mikel

For me music is an art, so there is no such thing as greatest or best, its subjective. Favorite would be a better tag. For me Gilmour is the most emotional and expressive.

23 minutes ago, EssentialTension said:

or The Beatles, or McCartney individually, or Ringo's drumming.

And, as you see, it still starts an argument.

16 hours ago, TheGreek said:

He's right you know...

Puff the magic dragon lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called Honah Lee

However if you like a tipple...

https://www.honahleevineyard.com/

Yep, its between Alderon and Mordor.

Classic Rock? Late 60s and the 70s. The rest is a pale copy, mostly over produced, formulaic and derivative.

My favourite would have been a more realistic post title. For me, probably Clapton.

20 hours ago, MartinB said:

Let's not get hung up on the word "wrong", eh? @Cliff Edge's goal was to play it like the original recording, but they accidentally played something  else. That doesn't imply any judgement of folks who set out to play something different.

Anyway. Can anyone think of any songs where the original bassline is so fundamental, simple, well-known etc. that you really couldn't stray from it without getting funny looks? Another One Bites The Dust maybe? Feels like it's so minimal that a drastic re-interpretation of the song would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

All Right Now is probably in that category, but for all the instruments. Fairly easy to play but very difficult to get the feel just right. I think a lot of us are frightened by space in music and Free just loved space and minimalism.

3 minutes ago, neilp said:

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

That's better, a reasoned argument. Ok you dont like him, but I stand by my argument. Lots of the Beatles songs were Lennon McCartney collaboration, either sitting face to face and swapping chords and lines or adding hooks or middle eights to each others songs. Without that the Beatles would not have been the phenomenon they were. A band is the sum of its parts.

I always wondered about that. Its the whole bass, amp, cab that gives the sound you like, so why bypass the speaker? Most guitarists would not stand for that.

3 hours ago, neilp said:

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....

I didnt even hint you should not have an opinion, or what to think, I was simply intrigued by your reasoning.

2 hours ago, dmccombe7 said:

I care. I'm a nice person. 😀

Dave

Ahhh, thanks Dave. A true gent.

9 hours ago, neilp said:

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?

Upset me? Hardly. I believe you said "The World would not miss one of his songs", sounds contemptuous to me. As he was probably responsible for about half the Beatles output I don't see how you can love them.

On 02/04/2021 at 11:12, neilp said:

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

It always makes me wonder why people who profess to dismiss the Beatles and all their music will happily trawl through page after page of a thread merely to state their contempt. I have no time for many musical acts so I ignore any reference to them. Its much easier. There again modern music would be nothing like it is now without the fab four, so perhaps that rankles with some if they dont "get it".

20 hours ago, BigRedX said:

Is this base on a source you know - i.e. one of your own recordings - or on recordings that you happen to own on both vinyl and CD? In the later case unfortunately there is no real way of telling whether the various formats have actually been produced from the correct master version. 

Also IME "heft" is generally caused by distortion. Vinyl is very good at adding extra distortion to the signal, but it's not what the makers of the record intended you to hear.

Of course its based on recordings of same material on vinyl and CD. As I said, "to my ears". I think there are a lot of bassists on here who would disagree with your take on heft. Distortion can still be thin, like the difference between a valve amp with the master on full, and a distortion pedal through headphones.

On 30/03/2021 at 17:38, Monkey Steve said:

I have to say, I've wondered the same thing - it's stated like it's a thing, but if it was that good wouldn't everybody do it?

I do agree that vinyl which has been specifically mastered for vinyl sounds better, to my ears at least - the Nine Inch Nails vinyl remasters sound stunning, as do the Steve Wilson Jethro Tull remasters on vinyl, but as a rule of thumb CDs always sound better (but vinyl has an X factor that makes it more of a pleasure to actually play)

That said, "better" is subjective - I was playing a mate a vinyl copy of his band's last album which he'd never heard because he doesn't own a turntable, and he could hear differences to the CD and digital files, and he preferred the vinyl - a slightly warmer sound to some of the sharper guitar parts

My ears give me the opposite. CDs sound thin compared to Vinyl that sounds richer and has more "Heft". Ha.

I dont care how many records the Beatles shifted, this is about McCartney's bass playing. Do keep up. If we were talking sales you have to take into consideration how short the Beatles recording history was. The sheer number of songs they wrote, and the diversity of the music they came up with, in such a short space of time, makes them incomparable.

