Lowender

Pick any artist, from any genre -- art, music literature, film -- [b][i]anyone [/i][/b]-- and one can argue that they're over-rated. It's meaningless. In the meantime, over 30 years after their demise, the Beatles continue to influence songwriters and musicians, their music is studied and played by musicians from all walks of life and their music continues to be sell in the millions. What else do you want?

Actually, it's been about 10 years now where the bass sound has gotten deeper and more compressed, thus losing definition. It is in part, technology "allowing" more low end and it's also, in part, [i]fashion[/i]. Sounds, like styles , change. In the 90's, vocals were drenched in reverb, then by the early 2000's vocals became very dry, now you hear more reverb again. It goes back and forth. I'm also once again, starting to hear punchier bass on some newer recordings. Especially the Nashville stuff. I think people are realizing, louder and lower and more "even" tone does not result in a better bass track. However, the PARTS must also fit the sound and that too has changed. Ever hear a remake of a cool Motown track? The bass is always a more simplified version -- most probably because anything busy and syncopated will not translate with all that monstrous low end the engineers like to use. And excessive compression, though providing "evenness" makes all the notes run together. It's a case of technology forcing how we play as opposed to serving what we play. It's the tail waging the dog. Perhaps a popular band will come along with a bass player with an "up-front_ tone and that'll influence everyone, but right now the guys who are innovative tend to be the metal players and they all either tune down or play in the "B string" register. Personally, I like a clear defined midrange sound at A: 440. I'd go as far to say that anything lower than a low E is needed a lot less often than most guys realize.

Okay, I'll take the opposite view. A wedding should be about the celebration of a union and a chance for friends and family to catch up and party. To put a halt to that so everyone can "look at what I do!" seems a tad tacky. So if you do -- one song. Say thank you. And let the band do their job. P.S. i was also asked if I would play and sing at my son's wedding to which my reply was "The day is not about me." Oh, and one other thing. That may be the only chance the most important people in your life hear you and they will be doing so under less than ideal conditions. Think about it.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1360612131' post='1973442'] Really? Do you have so little ambition and confidence in your abilities that you don't think you could have a go at producing a series of recordings as diverse and interesting as The Beatles? I'll not expect any of us the be as popular, because it's all subjective and anyway the importance of popular music is a fraction of what it used to be in the 60s. [/quote] Nice try. I'm not sure what your delusion has to do with me or what the Beatles greatness has to do with your delusion of my abilities. I will agree that given the opportunity there are a lot of people who could produce good music and who could be popular. (And deserve to be). But to suggest you could duplicate what the Beatles did if you had the same chance is like saying you could be as smart as Stephan Hawkings if you only had a better math teacher. It's so nuts you negate any valid point you may have had.

No video or tabs but the bass is pretty up front on this version. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AVLNMaSh4c

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1360589548' post='1972794'] But give me and 3 of my musically inclined friends virtually unlimited studio time in a state of the art facility. Give us a sympathetic producer and a team of engineers ready to pander to our every sonic whim. Feed us a diet of previously unheard music and the occasional mind-altering drugs, and then outside of the studio surround us with the cream of innovative artists spanning the whole spectrum of creative endeavour, and I'm sure that we could come up with a series of albums every bit as varied and interesting as anything the Beatles did. [/quote] Most delusional post ever.

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1360544741' post='1972233'] Do you mean musical innovation? I don't believe it exists. All music is creative in one way or another, so in order for it to be considered innovative, what would it be compared to? I'm not a marketing expert but have observed that innovation tends to be driven by breakthroughs in new technology. The architect Norman Foster has stayed on top of his game by engaging an engineer who was very precise in their calculations and was able to explore the tolerances of both old and new structures. Look at how the internet changed business. What about the impact of mobile phones on how we communicate (for those of us who remember a pre-mobile and pre-internet world). Hell...look at what happened with the electric guitar and music. Initially there's a huge rush to adopt the technology, followed by a scrabble for market share (he who dominates first, wins), followed by a process of consolidation whereby competitors are either bought out or squeezed out, then things start to stabilise until the next leap in technology. Gradually the leaps get smaller and smaller (like they have with the specifications of laptops) until the market goes a bit stale and companies have to find other ways to sustain interest...(like making something fashionable). [/quote] What new technology did Clapton use?

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1360538557' post='1972147'] I think The Pixies took a lot more harmonic risks than Nirvana ever did. [/quote] Yeah, and they sounded like risks. Cobain hit the mark.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1360529669' post='1971943'] No he wasn't. As I said in a previous post most of his ideas were nicked from bands like Killing Joke and The Pixies to name but two. [/quote] Don't agree. There's a little of the Pixies in there but his melodic movement was far more realized and there is absolutley nothing Killing Joke did that remotely resembles Nirvana. Sorry. That;'s like saying a Charlie Parker wasn;t an innovator because he listened to Lester Young.

As we get older we get more discriminating, all the time falling a bit more out ogf the pop culture loop. So it;'s natural. Then again, some eras of music are simply better than others. Look at the Billboard top 100 hits of 1969 and compare them to the top 100 hits of 1955 or 2005. It's pitiful.

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1360528966' post='1971918'] For producer Rick Rubin, surveying The Beatles’ recorded achievements is akin to witnessing a miracle. “If we look at it by today’s standards, whoever the most popular bands in the world are, they will typically put out an album every four years,” Rubin said in a 2009 radio series interview. “So, let’s say two albums as an eight year cycle.[b] And think of the growth or change between those two albums. [/b] The idea that The Beatles made thirteen albums in seven years and went through that arc of change... it can’t be done. Truthfully, I think of it as proof of God, because it’s beyond man’s ability.” Love that quote. [/quote] The Beatles are my favorite 3 bands. : )

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1360528790' post='1971915'] I don't see why music has to defined by the instruments that are being used to make it. Also the clip you posted doesn't really have anything new in it. There have been bands doing that kind of thing since the early 80s. [/quote] Agree. They sound like a thousand 80's bands. They just added some "noise sections." That's easy. Being innovative doens;t just mean doing something different -- it means doing something different and good.

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1360524029' post='1971775'] I liked Bleach but innovative? Would you say what Tom Morello did was not innovative? Less innovative than what Kurt Cobain did? The word loses its meaning the more you try to apply it to stuff. [/quote] Yes, Cobain was most certainly innovative. Not that he was a virtuoso but he had the uncanny knack of using clumsy chord chages to create incredable melodies. Only John Lennon was on par with that. (Think the intro verse to "If I Fell). He also defined a sound that overnight changed the landscape of popular music. That's saying something. He also sang his ass off.

EVERYBODY had influences, Coltrane, Miles, Ellington, Mozart, you name it. To say the Beatles were influenced by others in a non point. Meanwhile show me ONE example of a song structure ANYTHING like "She Loves You" prior to 1964. It doesn't exist.

How long has it been since a musician came along and changed everything? Someone who influence the way people playing the instument forever? All though musical history there have been innovators. In my lifetime, Hendrix did it, Jaco did it, Steve Gadd... who else? Some might say Michael Brecker but I always thought of him as a funky Coltrane on steroids. I don't hear too many bassist changing things like Stanley or Chris Squier. (Sorry, I don't see Victor as an innovator. He's also hardly known to the general public). Even as far as bands, in the 70's so many groups were changing the landscape of music. 1970 saw the first Zeppelin album, the first King Crimson album, the first Black Sabbath album. Stand up by Jethro Tull. What's Going on by Marvin Gaye. Right there, that's more good music than in the last 10 years. I think Kurt Cobain was the last "pop music" innovator. Amy Whinehouse was the only singer in years who everyone imitated. I can't think of one musician in the last 15 years who redefined the instrument. So...are we done? Is there nothing left to say, or more accurately, is everything too easily assessable to seem unique and revolutionary? Those who were considered god are now imitated by 16 year old kids playing in their living room. There will always be talent. But another Beatles, another, Buddy Rich, another Van Halen. Im thinking, maybe not. What do you say?

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1360486998' post='1970982'] For that reason. It s perfectly possible to 'know' about The Fab Four and their ubiquitousness without knowing every tune. I know about Dickens and Shakespeare but have only read 2 works by each of them. There is an argument that ALL superstars are overrated. [/quote] Not true at all. That would be like saying a saw a couple of early pencil sketches by Van Gogh so I don't t have to see anything else to get what he does. Or, I saw Michael Cain in Jaw2 and can't understand why people say he's such a good actor. It's opinion based on purposeful ignorance. If all i heard from Coltrane was "Transition" I'd think he was total B.S. Hell, even Beethoven wrote a few duds. The difference between Yellow Submarine and "She's Leaving Home" is the difference between Gone With The Wind and Meet The Fockers.

[quote name='bobbass4k' timestamp='1360466209' post='1970924'] I've got one playalong vid on youtube, recorded at the request of a potential band and only put on youtube as a convenient way of sharing it. I got a comment from a guy: "Stop showing off. No one cares." It surprised me mainly as the song is child's play compared to most of the show off pieces on youtube. The real kicker was I replied saying it was recorded for a band and he apologized and then deleted the comment. I just find it odd that some people judge this stuff entirely on motive, when really any musician who performs at all is showing off in a sense. [/quote] LOL. right, how DARE you play music in public!

