instructional DVDs or an sort of infrastructure to promote playing bass as a hobby, let alone for a living. You could barely even buy a bass strings in a music store. There was one bass column in Guitar Player and that was the sum total of where to get bass information (I'm talking late 70's, early 80's at this point) Moreover, bass as a frequency was rarely heard with any kind of fidelity even through the early 60's. It was merely a low rumble heard on a 45 on a portable record player- or maybe the ultra sonic splendor of a jukebox. Hi fi culture just barely existed as a very small scene and Playboy was the best place to get advice on setting up a groovy hi fi system. The masses listened in mono, on AM radio, through a 2" speaker.

 

[pedro]

And I'm telling you that when I was your age, there were about 150 people in the world who knew the name James Jamerson. This is no disrespect to him at all, there's simply no arguing how great his lines are and I grew up playing them, but the worship of James Jamerson is revisionist and a relatively new phenomena. Very few people knew who played on those records until Dr. Licks did his thing- which I believe may have started with an article in one of the guitar magazines. And that wasn't like everybody read the article and started having Jamerson T- shirts printed. It was like a curio, like there's a guy in Wichita with the world's biggest ball of twine and hey, do you know the name of the guy who played bass at Motown? Once the book came out, it became part of the curriculum at Berklee and later BIT and for a lot of private teachers, so the influence spread like wildfire, as is right. It's wonderful and much deserved recognition, but try to appreciate the context of how that recognition has evolved. Now it's quite normal to hear a teenage bass player cite James as an influence, it would have been incomprehensible when I was 17 or 18. It would literally have been like "Oh yeah, well the Easter Bunny is my favorite drummer".

And yes, of course the electric bass existed before McCartney, but it was certainly one weird teenager who aspired to play it. It was right up there with the french horn for getting chicks. There were no bass magazines, websites or instructional DVDs or an sort of infrastructure to promote playing bass as a hobby, let alone for a living. You could barely even buy a bass strings in a music store. There was one bass column in Guitar Player and that was the sum total of where to get bass information (I'm talking late 70's, early 80's at this point) Moreover, bass as a frequency was rarely heard with any kind of fidelity even through the early 60's. It was merely a low rumble heard on a 45 on a portable record player- or maybe the ultra sonic splendor of a jukebox. Hi fi culture just barely existed as a very small scene and Playboy was the best place to get advice on setting up a groovy hi fi system. The masses listened in mono, on AM radio, through a 2" speaker.

It seems we have the same memory of the era.