Paul McCartney
andyc
to go back and listen to the music carefully. It was all remixed for Doby
5.1 and was better quality than I'd ever heard before. McCartney was
awesome and led the way. How come he gets left out of fave lists?
fred
wrote:
maybe because he's not thought of as a flamboyant player.
then again..dunno .i don't read many of the fave list threads.
fred
SWBJAMES
A general lack of taste?
devenyi
> I was watching a DVD version of Yellow Submarine with a good stereo. I had
> to go back and listen to the music carefully. It was all remixed for Doby
> 5.1 and was better quality than I'd ever heard before. McCartney was
> awesome and led the way. How come he gets left out of fave lists?
actually, Paul was my fourth pick to give to new bassists, as he pretty much
does what a bassist is supposed to: he holds down the groove, and doesn't try
to solo every time he can. Not only that, but he is a competent musician in
his own right.
**Devenyi**
hb1...@mediaone.net
news:s97l7v...@corp.supernews.com...
> I was watching a DVD version of Yellow Submarine with a good stereo. I had
> to go back and listen to the music carefully. It was all remixed for Doby
> 5.1 and was better quality than I'd ever heard before. McCartney was
> awesome and led the way. How come he gets left out of fave lists?
I've always loved McCartney's work, but he will never get much attention as
a bassist, because he was pretty conventional for the most part.
Technically he was sound, and his performances were always tight, but the
bassists that tend to get the most attention are the ones who are really
unusual in one way or the other.
L.
Phil Chew
supposed to do. And probably because he stayed with the same woman for
over thirty years, does not look like he is stoned half the time,
speaks intelligently, and is able to write good music.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:00:56 -0800, "andyc" <an...@cableone.net>
wrote:
>I was watching a DVD version of Yellow Submarine with a good stereo. I had
Peter McFerrin
>Simply because many people these days forget what a bassist is
>supposed to do.
Now hold on a second. Who says a bassist can't play leads or do all sorts of
aggressive stuff? Remember, back in the days before amplification, the guitar
couldn't be heard and was thus all but useless in the big bands of its era.
Once magnetic pickups became available, the guitar changed from an
entirely rhythmic, chordal instrument to being able to act as a lead
instrument. Are you going to tell me that a guitarist should just stand there
and strum chords because you like how it was before Charlie Christian? Is
having five or six strings, slapping and popping, being high in the mix, and
(horrors!) *playing lead* inherently bad simply because they didn't have the
technology to allow them and/or make them useful in the 1960s?
>And probably because he stayed with the same woman for
>over thirty years, does not look like he is stoned half the time,
>speaks intelligently, and is able to write good music.
>
Well, he is a great guy. And he has the best melodic sense of any bassist
EVER.
Paul McCartney is one of the greats because he showed that, in rock, bassists
don't have to sit there and go root-fifth, root-fifth every song. But to say
that bass shouldn't have progressed beyond him, which is what you seem to
imply, is totally unfair to other innovators. Larry Graham? John
Entwistle? Stanley Clarke? Chris Squire? Hell, even Jaco?
Brian E Running
not on lists of favorite bass players? Someone else here said, "he will
never get much attention as a bassist, because he was pretty conventional
(or maybe an older one).
Paul McCartney has been on any list of important bass players compiled since
the early '60s. He has received, and continues to receive, a lot of
attention, because he was not conventional, in any sense of the word, while
the Beatles were together. Good God, people, no one was playing bass the
way he did before he hit the scene. His style was very distinctive -- he
was the first pop bass player to depart from the traditional role of the
bass and to do melody lines. If you've "important bassists" lists and
McCartney's name isn't on them, write it in, and start listening to his
work.
DBassMango
>was the first pop bass player to depart from the traditional role of the
>bass and to do melody lines
I'd like some examples (excluding come together). Honestly everything I've
heard from the beatles is about as unexciting basswise as everything else from
that generation. If you want good bass from that time, go to Motown.
ECMJ5866
ALL MY LOVING
DAY TRIPPER
RAIN
MICHELLE
YOU WON'T SEE ME
DON'T LET ME DOWN
SOMETHING
GETTING BETTER
A DAY IN THE LIFE
PENNY LANE
BABY YOU'RE A RICH MAN
HEY BULLDOG
LIL' HELP FROM MY FRIENDS
GETTING BETTER
(THE WHOLE PEPPER ALBUM)
Holy cow man, what planet do you live on???
Brian E Running
Doesn't matter if you find the Beatles interesting, inspiring, or whatever.
Or, if you thought they were doing bass better over at Motown. That's not
the point.
SWBJAMES
>heard from the beatles is about as unexciting basswise as everything else
>from
>that generation.
Is something wrong with your ears? Or maybe you haven't been playing that
long... I won't bother defending McCartney only to say if you read Bass Player
magazine almost every issue has a positive mention of him by someone, even the
from the likes of Victor Wooten and John Pattitucci who are dyed in the wool
jazz dudes.They know what he did and so do I. Ever hear of the word pioneer?
Jordan Marr
Phil Chew <phil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h9u99so76186d1upn...@4ax.com...
> Simply because many people these days forget what a bassist is
> supposed to do. And probably because he stayed with the same woman for
Stu
Jez wrote:
> As a Beatle, he is one of the most profoundly talented and prolific
> artists of this century. Since leaving, he's been pretty bored of the
> whole thing, and so have I.
>
> Jez.
Which Beatle were you?
Stu
Jez
>Simply because many people these days forget what a bassist is
>supposed to do. And probably because he stayed with the same woman for
>over thirty years, does not look like he is stoned half the time,
Ahh, he did in the good old days.
>speaks intelligently,
I'm not too sure about that one.
>and is able to write good music.
It's just a shame he doesn't get round to writing any these days.
Phil Chew
wrote:
>Now hold on a second. Who says a bassist can't play leads or do all sorts of
>aggressive stuff? Remember, back in the days before amplification, the guitar
>couldn't be heard and was thus all but useless in the big bands of its era.
>Once magnetic pickups became available, the guitar changed from an
>entirely rhythmic, chordal instrument to being able to act as a lead
>instrument. Are you going to tell me that a guitarist should just stand there
>and strum chords because you like how it was before Charlie Christian? Is
>having five or six strings, slapping and popping, being high in the mix, and
>(horrors!) *playing lead* inherently bad simply because they didn't have the
>technology to allow them and/or make them useful in the 1960s?
Now you hold on a second. I did not say all those were "inherently
bad". In fact, Paul was a pioneer in terms of doing unconventional
stuff on bass, yet he provided great support and drove the rhythm
section. Now, be honest. Shouldn't that be a primary role for a
bassist, even if he has the liberty to go high, slap, pop, play with
his teeth, etc (and I am not saying a bassist shouldn't) ?
>Paul McCartney is one of the greats because he showed that, in rock, bassists
>don't have to sit there and go root-fifth, root-fifth every song. But to say
>that bass shouldn't have progressed beyond him, which is what you seem to
>imply, is totally unfair to other innovators. Larry Graham? John
>Entwistle? Stanley Clarke? Chris Squire? Hell, even Jaco?
Again, did I say that? Did I even imply that from my post? If I am
against bass innovators, I would not even have endorsed Paul as a
great bassist because he was a great innovator himself. I was never in
disagreement with the more modern choices on fave lists. Don't read
into messages what is not there.
Phil Chew
merely lamenting the fact that too few people who were born in the
70's and 80's know about the musical creativity of Sir Paul. They
should.
DBassMango
McCartney's early Beatles work. The drug years he did some decent stuff, but
nothing to yell home about.
JimHS
news:20000131180344...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
All this about skill with bass is a matter of taste, personal rather than
flash-osity or ratings of hoi polloi. For example, I wouldn't call Carol
Kaye flash, but she's one of the best, if not _the_ best, bass players as
far as being a non-prima-donna member of a band is concerned.
Back to Macca: as well as bass, he has also been known to fling a mean
trout.
Back, of course; but what's his private life got to do with anything?
JimS
--
If you want to email me, I'm at rfci.net as JimS
Stu
> All this about skill with bass is a matter of taste, personal rather than
> flash-osity or ratings of hoi polloi. For example, I wouldn't call Carol
> Kaye flash, but she's one of the best, if not _the_ best, bass players as
> far as being a non-prima-donna member of a band is concerned.
Better than Jamerson? Oh that's right, doesn't she think
she was James Jamerson?
Stu
Jez
Paul McCartney's work is a master class of how to inject his chirpy
enthusiasm into a song. Those exuberent octave things
(ding-ding-ding-dings - they're known as 'McCartneys' in my house), the
simple selection of notes - he was a genius, put simply.
Two more words: Dear Prudence.
Jez.
BRIAN TURNER
still not sure how he did it.
Martin Cox
One you missed. Paperback Writer. For some reason I really like the
bassline on this song. It's bouncy, it stands out from the guitars,
yet it fits really well.
Sure, McCartney didn't play like Les Claypool or some of the other
players people have been mentioning, but he did a lot of pioneer work.
And of course the Lennon/McCartney duo was undisputedly the greatest
pop/rock songwriting team ever. Even if he wasn't a standout player,
he was a pioneer, and and excellent musician, and that has to count
for something.
Gmfpe
matching McCartney's sense of melody. As far as technical ability goes, let me
just say that I, along with the rest of the world, would rather hear a SONG
anyday, than to hear the pedestrian ramblings of a techno-wiz like as Stuart
Hamm. "Yesterday" has been played over 1 billion times worldwide while I've yet
to hear the first Stu Hamm song (if you could call what he plays a song) on
anything.
Don
Ringo, what happened to George?
Stu wrote in message <389632B9...@banet.net>...
>
>
>Jez wrote:
>
>> As a Beatle, he is one of the most profoundly talented and prolific
>> artists of this century. Since leaving, he's been pretty bored of the
>> whole thing, and so have I.
>>
>> Jez.
>
DBassMango
>matching McCartney's sense of melody
You've obviously been locked in a cave, or are a close minded Beatle maniac.
I'm not even going to bother listing the thousands upon thousands of people who
have as good and better sense of melody than McCartney, for you obviously will
not listen to them. I'm sorry you can't enjoy good music.
Hawkeye8th
>Been playing 8 years buddy. But honestly, I see nothing that I can learn
>from
>McCartney
8 years...hehheh...I've got strangs older'n that.....
Hawkeye
DBassMango
Age does not equal all wisdom my friend. One musn't forget that the mind does
slow down as we age, and our acceptance of new ideas drops dramatically.
Hawkeye8th
Hawkeye say you speakem like Confucius.
Brad Johnson
A person who has been playing for 8 years thinks there is nothing they can
learn from Paul McCartney... I guess the mind slows down after 8 years of
playing and the acceptance of new ideas has dropped dramatically by this time
:^)
Today a lot of players get wrapped up in the hype, flashy playing is king. To a
degree, back when I started it was the same way but there is a lot ot be said
for composition.
In my opinion, even though I've only been playing 7 years and 11 months, I
still feel I can learn from anyone I listen to. Anyone. Of course that's going
to change next month.
I can't wait!!