[quote name='Stephen Houghton' timestamp='1360443774' post='1970660'] I for one have been inspired by some of the stuff i have seen on YouTube and have gained a lot of playing technique tips e.t.c. Scott Divine being a great example of this. You can be a sh.t hot bass player and not be in a band or play live, it isn't compulsory or a waste of time its a choice, one of the most amazing guitarists I have seen is on YouTube and isn't in a band at the moment, he does it for fun. My own experience is it is hard to find a group of people who, A) Get along B Aren't egotistical kn..heads C) Want to play the same style stuff D) Want to be a part of a musically tight unit working as one and not the solo kid The list goes on! If you can find the right people bands are cool and a great experience, if not they can be a nightmare and a complete waste of time and effort. Each to there own in my opinion if YouTube is your showcase fair enough, as long as you get a buzz from your playing where ever its done, bedroom, YouTube, local pub, 02 Arena. I have met a lot of session players over the years with great reading skills and can play anything put in front of them, but I have also met quite a few who have no real feel or vibe in there playing and without being told what to play, cant really jam with any real emotion. I await the mass attack for the last statement, but I have found it very common in your typical music degree type musician, not all by any means but in my experience quite a few. Each to there own, if you don't like it don't watch it [/quote] I think you're absolutely right -- about the variables of finding the right people (especially after age 25) and how some session guys are great at reading but can't groove with a band. Some guys on YT are good teachers but I find the ones doing something artistic more interesting. I've seen enough slap-masters to last a lifetime. I'm also pretty good at it myself and almost never use it, so it's hardly what I seek. But there will always be talented people doing interesting things and if YT is the only place to be heard, I respect anyone who does it. (Who does it well at least).

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360439434' post='1970574'] They were not just a cultural phenomenon, they were [b]the[/b] biggest cultural phenomenon ever in popular entertainment and their influence is still being felt today. I would argue that a similar thing is there with Led Zep, who are still influencing many bands today. I can't deny the influence that the Beatles had, just that much of their actual music wasn't actually that great if you strip away their cultural significance.... [/quote] Meanwhile, whoever you like as a bassplayer was influenced by Paul. How ironic.

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360437898' post='1970547'] Indulge me, how exactly has that statement been proven incorrect?? It is an interesting debate because the Beatles were such an important cultural phenomenon.... [/quote] Well you say they were more of a cultural phenomenom, which is true, but 20 years olds today have no connection to that yet they're still influenced by the Beatles. You say if it wasn't them, it would have been someone else, well...there were plenty of groups cashing in on the novelty of being British -- where are they today?

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360436308' post='1970510'] I completely agree! Some of their stuff was great but much of it was anything but. However even the cr*p has somehow been elevated to greatness because…. well, it was by the Beatles! The Beatles were more a cultural phenomenon rather than a musical one – they were in the right place at the right time and happened to come to symbolise the 60s and the emerging pop / counter cultures, the massive post war economic growth, the teenage years of the baby boomers, etc. If it wasn’t them it would have been someone else and their case was helped by them happening to have a world class personality in John Lennon, who somehow personified a period of great social change and growth…. [/quote] I think history has proved that statement incorrect. But, whatever

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1360433589' post='1970425'] Beatles tunes and jazz musicians have resulted in some shockingly bad jazz A lot of Beatles tunes on jazz albums are commercial decisions made by misguided producers. I don't want to generalise but (will) most examples of jazz plus Beatles tunes are less than the sum of their parts. [/quote] I actually agree with that. But it has nothing to do with the quality of the music. 1940's pop music simply has better changes to improvise over. I don't hear too many people blowing over the changes to the 5th symphony, that doesn't mean it isn't as good as "Bye, Bye, Blackbird."

[quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1360431552' post='1970363'] Treat yourself to a Mozart cd then you may see my point. [/quote] ???That makes no sesne. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

[quote name='bigd1' timestamp='1360431370' post='1970358'] I don't think that can possibly be put down as 1 band or composer, music is too big a thing, everybody who listens, plays or performs music has an influence. To say 1 band etc is responsible for the music we listen to today is unrealistic. Music is a very personal thing, one persons moving piece of music is another persons flat durge. Just open you ears, and have a listen ! [/quote] You're dodging. It doesn't have to be one person or one band. Just [i]A[/i] person or band. Surely you understand that certain people are major influences, no?

[quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1360430431' post='1970341'] If i'd have heard Ornette Coleman or Albert Ayler playing a Beatles medley in the 1960s i might agree with you. They changed Pop music but certainly didn't change Jazz, Electronic or Classical music. [/quote] First off, classical music is a music of the past so how can they "influence" that? Secondly, Beatle songs are arranged and harmonized compositions that do not lend themselves as well to improvisation, just as a symphony doesn't lend itself to improvising. And there are jazz musicians who don't even take Albert Ayler seriously, but okay, I'll play. George Benson Count Basie Herbie Hancock Marion McPartland Buddy Rich Don Ellis Grant Green Steve Marcus Dave Kikoski Wes Montgomery Jaco Pastorius Stanley Jordan All covered Beatles songs. To name a few.