Lowender

[quote name='Calridian' timestamp='1361129528' post='1981566'] I completely understand your comments. However, I have to admit that I do like it as my musical taste is so eclectic, which I'm sure is like that of many bass chat members. Even just this morning I used my four strings to play Mr Wonders ‘Sir Duke’ and quickly followed it with Pantera’s ‘Cowboys from Hell’ As I originally posted it wasn’t going to be to everyone taste. But you have to admire the technical ability. I also posted to the ‘Underrated bass players’ with a comment of “Sometimes isn't it just about locking it in..... Not about how flashy, or how many notes!” And I must wholeheartedly agree with Bert, and not just 'cos he has a great taste in basses..... Is it not diversity and appreciation of all styles which makes us all that bit better. [/quote] So who would you replace on the original list to include this guy? : )

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360947353' post='1978884'] I haven't heard many non-"celeb" bassists that did anything noteworthy (present company excepted of course Nige). I suppose if they did they would be heading towards being a celeb. [/quote] I don't think the world is waiting for bassists to play bass basslines and turn them into celerbrities.

[quote name='Calridian' timestamp='1361054805' post='1980560'] I'm sure the music style is not to everyones taste. Relaxed and effortless [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11V8cP4s51Q[/media] [/quote] That's the kind of stuff represents what's both good and bad about where the bass is going. It takes great skill and the guy is outstanding at it, but instead of it being a technique that is used on occasion, it BECOMES the music. It IS the music. And it's just licks. No melody, no groove, nothing of interest other than a few seconds of flash. It ultimately becomes like looking at the same magic trick over and over. There are a lot of guys doing this type of thing who can't play a blues. I respect the ability but I'd rather hear people making music with a bass.

Anybody and everybody who has ever played the right notes to a song can fit this category. And I think most of them have.

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1360934902' post='1978570'] So no one willing to jump in and claim that the Beatles output compositionally surpassed all the Motown output then? Interesting.... [/quote] I wasn't going to respond since the thread is now going in circles. It reminds me when a child keeps asking, why?why? why? to everything. Because that's the way it is! is the only answer left. Again, I think in most of the cases here the critics either don't get it musically, or they want to appear provocative. It's like being the guy at the party who doesn't think Katy Perry is hot. However, the comparison to Motown is frankly, unanalogous. Motown was a business machine. They hired the best writers, the best singers, the best performers, the best musicians etc. The Beatles were ALL of those things in a self contained unit. Also, the Beatles grew in terms of expanding musical territory and social commentary in the lyrics, whereas Motown was designed to be purely popular music. They both influenced a generation, but the Beatle compositions (certainly the later ones) have far more depth. As far as just "bass technique" yeah, Jamerson wins that one.

How do you know when ANYTHING is good? It's like trying to define "taste."

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1360881085' post='1977977'] No! The (f*** numerals) 2-5-1, a common jazz device, is ebm (2 from Db), 5 would be abmaj, but is subbed with a Dmaj (common 3rd and 7th) to Db (1 the root).And unlike what's 'good', this isn't subjective. If you've never come across this i suggest studying a little more. Thank you and Goodnight, I'm here all week! Try the veal! [/quote] Sorry for the confusion. Corrected it. Also, no need to be snotty bro. We're just talking. Okay, I think what you're missing is that the minor 2 would have to be contain a b5 to be a sub for the 5. ( D with a b5 which contains the Ab) D mag contains an A natural which is dissonant (a #5) to the key of Db. Sure, it's still a viable sub but one that most jazz musicians would consider clumsy. But the way it then treats that 2 chord as the "1" but going up to the Em is extremely clever. If you have any examples of that, feel free to pass them along.

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1360879532' post='1977942'] I'd say Jazz was popular music and there are quite a lot of examples of this in jazz. Popular music existed before the 1950's. Also people seem to act like songs weren't written before this period. It's commonly known they lifted chord sequences. Even macca admitted it. 'First of all, there's a difference between a major minor second chord (in this case a Dmaj) and a tritone sub for the 5'- describe this better it doesn't make sense. [/quote] Again, saying people did stuff LIKE this is not quite the same. I've studied and played quite a bit of jazz and never came across and intro verse with like that one, but of course, how "good" something is , is subjective. The minor ii would a sub for the V because it contains the V of the 1. (In this case the tonal center being Eb -- the Ab being the 5). But here, the ii chord is a D major -- no Ab, plus a dissonent A natural. That first part is actually a decepetive cadence because it shifts seamlessly up a half step to the key of D without any sense of modulating. It's fricking brilliant.

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1360873045' post='1977810'] It's not that extraordinary or impossible. First three chords are essentially a ll-V-l with a tritone substitution on the V. The 4th chord is the dominant of the home chord to start the sequence again on eb. Half do the ll-V-l then come out of it on a basic, tho altered, lV-minV-l. Which crops up loads in beatles tunes. [/quote] Mmmm, not quite. First of all, there's a difference between a major minor second chord (in this case a Dmaj) and a tritone sub for the 5. Secondly, just describing the chord sequence doesn't explain the abstract beauty and uniqueness of the melodic movement. Yeah, THEY did stuff like that in other tunes, but there aren't too many examples of that kind of movement anywhere else in popular music prior to their doing it.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360860068' post='1977574'] You really can't help yourself can you; you trolling waste of breathe? Unlike you, with your massive count of abusive posts, not just against me, but you're racking up quiet a count of them, you only need to read back this thread to see that; I was trying to clarify a serious part of the thread. I happen to have a massive music collection across all genres, apart from rap, I work in an associated area, quite often in the music industry itself. You're obviously too dim to know a serious question when you read one, so again, as in the past, the basis of your point is wrong. It's either that or you're just out to cause trouble - based on the number of your posts being provocative - I suspect the latter. [/quote] You're funny!

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1360859673' post='1977566'] Not that I'd dare to try putting a full stop at the end of this debate... But reading between the lines, I think much of this discussion is rooted in the term 'overrated' as applied to The Beatles - when in fact what people seem to be talking about is The Beatles being 'over-popularised'. I think most of us would agree that they were a hugely successful and influential band, and such success wouldn't have been sustained for so long without a genuine sense of authenticity and credibility to their music. What seems to rankle people (myself included, I must admit) is the way their success has been exploited to such a level that they have become ubiquitous - as a perpetual cash-cow for some; as a lazy cultural reference for others. In short: too much of a good thing can become a pain in the ass. And personally speaking, while I respect The Beatles and their music, they're just too 'obvious' and 'everywhere' for me to get truly excited about them. They give me a sense of "That's been done; the t-shirt bought and soiled". And I just find it all a bit too retrospective for my tastes. But that's me. That's not meant to be disrespectful to the band or their music. I feel the same way about other classic cultural references, such as the work of Shakespeare. It deserves to be revered. And it will continue to be revered. But sometimes, I just get bored of people banging on about it. [/quote] Good point.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360858885' post='1977551'] *my edit. Better, happy now - carry on. Though no-one's taken me up on what other tracks I should find "stand out" on the albums of theirs that I have . [/quote] So funny that you like to call people trolls because their post count isn't high enough to your liking, yet you continue to ask provoking questions which you so obviously don't really want answered. If that isn't trolling of the worst kind I don't know what is. We get it. You don't like them and you don't want to. It makes you "different." Asking for an explanation to change your mind is like asking someone explain what made Einstein so smart or to expect someone to stop believing in Allah and start worshiping Buddha. Ain't gonna happen. It's an exercise in futility.

Everyone who understands music wilh any depth and education also understands that the introduction to "If I Fell" is an masterful musical impossibility . There's no way that movement cannot come off as clumsy, yet Lennon somehow makes it a brilliant melody. Anyone who thinks they can do that if they just had a good recording studio is hopelessly oblivious. But...carry on.