Brad Johnson
>Subject: Re: Paul McCartney
>From: hawke...@aol.com (Hawkeye8th)
>Date: 2/1/00 11:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000201235336...@ng-cb1.aol.com>
Stu
Like who? He's in a class with Lennon, Stevie Wonder, Elton John,
Cole Porter, George Gershwin etc.., none of whom were bass players
Who are the thousands better?
Say you don't like his style, but to deny he lacks melody is a stretch.
Listen to the music of 1965 and tell me it wasn't innovative. Better
yet, he fit it into hit songs, which is something not many can claim.
Stu
Brian E Running
irony of your criticism of others for not being able to accept new ideas.
The only musical ideas being discussed in this thread are McCartney's, and
from where I'm reading, looks like you're the one not accepting them. Maybe
you'll be gracious enough to enlighten us hopeless dinosaurs by presenting
some of the bold "new ideas" we should accept. Wipe the Clearasil off your
hands first, though -- bad for the keyboard.
Skokiaan
still not sure how he did it.>
He also plays the guitar solo.
Drop the "x" if you wish to send me e-mail.
Skokiaan
(DBassMango)
Beatlemaniac is one word, toughguy.
FLash net
in hell for that . . . .
He may not be the best bassist around, but he has almost unlimited depth-
for example, McCartney is the true bass powerhouse behind Guns N Roses and
taught Micheal Manering everything he knows about fretless intonation.
Nobody can criticize his work with Debbie Gibson or his guest appearance on
Murder She Wrote (except for that back-biting cur Angela "I was on Broadway"
Landsbury- what about Broadstreet?). So just BACK OFF. He may not be my
favorite Beatle, but he is every bit a Beatle nonetheless.
As an aside, I am willing to pay $12 cash money (USD) for the first person
to egg the house of the moron at VH1 who decided to do a reunion film about
McCartney and Lennon. I will need polaroids as proof, and expect the use of
Large Grade AAA eggs.
JimHS
Stu <inc...@banet.net> wrote in message news:3896F660...@banet.net...
Rightly or wrongly, I excluded all deceased bass players. Sadly I had to
include him in that list even though I regard his work as Major.
I ignored wranglings involving Ms. Kaye and Mr. Jamerson as they took place
outside of the actual playing of the instrument. Not strictly relevant.
My point was that playing a bass is about contributing to music, not
reinforcing one's own feeling of self-esteem.
JimHS
--
Desperate to prevent spam...
Stu
Jamerson made the songs happen, but the songs gave him the
vehicle to perform as did the singers. I think Marcus Miller
is like a modern James, top notch session player, but ever heard
his solo stuff? McCartney was the entire package, bass, vocals,
songwriter, looks, charm...arguably the best guitar player in the
Beatles as well. One is not better than the other, they chose different
paths for obvious reasons. They both managed to get on the radio
quite a bit, which to me means a lot, especially being innovative and
still appeal to the masses.
Stu
Meee wrote:
> As regards Motown, no disrespect to James Jamerson, who is one of my
> all-time favourite bass players, but James had a different perspective on
> what he was doing. He was in the Motown house band, and as such not as
> closely involved with the song-writing itself. He was given free reign
> within the structure of the songs, but as regards the songs themselves they
> were being knocked out by Holland-Dozier-Holland, Ashford & Simpson etc. I
> don't think that there was as much of a collaboration as with the Beatles
Brian E Running
and played all of the Beatles' and the Beach Boys' bass parts. Very few
people know that Carol Kaye has worked under the alias "John Paul Jones" for
many years. She has the union records to prove it... but she just can't
find them right now.
boogie
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Mark Timmings
<dbass...@aol.com> writes
>I'd like some examples (excluding come together). Honestly everything I've
>heard from the beatles is about as unexciting basswise as everything else from
I couldn't agree more.
Without a doubt a most overrated player (in my opinion). However, that's
if we're talking bass playing alone - as a musician and song writer I
would say he made an impact on the world (although not to me,
personally). So a lot depends on what you want from a bass player or
what your perceive a good player to be.
Around the time of the Beatles most bass players were much of a much in
similar types of "pop" bands and that includes McCartney (again, my
opinion). I agree, if you want to hear great bass you must check out
Motown.
Mark
DBassMango
It's an empty shell of a pop song! There is not an ounce of emotion that went
into that song. It was made to make teenage girls scream, and anyone with real
talent should cring at hearing it and it's success.
Meee
listen to "Help", it is indeed a song about asking for help and reassurance
from a friend.
Oh but then I forgot. You don't listen to songs,...... only parts
As regards Motown, no disrespect to James Jamerson, who is one of my
all-time favourite bass players, but James had a different perspective on
what he was doing. He was in the Motown house band, and as such not as
closely involved with the song-writing itself. He was given free reign
within the structure of the songs, but as regards the songs themselves they
were being knocked out by Holland-Dozier-Holland, Ashford & Simpson etc. I
don't think that there was as much of a collaboration as with the Beatles
Wake up and smell the river.
"DBassMango" <dbass...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000202223958...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> You people are like film critics. Sure there were some great movies made
along
> time ago, but age doesn't make something great. There is much better
stuff
> going on today, we need not dwell on the past. I'm not saying that I'm a
> better musician than McCartney, even though none of you have ever heard me
> play, so we cannot pass any sorts of judgement upon anyone's skills. But
> merely that his style is not the style I play, and I cannot learn anything
from
> his style. Sure he had some alright melodies, but the jazz cats of his
day had
> much better ones, and the motown and soul cats had so much more heart into
> their music. Are you telling me "Help" is from the soul?
Steve Bennett
>>Well strangely enough "Help" is from the soul.
>
>It's an empty shell of a pop song! There is not an ounce of emotion that went
>into that song. It was made to make teenage girls scream
Oh, and I guess if you were capable of making teenage girls scream,
you wouldn't? Your envy is showing.
Steve Bennett
Brad Johnson
>From: Mark Timmings mtim...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk
>Date: 2/3/00 1:40 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <up3SmLAu...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk>
He very well could be overrated, but riddle me this... why is it that so many
top players today still "overrate" him and his influence on them? Just a
thought. Guess he fooled 'em, huh?
McCartney is rated, over- or otherwise, not for what he's doing today, but for
what he did in the past. To say that there are a lot better bassists than him
is specious, what makes the others better. McCartney played and sang in the
60's and 70's in a way few had before. To tell the truth I can't think of
another bassist/singer from that time that had the impact he did, including
Jack Bruce. Almost a whole generation was influenced by him to take up the
instrument. add to that the fact that he and Lennon were at the top of the Pop
composer heap. They wrote "standards".
If you're looking to compare him to others strictly on a chops basis, fine,
he's no Vic Wooten. The fact remains, he influenced a hell of a lot of players
with his playing, it was different whether you want to believe it or not. If
speed and tons of notes are your yardstick, then he doesn't measure up. But
then neither would Charlie Christian or B.B. King, compared to todays
chopmeisters. Highly overrated...
This is basically revisionist thinking and I'd wager the people who don't see
any value in his playing weren't around when he first hit the scene ;^)
Think how silly mosh pits will probably look to your grandchildren.
Brad Johnson
DBassMango
>he's no Vic Wooten
Plus Vic's compositions are so obviously from the heart and soul of that man.
Tell me The Vision or his rendition of Overjoyed is not beautiful? Jaco's
beautiful melody on A Remark you Made? Manring's the Book of Living and Dying.
Pattituci's entire repertoire. All guys with monster chops but above all
monster soul. All leagues beyond Mac.
Brad Johnson
>From: dbass...@aol.com (DBassMango)
>Date: 2/3/00 11:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000203233634...@ng-bg1.aol.com>
Like I said, some will get it and some won't. Why do you continue to think that
it is only about speed and dexterity. Hey, I think I can answer my own
question, more than likely, to you, it is. Do you have any examples of a
bassist without monster chops with monster soul?
Maybe you're mistaking "skill" with "soul". Maybe I'm wrong...
Did Vic's version of "Overjoyed" come from the heart... how would I know?
Stevie wrote it, I know it came from his. It's a song about one of Stevie's
children. Is Vic's version beautiful? Is "Blackbird"? I've played lots of
pretty covers that didn't mean a thing to me, they were just pretty. I have no
idea what it meant to Vic.
If you think all of McCartney's (and Lennon's) work was done in a sweat shop,
Brill Building type environment, maybe there was no heart. Is the problem the
fact that he wasn't a bass soloist. everyone you mentioned is. It wasn't Paul
McCartney and the Beatles, it was the Beatles.
Ever listen to Tony Levin?
The funny thing about McCartney is, he probably had some influence on everyone
you've mentioned. What do they know that you don't? ;^) Then again, maybe he
was just a run-of-the-mill bass player. Sometime, if you get a chance, you
might want to check out the roots of the players you admire, it can be pretty
interesting. None of them came to be in a vacuum. Especially the "best" ones.
I tried. Have fun,
Brad
Mark107
Great on an old Precision!
Regards
George Troupe
Cape Town
South Africa.>>?
That's the old Tower of Power sound as well. F80's. Dead as can be, but you
can hear the bass on a 3" car radio speaker with them!
Mark Timmings
<brad...@aol.com> writes
>He very well could be overrated, but riddle me this... why is it that so many
>top players today still "overrate" him and his influence on them? Just a
>thought. Guess he fooled 'em, huh?
You can fool all of the people some of the time... :-)
No seriously, of course people were influenced by the Beatles (not
McCartney himself, necessarily), they weren't that different from many
other British groups of the time - who in turn stole a lot of their
stuff from US black music and were also influenced by lot's of different
music, including the likes of Elvis (so was Elvis a good bass player :->
). All I have said is that I agree that, compared to, say the Motown
musicians, McCartney was nothing special. As I also stated, a lot
depends upon your point of view of what a bass player is (and I *was*
giving mine).
>McCartney is rated, over- or otherwise, not for what he's doing today, but for
>what he did in the past. To say that there are a lot better bassists than him
>is specious, what makes the others better. McCartney played and sang in the
>60's and 70's in a way few had before. To tell the truth I can't think of
>another bassist/singer from that time that had the impact he did, including
>Jack Bruce. Almost a whole generation was influenced by him to take up the
>instrument. add to that the fact that he and Lennon were at the top of the Pop
>composer heap. They wrote "standards".
Sorry, I think you're either misread or misinterpreted my post. I never
compared McCartney to today's players. That is as pointless exercise as
to compare Wooten to Pastorius (players of different eras). To quote "I
have stood on the shoulders of others that have gone before". I stated
that for his time - he was nothing special. As for being influenced -
it's not for me to say that you (or anyone else) should or should not
have been influenced by someone or some group and I never suggested
this. I simply made a contribution to the discussion which seems to
differ from yours.
However, I would say that I could still compare John Paul Jones' Zep
stuff favourable with any bass player of the modern era, McCartney
doesn't stand that test of time in my book. I can also listen to early
Motown and still think wow ! When I hear d the bass, not with the
Beatles - but then that's not necessarily bad, I don't feel any of the
Beatles were good musicians, but how many good songs are made by less
than great musicians (a hell of a lot). I'm not disputing the Beatles
songs just the musicianship.
