Macca and The Hofner: Roots of the Connection

[Bassomatic]

"I couldn't afford a Fender," McCartney recalled later.

"Fenders even then seemed to be around £100. All I could afford really was about £30. Always teetering on the edge of not having much - so I didn't really want to spend that much. So… I found this Hofner violin bass. And to me it seemed like, because I was left-handed, it looked less daft because it was symmetrical. So I got into that. That became my main bass."

(Macca quoted from beatlesonline)

Imagine how different things would be had PM bought or been given a P or J? So glad things went the way they did.

I'd bet there's a similar story behind the Robbie Shakespeare/Hofner thing from the early Black Uhuru recordings and shows. No coincidence that each had big, fat bottom-heavy tones.

(Still kicking myself for selling a gorgeous sounding and feather light Hofner Anniversary reissue some years back. Near the top of the "ones that got away" list".)

[BluesForDan]

about a year ago, I was looking at the epiphone Viol bass. Posted here, got some edujamcation about the violin bass. this was long before the '09 remasters came out. Been listening for sometime now, and am getting more and more impressed with Macca's playing.

oddly enough, I'm still gassing for a jazz bass more than a violin bass.

[musicofanatic5]

Love the Beatles and always have, but anytime I focus on the bass part, it sounds unequivically like a gtr player playing bass. I always read he bought the Hofner 'cuase he was a cheapskate (quote from John, maybe?).

[LeftyBass]

[QUOTE=musicofanatic5;6820828]Love the Beatles and always have, but anytime I focus on the bass part, it sounds unequivically like a gtr player playing bass. [QUOTE]


It was.

[TedintheShed]

I am not here to crap on anyone's band. I think the Beatles were legendary and great, but I don't think it would have made a difference.

I also know I am in the minority when I say this too.

I say this because The Beatles weren't particularly great musicians IMHO, and they weren't great singers. What made them great was the songwriting. Unlike any band in history, they were able to use texture in their songs to convey a message, and those textures for the most part is what made them the band they were, past the screaming mobs of girls.

So I must respectfully disagree. If Sir Paul was playing a Fender, people would still have liked him and tried to emulate him because he was "cool" and the songs were great and not because he was an outstanding bassists, and not because he played a Hofner.

[LeftyBass]

Imagine how different things would be had PM bought or been given a P or J? So glad things went the way they did.




But of course he was given a Fender Jazz Bass. Some of my favorite Beatle bass tones were from a Fender Jazz, whether it was Paul on the lefty, or George or John on the righty.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/iamthebassman/mccartneybass.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/iamthebassman/jazzgh.jpg

[LeftyBass]

Oh, and here's mine.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/iamthebassman/Copyofeggstate027-1-1.jpg

[trisonic]

Love the Beatles and always have, but anytime I focus on the bass part, it sounds unequivically like a gtr player playing bass. I always read he bought the Hofner 'cuase he was a cheapskate (quote from John, maybe?).

Never heard that quote but you remember that John was the only member of the band remotely Middle Class........and Paul was/is a guitarist which figures.

Basso, The other what if is suppose George had bought that Strat in Hamburg (that he missed out on by minutes)?

Best, Pete.

[The Golden Boy]

about a year ago, I was looking at the epiphone Viol bass. Posted here, got some edujamcation about the violin bass. this was long before the '09 remasters came out. Been listening for sometime now, and am getting more and more impressed with Macca's playing.

oddly enough, I'm still gassing for a jazz bass more than a violin bass.

All the really cool stuff was played on the Rick, though...

[The Golden Boy]

Love the Beatles and always have, but anytime I focus on the bass part, it sounds unequivically like a gtr player playing bass.

I am not here to crap on anyone's band. I think the Beatles were legendary and great, but I don't think it would have made a difference.

I also know I am in the minority when I say this too.

I say this because The Beatles weren't particularly great musicians IMHO, and they weren't great singers. What made them great was the songwriting. Unlike any band in history, they were able to use texture in their songs to convey a message, and those texture, for the most part, is what made hem the band they were, past the screaming mobs of girls.

So I must respectfully disagree. If Sir Paul was playing a Fender, people would still have liked him and tried to emulate him because he was "cool" and the songs were great and not because he was an outstanding bassists, and not because he played a Hofner.

I'd say that within the confines of pop/rock music, the Beatles were great musicians. Especially in the confines of the pop/rock music they were writing and playing.

As far as McCartney's playing... I don't hear that 'guitar player playing bass' thing. I hear the first mainstream white melodic bass player. In McCartney you've got a guy who's playing melodically, playing counters, filling in rhythm, making each note count. I don't hear a whole lot of difference in what Jamerson was doing vs. what McCartney was doing. And I've NEVER heard of Jamerson referred to as 'a guitar player playing bass.' As opposed to other players who rode the roots and did occasional flurries of pentatonic noodling. That's a guitar player with a bass strapped on.

And if you're not talking about pop/rock music- it's apples and oranges.

[Ravindave_3600]

Been listening for sometime now, and am getting more and more impressed with Macca's playing.

Paul barely makes my top 3 favorite Beatles but as a bass player he was nothing less than impressive. Listen to what was happening before him, and it's clear he changed everything.

[Rob Sharer]

Paul barely makes my top 3 favorite Beatles...

What would they have sounded like without him?


Rob

[trpullen]

A good friend of mine has a lefty Hofner and a great deal of the "noodling" and constant playing that McC did had less to do with the fact that he was an ex guitarist and more to do with the fact that there is little to no sustain on the Hofner. You have to keep lines moving and pulsing because notes die much faster than on longer scale, solid body instruments. That said, once that style was established for Paul, he often employed the mutes on the RIC to get a similar punch and attack.

I for one am glad he made the choice he did. I am glad that they wrote what they did, played how they did and were lucky enough to have George Martin do his magic. The whole package was far greater than the sum of the parts. Look at post-Beatle stuff. Some good but not nearly the quality of them all together.

[Rob Sharer]

Of course, there are many different ways to approach a bass part for any given song. The test is, how well does the part work with the song? I think Paul's bass lines tend to work just fine, no matter what they sound like on their own.

Listen to the bass playing on the "Hard Day's Night" album; he really stays down a great deal of the time. "And I Love Her" is about as minimalistic a bass part as you could ask for; "Tell Me Why" is just a straight walk, moving but not overly busy. The point is, Paul did plenty of stay-down, straight bass playing with The Beatles that could in no way be accused of sounding guitaristic. Those times when he did play more angular stuff ("Fixing a Hole" comes to mind), it still sounds to me to be well within the context of the song, even if unconventional. I don't hear guitar playing in there, either. Cheers,

Rob

[Rob Sharer]

I say this because The Beatles weren't particularly great musicians IMHO, and they weren't great singers.


Good luck getting anyone at all to agree with either one of these propositions. I know I don't.


Rob

[Ogre]

He may have been a "guitar player playing bass", but he changed the way bass players approached rock music. The bass parts on Sgt Pepper were a giant step in the evolution of the instrument in pop/rock music. He worked his ass off on those parts, and we all benefit. No great singers in the Beatles? Listen again to "I'm Down" or "Twist & Shout". Lennon & McCartney could hold their own with anybody, as singers and certainly, as writers. Virtuosity is overrated. Having a natural instinct for playing the right part is underestimated.

[Ravindave_3600]

Paul barely makes my top 3 favorite Beatles

What would they have sounded like without him?
Rob

Hence the rest of my statement:


but as a bass player he was nothing less than impressive. Listen to what was happening before him, and it's clear he changed everything.


No great singers in the Beatles? Listen again to "I'm Down" or "Twist & Shout". Lennon & McCartney could hold their own with anybody, as singers and certainly, as writers

As a trio you could add Nowhere Man or Paperback Writer or any number of others. I don't know if any of them had a classically great voice but as as singers they were fab.

[Bassomatic]

Can't believe some of what I've read here.

Paul was and is a fantastic *bass* player. I've heard many a guitarist switch to bass with unimpressive results. That's not what I'm hearing in McCartney's playing. I hear a deep sense of time and groove.

Golden Boy nailed it: he was the first white, melodic bass player (in rock or pop, anyway). He's also a tremendously good rock singer. Not a bad drummer or keyboard player or guitarist, either.

I'm not very interested in The Beatles pre Rubber Soul, but from then on out he was simply killing it, as were the other lads.

As great a songwriter as Lennon was, musically it's Macca by a nose (lyrically it's all John, though PM wroite some great ones, too). Together they were even more intriguing (as in 'A Day In The Life'). Of course, these are only the opinions of one person who has studied therir music pretty carefully. Gentlemen/women can and will disagree.

[There have been some barnburner TGP threads on Ringo's drumming, too. I'll stick with the opinion of so many drummer friends (all of whom possess a lot more technical skill than R) in revering his sense of pocket and feel - a fantastic drummer for the band he was in.]

[Bassomatic]

He may have been a "guitar player playing bass", but he changed the way bass players approached rock music. The bass parts on Sgt Pepper were a giant step in the evolution of the instrument in pop/rock music. He worked his ass off on those parts, and we all benefit. No great singers in the Beatles? Listen again to "I'm Down" or "Twist & Shout". Lennon & McCartney could hold their own with anybody, as singers and certainly, as writers. Virtuosity is overrated. Having a natural instinct for playing the right part is underestimated.

Yes yes yes. (Emphasis mine).

He was to bass what a Hendrix or EVH were to guitar, although he clearly owed a debt to the great R&B players (as did Hendrix to the Kings or EVH to Clapton). We all stand on the shoulders of the giants who have come before.

[Ephi82]

I am not here to crap on anyone's band. I think the Beatles were legendary and great, but I don't think it would have made a difference.

I also know I am in the minority when I say this too.

I say this because The Beatles weren't particularly great musicians IMHO, and they weren't great singers. What made them great was the songwriting. Unlike any band in history, they were able to use texture in their songs to convey a message, and those texture, for the most part, is what made hem the band they were, past the screaming mobs of girls.

So I must respectfully disagree. If Sir Paul was playing a Fender, people would still have liked him and tried to emulate him because he was "cool" and the songs were great and not because he was an outstanding bassists, and not because he played a Hofner.

You are quite entitled to your opinion, but I think that you are not quite right! To say that McCartney and Lennon were not great singers just doesn't makes sense? I can understand you prefering someone elses singing, or choice of song, but to say they weren't among the best rock singers of all time?

And McCartney not a great individual musician? On the bass he was one of the the most influential in rock? You are right. You are in the minority, by a long shot.

[The Golden Boy]

Love the Beatles and always have, but anytime I focus on the bass part, it sounds unequivically like a gtr player playing bass.

A good friend of mine has a lefty Hofner and a great deal of the "noodling" and constant playing that McC did had less to do with the fact that he was an ex guitarist...

Can anyone point me towards some of these "noodling" McCartney bass lines?

The only two that come off the top of my head are "Rain" and "Something."

[The Golden Boy]

You are quite entitled to your opinion, but I think that you are not quite right! To say that McCartney and Lennon were not great singers just doesn't makes sense? I can understand you prefering someone elses singing, or choice of song, but to say they weren't among the best rock singers of all time?

And McCartney not a great individual musician? On the bass he was one of the the most influential in rock? You are right. You are in the minority, by a long shot.

As much as I love the Beatles, the idea of being "technically good" and being "good for what you do" are two different concepts.

[The Golden Boy]

Imagine how different things would be had PM bought or been given a P or J? So glad things went the way they did.



I didn't really address the initial post...

In terms of the early Beatles, that Hofner viola shaped bass was important because it was so unique. It was image. So much of the early Beatles schtick was image- the haircuts, the suits, the boots and the distinctive guitars.

As far as tonal differences between the Be-attle basses... I don't hear a whole lot of difference between the Hofner and the Rick. I know- sounds crazy. However, the Jazz sound is completely different. I always associated that Jazz sound with the Rick. So, I would hear "Glass Onion" or "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" thinking that was the Rick, only to find out within the last 5 years or so that it was the Jazz Bass.

To me, listening to stuff like "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" which everyone KNOWS is the Rick, but hearing the Anthology takes of it (especially the bits in between takes)- man if that doesn't sound like a short scale hollow body bass.

With me being as much of a fan of the music, and now really having a better idea of what to expect out of those basses, I wish I got along better with Ricks...

[LeftyBass]

No one asked but here's a couple live vids of my band at a big outdoor festival in Corpus Christi last week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptc0DV0IP_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZFV9kN9qYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MsyZoLbQlo

[TedintheShed]

I'd say that within the confines of pop/rock music, the Beatles were great musicians. Especially in the confines of the pop/rock music they were writing and playing.



So they were good musicians within the songs they were playing?

Sorry, I don't get this.

I think they were pretty mediocre musicians, but like I said great songwriters that used texture well.

[Ephi82]

So they were good musicians within the songs they were playing?

Sorry, I don't get this.

I think they were pretty mediocre musicians, but like I said great songwriters that used texture well.

In the Shed, one of the things I try to do better, each time I play, is to play exactly what the song needs (texture, no?)and not one bit more than that. I have a long way to go!

In my opinion,the mark of a great musician is often more about what is not played, than what is.

Was Harrison a shredder? Was he as fast as Clapton? Not even close, but is there anyone who doesn't think his slide playing on later recordings was exactly the "texture" those great songs deserved?

[LeftyBass]

Was Harrison a shredder? Was he as fast as Clapton? Not even close, but is there anyone who doesn't think his slide playing on later recordings was exactly the "texture" those great songs deserved?

I respect any player who finds his own "voice" on his instrument, George found his thru slide. You know it's him as soon as you hear him.
It took me years to even know what I wanted in a sound, then longer to find what I need to make it happen.

[TedintheShed]

In the Shed, one of the things I try to do better, each time I play, is to play exactly what the song needs (texture, no?)and not one bit more than that. I have a long way to go!


"What the song needs" does not always equal "texture".


In my opinion,the mark of a great musician is often more about what is not played, than what is.


A favorite mantra of us bassist is that playing the bass isn't about the notes you play, but what comes between them.

A terrible stereotype.

Being a great musicians is like any artist, say a painter. If a painter only knows how to use a 3" brush, that painter can indeed do some great things. But if that painter can't use a fan brush or anything else, then it is very limited as to what they can do.

Same with playing bass. I want all of those brushes in my tool box, i.e. I want to be able to shred, to play a grove, to play what is needed. I need to have the complete spectrum of tools available to me.

Once I have this, then I can inject "feel", "soul" or what ever other intangible that makes great music.

So in summery, great musicians has all of these qualities, the technical ability balanced with the ability to inject what is needed into a song, as well as "feel".

This is why the truly great musicians, usually classical or jazz oriented, will spend a lifetime honing these skills.


Was Harrison a shredder? Was he as fast as Clapton? Not even close, but is there anyone who doesn't think his slide playing on later recordings was exactly the "texture" those great songs deserved?

Harrison was not a good guitarist by any stretch of the imagination IMO. Picture a man like Clapton in the the Beatles instead of Harrison. The genius of those songs texturing came from the structure of the song writing, not the musicianship.

As I said, they were great song writers.

[SGNick]

Harrison was not a good guitarist by any stretch of the imagination IMO.


You're kind of ruining your credibility here. Harrison, not a good guitarist? Usually an argument you hear when the person prefers speed over melody. Regardless, I shall make my point.

Exhibit A

One After 909
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSMSZmhsV2k

George's playing on this track was, for lack of a better word, perfect. Restrained where he had to be, explosive where he had to be.

Exhibit B

Oh My Love (Lennon)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B21cu38tFI

George is playing more than most people would in that position, Most guitarist would probably just strum softly and maybe play chords as an arpeggio, but George wanders around and creates a great feel to the song.

Exhibit C

Old Brown Shoe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x0FUZgbtHc

One of his own this time, the solo again, intense, and to the point, he doesn't draw it out for the sake of showing off, he plays what he has to play and gets out of the way of himself.. lol

Exhibit D

A Cat playing a Theremin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ONJfp95yoE

This has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, but I thought you would find it funny, so I decided to share.

[Ephi82]

"What the song needs" does not always equal "texture".



A favorite mantra of us bassist is that playing the bass isn't about the notes you play, but what comes between them.

A terrible stereotype.

Being a great musicians is like any artist, say a painter. If a painter only knows how to use a 3" brush, that painter can indeed do some great things. But if that painter can't use a fan brush or anything else, then it is very limited as to what they can do.

Same with playing bass. I want all of those brushes in my tool box, i.e. I want to be able to shred, to play a grove, to play what is needed. I need to have the complete spectrum of tools available to me.

Once I have this, then I can inject "feel", "soul" or what ever other intangible that makes great music.

So in summery, great musicians has all of these qualities, the technical ability balanced with the ability to inject what is needed into a song, as well as "feel".

This is why the truly great musicians, usually classical or jazz oriented, will spend a lifetime honing these skills.



Harrison was not a good guitarist by any stretch of the imagination IMO. Picture a man like Clapton in the the Beatles instead of Harrison. The genius of those songs texturing came from the structure of the song writing, not the musicianship.

As I said, they were great song writers.


OK Ted in the Shed, we agree to disagree on what makes a great musician.

I am curious, how would you rate BB King, Buddy Guy, Keith Richard, James Jamerson, Johnny Johnson (Chuck Berry's piano player), Duck Dunn, Mike Campbell?

[TedintheShed]

You're kind of ruining your credibility here. Harrison, not a good guitarist? Usually an argument you hear when the person prefers speed over melody.


I prefer both, and that is what this ageless and pointless argument seems to boil down to. People argue "speed" verses "feel" all the time. I say the true masters of their instruments have both and intermingles them effortlessly.

Great music seems to display this. Classical, jazz and bluegrass in my opinion is where it is most apparent, although other genres have their bright spots as well.

But that is the great thing about art, it is subjective to whoever is interpreting it.

[TedintheShed]

OK Ted in the Shed, we agree to disagree on what makes a great musician.

I am curious, how would you rate BB King, Buddy Guy, Keith Richard, James Jamerson, Johnny Johnson (Chuck Berry's piano player), Duck Dunn, Mike Campbell?

See the post I made before this one, and that will clarify my position.

But you are right, in such a subjective medium as art, interpretations vary widely. There is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree.

[The Golden Boy]

So they were good musicians within the songs they were playing?

Sorry, I don't get this.

I think they were pretty mediocre musicians, but like I said great songwriters that used texture well.

I don't know who you consider to be great musicians in a pop/rock context.

I believe Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and even Starr were as good as they needed to be to create the music they were making, and to venture farther, were as good as or "better" musicians than any of their peers at the same time.

"What the song needs" does not always equal "texture".

A favorite mantra of us bassist is that playing the bass isn't about the notes you play, but what comes between them.

A terrible stereotype.

Being a great musicians is like any artist, say a painter. If a painter only knows how to use a 3" brush, that painter can indeed do some great things. But if that painter can't use a fan brush or anything else, then it is very limited as to what they can do.

Same with playing bass. I want all of those brushes in my tool box, i.e. I want to be able to shred, to play a grove, to play what is needed. I need to have the complete spectrum of tools available to me.

Once I have this, then I can inject "feel", "soul" or what ever other intangible that makes great music.

So in summery, great musicians has all of these qualities, the technical ability balanced with the ability to inject what is needed into a song, as well as "feel".

This is why the truly great musicians, usually classical or jazz oriented, will spend a lifetime honing these skills.

Harrison was not a good guitarist by any stretch of the imagination IMO. Picture a man like Clapton in the the Beatles instead of Harrison. The genius of those songs texturing came from the structure of the song writing, not the musicianship.

As I said, they were great song writers.

As you say a great musician has the technical ability and the ability to play the right part for the song. That doesn't mean playing something because you can. In fact, it means play what the song needs to the best it can be played. That judgement and that ability really determine how "great" you are.

I don't believe a great musician has to have all the tools, they need to know how to use the tools they have available to them. That, above all else, is what makes a legend...

I don't know if you're insinuating that Clapton is a "better" guitar player or that the Beatles would have been "better" with Clapton in the band... If either of those is your insinutation- think of a scenario of WWCD. How would Clapton have approached the songs that Lennon, McCartney or Harrison would have presented them? Judging by the playing (and not just the songwriting), there's a very predictable pattern in the way Clapton is going to approach things; especially in the mid-late 60s. What does the "Nowhere Man" solo of Clapton world sound like? How about "And Your Bird Can Sing?" What does the Beatles' cover of "'Til There Was You" sound like with Clapton on guitar instead of Harrison?

Using the brush metaphor, Clapton was really good with one brush. He really didn't attempt to use any other brushes for a long, long time. I think Harrison not only used many more brushes, but used them to great effect. It's not just a matter of "texture" in songwriting. It's not only being able to adapt your style, but to change your style to suit the song.

If Clapton was a great musician in the mid to late 60s, one might tend to argue that he would have had to be a little more "versatile," or have used more "brushes."

Since this discussion is ostensibly about McCartney, what are some similar songs that a contemporary bass player played something "better?" How about deconstructing a song, removing McCartney's bass line- what would you do to make it "better?" What would one of McCartney's peers have done to make it "better?" For example, how would Chas Chandler have done up "Paperback Writer?" How would Entwistle have approached "Penny Lane?"

[TedintheShed]

I believe Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and even Starr were as good as they needed to be to create the music they were making...

What does this mean?

I mean, how could they not be good enoiugh to create the music they were making?

The statement is confusing to me, doesn't make sense.


htere as good as or "better" musicians than any of their peers at the same time.


There were great musicians at the time and before in the field of jazz...Coltrane, Mingus, Monk.


As you say a great musician has the technical ability and the ability to play the right part for the song. That doesn't mean playing something because you can. In fact, it means play what the song needs to the best it can be played. That judgement and that ability really determine how "great" you are.


But you can't play something for the song that you can't. If your ability is limited, then your palate is also.


I don't believe a great musician has to have all the tools, they need to know how to use the tools they have available to them. That, above all else, is what makes a legend...


Interesting.

The band Guns-n-Roses are legends from the Sunset Strip, and so are Poison. Admittedly some is for their antics, but the female vocal track on "Rocket Queen" is one that GnR is known for, and the song "Every Rose Has a Thorn" by Poison.


I don't know if you're insinuating that Clapton is a "better" guitar player or that the Beatles would have been "better" with Clapton in the band... If either of those is your insinutation- think of a scenario of WWCD. How would Clapton have approached the songs that Lennon, McCartney or Harrison would have presented them? Judging by the playing (and not just the songwriting), there's a very predictable pattern in the way Clapton is going to approach things; especially in the mid-late 60s. What does the "Nowhere Man" solo of Clapton world sound like? How about "And Your Bird Can Sing?" What does the Beatles' cover of "'Til There Was You" sound like with Clapton on guitar instead of Harrison?


I would venture to say, better.



Using the brush metaphor, Clapton was really good with one brush. He really didn't attempt to use any other brushes for a long, long time. I think Harrison not only used many more brushes, but used them to great effect. It's not just a matter of "texture" in songwriting. It's not only being able to adapt your style, but to change your style to suit the song.


I see it as a visa-versa scenario. I think Clapton's palate has many more colors that Harrison's.


Since this discussion is ostensibly about McCartney, what are some similar songs that a contemporary bass player played something "better?" How about deconstructing a song, removing McCartney's bass line- what would you do to make it "better?" What would one of McCartney's peers have done to make it "better?" For example, how would Chas Chandler have done up "Paperback Writer?" How would Entwistle have approached "Penny Lane?"

