I have listened to more than 50 types of music (including Japanese folk music) and almost all metal bands. They are the only band that I have listened to over and over again for 25 years without getting bored. They have a completely different spirit and are unique. They deserve the word original.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Someone please explain all the love for Steve Harris
- Thread starter Yonni
- Start date
-
- Tags
- harris steve harris
Wben IRON MAIDEN released their 1st album . He was an innovative BASS player and is to this very day.
Not
just another bass player standing in the back of the stage, motionless .
A true Metal BASS player .
Maybe not the best.! but I'm sure he couldn't care less .
And neither do most metal bass players
How's that ?
Not
just another bass player standing in the back of the stage, motionless .
A true Metal BASS player .
Maybe not the best.! but I'm sure he couldn't care less .
And neither do most metal bass players
How's that ?
I take OP is unfamiliar with the concept of Top 10, or 40 for that matter, too?
Popularity will always exclusively be a quantitative measure, and can never say anything whatsoever about actual quality.
That said Steve Harris is the main songwriter and composer in Iron Maiden, has been since they started, the main creative drive behind the band, and he got a distinct and pretty unique style playing bass too, not least when Iron Maiden started and in the genre metal, and him and Iron Maiden contributed big time to defining the very genre.
He is definitely not among the technically best bass players out there (mind no slouch either), but he certainly is among the most influential and innovative ones.
Popularity will always exclusively be a quantitative measure, and can never say anything whatsoever about actual quality.
That said Steve Harris is the main songwriter and composer in Iron Maiden, has been since they started, the main creative drive behind the band, and he got a distinct and pretty unique style playing bass too, not least when Iron Maiden started and in the genre metal, and him and Iron Maiden contributed big time to defining the very genre.
He is definitely not among the technically best bass players out there (mind no slouch either), but he certainly is among the most influential and innovative ones.
Last edited:
Steve Harris is a very good bass player. Fast. Rhythmic, and melodic. Writes good songs, and writes catchy hooks.
What's not to like?
Great tone as well.
What's not to like?
Great tone as well.
Besides the fact that those kinds of lists are silly snd irrelevant, why are people getting upset over a 6-year-old post?
Who is getting upset?
And why are you getting upset about people getting upset about a 6 year old upset post?
You are, since you were motivated to validate his stature as a bassist. If he is truly a great, there shouldn’t have to be any discussion/defense. I was merely asking a general question, as I was amused that the thread got resuscitated,
By that logic if you weren't upset about people being upset you wouldn't have replied to this thread either, which was my point with my initial reply to you.
Me too, especially as they hadn’t bothered to properly read the original discussion. Steve Harris is Iron Maiden, a good song writer and great performer. That’s not the question. The question was about why he is considered technically good enough to regularly make the top 10 lists when folk much more technically gifted, such as Alain Caron or Nick Beggs, get overlooked.
Yes, of course I’m aware of the click-bait nature of these lists.
Anyway, this one was put to bed years ago.
Except for that the fact that he makes top 10 in many "greatest bass players" lists has nothing to do with how technically proficient he is, being great doesn't necessarily equal being technically great (many visual artists that are considered the absolute greatest geniuses by professional artists and art historians alike didn't paint particularly technically remarkably), and beside these lists are all about popularity anyway, which is a quantitative measurement, not qualitative.
And all this is exactly what I explained in my initial reply (if formulated slightly differently, and somewhat more implicitly). Exactly what you asked for in your OP, as far as I can tell.
Last edited:
