neilp

Or beautiful, depending on context.....a bit of subtle sharpening of a leading note, for example, can make the resolution onto the tonic seem like Paradise found, rather than just the obvious last chord of a piece.

That's exactly right, and is the reason we got the idea that certain keys have certain identifiable characters. In fact, on an equally tempered keyboard, there is no difference in character, only in pitch, whereas in just temperament, for example, there are identifiable differences

1) I totally agree, but the modern use of autotune (or Melodyne or whatever) is over-corrective and does correct even slight variations. Good musician CHOOSE how to tune each note, and removing that removes the humanity, just as editing to the grid kills the groove 2) True, but again, good musicians make choices, and unless you can play in tune (or sing in tune) to start with, you can't make the choices, because you don't have enough control 3) Same thing applies. When I play Baroque or Classical music, depending on what the conductor or Director wants, certain intervals will be played wider or narrower than you would hear on a piano or a guitar fretboard. Again, this is "in tune". It's about control, and awareness and intention, and the existence of Autotune etc seems to lead some producers and performers to believe that that level of skill is not required any more, when in fact that level of skill is what makes great music so musical. IMHO.... Apologies for the tardiness of my comment, I was busy playing music....

I work in symphony orchestras, chamber music groups, rock bands, blues bands, soul bands and a folk trio. Out of tune is out of tune. Other technical considerations vary, I grant you, but tuning is not optional

I agree there is more to being a singer than good intonation, but there is a simple fact: If you can't sing in tune, you can't call yourself a singer. The other issue is the question of the odd slightly "pitchy" note. We accept those in live performances, and before pitch correction was available we accepted it in the studio for the sake of an otherwise gripping performance. Has it made anything "better"? Not in my opinion, any more than perfectly aligned drums and bass, with all the transients bang on the grid has. this stuff may be great for some forms of "music", but the more you remove the human element, the less musical it seems to me. Mind you, I'm one of the idiots who doesn't believe you should copy Ronnie Lane's mistakes, just because they are on the record, so what do I know!?

Best or favourite? Best at what? My favourite guitarists, in no particular order: Jimmy Page Jeff Beck Robin Trower Peter Green Wilko Johnson Jimi Hendrix Eddie Van Halen What does it mean? Sod all. Enjoy what you like and don't try to establish absolutes

There were three other musicians in the Beatles, or did that pass you by? McCartney on his own is exposed as the mediocre talent he is, in my opinion

I'm not sure you need to see how I can love the Beatles. The fact is I do, but I don't love McCartney or particularly value his contribution to the Beatles. I'm pretty sure I'm permitted to express that opinion. I'm certainly not telling you what to think. If you like what he does, fine. I don't like it. I find him insincere and self-obsessed. Hey ho, the world goes on and nobody much cares what either of us thinks....

You didn't read the rest. I love the Beatles. I was joining in a discussion about whether Paul McCartney was under appreciated. The Beatles I absolutely "get". McCartney? Nope. No contempt involved, but I don't find him a likeable person, and I don't particularly like his musical output. My view, I'm not demanding that you should agree, so why would it upset you that I express my view?

I must admit, a gobby taxi driver would get little or no tip from me, record time or not, but I have a less transactional view of the world than most. I'm not interested in how popular and lauded McCartney is, but if YOU want to tell me what you find exciting and moving about his music, I'm all ears. This is all totally subjective and entirely a matter of taste. The fact that he made a huge bucketload of money means absolutely nothing to me. The fact that he's a git is more relevant. I've met him several times and observed him consistently being gittish to me and other people he regarded as insignificant.

See, here's the thing. You say all that as if it were incontrovertible fact. Granted he's been hugely successful over 5 decades, and he's a prolific songwriter. The rest though, I totally disagree with (apart from the arrogance, that is true. I have met him and he's a git). The world would not miss a single one of his songs, in my opinion. He's a good bassist, but no more than that. He bores me, to be honest

For the record, I don't hate the Beatles. In fact I love the Beatles. I just don't particularly like Paul McCartney as a bass player, singer or songwriter

Mozart? Flatpack ear candy for the masses. I said I don't like what McCartney produced. I would agree he's a talented musician, but his output strikes me as mostly trite, twee, obvious doggerel. People who don't know stuff will disagree with me, but I'm used to it.

In my opinion, he's an OK bass player, pianist and guitarist, whose songwriting is at best trite and at worst complete drivel, and who has survived for his entire career on a reputation that he never really deserved. Perhaps this should be part of the Emperor's New Clothes thread?

I like Paul McCartney's bass playing, but do I love it? No. His song writing is mediocre at best, especially without the rest of the Beatles, and his bass playing is rhythmically quite interesting, but I can't get wildly excited about it

Just to illustrate my point, there was a thread in Another Place discussing the "classic Rickenbacker" tone on a particular record. Now I would think, given how much everyone goes on about different tones of different basses, that everyone could spot a Rickenbacker in a mix, but it turns out we hear what we expect to hear, and the record in question was recorded with a P bass! Play what you enjoy, without apology.

Emperor's New Clothes? Absolutely. The differences in tone are pretty minute. The differences in feel are there, but are they worth the money? only you can say. In a recorded or live context, nobody will ever hear the difference between a decent Squier Jazz and a genuine '62 Fender, because the difference is tiny. If owning the 62 gets your motor running and you can afford it, go to it and good luck. There's no right or wrong

If anyone is interested to try Kaplans, I've just put a set of Lights on the Marketplace

When people ask this question, John Paul Jones is always the first name I think of, but that's because his playing was what grabbed me and made me a bassist all those years ago in the 70s. If you want an example of what the bass player CAN contribute to a band, look no further than Ramble On or The Lemon Song

On decent quality gear it's normally Neoprene. If you're making your own gear, it might be worth getting in touch with the local sailing/canoe/wild swimming club, see if you can pick up a wetsuit or two cheap. Lots of wetsuits these days have a fabric facing on the neoprene, which stops the foam disintegrating or sticking to the finish of the guitar. High performance dinghy sailors also use a thing called Progrip, which comes in varying thicknesses and is also pretty durable and inert

BOILED snake oil

Flexocor Original come close, but the Kaplans are much more enjoyable to play than Belcantos, which in my opinion are decent, but unexciting in every way

While I was Chairman of my local orchestra, I had a hand in commissioning a concerto for percussion and orchestra from a wonderful guy named Adriano Adewale. One of the vernacular instruments he used was the Berimbau. I loved it and still do