Look - Why were people influenced by the Beatles (leaving aside
McCartney's bass playing) ? Simple, they were white, clean cut (at the
time) playing pop songs based upon black music to the masses. Whereas
the likes of the Rolling Stones played a raw interpretation of black
music, looked like hell and you wouldn't want your daughter going to one
of their concerts. Why have the Spice girls influenced numerous "girl
bands", because they're good ? No bloody way ! :-)
So were people truly influenced by McCartney's bass or the music of the
Beatles (I thought we were talking bass playing hear so I've assumed
this to be the element we're interested in). If we're talking about the
Beatles I refer you to previous paragraphs and my previous post.
Anyway, does being influenced by someone mean they were great players ?
Then again does being influenced by some who themselves was influenced
by someone I didn't rate mean I am indirectly influenced ? Ah, my mind's
about to explode ! :-)
So what I would suggest is that we forget the Beatles as a band who
influenced and even McCartney's song writing as I'm not trying to
suggest they were anything other than influencial. What I said was that
McCartney's bass playing was nothing special and he as a player was
overrated. You might note: I did mention that he made an impact to the
world but not to me personally. So I'm not disputing his impact, I'm
debating whether he was a good bass player.
>
>If you're looking to compare him to others strictly on a chops basis, fine,
>he's no Vic Wooten. The fact remains, he influenced a hell of a lot of players
>with his playing, it was different whether you want to believe it or not. If
>speed and tons of notes are your yardstick, then he doesn't measure up. But
>then neither would Charlie Christian or B.B. King, compared to todays
>chopmeisters. Highly overrated...
I couldn't care less if he was a Wooten sound a like, frankly I find
Wooten overrated (yikes ! that should annoy a lot of people). Again I
must point you to my previous post - "a lot depends on what you want
from a bass player or what you perceive a good player to be". I'm not
saying he should have been Stanley Clarke or Mark King or Geddy Lee or
Jack Bruce.. Pino Palladino is one of my favorite players when I heard a
lot of his stuff in the 80's and his stuff was very supportive. The
thing about influence is that it depends upon a time frame, your musical
taste and more - had I been in my teens in the 60's then all I'd have
before me would be the likes of the Beatles, frankly I'd have chosen the
Stones or Motown or the Blues, but that's another issue. However on a
different level. Time, in some ways is irrelevent - hell my favorite
guitar players are the likes of Hendrix, Page, Rory Gallagher, BB King,
Steve Vai, Eddie Van Halen, early Santana etc. taken from a broad range
of time and no, I wouldn't ever suggest BB King was overrated, his stuff
is still as good now as it was when he started and as relevant (as a
musician), but that's the blues for yer.
>This is basically revisionist thinking and I'd wager the people who don't see
>any value in his playing weren't around when he first hit the scene ;^)
This, is of course, always the problem. "Time's they are a changing". So
are our thoughts on what is and what is not good. Again (to repeat
myself) I don't doubt the Beatles influence on the world of music - if
that's the best you heard at the time I'm sure you'd think he was great,
but there were better players then and now even, in the genre of music
he plays in.
To put it another way, if all you ever heard was your dad tuning his
guitar you'd probably think that's how you played the damn thing. ;-)
>Think how silly mosh pits will probably look to your grandchildren.
Don't worry, they seem stupid to me (good God I'm old !!!). :-)
Happy trails
Mark
Mathematical problem for the day: (sort of)
If A->B and B->C when -> means influenced by, does this mean A->C also ?
Dave
DBassMango wrote:
> >8 years...hehheh...I've got strangs older'n that.....
>
> Age does not equal all wisdom my friend. One musn't forget that the mind does
> slow down as we age, and our acceptance of new ideas drops dramatically.
Well, one thing I am sure of is youth does not equal wisdom. The mind slows down
with age IF it is not stimulated. We hear about those societies which respect
there elders; it's because their minds are active even though their bodies may
be old. The acceptance of new ideas has nothing to do with the mind slowing down;
it has more to do with sorting ideas out over time and seeing which of those ideas
are "right" or "appropriate."
Philosophizing from high on a hill..........
8^) Dave
Dave
> Tell me The Vision or his rendition of Overjoyed is not beautiful? Jaco's
> beautiful melody on A Remark you Made? Manring's the Book of Living and Dying.
> Pattituci's entire repertoire. All guys with monster chops but above all
> monster soul. All leagues beyond Mac.
In your opinion only.
What would I prefer to listen to? Give me Wooten, Jaco, or Berlin any day. However,
I am a musician, and not the regular listening public. McCartney arrived at a time
when both music and bass playing were evolving. He rose to the top of the hill
because the public enjoyed his music and his bass playing was out in the front. I
would rather follow the career of McCartney (have average chops and "great" music
that people enjoy) than that of a bass superstar (have music that .001% of the
population, or my critical musical peers, listen to).
8^) Dave
Dave
DBassMango wrote:
> Been playing 8 years buddy. But honestly, I see nothing that I can learn from
> McCartney's early Beatles work. The drug years he did some decent stuff, but
> nothing to yell home about.
There is a big difference between not being influenced and not being able to learn
from someone. For instance, if I don't listen to a bassist, or I don't enjoy their
playing, I may not be influenced by them. I would NEVER say that I couldn't LEARN
from someone. That would indicate a closed-minded attitude and approach to my
playing.
Here's an example. Back in the early days of this country, when I was in high
school, the band I was in had a phenomenal guitarist. We were playing lots of Van
Halen and AC/DC. What did that mean for me? Lots of root note pumping. I couldn't
stand Michael Anthony or Cliff Williams. I wanted to puke everytime I played one
of their songs. However, I still learned plenty from these guys. I learned exactly
how I do not want to play.
I am not greatly influenced by McCartney either, but I still recognize his genius.
For instance, the bassline of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" is absolutely great.
It demonstrates that he fully understands how bass playing can support music. The
bass line on its own says nothing, but in the context of the song it is true
genius.
8^)
Dave
Mark Timmings
<brun...@NOSPAMexecpc.com> writes
>Please describe for me how the Beatles' music was influenced by black music.
Your kidding right ? Around that time most British rock and roll or
"pop" bands were influenced by either Elvis (a white man doing black
music) or Motown, Blues or the likes of Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Bo
Diddley. I'm sorry I don't have precise reference to books or material
on this as the Beatles were and are not of that much interest to me
(i.e. to go out and buy any biographies).
Well I know for sure one of McCartney's major influences was James
Jamerson. I seem to recall McCartney also mentions influences of Little
Richard. Wasn't George was into Blues. McCartney also lists, Chuck
Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis and Fats Domino as influences (I think to the
Beatles as a whole). I read somewhere that all the Beatles loved the
track "Heard it through the grapevine". Whether they were influenced by
it I cannot say, only one of the Beatles could say on that one. But it
is one that stuck in my mind as being a major track for the Beatles.
McCartney mentions the Beatles nicking the riff "I saw her standing
there" from Chuck Berry "I'm talking about" in an interview taken from a
Guitarist Magazine, I read it on some archive somewhere on the web (of
course it could be a faked article :-), I think it was a 1990 article
from one of the guitarist mags. ).
So I'm not sure how else you would like me to describe the influences
except to say in the Guitarist article I believe McCartney mentions he
actually ripped the bass off of a Chuck Berry tune for one of the
Beatles (that seems like a major influence to me :-) ), probably the one
listed above.
Hope this helps
Mark
Skokiaan
McCartney himself, necessarily), they weren't that different from many
mtim...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk)
There's a ridiculous statement if I've ever read one! What made them
successful was that they were SO different than everybody else. They were
quickly followed by a ton of bands that tried to copy them, many cashing in on
their success.
Big difference between the Beatles and Freddie and the Dreamers, don't ya
think?
<I stated that for his time - he was nothing special.>
<Simple, they were white, clean cut (at the
time) playing pop songs based upon black music to the masses. Whereas
the likes of the Rolling Stones played a raw interpretation of black
music, looked like hell and you wouldn't want your daughter going to one
of their concerts.>
This implies that the Stones, being the opposite oif the Beatles, were not
successful, which we all know isn't true. You're forgeting that the Stones wore
suits and Beatle haircuts in the mid-60's. I doubt many parents of the time
knew the difference.
<What I said was that
McCartney's bass playing was nothing special and he as a player was
overrated>
Numerous examples have been given to the contrary. Just because you don't like
it doesn't mean he didn't accomplish anything on the instrument. He did.
"Something" is a great example. Very unconventional playing. Most bass players
would have played something much more basic to fit into this slow ballad. When
this song is covered by others, the bassists always simplify the part, even
when they're backing up George Harrison himself.
Brian E Running
if it shows up in someone's music, and there is no American black influence
apparent in the Beatles' music, not counting covers of Chuck Berry songs,
which themselves cannot seriously be called representative of American black
music.
The Beatles' roots were in skiffle and British folk music as much as
anything else, probably more. Irving Berlin and Elgar were probably greater
influences on their music than any black music. I defy you to show me any
specific example from any Beatles' album that is clearly traceable to
American black music. "Yesterday and Today"? "Revolver"? "Rubber Soul"?
It only got more remote after that. "Sgt. Pepper"? Yeah, sure. I'm open
minded, give me examples to prove me wrong.
For that matter, although I admit there may be an arguably clearer
connection, show me the black influence in the Rolling Stones' music, aside
from covers. "Ruby Tuesday"? "Street Fighting Man"? How do you pin it
down?
Maybe we ought to define "black music". Is that one homogenized category?
Of course not. Black influences on the Beatles? Well, maybe Tony Williams
and the Platters, or Sam Cooke. But I'll bet that's not what you're
thinking of when you say "black music", is it? What is it, jazz? Blues?
Gospel? As if blacks only perform in limited categories. I think your
thesis has some real problems. I suspect you're just repeating what you've
heard somewhere else. But like I said, I'm open minded, and waiting.
Mark Timmings
<skok...@aol.comx> writes
><No seriously, of course people were influenced by the Beatles (not
>McCartney himself, necessarily), they weren't that different from many
>mtim...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk)
>
>There's a ridiculous statement if I've ever read one! What made them
>successful was that they were SO different than everybody else. They were
>quickly followed by a ton of bands that tried to copy them, many cashing in on
>their success.
Oh, of course, what can I say - you're obviously so correct and I'm
obviously so wrong (sarc.) :-).
There were numerous bands of a similar nature around those times in the
UK, the thing is this band was the biggest and (possibly) best.
Sorry, I'm not a historian but their success was not necessarily based
upon them being SO different - they stole many things from many genres
and made it their style. This is fine - most (probably all) music comes
about in such a way, but they certainly were not SO different. And yes,
this is an opinion, you have ever right to disagree. Maybe you find them
to be something more than I do - that's fine but not every one *must*
have the same opinion about them.
Are your seriously trying to say that BB (Before Beatles) there was no
UK pop scene playing pop songs with people "twisting and shouting" and
after the Beatles they all appeared. Unless you can seriously quote
dates when every group of the time was formed how can you prove such a
statement.
>Big difference between the Beatles and Freddie and the Dreamers, don't ya
>think?
Yes, like the difference between Van Halen, Bon Jovi etc. They're part
of a genre. Of course each is different and you'll note I didn't say
they were "no different" or "they were all the same" I suggested they
were not *that different*. Maybe they came first, maybe they didn't.
Certainly they opened doors and were influential to others and were very
successful. I'm not disputing that (as I think I've also made abundantly
clear) - I certainly am disputing their musicianship and in particular
McCartney's bass playing, if we are (as we were) talking about their
musical capabilities.
