Evolution of Rock Bass Playing website extract- "Paul on John's songs"
alstrand
influence Paul had as a bass player. The most recent addition is the
following:
PAUL ON JOHN'S SONGS
There has been some discussion over the years about how different a
musician Paul McCartney was when playing on his own songs vs. playing
on John's songs. In the Playboy interview, amongst the last of his
life, John mentions that when it came time to record his songs a
looser air came over the studio. He felt that he would be called
paranoid for this, but there is no doubt that it's true and true right
from the start of the Beatles Parlaphone recording career. Take a
listen to various Beatles' recordings. On Paul's songs, his bass parts
are controlled and (usually) perfected while on John's songs they are
more inventive and spontaneous; his playing is more fun on John's (and
George's) songs than on his own.
In most cases where I've read this it is made out to be a purposeful
thing on McCartney's part as if his aim were to sabotage Lennon's
songs, but give it some more thought. McCartney himself has said that
the Beatles did not rehearse before going into the studio. But they
had gotten so good at playing with each other after so many hours of
doing so in Germany and on tours that they didn't need to rehearse.
There isn't much doubt about the type of songwriters McCartney and
Lennon were. Paul would get a song and flesh it out in his head. He
would hear musical parts and what sort of instruments should play
those parts and how they should be played. It was an intellectual
approach. John, by all (and I mean "all") accounts would bring his
song and and let the boys work their parts out themselves. George and
Ringo have both said that it was more fun playing John's songs and if
you listen to the bass parts on Beatles albums from the earliest to
the last (check out "I Want You" and "Come Together" from Abbey Road)
I think it's safe to say that Paul joined in on that fun. His bass
parts were more daring and less precise on John's songs.
This is an interesting point to ponder as we go through the Beatles'
catalog. In the early days, when John had most of the hits and more
control of the group, the Beatles style was spontaneous and a lot of
fun. In the days around Revolver and Sgt Pepper, when Paul had more
control of the group, the style was intellectual, maybe a bit more
controlled, but very nice sounding. Then in the later years, it was
more of a mix of styles. You'd have a single like Hey Jude/Revolution;
very Paul/John.
In an interview with Tony Bacon, Paul discussed 1967, saying that
being the bass player was "my only job". His point was that after some
years of doing a million things a day, all they had to worry about now
was recording music. By 1966, John and George wanted to take time off
and stop being Beatles for a while. Paul knew that the Beatles could
make their best music yet and '66 and '67 became his years as the
chief motivator and songwriter of the band. By late 1966 until the
time Brian Epstein died, being a recording artist for the Beatles was
his job. He didn't have to worry about a whole lot else and so we have
Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. A more controlled feel to the albums, but in
my opinion some of the best music they ever made.
McCartney: When someone else is singing, I’d realise my role was to
play a bass part to compliment what he’s singing...I would think it’s
because someone else is singing, I see my role as the bass player and
I’ll come up with something inventive. When I’m singing, I think,
‘Well, all you’ve gotta do is just play a bass part, mate’, and I
might not think, ‘Ooh, I’ve gotta pull it out the bag’. Yeah, so
what’s some good bass parts? ‘Taxman’ was good, that was
George…‘Something’. That was good; that was George. ‘Come Together’
was good; that was John… Yeah, it’s probably true! -- Paul McCartney
12
My final point on this topic is that the Beatles, all four of them,
were fantastic sidemen. They knew how to make a song work, didn't
they. Paul was one of the best sidemen ever and if a song called for
some wild and uninhibited bass playing, then he would be there making
it happen in a big, big way.
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
Jud McCranie
>listen to various Beatles' recordings. On Paul's songs, his bass parts
>are controlled and (usually) perfected while on John's songs they are
>more inventive and spontaneous; his playing is more fun on John's (and
>George's) songs than on his own.
For a long time I thought that Paul backing up George was a great
combination.
>the last (check out "I Want You" and "Come Together" from Abbey Road)
Both outstanding.
--
Replace you know what by j to email
Fattuchus
> www.alstrand.com/evolutionis a website that discusses the substantial
Thanks for this interesting post.
Joe 90
wouldn't sabotage a song -- it just seems so antithetical to making
good music. And making good music had to be one of his passions.
While reading your post, alstrand, I remembered a one sided debate
that took place back in the early 1980's. A young writer for a local
University newspaper referred to McCartney's bass playing as a
benchmark in the industry. Well imagine the backlash by the droves of
experts -- all first year music students, I'm sure -- who shouted him
down. I'm constantly amazed about how frequently that happens. Out
of all The Beatles, I'd say that McCartney was the musical virtuoso,
but his talent is often reduced to point where he's given credit as
being the panderer of Silly Love Songs.