19 hours ago, TheLowDown said:

Not trolling at all. I shouldn't have to feel like I have to mindlessly agree with what's seen as popular opinion for fear of not falling in line, like the emperor's new clothes. I'm entitled to think for myself and have my own opinion. I hope that's allowed.

The 5 of them were a chance coming together of the right people with the right management at the right time. Without GM's motivation and creative direction and input, they would have been 4 ordinary lads winging it on instruments that they could barely play.

 Some of their interviews were quite illuminating, such as this one with Lennon

 

Barely play? By the time they began recording they had gone through the Hamburg learning curve, gigs so long and intense they were as tight as a very tight thing and could play and harmonise without being able to hear each other. Self taught does not equal barely able to play.

9 hours ago, TheLowDown said:

Not trolling at all. I shouldn't have to feel like I have to mindlessly agree with what's seen as popular opinion for fear of not falling in line, like the emperor's new clothes. I'm entitled to think for myself and have my own opinion. I hope that's allowed.

The 5 of them were a chance coming together of the right people with the right management at the right time. Without GM's motivation and creative direction and input, they would have been 4 ordinary lads winging it on instruments that they could barely play.

 Some of their interviews were quite illuminating, such as this one with Lennon

 

The vast majority of bands in the 60s and early 70s were winging it. There was no blueprint for pop or rock as they were making it up. There was no right or wrong way simply your own way. Music lessons? Unless you were well off and wanted to play in an orchestra they were rarer than hens teeth. You cant judge the beginnings of rock music by todays technology or easily available instruction.

4 hours ago, ubit said:

All through my yoof, I was into rock and metal but even then I was blown away by the bass in the Madness songs. It was so prominent and he has such a great sound. It totally changed poor songs into masterpieces for me.

I worked with a bunch of young hairy bikers back in the late 70s early 80s. They were into Quo, the Stones, AC/DC, Motorhead.......and Madness.

1 hour ago, Crawford13 said:

I have been listening to The Beatles a lot recently, and it got me thinking, just how unappreciated Paul is to my generation (I'm 36). 

As a song writer he is massively revered, but as a bass player he is incredible. What he was playing in the 60's is just out of this world, and I rarely see him given much love for it. 

I'm wondering how this has come to be, any thoughts? 

Probably because the Beatles were insanely popular. I think some people regard popularity as un cool and its more street cred to admire more left field musicians. Just my take. Hence the number of people who brag about not liking the Beatles. There are a lot of bands I don't like but I don't make a point of stating the fact. Paul was a great bassist in my ears.

2 hours ago, TheLowDown said:

When i was young it was all rock rock rock and then new wave.  Now rock is probably the only genre that I rarely listen to.

 

It probably was the truth rather than a narrative. Floyd were like that too and could hardly play. . A lot of bands were like that and most of the bands and acts that we grew up loving were just average noodlers wanting to hit the big time. Music was more of a vehicle than anything else.

Agreed. Most musicians back in the day were self taught and making it up. Thats why it was so diverse and constantly changing.

19 hours ago, bassace said:

Good point, Owen. I’ve always said that expressing a preference means you miss things too.

Quite. There is music you like and music you dont like, genre and artist are immaterial. Back in the day I was into rock and prog, but there were songs by Mary Hopkin and Glen Campbell that I loved, and still do, because I thought they were great songs.

2 hours ago, taha_never said:

what's up BC?
just for the sake of a topic (I'm bored), to my hand and ears I hear more overtones w/ this gold anodized pg on my alder body maple fingerboard P-bass compared to my 3-ply black pg! just saying!

I imagine it's something that's barely noticeable in a mix. but solo it's there. not necessarily a brighter tone,  just a bit more ring and maybe sustain I can feel.
or is it just me? 🤔

Its just you.

On 22/01/2021 at 11:14, Mykesbass said:

I've been using Royal Mail and Parcelforce for non bass related stuff (also not insurable) and have found them as good, if not better, than a host of others, including UPS.

Another vote for Royal Mail Parcelforce. The only delivery service I have never had a problem with. Other couriers are available.

Vulfpeck? Sounds like  South African for Woolfpack.

11 hours ago, ezbass said:

Surely this thread is done now? There are two camps here, ‘wood makes a difference on solid bodied instruments’ and ‘wood doesn’t make an appreciable difference on solid bodied instruments’. No one is changing their mind and some folk are getting bent out of shape. Let’s agree to disagree and get on with some actual bass playing.

Rant over.

No. People are making valid points. If people cant take on board the difference between acoustic and solid body instruments then that is simply being obtuse.