><Simple, they were white, clean cut (at the
>time) playing pop songs based upon black music to the masses. Whereas
>the likes of the Rolling Stones played a raw interpretation of black
>music, looked like hell and you wouldn't want your daughter going to one
>of their concerts.>
>
>This implies that the Stones, being the opposite oif the Beatles, were not
>successful, which we all know isn't true. You're forgeting that the Stones wore
>suits and Beatle haircuts in the mid-60's. I doubt many parents of the time
>knew the difference.
Please feel free to twist my words, why don't you ? Are you insinuating
that the Stones were the same as the Beatles. I hope not. They were
chalk and cheese. Certainly I've seen footage of the Stones in suits but
they never looked anything like the Beatles or sounded anything like
them. Or are you about to suggest they sound *like* Freddie and the
dreamers :-)
>Numerous examples have been given to the contrary. Just because you don't like
>it doesn't mean he didn't accomplish anything on the instrument. He did.
>"Something" is a great example. Very unconventional playing. Most bass players
>would have played something much more basic to fit into this slow ballad. When
>this song is covered by others, the bassists always simplify the part, even
>when they're backing up George Harrison himself.
Examples ? Not a single example has been shown to me that McCartney was
anything but average. I've heard numerous Beatles songs and loved some
of their stuff but I still don't rate McCartney as anything more than
average. Of all the songs that I like not a single one made me think,
wow great bass (in fact I cannot remember any specific bass parts). This
is all about opinions, mine is no less valid than yours.
You might like to again note I never said he didn't accomplish anything
(but what's that to do with being either good or otherwise) I never said
the Beatles were bad, I just said I thought McCartney was overrated.
What are you comparing McCartney's work to - compared to James Jamerson
he was a novice. He was probably as good as Jet Harris and was destroyed
when Jack Bruce and Entwistle came along.
For what it's worth, I've read interviews with McCartney where he admits
stealing bass lines almost note for not and especially taking styles
from the likes of Jamerson and Brian Wilson (I think his name is from
the Beach Boys). So was he that different ?
Look, let's get this straight. I'm, not knocking the Beatles, hell I
like some of their stuff, I have already said they were influential (to
others not me personally). I don't think they were anything
revolutionary and this is my opinion. I'm not saying McCartney was a bad
bassist, just overrated when compared to others of the period. For what
it's worth, as a songwriter in the Beatles I regard him highly, although
I still don't feel the Beatles music was that different.
Fortunately we all have differing points of view. However, unfortunately
some of us treat alternative views as heresy as I saw during a recent
Jaco Pastorius thread and it seems within this thread.
Mark
Skokiaan
specific example from any Beatles' album that is clearly traceable to
- Oh, Darling.
- Not a Second Time.
- Something (George said he was thinking of Smokey Robinson when he wrote it,
referring to the style, not lyrics).
- For You Blue.
- Get Back.
FLash net
Mark Timmings <mtim...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uU0CZDAj...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk...
Mark Timmings
<jlw...@flash.net> writes
>you guys need to get a room . . . .
If this is what happens when I say I think McCartney was overrated what
would happen if I said... :-)
Mark
Mark Timmings
<brun...@NOSPAMexecpc.com> writes
>No, of course I'm not kidding. The only way "musical influence" counts is
>if it shows up in someone's music, and there is no American black influence
>apparent in the Beatles' music, not counting covers of Chuck Berry songs,
>which themselves cannot seriously be called representative of American black
>music.
Is this your personal definition of influence ? Paul McCartney himself
lists Motown and James Jamerson in particular as major influences. Isn't
this proof enough ? I even quoted an article where he stated they ripped
off Chuck Berry in the Beatles song "I saw her standing there". The
influences are not mine alone - check out this months Bassist magazine
(if you can get a copy) a British magazine which states how you can hear
Jamerson in several Beatles songs.
I was heavily influenced by Geddy Lee - he started me down the bass
route, however you'd never know it now, if you heard me play as I play a
lot of jazz funk and chords etc. So was I influenced by Geddy Lee under
your definition or not ?
>The Beatles' roots were in skiffle and British folk music as much as
>anything else, probably more. Irving Berlin and Elgar were probably greater
>influences on their music than any black music. I defy you to show me any
>specific example from any Beatles' album that is clearly traceable to
>American black music. "Yesterday and Today"? "Revolver"? "Rubber Soul"?
>It only got more remote after that. "Sgt. Pepper"? Yeah, sure. I'm open
>minded, give me examples to prove me wrong.
There is little point in me answering this, but I'll try - I quoted
articles and more in my last post. Some of the info. from McCartney
himself. If you feel that he and the Beatles were not influenced by the
likes of Motown then you are flying in the face of what McCartney
himself says. Of course he was influenced by more than just Motown,
including folk and later on by Indian music - or are you going to
suggest that there's no Indian influence :-). I cannot believe that four
lads from working class Liverpool had influences in classical music (at
that time it was way to high brow for the masses), but if they say they
have been influenced, then who am I to suggest otherwise. It's more
likely the influence of George Martin who I would suggest was more into
the classic.
>For that matter, although I admit there may be an arguably clearer
>connection, show me the black influence in the Rolling Stones' music, aside
>from covers. "Ruby Tuesday"? "Street Fighting Man"? How do you pin it
>down?
Well as you do not believe me when I quote McCartney suggesting how he
was influenced by Motown then I do not think you'd believe me if I gave
examples from the Stones. Except to say that most historians of music
state that Rock and Roll was born from the American black music based
originally on the blues and the Stones play - either Rock or Rythm and
Blues, depending upon your definition of their music.
>Maybe we ought to define "black music". Is that one homogenized category?
>Of course not. Black influences on the Beatles? Well, maybe Tony Williams
>and the Platters, or Sam Cooke. But I'll bet that's not what you're
>thinking of when you say "black music", is it? What is it, jazz? Blues?
>Gospel? As if blacks only perform in limited categories. I think your
>thesis has some real problems. I suspect you're just repeating what you've
>heard somewhere else. But like I said, I'm open minded, and waiting.
I agree 100%, "black music" is rather non-specific and I apologise for
this usage of the phrase. It was rather general, but as you'll note from
my last post I was more specific stating Motown, the blues and early
Rock and Roll, along with specific artists. So I used a slightly
generalised term to encompass several types of music. So, just for you I
say "many British groups were influenced by Motown, the blues, Rock and
Roll and the likes of Chuck Berry, Sam Cooke, Bo Diddley, Little Richard
and more".
I really cannot prove anything to you if you have no desire in believing
what the artists themselves state are their influences. I've read and
seen numerous articles about many musicians of the time of the Beatles
all of which seem to have influences in Blues, Motown or Rock and Roll
from the likes of the artists I mentioned earlier. I have neither the
time or intention to waste my evening tracking down quotes or listening
to the various music to find the examples, if you do not accept the
quotes I gave you them I'm unlikely to convince you by saying "oh, I
think this sounds like...".
Would you also believe that Page, Clapton and Beck were heavily
influence by Blues music - so does this mean the Yardbirds were or were
not influenced (even indirectly) ? ;-)
All the best
Mark
Brian E Running
Be specific, please. Titles, artists. Which Smokey Robinson song do you
hear in "Something"? If I sound snide, I'm not trying to be. I just want
proof.
Slap Hancock
> any day. However,
> I am a musician, and not the regular listening public.
Over McCartney? Hmmm. . . I think I would take the Beatles albums over
any of those Bass greats. Think, you're stranded on a desert island
with unlimited batteries and a CD player, everything McCartney's done
or everything Wooten's done? For me it's no decision at all.
Mark Timmings
<brun...@NOSPAMexecpc.com> writes
I've just reread the article in Bassist magazine. I don't know whether
this is of interest but...
The writer reckons the guitar break on "All my loving" is blues
influenced.
"And your bird can sing" shows evidence on James Jamerson and Motown as
does "Paperback Writer".
Not from Motown, blues or the likes but "Got to get you into my life" is
supposed to have a bass influenced by the Beach Boys Pet Sounds album
(Carol Kaye on bass).
Obviously these are not comments on the Beatles as a whole and are the
opinions of the author of the article.
For my part, I'd definitely say the main riff in "Come Together" is
Motown influenced.
I'm certainly not trying to convince you of these influences, just
pointing out how others have also seen the influences. Of course these
are a mere few songs in the Beatles song book. But they are examples.
Whether you agree that there are direct or indirect influences is down
to you, but as I've said even Paul McCartney points to the influence of
Motown in his playing.
All the best
Mark
Dave
Slap Hancock wrote:
> > What would I prefer to listen to? Give me Wooten, Jaco, or Berlin
> > any day. However,
> > I am a musician, and not the regular listening public.
>
> Over McCartney? Hmmm. . . I think I would take the Beatles albums over
> any of those Bass greats. Think, you're stranded on a desert island
> with unlimited batteries and a CD player, everything McCartney's done
> or everything Wooten's done? For me it's no decision at all.
If I was stuck on a desert island I would rather have a bunch of coconuts or
bananas over a Beatles or a Wooten CD.
8^) Dave
Brad Johnson
>From: Dave big...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 2/4/00 5:56 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <389B5908...@ix.netcom.com>
I'd rather have Ginger or Mary-Anne.
Brad
Brian E Running
Meee
of emotion that went into that song. It was made to make teenage girls
success.
Now I know I should bite my tongue and not say anything because you're young
& stupid.
But.....
I'm just young. I appreciate the song. I can identify with the vibe of the
song and I've been there.
I read an interview with Lennon that said that the song Help was basically
him needing help and someone to lean on. Obviously DBassMango, you know
something we don't or something that John Lennon didn't.
Enlighten me...... please
At the very least give me an example of something that works for you.
It's an open forum, you've got lots to criticise, but nothing to offer.
Here's your chance.... please take it :-)
"DBassMango" <dbass...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000203164834...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> >Well strangely enough "Help" is from the soul.
>
> It's an empty shell of a pop song! There is not an ounce of emotion that
went
hb1...@mediaone.net
news:20000204135015...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> < I defy you to show me any
> specific example from any Beatles' album that is clearly traceable to
>
> - Oh, Darling.
> - Not a Second Time.
> - Something (George said he was thinking of Smokey Robinson when he wrote
it,
> referring to the style, not lyrics).
> - For You Blue.
> - Get Back.
Don't forget Yer Blues. Or Misery.
L.
Brad Johnson
You weren't a teenager when the Beatles hit prominence. Neither was I. I was
younger. You seem to think that what McCartney was doing was pedestrian
compared to the other players of the time. Based on something, obviously not
actually experiencing it. What I think most of the people who were around then
are trying to say is, put it in context. You seem to think McCartney was doing
something any bassist of the time was doing. That couldn't be further from the
truth. As far as stealing licks, who hasn't? As to the many Beatle-quality
contemporaries, I'm not sure who that would be here in the US, my point of
perspective. When they showed up other groups were still playing the same old
pop with pompadours and tuxes.
