saturn Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Not trying to start a fight but... I don't know how anyone who plays an instrument or calls themself a musician can deny the brilliance of the Beatles. Even if you're not a fan of the songs, as an objective listener, can you honestly say you could have come up with better chords, melody, harmonies and bass lines? Headphones recommended... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX9Krm6gg8A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Paul can't play bass????????????????!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Well.... From my perspective the Beatles arrangements/recordings were very well done - but not necessarily the most technically complex, just very nice and tight. That, in a sense, is to me what made them quite good over and above any technical skill or whatever. The vocal harmonies also are a good example of that. It's been said that playing together for quite a while and during some really long periods of "seasoning" added to that "tight" sort of capability. Also remember that when they were in their growing era as kids, there was a lot of musicality in the pop tunes of the era whether "rock" or not. They offered that sort of thing even in wilder "covers" like "Twist and Shout." The Brits of the era still had a lot of the music hall tradition too, as I understand it. Meanwhile in the US at that time period there was an explosion of experimentation that was far more broad in ways than the experience of the Brits. Our "Country," "Soul" (or R&B, whatever), a growing folk movement and the emerging "rock" genre were developing increasingly interesting material along with what one might call "mainstream pop." There was a huge transition from big band swing to smaller combos and/or more orchestral sorts of gamesmanship in the recording studio. So in a sense, the Brit bands had a bit of an easier time of it. It's also, one might note, when the electric guitar and variations (bass, pedal steel) were coming to be a major focus in the combo scene in live entertainment. Also, to get a "Gibson" tack on this, the fact that so many guitar concepts from that era remain among today's best sellers should say something. Just the 335, LP and SG have more folks copying the concept than the original designers might ever have imagined. I did a recent newspaper column praising the fact that we have two very good new car dealers here in town and I hope neither is cut by the big national corporations on grounds that the local competition offers a wide range of product that benefits the local economy. Expanding that to a national electric guitar marketplace, consider the fact that there was some interesting competition among a couple of U.S. makers that helped increase the market and the quality of product designs - and I can't imagine a world without an ES175 or equivalent having become a classic. Back to bass players, the 50s and 60s were musically interesting times that brought great change in musical styles. I'd still say the arrangements were their strength, although Beatles musicianship wasn't bad at all. But for real technical virtuosity, I'll still take people like Milt Hinton and Carol Kaye in terms of great ability at a number of styles. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Well, in all seriousness...in his style, and that of The Beatles, and even "Rock" in general...McCartney is a great Bass player. Which is not to take anything away from Carol Kay, Milt Hinton, Jacko, or any other "greats," Rock, Jazz, Fusion, whatever! But, for someone to have (allegedly) said McCartney couldn't play bass, is just absurd/rediculous...IMHO, as always. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepblue Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 but not necessarily the most technically complex, just very nice and tight. Pretty good for a 4 track console. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notes_Norton Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I've always liked the bass lines in the middle-to-late Beatles recordings. But I guess that's personal taste. Notes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturn Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 As always, Milod makes many great points. I agree that technical wizardry wasn't their strong point. But IMO their subtle use of timing, melody and harmony are what makse them such good musicians, not to mention more great songs than about any other rock band of their day and up to modern times. What other band has so many widely recognisable songs that it's almost impossible to list them all off the top of your head? And CB, yes someone did make a comment in some other thread a few weeks ago to the effect the Paul couldn't play his way out of a wet paper bag and then some more people gave it a "+1" or something similar :- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Paul is a great musician a sound bass player for sure. With the exception of British bands like Pink Floyd, Queen and Led Zeppelin, I don't think many other bands have that kind of versatility and volune of quality music. I love the Beach Boys too, and had the honour of meeting Brian Wilson some years back in London. However the genius of their work is quite a short period when compared to the ever evolving Beatles. The best song writing band in the universe in my opinion! Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L5Larry Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 It's quite obvious in McCartney's bass playing that he started out as a guitar player, but he makes it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I agree Milod. I think the black African Amercians helped forge the soul, pop and R and B in America, not to mention their huge contribution to rock with the raising profile of blues. Meanwhile in Britain the quantity of Blacks in our population were relatively small. I think The Beatles drew a lot from Classical music, which of course for hundreds of years had been and still is a part of European (and now American) culture. I actually think racially the black man is responsible for well over half of all what today we call popular music. Long live music the true giant melting pot of cultures! Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 ... The neat thing about the Beatles was the song concept and arrangement that fit the people playing it. Laugh if you will, but I always thought they were actually more an evolutionary than revolutionary sound than, let's say, the Rolling Stones. The musicality and "tight" playing is why. The more "raw" sound of the Stones was much less musical per se. That's not a value judgment. But when I talk about arrangements, I think of some 20s and 30s songs that were top-sellers, but later covers had much, much more sophisticated arrangements. Larry Clinton's "Deep Purple" for example went to #1, but if you compare it with Arty Shaw's or other arrangements that came later, even the horrid "rock" version in the late '50s or early '60s (I don't remember offhand), today's "ear" will prefer the more tight and "thick" arrangement. The Beatles were raised musically in an era of those more complex arrangements, don't forget. The Stones were too, but their "thing" was to be something else than a tightly-structured combo. When it appears they tried, it didn't seem to work nearly as well as what was in their heads. Yeah, the bass lines in Beatles stuff wasn't "featured," but in a sense, neither were the lead guitar lines. We seldom hear about what a wonderful super-guitarist Harrison was, as opposed to how good the band was as a whole. That's not an insult, just an observation of bands that do, and some that don't have the ability to have the group be far more than a sum of the individual musicians. Again, it's a matter of musical intent by the Beatles as composers, arrangers and as a coherent performance group rather than virtuosity per se. Ditto older music: Note that there still are musicians out there going under the name of the 30s-40s era bandleaders because they're duplicating the sound and have the right to the trademark. A real Beatle "clone" purchasing the "Beatle" trademark might do quite well - but again not necessarily because there is a super bass player or super lead player or drummer, but rather because of the overall sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notes_Norton Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 <...> I'll still take people like Milt Hinton and Carol Kaye in terms of great ability at a number of styles. m When I was playing bass, Carol Kaye was my bass idol - I don't play bass anymore, but she still is number one to me. It doesn't get much better than that. Notes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notes_Norton Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 <...>Yeah' date=' the bass lines in Beatles stuff wasn't "featured," but in a sense, neither were the lead guitar lines. We seldom hear about what a wonderful super-guitarist Harrison was, as opposed to how good the band was as a whole. That's not an insult, just an observation of bands that do, and some that don't have the ability to have the group be far more than a sum of the individual musicians. <...>[/quote'] When playing in a band, it takes taste and musicianship to use your skills and talent to make the entire thing work, and not necessarily to simply showcase yourself. Each instrument and voice (also an instrument) has it's part to play, and each musician must support the entire sound in the best way possible. Sometimes that puts the musician in a background part, and sometimes in a showcase part, it is important to know the difference between the two. Although I don't like all of the Beatles' output, I like the majority of it, and most of what I like, I do like quite a bit. The Abbey Road Medley, A Day In The Life, Eleanor Rigby, I Am The Walrus and quite a few others were really stellar arrangements. Personally, I think George Martin might have had a hand in that. Also, I think it is very unfair to judge a musician by his pop music output. I've played sax longer than I've played guitar. Ever since the 1960s, sax players have been cursed with that gawd-awful Yakety Sax song, by Boots Randolph. Once you get the fingerings down, it's simply boring. Pure kitsch along with most of what he recorded on his own albums. Before Kenny G he was the sax player that sax players love to hate. Hearing him on other people's recordings is another thing. This guy was a monster!!! He recorded one of the best 24 bar blues solos on Elvis Presley's "Reconsider Baby" ever done on saxophone. He played Jazz with Richie Cole. If you didn't hear his other stuff, you would have thought he was mediocre. Others would say he "sold out". I say there is nothing wrong with selling out. We need a job to make a living. And a bad day playing music, even commercial music, beats a good day at any other job I can think of. So please don't be so quick to judge somebody by the output of his/her commercial music. Insights and incites by Notes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Harrison wasn't a flamboyant player...but, "The Quiet Beatle (HA!)," did exactly what the song(s) reguired or needed. Some wonderful, and classic "hooks," and phrases. I think they WERE innovative, technically...in use of chords, arrangements, and finding new "sounds," whether it was from their instruments, or "electronic" or recording tricks, techniques. It's hard to realize just how much so, in this age of loops, and computer generated stylings, but they did a lot of innovative things, to the point of exhausting George Martin, in the process. LOL! And, as their music evolved, so did their playing. George became an excellent slide player, as well as standard guitarist. Paul's bass lines are legendary, simple or complex. Were they the greatest players ever?? What, does that even mean, really? CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 well...i think that he can (could) play bass better tha McCartney