Mingus and a complete hoard of Jazz upright bassists. I think McCartney's lines are pretty basic, but you can hear the Jamerson influence in them.

Here is why I think folks think the Beatles's were great musicians: simply because they pioneered a genre, the British invasion. No one can deny the influence they brought from this and I have acknowledged that. But if you use a parallel to this, say when Nirvana and grunge hit in the 90's. It was a whole new genre, and influenced a lot of people. But I am not going to sit here and say Kurt Cobain was a great musician. He was a good song writer, he pioneered a genre but that was it.

But this thread is going in a direction I hadn't intended. Like I said, I am not here to crap on anyone's heroes, but it has been an interesting conversation and I thank you for it.

[Rob Sharer]

Wow, Ted, didn't anyone ever explain to you the difference between operating an instrument and playing music?

The Beatles' ability to move people with their music wouldn't have been nudged one iota by being technically better, especially by some obscure, jazzy measure that would most likely fly right over most listeners' heads. Besides, it's not a contest; there is no objective measure of "better" for a bass part, only your or my taste. McCartney was in tune, in time, interesting, and had a unique sound and approach. Plus, he wrote (with JL) the songs; shouldn't he know roughly how the bass part ought to go?

Meanwhile, if Clapton's "palate" is all coloured up, he needs to jump to the doctor.


Rob

[Mandoboy]

a) Paul often took the studio tracks, bass-less, home to work out lines. This is why many of them are so deep and genius- a lot of thought went into them. Who cares if he didn't improvise them on the spot? It's the result that counts.

b) The Beatles- are you kidding me? They are The Beatles, and whatever anyone has to say about them negatively, let's see YOU come up with music that touches so many people.

c) Any fool can be critical. You want Coltrane? Listen to Coltrane, for God's sake! Don't look for Coltrane in the Beatles! Applying the same standards is obviously, as another poster said, apples and oranges. Stick with apples if you don't want to know from oranges...

I heard a teacher say (in the 70's) "The Beatles set music back 20 years". Gee, hows that workin' out for ya?

d) You can miss a lot in life by worrying about what's NOT there, and you miss what's great about what IS there.

e) I would define a "great musician" as someone who comes up with great music. There are people today who could play rings around the Beatles, technically, many of whom haven't even had their 13th birthdays yet...just because they can operate their instruments effectively or play Giant Steps with the 'correct notes' at dotted whole note=408 doesn't make them great musicians in my book, just great instrument operators.

[redstrand]

The sum of the whole was greater than the parts.
Ted you need to record something and let us compare it to somebody.
I have my favorite musicians and some that I don't like...it's based on sound less than style or technique. I'll hear a cool bass line and say wow...not he played a dim7th the wrong way.

Be more open minded. I might not like someone's sound but I won't criticize their playing....the minute I am able to play at that level...maybe....but nah, it's just better to plug in and go rather than focus on something like this.

[SGNick]

This might be off topic, but I recorded "Honey Pie" for fun, as a way to celebrate my bronchitis slowly going away.

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=758446&songID=8166744

This song was an example of George Harrison playing the bass (he also played bass on She Said She Said).

Just thought I'd share! haha!

[TedintheShed]

As I said earlier, this topic seems to offend people. There are a lot of misconceptions that are being posted, things I never said. There are also things being said (for example, regarding the subjectivity of art) that I had said and acknowledged earlier in the thread.

I never denied the Beatles's influence, nor the genius of their song writing ability. I have actually praised them for that within this thread.

However as musicians and singers, it is my opinion that they were not the most skilled. I am sorry but I can not help but wonder what level of mastery the songs that the Beatles would have written if this were the case.

And now I am accused of trolling, unfairly I may add, as I am trying to have a legitimate conversation about a legitimate topic. My intent is not to incite.

I can only state that I apologize if I have offended your sensibilities, and will leave this thread at that. It was not my intention, but all I ask that you open your mind to the possibility I presented.

For those who legitimately engaged me in this conversation and recognized the civility involved, I thank you sincerely. This style of open exchange of ideas only benefit everyone involved.

[Rob Sharer]

However as musicians and singers, it is my opinion that they were not the most skilled. I am sorry but I can not help but wonder what level of mastery the songs that the Beatles would have written if this were the case.

Ted, what makes you think the best songs are written my the most skilled instrumentalists?


Rob

[TedintheShed]

Ted, what makes you think the best songs are written my the most skilled instrumentalists?


Rob

Rob, I appreciate the question however it is apparent to me that what would be best if I disengaged from this conversation. I do not want hostilities elevated and the board to suffer.

Thank you though.

[triple_vee]

And now I am accused of trolling, unfairly I may add, as I am trying to have a legitimate conversation about a legitimate topic. My intent is not to incite.
oh really? look at the original post and the thread title. have you said anything about mccartney's hofner? who the f derailed it into a debate about the beatles musicianship? look at your first post in this thread.