Context is a funny thing. Things and people improve but that doesn't make a
predecessor less influential to the people they influenced. I haven't heard any
discussion as to why he was nothing special, I'd be semi-interested to hear it
;^)
The really funny thing is you describing what you would have been listening to
if you were a teen back then. News flash: You have no idea what you would have
been doing, it was a different time. You may have been a big fan of Lawrence
Welk, who knows. I love it when people I know watch a movie set in a historical
perspective and talk about what they would have done in the same situation. My
guess is, if by some fluke they were as outspoken as they are now... they'd
probably be killed.
Listen to Sting, to me he's a master at playing the bass, he puts the right
notes in the right place. Believe it or not that can be much harder than a
chops-fest.
Debating this is like debating whether Donky Kong "was" a cool game to someone
who grew up with Sega. Some people could actually put it in perspective and
understand. For others, it can be pointless. I can only guess what your answer
is to the "math" question;^) Anyway, like I said, you're not wrong, it's your
opinion. And maybe he did fool all of the people.
Have fun
Brad
>Subject: Re: Paul McCartney
>From: Mark Timmings mtim...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk
>Date: 2/4/00 4:41 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <48cHTFAA...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk>
Mark Timmings
<brad...@aol.com> writes
>You weren't a teenager when the Beatles hit prominence. Neither was I. I was
>younger. You seem to think that what McCartney was doing was pedestrian
>compared to the other players of the time. Based on something, obviously not
>actually experiencing it. What I think most of the people who were around then
>are trying to say is, put it in context. You seem to think McCartney was doing
>something any bassist of the time was doing. That couldn't be further from the
>truth. As far as stealing licks, who hasn't? As to the many Beatle-quality
>contemporaries, I'm not sure who that would be here in the US, my point of
>perspective. When they showed up other groups were still playing the same old
>pop with pompadours and tuxes.
I was there when the Beatles hit the scene (in London) but too young to
remember them hitting the scene. I was actually a fan (I suppose you
could say) as soon as I was old enough to understand what music was
about (and they were still going at the time!). However, I agree with
you totally, my perceptions and observations are based upon the ability
to look back at the music of the time and then make comparisons. I
certainly have no problem with people stealing licks (and I thought I'd
made that fairly clear), but I was trying simply point out that
McCartney didn't do all that much (on bass) different to others (IMO) of
the period, he was taken things from the likes of Jamerson and Carol
Kaye.
I'm not actually sure who, of the people in this thread, were actually
teenagers at the time of the Beatles, I'll admit I was fairly young
during their height - so I cannot say whether others are also putting
anything in context :-)
With regards the pop in the US at the time, of course, I'm not an
expert, but weren't Little Richard, Elvis, Chuck Berry etc. around at
the time - I certainly don't recall seeing them dressed like you say -
but I am not expert on the period.
>Context is a funny thing. Things and people improve but that doesn't make a
>predecessor less influential to the people they influenced. I haven't heard any
>discussion as to why he was nothing special, I'd be semi-interested to hear it
>;^)
It's not so much that I feel McCartney to be nothing special as to be
overrated. He was and is a solid player and a good background bassist
and that takes nothing away from him, he's a damn sight more disciplined
than I am. I just feel that there were others who maybe have not got the
coverage of the McCartney and the Beatles who were more talented and
were around at the same time. Jet Harris, James Jamerson, Carol Kaye to
name but three. Later on (although he was probably around at the time)
Jack Bruce and so on...
>The really funny thing is you describing what you would have been listening to
>if you were a teen back then. News flash: You have no idea what you would have
>been doing, it was a different time. You may have been a big fan of Lawrence
>Welk, who knows. I love it when people I know watch a movie set in a historical
>perspective and talk about what they would have done in the same situation. My
>guess is, if by some fluke they were as outspoken as they are now... they'd
>probably be killed.
You're correct - but then isn't that what most (if not all) people are
doing in this thread. I suspect you're making statements based upon a
perception from a historical perspective, it's difficult not to. As we
learn of comprehend things around us, our tastes or understanding
changes.
Let me be more direct - were you a teenager when the Beatles hit the
scene, were you able to listen to all sorts of music and base your
opinions on a neutral perspective (i.e. not favouring one type of music
or other). I suspect not, but I'm sure you'll tell me otherwise :-) The
point is, how is it more acceptable for those of a similar age to myself
(or younger) to state the opinion that McCartney was revolutionary and
yet not for me to state he was overrated ? I've simply suggested there
were others who were better (or at least as good) at the time, yet they
do not get tagged in the same vein as McCartney. Whether he was special
is down to the listener, that's what music is all about. One cannot
prove greatness of musician or music, it must be something accepted by
the listener alone.
Just because all I heard was the Beatles when I was young doesn't
actually mean that's all there was or they were the best. I never heard
Motown, it just wasn't played on the radio in the UK. I did hear Rock
and Roll, Elvis, Bo Diddly, Chuck Berry and the likes.
>
>Listen to Sting, to me he's a master at playing the bass, he puts the right
>notes in the right place. Believe it or not that can be much harder than a
>chops-fest.
To you - and isn't this what it's about.
I agree that Sting's playing in the Police was good, but I heard better
for the time (Geddy Lee for example, although I'm not sure I would say
his singing was better :-) ). I certainly wouldn't rate Sting's playing
that highly but the influence of the Police would be different. I'm
suggesting the same for McCartney in the Beatles - but like most things,
it's only an opinion.
>
>Debating this is like debating whether Donky Kong "was" a cool game to someone
>who grew up with Sega. Some people could actually put it in perspective and
>understand. For others, it can be pointless. I can only guess what your answer
>is to the "math" question;^) Anyway, like I said, you're not wrong, it's your
>opinion. And maybe he did fool all of the people.
Well, this is worrying, I'm going to agree with you again, except to say
Space Invaders was even better :-)
Why did I join this thread, knowing I'd get shot down. Simply to voice
as *possible* alternative view. I read a Jaco thread recently where
somebody said he didn't think much of Pastorius and he was shot to
flames, but he was trying simply to voice a view which often isn't just
the domain of that single person. Those lamenting the greatness or
otherwise of an individual need to look at others of the era. Personally
I couldn't knock Jaco's playing except to say I preferred Stanley
Clarkes sound, style and music.
As I stated above, as a child I listened mostly to the Beatles - also
the Shadows, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, and Rock and Roll such as Bill
Haley and of course Elvis. I then moved to Santana, Patti Smith,
Kraftwerk (and many others) in the late 60's - early 70's. So my
perspective is broad (and that's the tip of the iceberg). This doesn't
mean my perspective is right or wrong, but I certainly did have a varied
view of music to forge my opinions.
As for the maths problem, I'm actually very interested in this. If A is
influenced by B but B was influenced by C does A indirectly have
influence from C. I don't know the answer, I don't think anyone does as
it's not that tangible i.e. we're getting into chaos theory or at least
down to a quantum level, but that's another thread...
Take care
Mark
Hawkeye8th
>>> artists of this century. Since leaving, he's been pretty bored of the
>>> whole thing, and so have I.
>>>
>> Which Beatle were you?
I'm the one that died at birth.
Hawkeye
Brad Johnson
If you remember that recent Jaco thread you may remember me supporting the
person right to not be very fond of Jaco. I'm not saying you're wrong here.
Just presenting a point of view and wondering what yours and others are based
on.
I was born in 1956 so I wasn't a teenager in 1965. It's interesting that you
assume I'd misrepresent my musical exposure at the time, I'm really not sure
where that is coming from.
More below:
>Subject: Re: Paul McCartney
>From: Mark Timmings mtim...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk
>Date: 2/5/00 5:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <w6clSBABy$m4E...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk>
So what I'd like to know is who do you think was doing more to change the how
the bass was played at the time in addition to the people you already named. By
your count there were only four or five above average bassists working in
Pop/Rock at the time and McCartney wasn't one of them.
>I'm not actually sure who, of the people in this thread, were actually
>teenagers at the time of the Beatles, I'll admit I was fairly young
>during their height - so I cannot say whether others are also putting
>anything in context :-)
>
>With regards the pop in the US at the time, of course, I'm not an
>expert, but weren't Little Richard, Elvis, Chuck Berry etc. around at
>the time - I certainly don't recall seeing them dressed like you say -
>but I am not expert on the period.
This one really has me baffled. If you didn't see Little Richard and Chuck
Berry with their hair greased and piled high wearing glitter or lame' formal
wear, what were they wearing in 1965?
Elvis, of course didn't have a pompadour, ducktail or any of the 50's-early
60's greased hairdos.
Like I said above, I find this one amusing. No point in going into the
diversity of music I was exposed to in the 60's on. You won't believe it
anyway;^)
>Just because all I heard was the Beatles when I was young doesn't
>actually mean that's all there was or they were the best. I never heard
>Motown, it just wasn't played on the radio in the UK. I did hear Rock
>and Roll, Elvis, Bo Diddly, Chuck Berry and the likes.
>
>>
>>Listen to Sting, to me he's a master at playing the bass, he puts the right
>>notes in the right place. Believe it or not that can be much harder than a
>>chops-fest.
>
>To you - and isn't this what it's about.
To this day I know very few people who have chops who have the restraint not to
use them at damn near every opportuniy ;^)
>
>I agree that Sting's playing in the Police was good, but I heard better
>for the time (Geddy Lee for example, although I'm not sure I would say
>his singing was better :-) ). I certainly wouldn't rate Sting's playing
>that highly but the influence of the Police would be different. I'm
>suggesting the same for McCartney in the Beatles - but like most things,
>it's only an opinion.
>
If it weren't two completely different styles of music (Geddy and Sting) ....
>>
>>Debating this is like debating whether Donky Kong "was" a cool game to
>someone
>>who grew up with Sega. Some people could actually put it in perspective and
>>understand. For others, it can be pointless. I can only guess what your
>answer
>>is to the "math" question;^) Anyway, like I said, you're not wrong, it's
>your
>>opinion. And maybe he did fool all of the people.
>
>Well, this is worrying, I'm going to agree with you again, except to say
>Space Invaders was even better :-)
>
>Why did I join this thread, knowing I'd get shot down. Simply to voice
>as *possible* alternative view. I read a Jaco thread recently where
>somebody said he didn't think much of Pastorius and he was shot to
>flames, but he was trying simply to voice a view which often isn't just
>the domain of that single person. Those lamenting the greatness or
>otherwise of an individual need to look at others of the era. Personally
>I couldn't knock Jaco's playing except to say I preferred Stanley
>Clarkes sound, style and music.
That really ties into my question. What others of that era would be considered
better? From what I'm seeing it's a pretty short list. That would seem to me
that out of all of the bassists working at that time we can't seem to get a
list of a dozen bassists in this genre who were making a bigger impact on
playing than him. I know for me it wasn't all about fashion, etc. I really
thought what he was doing, in his own way, was different from the norm of the
day.
>
>As I stated above, as a child I listened mostly to the Beatles - also
>the Shadows, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, and Rock and Roll such as Bill
>Haley and of course Elvis. I then moved to Santana, Patti Smith,
>Kraftwerk (and many others) in the late 60's - early 70's. So my
>perspective is broad (and that's the tip of the iceberg). This doesn't
>mean my perspective is right or wrong, but I certainly did have a varied
>view of music to forge my opinions.
>
>As for the maths problem, I'm actually very interested in this. If A is
>influenced by B but B was influenced by C does A indirectly have
>influence from C. I don't know the answer, I don't think anyone does as
>it's not that tangible i.e. we're getting into chaos theory or at least
>down to a quantum level, but that's another thread...