Joe90
Jeff
> Great article, and excellent points made. I agree that Paulie
> wouldn't sabotage a song -- it just seems so antithetical to making
> good music. And making good music had to be one of his passions.
>
> While reading your post, alstrand, I remembered a one sided debate
> that took place back in the early 1980's. A young writer for a local
> University newspaper referred to McCartney's bass playing as a
> benchmark in the industry. Well imagine the backlash by the droves of
> experts -- all first year music students, I'm sure -- who shouted him
> down. I'm constantly amazed about how frequently that happens. Out
> of all The Beatles, I'd say that McCartney was the musical virtuoso,
> but his talent is often reduced to point where he's given credit as
> being the panderer of Silly Love Songs.
>
> Joe90
That's just "your" opinion of what "you" assume..where others will
give credit. If future generations want to dig deeper and find out the
truth, then can do so. They can also listen to McCartney's
solo albums, where he plays all of the instruments himself,
unlike the other 3 Beatles.
iarwain
sabotage his songs. While I agree that McCartney often took an
experimental approach to John's songs, the vast majority of the time
this worked to the benefit of the final product. Since Lennon's songs
are a little different than Paul's, it's not surprising that a
different approach might be used. Paul was a great musician and would
try to make a worthy contribution to the others' songs, and usually
succeeded.
>University newspaper referred to McCartney's bass playing as a benchmark in the industry
I can't imagine why anyone would disagree with this. But I do
remember that there was an atmosphere in the late seventies and early
eighties when it seemed like the Beatles were not as appreciated as
they are today.
I also agree with the poster who said that Paul backing up George is a
good combination.
heyhey
John saying that Paul sabotaged his songs was the MOST stupid thing John
EVER said.
Listening to John's songs proves otherwise....
Paul did a spledid job on all of them!
And it's funny when John uses Strawberry Fields as an example....
copperhead
Well, if Paul was sabotaging George on "Something", or John on "Come
Together", he can come an sabotage any of my tunes any time he likes.
K
Jeff
> I've always been surprised by Lennon's statement that Paul tried to
> sabotage his songs. While I agree that McCartney often took an
> experimental approach to John's songs, the vast majority of the time
> this worked to the benefit of the final product. Since Lennon's songs
> are a little different than Paul's, it's not surprising that a
> different approach might be used. Paul was a great musician and would
> try to make a worthy contribution to the others' songs, and usually
> succeeded.
>
> >University newspaper referred to McCartney's bass playing as a benchmark in the industry
>
> I can't imagine why anyone would disagree with this. But I do
> remember that there was an atmosphere in the late seventies and early
> eighties when it seemed like the Beatles were not as appreciated as
> they are today.
As one poster here once said. "John had the substance, Paul had
the style," and I agree. He also said that Paul commercialized
John's songs, and made them saleable (sp?) I also agree.
voxverus
=========================================
If you look at the Playboy Magazine annual music polls, McCartney was
"bass player" for many years and many years running,
Somebody more ambitious than me should look this up and post it....
alstrand
> Great article, and excellent points made. I agree that Paulie
> wouldn't sabotage a song -- it just seems so antithetical to making
> good music. And making good music had to be one of his passions.
>
> While reading your post, alstrand, I remembered a one sided debate
> that took place back in the early 1980's. A young writer for a local
> University newspaper referred to McCartney's bass playing as a
> benchmark in the industry. Well imagine the backlash by the droves of
> experts -- all first year music students, I'm sure -- who shouted him
> down. I'm constantly amazed about how frequently that happens. Out
> of all The Beatles, I'd say that McCartney was the musical virtuoso,
> but his talent is often reduced to point where he's given credit as
> being the panderer of Silly Love Songs.
>
> Joe90
>
the last word in about him in his Playboy interview and even though he
said that all the bass playing of that day came from McCartney's
Beatle period, he had shouted Paul down pretty well. Paul was viewed
as fluff by a lot of people and probably especially college types.
There's not much doubt that you're right that Paul was the musical
virtuoso, playing all the instruments and doing it well. I'm just
glad that he and John were in the same band together. I look upon
neither as more or less than the other, just very different.
alstrand
alstrand
> Well, if Paul was sabotaging George on "Something", or John on "Come
> Together", he can come an sabotage any of my tunes any time he likes.
>
An email to follow