[Rob Sharer]

Rob, I appreciate the question however it is apparent to me that what would be best if I disengaged from this conversation. I do not want hostilities elevated and the board to suffer.

Thank you though.


Fair enough, Ted. I certainly don't have any hostile intent myself. Even those who have called you out most stridently may have made a legitimate point or two that might be worth chewing over. Cheers,

Rob

[stratus]

[QUOTE=SGNick;6860721]You're kind of ruining your credibility here. Harrison, not a good guitarist? Usually an argument you hear when the person prefers speed over melody. Regardless, I shall make my point.

Exhibit A

One After 909
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSMSZmhsV2k

George's playing on this track was, for lack of a better word, perfect. Restrained where he had to be, explosive where he had to be.

Exhibit B

Oh My Love (Lennon)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B21cu38tFI

George is playing more than most people would in that position, Most guitarist would probably just strum softly and maybe play chords as an arpeggio, but George wanders around and creates a great feel to the song.

Exhibit C

Old Brown Shoe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x0FUZgbtHc

One of his own this time, the solo again, intense, and to the point, he doesn't draw it out for the sake of showing off, he plays what he has to play and gets out of the way of himself.. lol

Exhibit D

A Cat playing a Theremin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ONJfp95yoE

This has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, but I thought you would find it funny, so I decided to share.[/QUO

Obviously anyone who thinks George was not a great guitarist needs to have his/her ears washed out with soap! Why, because he wasn't playing Malmsteen licks! Some more years in the can and someone could get more appreciation for what George was all about. Get Real. Like the other 3, he was all about the song, which made the the Beatles great. IMHO of course.:stir

[TedintheShed]

oh really? look at the original post and the thread title. have you said anything about mccartney's hofner? who the f derailed it into a debate about the beatles musicianship? look at your first post in this thread.

Actually I must respectfully point out once again that I did discuss his Hofner, in my initial post:


So I must respectfully disagree. If Sir Paul was playing a Fender, people would still have liked him and tried to emulate him because he was "cool" and the songs were great and not because he was an outstanding bassists, and not because he played a Hofner.


Fair enough, Ted. I certainly don't have any hostile intent myself. Even those who have called you out most stridently may have made a legitimate point or two that might be worth chewing over. Cheers,

Rob

Thank you Rob, I appreciate it. I didn't specify that you were, I just wish to avoid the now very apparent scenario. I probably made a mistake by answering the thread again and I apologize for the apparent derailing to to OP.

[Ravindave_3600]

I prefer both [speed AND melody], and that is what this ageless and pointless argument seems to boil down to. People argue "speed" verses "feel" all the time. I say the true masters of their instruments have both and intermingles them effortlessly.

See, that's why I think Keef sucks sooooo bad. He's just not as fast as Yngwie. He ought to hang it up and become a dentist before he embarasses himself anymore.

[Ephi82]

I think Ted has gotten the beating some would say he deserves, but we all have opinions, so he's fine by me....

I don't have the Recording the Beatles book, yet. Does it detail which songs McCartney used the Hofner on and which were Rick and Fender?

Seems like you can tell. Rick all over Revolver and the singles at the time, in and out on Pepper and White Album. Is the Jazz all over Abbey Road or is that just the new transister console? Tone is just so good. Wish I had a room like Abbey Road # 2, with a Fender Bassman and a C12 about 2 feet away into a Fairchild. I'd say bass sound nirvana in a 60's/70's sense,no?

[SGNick]

I think Ted has gotten the beating some would say he deserves, but we all have opinions, so he's fine by me....

I don't have the Recording the Beatles book, yet. Does it detail which songs McCartney used the Hofner on and which were Rick and Fender?

Seems like you can tell. Rick all over Revolver and the singles at the time, in and out on Pepper and White Album. Is the Jazz all over Abbey Road or is that just the new transister console? Tone is just so good. Wish I had a room like Abbey Road # 2, with a Fender Bassman and a C12 about 2 feet away into a Fairchild. I'd say bass sound nirvana in a 60's/70's sense,no?


The Hofner starts being phased out in 65. It was used on a few songs for Rubber Soul, but by Revolver, it was the Rickenbacker, (or, on She Said Se Said, it was the Burns bass (played by George)).

By the time they got in the studio for the White Album, the Fender was around and used on A LOT of tracks. That album features a lot of double tracked bass, so the Rickenbacker AND jazz most likely appear on a number of tracks.

Let It Be was all Hofner again.

Abbey Road saw a mix of the 3.

[The Golden Boy]

By the time they got in the studio for the White Album, the Fender was around and used on A LOT of tracks. That album features a lot of double tracked bass, so the Rickenbacker AND jazz most likely appear on a number of tracks.

Let It Be was all Hofner again.

Abbey Road saw a mix of the 3.