>
For some reason I don't see the problem to be hard at all.
Let's try a couple of simple example.
A=Wayman Tisdale
B=Marcus Miller
C=Larry Graham
How could A not be indirectly influenced by C. Without C, there is no B as A
knows it.
Differing opinions most welcome. What would be the exception?
A=Me
B=Anthony Jackson
C=Jack Casady or James Jamerson
In this case I have a direct influence from JJ but also an indirect due to the
AJ influence on myself. AJ took the Jamerson influence to a different level
IMO. If there is no C, who knows how B would have played, or even if I might
have been influenced by B.
Again, I'd love to hear the exceptions.
>Take care
>Mark
I'm not trying to beat you down on your point of view, I like a good discussion
and am always interested in other points of view and how people arrive at them.
you take care, too.
Brad
Dave
Clarence, the fifth Beatle.
8^) Dave
DBassMango
I love him, he's a monster.
DBassMango
>
I enjoy music which I feel emotion is put into. Much of it is bass intensive,
yes. But I enjoy loads of other styles and artists who's bassists are average
or around there. And I know that all pop music is not devoid of emotion. I'm
a huge Pink Floyd fan, I doubt you'll find anyone who puts more heart into rock
songwriting than Roger Waters (and a supportive bassist who influenced me).
I'm very much digging the new Chili Peppers CD, lots of emotion (and melodic
bass playing). Of course the greats over the years from the jazz scene, Miles,
Mingus, all %100 soul in there. This is what I enjoy. I do not enjoy the
Beatles, I am not influenced by Paul McCartney. He's fine if he's your bag,
but he aint mine.
Mark Timmings
<brad...@aol.com> writes
>I was born in 1956 so I wasn't a teenager in 1965. It's interesting that you
>assume I'd misrepresent my musical exposure at the time, I'm really not sure
>where that is coming from.
Sorry, it certainly was not my intention to suggest any
misrepresentation, I was just intrigued as to where we were both coming
from on this. I profoundly apologise if you felt that was my intention.
>So what I'd like to know is who do you think was doing more to change the how
>the bass was played at the time in addition to the people you already named. By
>your count there were only four or five above average bassists working in
>Pop/Rock at the time and McCartney wasn't one of them.
I wouldn't doubt that because the Beatles were so big that they changed
how the bass was perceived by the masses. I simply pointed out that I
felt McCartney was overrated and that at the time, the likes of Jamerson
and Jet Harris were every bit as good and in my opinion better if not
better. One thing I should point out is that I never stated that my view
was solely based upon the Beatles years. It is based upon all his years
of playing.
>If it weren't two completely different styles of music (Geddy and Sting) ....
Of course they're different styles, but we can transcend styles to
compare technical abilities, can't we ? We see this in numerous Best
Bass Player Polls all the time (if I wrote out my top ten guitarists or
bass players they would transcend all styles that I have an interest
in). I was simply offering another player who also sang and played
fantastic bass lines. Nothing more, nothing less...
>That really ties into my question. What others of that era would be considered
>better? From what I'm seeing it's a pretty short list. That would seem to me
>that out of all of the bassists working at that time we can't seem to get a
>list of a dozen bassists in this genre who were making a bigger impact on
>playing than him. I know for me it wasn't all about fashion, etc. I really
>thought what he was doing, in his own way, was different from the norm of the
>day.
I agree, I could probably only name five or six who were better around
the late sixties (I probably I know five or six :-) However, I would
still rate McCartney as one of the lowest if I compiled a "best of"
table). To me I'm looking at the legacy (for me personally anyway)
because I wasn't interested in bass in those years (more into guitar)
it's difficult to quantify what effect he may or may not have had on me
personally. But, I can listen to Jamerson and still hear a tremendous
style/sound after all these years, Jack Bruce's early stuff was
devastating. For me personally McCartney was not revolutionary and if I
listen to his early stuff now, nothing makes me think "wow, that really
was good", whereas I'm often "rediscovering" other musicians of earlier
times in my life.
This may not be coming across too well via email - but let me say, even
after all these years Hendrix, Santana, Page, McLaughlin and the likes
still make me think nothing that's followed can compete, maybe one or
two such as Vai, Van Halen. When I think of bass players McCartney
wouldn't even make the top forty.
>For some reason I don't see the problem to be hard at all.
>
>Let's try a couple of simple example.
>
>A=Wayman Tisdale
>B=Marcus Miller
>C=Larry Graham
>
>How could A not be indirectly influenced by C. Without C, there is no B as A
>knows it.
>Differing opinions most welcome. What would be the exception?
Ah, well this is the thing that I saw in the Pastorius thread - someone
knocked Jaco but held up Wooten to be something special, yet I can hear
so much of Jaco in Victor Wooten. Therefore the person arguing how Jaco
was not an influence was, by the definition above, influenced by Jaco
:-)
>A=Me
>B=Anthony Jackson
>C=Jack Casady or James Jamerson
>
>In this case I have a direct influence from JJ but also an indirect due to the
>AJ influence on myself. AJ took the Jamerson influence to a different level
>IMO. If there is no C, who knows how B would have played, or even if I might
>have been influenced by B.
I suppose one could suggest that A is not influenced by C if A isn't
aware of C. Or what if B's music is heavy metal, and B is influenced by
C which is Jaco (and B played like Geezer Butler), would A still be
influenced by C.
The reason I ask this silly question is this - if A->B->C = A->C then I
am influenced by McCartney by virtue of those who have influenced me and
have also link me to McCartney by stating he was an influence on them,
thus I'd have to eat all my words :-)
Mark
Brad Johnson
>>Let's try a couple of simple example.
>>
>>A=Wayman Tisdale
>>B=Marcus Miller
>>C=Larry Graham
>>
>>How could A not be indirectly influenced by C. Without C, there is no B as A
>>knows it.
>>Differing opinions most welcome. What would be the exception?
>
>Ah, well this is the thing that I saw in the Pastorius thread - someone
>knocked Jaco but held up Wooten to be something special, yet I can hear
>so much of Jaco in Victor Wooten. Therefore the person arguing how Jaco
>was not an influence was, by the definition above, influenced by Jaco
>:-)
And I'd bet you thought that was silly. I'd agree, that part of the debate is
silly. If there was no Jaco, what would Vic be playing? We'll never know
because there was a Jaco and he did influence Vic. Like I said, none of this
happens in a vacuum.
>
>>A=Me
>>B=Anthony Jackson
>>C=Jack Casady or James Jamerson
>>
>>In this case I have a direct influence from JJ but also an indirect due to
>the
>>AJ influence on myself. AJ took the Jamerson influence to a different level
>>IMO. If there is no C, who knows how B would have played, or even if I
>might
>>have been influenced by B.
>
>I suppose one could suggest that A is not influenced by C if A isn't
>aware of C. Or what if B's music is heavy metal, and B is influenced by
>C which is Jaco (and B played like Geezer Butler), would A still be
>influenced by C.
One could suggest that and I think they would be wrong. Whether A is aware of
C's influence on B or not, if the influence is evident in B's playing in any
fashion, A is indirectly influenced by C. If B (playing like Geezer) is
influenced by C (Jaco) and shows zero Jaco influence in his playing, then A
wouldn't be. The problem with this is, if there was much of any influence on B
by C, it'll show. I think that would be rare indeed. E-I-E-I-O
>The reason I ask this silly question is this - if A->B->C = A->C then I
>am influenced by McCartney by virtue of those who have influenced me and
>have also link me to McCartney by stating he was an influence on them,
>thus I'd have to eat all my words :-)
>
>Mark
I don't think it's a silly question at all. As corny as it sounds, it is a big
chain. McCartney may be the weak link in the chain technically as a bassist for
some, but he is still an integral part of the chain. Remove him and who knows
how things turn out. Several times I've heard of a bassist's playing to be
McCartney-esque, it's a recognizable style, influenced by Jamerson, among
others, but still identifiable. I'm not looking for you to eat any words, if
you agree. I'm just wondering if you do agree ;^)
Have fun
Brad
Brad Johnson
>Message-id: <wOdlPJAB...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk>
>
>In article <20000205132629...@ng-cc1.aol.com>, Brad Johnson
><brad...@aol.com> writes
>>I was born in 1956 so I wasn't a teenager in 1965. It's interesting that you
>>assume I'd misrepresent my musical exposure at the time, I'm really not sure
>>where that is coming from.
>
>Sorry, it certainly was not my intention to suggest any
>misrepresentation, I was just intrigued as to where we were both coming
>from on this. I profoundly apologise if you felt that was my intention.
Here's the awful truth. I was born into a musical family, parents sang, mother
played the piano, brother played the radio, grandfather played organ (Gospel
and standards), I grew up watching him do some pretty fancy footwork on the
Hammond B3's bass pedals. I listened to as was influenced by literally whatever
sound was around. I listened to Pop, Rock, R&B, Classical, Country, etc. Played
trumpet and other brass instruments until the 70's when I switched over to
bass. Listened to all the Motown stuff, James Brown, Stax records crew,
Atlantic records, T-Rex, Lawrence Welk, anybody who came on Ed Sullivan, Don
Kirshner, Philly Soul, Hendrix, Patsy Cline, Vanilla Fudge, Stravinsky, Jimmy
Dean, Henry Mancini (particularly his film scores, Sly & the Family Stone, The
Dave Clark 5, the Stones, Dylan, Memphis soul, easy listening ( my father's
favorite music) Bird, Strawberry Alarm Clock, "Trane, Miles, etc. tons of old
78 rpm records including Louis Armstrong, Bix, Harry James and more than I feel
like listing. This is all before I hit 16. From the time I could remember I've
listened to all kinds of music. I honestly don't know how many songs I know, I
retain almost all of what I hear. I like music.
It annoys me when someone says a type of music is crap, I don't really
understand the mentality. The thing that kills me is, it's usually a "musician"
saying it. This of course has nothing to do with anything you said.
>>So what I'd like to know is who do you think was doing more to change the
>how
>>the bass was played at the time in addition to the people you already named.
>By
>>your count there were only four or five above average bassists working in
>>Pop/Rock at the time and McCartney wasn't one of them.
>
>I wouldn't doubt that because the Beatles were so big that they changed
>how the bass was perceived by the masses. I simply pointed out that I
>felt McCartney was overrated and that at the time, the likes of Jamerson
>and Jet Harris were every bit as good and in my opinion better if not
>better. One thing I should point out is that I never stated that my view
>was solely based upon the Beatles years. It is based upon all his years
>of playing.
>
Jamerson has always been an enigma to me. For years I didn't know who was
playing those (for me) devasting lines on the Motown stuff, that was by Berry
Gordy's design. I don't want to get all Zen about it but I've always been able
to appreciate the nuances of playing and well as technical virtuosity. That's
why I loved Kool Bell, Fudgie (with Mandrill) and Larry Graham. This goes to
the question of "better" for me. Was Larry Graham "better" than Kool Bell?
Could he have played "Funky Stuff" better than Kool? Robert "Kool" Bell was not
a chops monster but the guy came up with some killer grooves before they went
Pop. He was a huge influence on guys like me who grew up playing Funk in the
70's.