http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJfiYdQcQtc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepblue Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 George Martin said his only regret looking back on the Beatle years, was that he should have paid more attention to George Harrisons music. I love Harrisons music, a true quiet master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicked1 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Off topic thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djroge1 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I think the Beatles were synergy in action. That is their sum is greater than their individual parts. I'm not saying they were not talented, but that their individual parts in the song were fairly simple by themsleves but as a whole they sounded great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I think the Beatles were synergy in action. That is their sum is greater than their individual parts. I'm not saying they were not talented' date=' but that their individual parts in the song were fairly simple by themsleves but as a whole they sounded great.[/quote'] That's true, to a point. But, remember...a lot of the Beatles music WAS individual...where the other's were almost like "side men" or "studio musicians," for whichever individual had written the song. So, they were pretty talented, even at an individual level. I DO think, they were really great, at helping one another realize their potential, and final musical goal, song wise...both instrumentally, and vocally. So yeah, that kind of synergy was a big factor, no doubt about it. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxson50 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 It seems to me that rock and roll had two phases. Pre Beatles and Post Beatles. If you aren't old enough to have witnessed the transition you wouldn't understand. One day we were listening to Doo Woop and Surf music, and Frank Sinatra. The coolest thing around was Ray Charles, then one Sunday night these four guy's were on Ed Sullivan and everything changed. Paul's approach to bass was to play the melody not the root notes, something common today, but not so much before the Beatles. John hammered the rhythm and syncopated the beat with Ringo. George's approach to lead was very fluid, tying everything together. Not many artist can lay claim to producing ground breaking records. Led Zeppelin's first release was ground breaking. Cream and Blind Faith, Pink Floyd and The Band can claim one each. Bob Dylan had songs that imprinted on our culture and spoke to us all. I'd say the Beatles can lay claim to more then any other band. Revolver, The White Album, and Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abby Road were absolutely ground breaking works. The song A Day In The Life is in my opinion their greatest collective work. Recently someone on this forum wrote that Paul was irrelevant because he hadn't had a legit hit in years. Does that mean that Gershwin is irrelevant? Is Bach irrelevant? Bethoven? John Steinbeck hasn't written any books lately, is he also irrelevant? 500 years from now, the Beatles music will be remembered, so I guess irrelevant is in the eye of the observer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 And...don't forget "Rubber Soul!" That was their departure album, from the "Fab Four," era. I remember the first time I heard it, the day it was released! Amazing!!! A Sitar...and Fuzz Bass! LOL! Great!!! Even the cover photo was an "artsy" departure, from the standard fare, at the time. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 It seems to me that rock and roll had two phases. Pre Beatles and Post Beatles. If you aren't old enough to have witnessed the transition you wouldn't understand. One day we were listening to Doo Woop and Surf music' date=' and Frank Sinatra. The coolest thing around was Ray Charles, then one Sunday night these four guy's were on Ed Sullivan and everything changed. Paul's approach to bass was to play the melody not the root notes, something common today, but not so much before the Beatles. John hammered the rhythm and syncopated the beat with Ringo. George's approach to lead was very fluid, tying everything together. Not many artist can lay claim to producing ground breaking records. Led Zeppelin's first release was ground breaking. Cream and Blind Faith, Pink Floyd and The Band can claim one each. Bob Dylan had songs that imprinted on our culture and spoke to us all. I'd say the Beatles can lay claim to more then any other band. Revolver, The White Album, and Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abby Road were absolutely ground breaking works. The song A Day In The Life is in my opinion their greatest collective work. Recently someone on this forum wrote that Paul was irrelevant because he hadn't had a legit hit in years. Does that mean that Gershwin is irrelevant? Is Bach irrelevant? Bethoven? John Steinbeck hasn't written any books lately, is he also irrelevant? 500 years from now, the Beatles music will be remembered, so I guess irrelevant is in the eye of the observer. [/quote'] Jax, I couldn't have said it better myself brother. It was like the scene in the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy's house lands and she opens the door and suddenly everything was in color. That Sunday night was rock and rolls moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturn Posted June 14, 2009 Author Share Posted June 14, 2009 So what do yall think of the bass line in the OP link(Something)? That's one of those songs I always liked but never really listened closely to it until yesterday when I was listening through headphones. I was like "wow that is some awsome bass lines in there". Yeah just like that BTW, if you are a Beatles fan you'll love this link. http://www.beatlestube.net/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxson50 Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 How could I have over looked Rubber Soul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.