[quote name='Fat Rich' timestamp='1360846778' post='1977272'] This'll annoy some of you! Some interesting analysis of their music though: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKK0bCSIR4E[/media] [/quote] No amount of logic, evidence, expertise, facts, credentials or experienced insight can outweigh hipster indignance.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360787028' post='1976603'] Apart from your made up "fact" about Bach, you being more a troll than contributing or being unable to interpret dialogue. As you've already proved in your tantrum Jaco non-thread and subsequent replies, despite having it pointed out to you by other BCers, most of your almost-to-be-100 posts haven't been that helpful. [/quote] Nice try. Maybe if you're more indignant you can make your drivel sound less inane.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360770907' post='1976209'] Based on almost all of your posts so far you don't mind too much if I just have you down as a kid troll out to stir it do you? [/quote] Why not? You're wrong about everything else.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360767963' post='1976147'] Neither one way or the other tbh; I just fancied ropping in a "Citizen Smith" quote. I hear a lot being said of Geddy Lee too on here, when I listen to him I don't hear anything remarkable, which probabaly entitles me to a place against the wall too, nor do I with Macca or many other bassists. But my guess would be that any one of them would be preferred to be seen as one element of the sum of the parts. [/quote] I hate to admit it but I agree on Geddy. He can play. He 's good, but nothing particularly original or amazing. In other words, nothing Entwistle and Squire and their imitators hadn't already done. As for Mac -- this is what you're missing. It isn't his technical skill. Anybody playing for 2 years can play pretty much any of his bass lines. It's the COMPOSITIONAL skill. His ideas, voiceleading, phrasing, harmonic sense are all brilliant. Now if you don't get it, you don't get it and it can't be explained so you do. It's a little like the intro to Beethoven's 5th . It's one of the most powerful musical statements the world has ever known. But somebody can say, "Eh, it's only 4 notes. I CAN DO THAT."

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1360707557' post='1975301'] That doesn't really make much sense cocker. It's like some of the sh*t I see in the Daily Mail comments about the 'PC brigade eroding free speech'. Do you think you're the first to post a thread like that? We know what happens, people who should know better get into heated asinine exchanges just like the Beatles thread. NOTHING is learned by them. There are no penetrating questions, and no astute answers. It's 16 pages of f***ing drivel. If you want to ask a question like 'Was Jaco's music meaningless because he had a mental illness so it wasn't his mind anyway?' or some sh*t like that, please, by all means, do so. It's just as inflammatory but at least it will be interesting and educational. [/quote] I'm sorry. I did not realize you were the arbiter of all thread topics. I'll check with you first next time.

A thread about a non thread. LOL!

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1360698382' post='1975019'] Mate, pick your toys up and don't be a bell end. Your OP was deliberately inflammatory, and neither in an original or interesting way. There have been loads of threads like this and they don't ask or answer any interesting questions. [/quote]' Nonsense. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it inflammatory. It was meant to be a discussion/debate but I realize that puts some peoples shorts in a twist so I let it drop.

I thought it was an interesting topic -- how Jaco would splice his solos on recordings and how live, he could be less than stellar. It acknowledged his genius but brought up the point that everyone, even the greats, have their shortcomings. Unfortunately, a few members jumped on it as trolling, baiting, stirring up crap and what not and I just didn't want or need the animosity.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360690038' post='1974782'] Yeah OK sweetheart; any one that has so much difficulty understanding three words such as "serious question, honest" has serious problems of their own so as to be not worth giving credence to. Choob. [/quote] Apparently you misunderstood Nancy. I gave a serious answer, you just don't want to accept it, because that would mean admitting your foolishness.

Just thought I'd bring up a point about the subjectivity of music because, well, it's a discussion board. But some people are opposed to that so not to offend them, I removed the thread.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360677655' post='1974409'] Is that documented fact? From his contemporaries or shortly after - or something accepted by classical experts? As opposed to Beethoven, Strauss, Litsz, Wagner etc Serious question, honest. [/quote] Who do you want to "document" it that would satisfy you? Yes, it is accepted by classical experts. Every other composer you mentioned were influenced by Bach. Any other questions? Admit it -- you're try trying to be provocative now. If you don't understand the Beatles or Bach and their importance, that's fine. But don't pass off a lack of understanding as insight. It's just silly.

Bach has been the most influential musician of the last 400 years. Yet, you may not "like" his music. That doesn't mean he is overrated and thinking so is just ignorance and saying so is just posturing. Are we done now?