>>If it weren't two completely different styles of music (Geddy and Sting)
>....
>
>Of course they're different styles, but we can transcend styles to
>compare technical abilities, can't we ? We see this in numerous Best
>Bass Player Polls all the time (if I wrote out my top ten guitarists or
>bass players they would transcend all styles that I have an interest
>in). I was simply offering another player who also sang and played
>fantastic bass lines. Nothing more, nothing less...
>
I've always thought the Best Bass Player polls were BS. What "technical
capabilities"? The ability to play 64th note arpeggios? Difficult material?
Trendy technique? I don't get the criteria. One year it might be Jaco, the next
Geddy Lee... what happened, did Jaco slip or did Geddy improve? How come Adrian
Davison hasn't won, he's been "clocked" at 31 notes/second ;^) It is a
popularity contest, not a subjective vote on chops.
"Better" is one of those things I really have a problem with because no one can
tell you anything is better than anything else, it's up to you to decide.
What's the best bass? It depends... for cracking the heckling drunk in the
second row over the head, I don't think the MTD would be high on the list, I'd
use an ash P bass copy. For travelling I wouldn't pick an Alembic in a gig bag,
I'd use one of the new folding Zons. To me there is rarely best, usually just
different.
Have fun,
Brad
Brian E Running
McCartney was obviously aware of Jamerson, Babbitt and all the other Motown
players. But I gotta tell ya, when I listen to the vast majority of
Beatles material, I hear "She's Leaving Home", "Sgt. Pepper", "Bungalow
Bill", "Norwegian Wood", etc., etc., etc. Any material which can
conceivably be interpreted to contain any Motown influence is the small
minority, not representative of the Beatles catalog at all. And you know,
this only begs the question -- how representative of "black music",
whatever that is, was Motown? Motown was pop, engineered for the market
just like a lot of other material of the period. Was it jazz, blues,
gospel, what? But obviously, Motown material was more directly traceable
to jazz and the blues, which I don't think we'll disagree is "black" music.
But then again, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles.... ? You can't
pigeonhole "black music" any more than you can any other supposed category.
Brian E Running
Brian Wilson wrote out every bass part on Pet Sounds, she played what he
dictated. Jesus Christ, if I hear another comparison between Carol Kaye
and Paul McCartney, well, I don't what I'll do. But for crying out loud,
if Carol Kaye had ever done anything other than play other people's music,
I'd be more charitable toward these comparisons. Arrrgggghhhhh.
Mark Timmings
<brunnin...@execpc.com> writes
Don't shoot the messenger - I simply quoted from a McCartney interview.
Mark
Mark Timmings
<brad...@aol.com> writes
>I don't think it's a silly question at all. As corny as it sounds, it is a big
>chain. McCartney may be the weak link in the chain technically as a bassist for
>some, but he is still an integral part of the chain. Remove him and who knows
>how things turn out. Several times I've heard of a bassist's playing to be
>McCartney-esque, it's a recognizable style, influenced by Jamerson, among
>others, but still identifiable. I'm not looking for you to eat any words, if
>you agree. I'm just wondering if you do agree ;^)
I think I've probably said before that I stand on the shoulders who have
gone before. I don't recognize the likes of McCartney as part of my
style or even those I could quote as influences, but as you say, who's
to say what would have happened had there been no McCartney/Beatles. I'm
not capable of answering that (nor is anyone else).
Another reason for the question was that in another part of this thread
the "black music" (such as Motown, Blues, Rock and Roll) influence on
the Beatles is being question, of course if the above is true then
whether one can hear an influence or not in one's music, one must still
accept the influence (although personally I do hear the influence).
Each to their own...
Mark
Mark Timmings
<brad...@aol.com> writes
>Jamerson has always been an enigma to me. For years I didn't know who was
>playing those (for me) devasting lines on the Motown stuff, that was by Berry
>Gordy's design. I don't want to get all Zen about it but I've always been able
What you've said above, about Jamerson, is in some ways the crux of my
argument. The fact that no one knew who played those lines means that
Jamerson was never really recognised by the "masses" (whatever we define
those as). The reason McCartney is held aloft is because everyone knew
who he was (in my opinion).
>I've always thought the Best Bass Player polls were BS. What "technical
>capabilities"? The ability to play 64th note arpeggios? Difficult material?
>Trendy technique? I don't get the criteria. One year it might be Jaco, the next
>Geddy Lee... what happened, did Jaco slip or did Geddy improve? How come Adrian
>Davison hasn't won, he's been "clocked" at 31 notes/second ;^) It is a
>popularity contest, not a subjective vote on chops.
>"Better" is one of those things I really have a problem with because no one can
>tell you anything is better than anything else, it's up to you to decide.
>What's the best bass? It depends... for cracking the heckling drunk in the
>second row over the head, I don't think the MTD would be high on the list, I'd
>use an ash P bass copy. For travelling I wouldn't pick an Alembic in a gig bag,
>I'd use one of the new folding Zons. To me there is rarely best, usually just
>different.
Couldn't agree more about "polls". I read a few recently where I was, to
say the least, bemused. Pretty much as I was by the top 100 albums of
the decade chart. Of course in truth no one is truly better or worse
than anyone else as a criteria does not exist which could be
collectively accepted. Yet we do hold some above others and perceive
them as some how better or worse (depending upon our own tastes and
criteria), as I think we have all done in any of these types of threads.
See yer...
Mark
Mark Timmings
<brunnin...@execpc.com> writes
To cross this over to another part of this thread then. If you or I
cannot hear an influence does this really mean that they are any less of
an influence. I can certainly hear the influence of blues, Motown and
the likes of Little Richard and Chuck Berry in the Beatles and
McCartney's playing. Whether the influence is small or not - to begin
with you stated that you heard no influence, now you may concede there
is an influence, is this correct ?
As for the "black music" tag. I used this to save on continually typing
"Blues, Motown, Rock and Roll, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Ray
Charles..." as the phrase is often used when looking at the music of the
time to demonstrate a whole host of influences which can be traced back
to differing forms of music which was for the most part played by black
musicians. The phrase is not of my invention.
Mark
Mark Timmings
>to jazz and the blues, which I don't think we'll disagree is "black" music.
> But then again, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles.... ? You can't
>pigeonhole "black music" any more than you can any other supposed category.
>
I think you're looking into this too closely - Motown, Blues, Jazz,
Gospel and the original stages of Rock and Roll were all produced
primarily by black musicians and in popular press called "black music",
just as we might say something stems from "European music" or "African"
or "Latin". There are many sub-divisions to all these classes of music
and yet we bandy about how such as such uses Latin influences, probably
without a care for the precise form of Latin music. Yet it is quite
obvious that there is *something* Latin about the music.
If you really want to try and trace every type of music to it's possible
inception you're probably find African and European forms of primitive
music to be the roots of every type of music. Although other primitive
types would have existed, such as Aboriginal music (which is still very
much in existence).
Mark
Meee
One of my favourite artists of all time would have to be Paul Weller. A lot
of emotion, conviction etc. Check him out.
I'm an OK bass player, I think I've got beyond worrying about technical
virtuosity and focused more on the song. Hey when I'm playing or recording
or rehearsing, I'm know I'm only one part of the beast! If I can make it
fly or keep it's feet on the ground, I'll try and do it. I think
McCartney's view is probably along the same lines. I'm there to play the
bass, to sing also, to provide the best "platform" for the song. Afterwards
I'm also there to pack the P.A. and leads away also!
I've had the pleasure of seeing Paul McCartney live twice. Once in
Liverpool 1990, and then in Auckland NZ about 2-3 yrs later. It was his
band, his songs, and he didn't feel the need to jump out in front and
spotlight his bass playing. He's involved on a musical level as one part of
the beast also.
My problem is people who are recognized as being great technical players,
but do so at the expense of the song. I'm there for the song, just part of
the family.
In short, for me? Paul McCartney..............No technician, but a huge
influence musically for me. Not just bass.
Cheers
Dave H.
"DBassMango" <dbass...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000205143029...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
Robert Strand
> Think how silly mosh pits will probably look to your grandchildren.
Yeah, all the fads and rituals of the day just fall by the way-side, it's only the
real stuff that can hold up for 30 years +.
Regards
Rob
Dave
DBassMango wrote:
> >Well strangely enough "Help" is from the soul.
>
> It's an empty shell of a pop song! There is not an ounce of emotion that went
> into that song. It was made to make teenage girls scream, and anyone with real
> talent should cring at hearing it and it's success.
Part of talent is the ability to connect with the audience. To bad more musicians
don't realize that.
8^) Dave
Dave
Brian E Running wrote:
> Well, I hate to bring this up, but you know, Carol Kaye actually composed
> and played all of the Beatles' and the Beach Boys' bass parts. Very few
> people know that Carol Kaye has worked under the alias "John Paul Jones" for
> many years. She has the union records to prove it... but she just can't
> find them right now.
She was also the uncredited bassist on Jaco's first album and played on Return
to Forever's "Romantic Warrior" after Stanley Clarke ate some bad clams.
8^) Dave
Brian E Running
I think our discussion has boiled down to subjective personal preferences,
and of course that debate could go on for years without resolution.
The original statement of yours that began our discussion was this: "Simple,
they were white, clean cut (at the time) playing pop songs based upon black
music to the masses." Now, we have come a long way from saying that the
Beatles played songs based upon black music to saying that Paul McCartney
admired James Jamerson and was influenced by him. I have no doubt that
McCartney was aware of other pop bassists, and what bassist could truthfully
say he wasn't influenced by Jamerson? But simply being influenced by a
musician who happens to be black is a completely different thing from
playing "black music". You've got to agree with that, no? The Beatles'
songs were not based on black music. The influence of some black players
can be found. Fair enough?
Now, as far as saying that there were a lot of bassists around in the
sixties who were much more talented than McCartney, you're free to your own
opinions, but I think you're insane! Hey, no offense intended!
I think this has been a very interesting discussion, I appreciate your
comments and your taking the time to respond to my arguments.
Mark Timmings
<brun...@NOSPAMexecpc.com> writes
>say he wasn't influenced by Jamerson? But simply being influenced by a
>musician who happens to be black is a completely different thing from
>playing "black music". You've got to agree with that, no? The Beatles'
>songs were not based on black music. The influence of some black players
>can be found. Fair enough?
Which ever way you want to read it is fine by me. I'm not the first to
make the statement about "black music influences". I'm not only aware of
their influences but can hear them and I sure won't be the last to make
such a statement. Whether one likes or dislikes the "black music" tag is
up to the individual - generally speaking I always took it to mean
Motown, Blues, Gospel (for that era), and early Rock and Roll (such as
Little Richard, Chuck Berry etc.) of course one could include Jazz also.
I can hear Blues, Motown and Rock and Roll very much in the Beatles
style and I can certainly hear Motown in McCartney's playing (again this
is nothing new, I quoted from a popular magazine and you've had song
titles given to you for other such influences being heard, by myself and
one or two other people).
>Now, as far as saying that there were a lot of bassists around in the
>sixties who were much more talented than McCartney, you're free to your own
>opinions, but I think you're insane! Hey, no offense intended!
I never said there were a lot - I said McCartney was overrated and there
were better bassists around at the time (I certainly didn't go into
number of them as I could probably only name a few). I mentioned one in
particular, James Jamerson.
You are of course entitled to you opinion, although the Doctor said the
pills would help me stay sane :-) and no offence taken. If you feel he
was good, then good for you, I never joined in this discussion to
pursued otherwise, just to state (hopefully) an opposing view.
>I think this has been a very interesting discussion, I appreciate your
>comments and your taking the time to respond to my arguments.
Maybe we'll find ourselves on the same side (as it were) sometime :-),
take care.
Mark
Twang
Dave <big...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:389EC66B...@ix.netcom.com...
She's also Bill Black, Junior Brown and Wes Montgomerys brother.
Kinky!
Twang!
>
>
Devenyi
> he is george harrison, the forgotten Beatle, we all know John Paul and
> Ringo, what happened to George?
Recently he was just stabbed in the chest by some nutjob.
**Devenyi**
Devenyi
> >8 years...hehheh...I've got strangs older'n that.....
>
> Age does not equal all wisdom my friend. One musn't forget that the mind does
> slow down as we age, and our acceptance of new ideas drops dramatically.
And remember, Jaco only played so many years and he could blow away guys who had
been with the instrument for over 20....
**Devenyi**
Devenyi
>slant on music. You either get McCartney or you don't. I did. He's the
> reason I took up bass.
Actually, now that I think about it, I took up bass because I wanted to pick up
girls ;^) Now, though, I love playing the bass so damn much I've lost girlfriends
over it because I spent more time with it than them. Heh :^)
**Devenyi**
Hawkeye8th
>> >8 years...hehheh...I've got strangs older'n that...
>From: Devenyi dev...@bellatlantic.net
>And remember, Jaco only played so many years and he could blow away guys who
>had
>been with the instrument for over 20....
What does all that have to do with the age of my strangs?
Hawkeye
pedr...@my-deja.com
swbj...@aol.com (SWBJAMES) wrote:
> >I'd like some examples (excluding come together). Honestly
everything I've
> >heard from the beatles is about as unexciting basswise as everything
else
> >from
> >that generation.
>
> Is something wrong with your ears? Or maybe you haven't been playing
that
> long... I won't bother defending McCartney only to say if you read
Bass Player
> magazine almost every issue has a positive mention of him by someone,
even the
> from the likes of Victor Wooten and John Pattitucci who are dyed in
the wool
> jazz dudes.They know what he did and so do I. Ever hear of the word
pioneer?
You forgot to mention Stanley Clark. He worked with McCartney and was
very excited to have done so.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pedr...@my-deja.com
ecmj...@aol.com (ECMJ5866) wrote:
> You've got to be kidding!!
> ALL MY LOVING
> DAY TRIPPER
> RAIN
> MICHELLE
> YOU WON'T SEE ME
> DON'T LET ME DOWN
> SOMETHING
> GETTING BETTER
> A DAY IN THE LIFE
> PENNY LANE
> BABY YOU'RE A RICH MAN
> HEY BULLDOG
> LIL' HELP FROM MY FRIENDS
> GETTING BETTER
> (THE WHOLE PEPPER ALBUM)
> Holy cow man, what planet do you live on???
All of Rubber Soul and Revolver. Did anybody mention Taxman?
It's worth pointing out that Jaco mentions McCartney in his
instructional video as being a great influence on him.
McCartney 'composed' some wonderful basslines throughout his career.
His basslines were not designed to 'impress' but only to serve the
music. His bass playing was melodic and unexpected in much the same way
as Jamerson. Yet his playing never gets in the way of the song. As I
think about all the great Beatles songs, it's hard to imagine them with
any other bassline.
pedr...@my-deja.com
> beautiful melody on A Remark you Made?
If memory serves, that melody was composed by Zawinal but anyway,
please continue.
pedr...@my-deja.com
> >Date: 2/3/00 11:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <20000203233634...@ng-bg1.aol.com>
> >
> >>If you're looking to compare him to others strictly on a chops
basis, fine,
> >>he's no Vic Wooten
> >
> >Plus Vic's compositions are so obviously from the heart and soul of
that man.
> >
> >Tell me The Vision or his rendition of Overjoyed is not beautiful?
Jaco's
> >beautiful melody on A Remark you Made? Manring's the Book of Living
and
> >Dying.
> > Pattituci's entire repertoire. All guys with monster chops but
above all
> >monster soul. All leagues beyond Mac.
>
> Like I said, some will get it and some won't. Why do you continue to
think that
> it is only about speed and dexterity. Hey, I think I can answer my own
> question, more than likely, to you, it is. Do you have any examples
of a
> bassist without monster chops with monster soul?
> Maybe you're mistaking "skill" with "soul". Maybe I'm wrong...
>
> Did Vic's version of "Overjoyed" come from the heart... how would I
know?
> Stevie wrote it, I know it came from his. It's a song about one of
Stevie's
> children. Is Vic's version beautiful? Is "Blackbird"? I've played
lots of
> pretty covers that didn't mean a thing to me, they were just pretty.
I have no
> idea what it meant to Vic.
>
> If you think all of McCartney's (and Lennon's) work was done in a
sweat shop,
> Brill Building type environment, maybe there was no heart. Is the
problem the
> fact that he wasn't a bass soloist. everyone you mentioned is. It
wasn't Paul
> McCartney and the Beatles, it was the Beatles.
>
> Ever listen to Tony Levin?
> The funny thing about McCartney is, he probably had some influence on
everyone
> you've mentioned. What do they know that you don't? ;^) Then again,
maybe he
> was just a run-of-the-mill bass player. Sometime, if you get a
chance, you
> might want to check out the roots of the players you admire, it can
be pretty
> interesting. None of them came to be in a vacuum. Especially
the "best" ones.
>
> I tried. Have fun,
I was going to say something but I couldn't have said it anywhere as
good as you just did. Thanks Brad.
> Brad
pedr...@my-deja.com
Mark Timmings <mtim...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <20000204111622...@ng-fv1.aol.com>, Skokiaan
> <skok...@aol.comx> writes
> ><No seriously, of course people were influenced by the Beatles (not
> >McCartney himself, necessarily), they weren't that different from
many
> >other British groups of the time> (Mark Timmings
> >mtim...@neatsoft.demon.co.uk)
> >
> >There's a ridiculous statement if I've ever read one! What made them
> >successful was that they were SO different than everybody else. They
were
> >quickly followed by a ton of bands that tried to copy them, many
cashing in on
> >their success.
>
> Oh, of course, what can I say - you're obviously so correct and I'm
> obviously so wrong (sarc.) :-).
>
> There were numerous bands of a similar nature around those times in
the
> UK, the thing is this band was the biggest and (possibly) best.
>
> Sorry, I'm not a historian but their success was not necessarily based
> upon them being SO different - they stole many things from many genres
> and made it their style. This is fine - most (probably all) music
comes
> about in such a way, but they certainly were not SO different. And
yes,
> this is an opinion, you have ever right to disagree. Maybe you find
them
> to be something more than I do - that's fine but not every one *must*
> have the same opinion about them.
>
> Are your seriously trying to say that BB (Before Beatles) there was no
> UK pop scene playing pop songs with people "twisting and shouting" and
> after the Beatles they all appeared. Unless you can seriously quote
> dates when every group of the time was formed how can you prove such a
> statement.
>
> >Big difference between the Beatles and Freddie and the Dreamers,
don't ya
> >think?
>
> Yes, like the difference between Van Halen, Bon Jovi etc. They're part
> of a genre. Of course each is different and you'll note I didn't say
> they were "no different" or "they were all the same" I suggested they
> were not *that different*. Maybe they came first, maybe they didn't.
> Certainly they opened doors and were influential to others and were
very
> successful. I'm not disputing that (as I think I've also made
abundantly
> clear) - I certainly am disputing their musicianship and in particular
> McCartney's bass playing, if we are (as we were) talking about their
> musical capabilities.
>
> ><Simple, they were white, clean cut (at the
> >the likes of the Rolling Stones played a raw interpretation of black
> >music, looked like hell and you wouldn't want your daughter going to
one
> >of their concerts.>
> >
> >This implies that the Stones, being the opposite oif the Beatles,
were not
> >successful, which we all know isn't true. You're forgeting that the
Stones wore
> >suits and Beatle haircuts in the mid-60's. I doubt many parents of
the time
> >knew the difference.
>
> Please feel free to twist my words, why don't you ? Are you
insinuating
> that the Stones were the same as the Beatles. I hope not. They were
> chalk and cheese. Certainly I've seen footage of the Stones in suits
but
> they never looked anything like the Beatles or sounded anything like
> them. Or are you about to suggest they sound *like* Freddie and the
> dreamers :-)
>
> >Numerous examples have been given to the contrary. Just because you
don't like
> >it doesn't mean he didn't accomplish anything on the instrument. He
did.
> >"Something" is a great example. Very unconventional playing. Most
bass players
> >would have played something much more basic to fit into this slow
ballad. When
> >this song is covered by others, the bassists always simplify the
part, even
> >when they're backing up George Harrison himself.
>
> Examples ? Not a single example has been shown to me that McCartney
was
> anything but average. I've heard numerous Beatles songs and loved some
> of their stuff but I still don't rate McCartney as anything more than
> average. Of all the songs that I like not a single one made me think,
> wow great bass (in fact I cannot remember any specific bass parts).
This
> is all about opinions, mine is no less valid than yours.
>
> You might like to again note I never said he didn't accomplish
anything
> (but what's that to do with being either good or otherwise) I never
said
> the Beatles were bad, I just said I thought McCartney was overrated.
>
> What are you comparing McCartney's work to - compared to James
Jamerson
> he was a novice. He was probably as good as Jet Harris and was
destroyed
> when Jack Bruce and Entwistle came along.
Not at all. I can remember still being fascinated with McCartney's
playing long after I became a Jack Bruce fanatic. (Same for
Entwhistle). And if memory serves, Paul McCartney was still being voted
top bassist in Playboy and other polls of the time.
>
> For what it's worth, I've read interviews with McCartney where he
admits
> stealing bass lines almost note for not and especially taking styles
> from the likes of Jamerson and Brian Wilson (I think his name is from
> the Beach Boys). So was he that different ?
McCartney admits to being influenced by Jamerson (who wasn't?), as for
Brian Wilson, I sincerely doubt he was influenced by Wilson's bass
playing. Brian was a creative genius but hardly much of a bass player.
Most of the session work in the later day (Pet Sounds,etc) was the work
of studio great Carole Kaye. He (McCartney) may have been influenced by
her as well. The fact that he was influenced by others doesn't diminish
(in my eyes) his abilities or greatness.
>
> Look, let's get this straight. I'm, not knocking the Beatles, hell I
> like some of their stuff, I have already said they were influential
(to
> others not me personally). I don't think they were anything
> revolutionary and this is my opinion. I'm not saying McCartney was a
bad
> bassist, just overrated when compared to others of the period.
You've named Jamerson but who else?
For what
> it's worth, as a songwriter in the Beatles I regard him highly,
although
> I still don't feel the Beatles music was that different.
>
> Fortunately we all have differing points of view. However,
unfortunately
> some of us treat alternative views as heresy as I saw during a recent
> Jaco Pastorius thread and it seems within this thread.
We agree on this. You and all of us are entitled to our opinions.