I'd read *somewhere* there are only 5 verifiable tracks with the Jazz.

I don't know how true that is. But it did kind of shock me because of how few songs that is- and that's just the ones that scream "I'M NOT EITHER HOFNER OR THE RICK!!!"

So that would be- (to my way of thinking)

"Dear Prudence"
"Glass Onion"
"While My Guitar..."
"Yer Blues"
"Helter Skelter."

I'd like to know if Hofner #1 actually showed up in any recordings after 67 to the time it was stolen. Just in the use of it from the "Revolution" film clip and it's presence from the beginning of the Get Back sessions, it seemed like McCartney was getting re-adjusted to what that bass could do. And to tell you the truth- anyone would be hard pressed to tell the difference between Hofner #1 and Hofner #2 and the Rick (the way McCartney was using them) on a mixed recording.

[zestystrat]

Just read most of this thread and I'll just throw in my $0.02.

PM and Mingus are not peers, they live in two totally different zip codes and to try to compare the two to make a point seems miss the entire point.

I find it funny, but not shocking, on a gtr board that songwriting and harmony arrangement doesn’t count towards being a good musician vs. Clapton level gtr playing.

Finally, as a huge Clapton fan, it almost pains me to say it but Clapton is about as “one brush” a player as you can get. Compare him to an actual peer (Jimi) and it’s no comparison.

Even when EC stepped onto a Beatles song (WMGGW) he had to change his playing style a bit to fit into what the Beatles did. While good, I think most would agree it’s not EC’s best moment.

Does that make either EC, GH or Jimi better then one or the other? Nope, just different…I know I can learn from all of them.

But in the end, what you get into is the “Is Batman better than Superman” argument my son has.

Finally - I agree that the bass had less to do with the bass side of the Beatles...the fact that he often put the parts on last had a lot to do with how great they were.

[lhallam]

During the early years PM had a revelation when learned he didn't have to play the root all the time which eventually led to his melodic style.

According "The Beatles Recording Sessions", during the later years they would track the entire song and Paul would dub the bass line in last after working it out against the vocals & the arrangement.

Paul McCartney is a composer/musician/multi-instrumentalist excelling on the bass.

Most gtrists playing bass have little regard for the chord tones, don't know how to incorporate passing tones and don't compliment the drummer. Sir Paul is far from guilty of doing any of that.

That Hofner sounds fairly boomy to me and not as focused as a Rick. Reminds me of a jolly fatman and was part of The Beatles signature sound in the early years. It didn't make or break the band but contributed in it's own way.

Gtr players...they would argue if gravity exists while falling off a building.

[The Golden Boy]

... it ... would be best if I disengaged from this conversation. I do not want hostilities elevated and the board to suffer.



TedintheShed, I know you've withdrawn from this- but I have this overwhelming *need* to attempt to explain this, or get explanation about this...

What does this mean?

I mean, how could they not be good enoiugh to create the music they were making?

The statement is confusing to me, doesn't make sense.
Think of cars. You don't say a Corvette is a mediocre car because you can't fit a 4x12, a 2x15, a 4 piece drum kit, hardware case, 2 amps, 3 instruments and one passenger. It's not meant for that.

While it's refreshing to read of a "music is music" attitude- it ignores that there are real differences between different genres of music.

To use your examples of Kurt Cobain and Clapton... Cobain was good enough to play the music he played. I don't think Cobain would have fared so well in any of Clapton's projects. On the other hand, I don't think Clapton would have ever been as suited to play anything Nirvana ever did.

There were great musicians at the time and before in the field of jazz...Coltrane, Mingus, Monk.
Those cats are jazz. The Beatles are not jazz/jazz is not the Beatles. Coltrane, Mingus and Monk were never peers of the Beatles, or any other pop/rock artist. If you were to somehow convince them to play Beatles songs in a pop/rock context (after they stopped laughing at you and the absurdity of the request, and after they were plied with enough money/liquor/heroin to get them lower their personal standards to play "rock" music) I don't think they would play in context the way I think you think they would play. Think of Coltrane blowing the sax on "Penny Lane." Or maybe Mingus playing "Good Morning, Good Morning" or Monk banging out "Lady Madonna."


("ladies and gentlemen, please don't associate me with any of this. This is not Jazz." Charles Mingus)

But you can't play something for the song that you can't. If your ability is limited, then your palate is also.
Who is regarded as a great that is great at everything?

Follow this below- in the "venture to say better" paragraph...

Interesting.

The band Guns-n-Roses are legends from the Sunset Strip, and so are Poison. Admittedly some is for their antics, but the female vocal track on "Rocket Queen" is one that GnR is known for, and the song "Every Rose Has a Thorn" by Poison.

I'm not sure where you're attempting to go with this...

If you're equating the word "legend" and "GnR" and "Poison" with the "Sunset Strip" being synonymous with "rock," I'm still not following where the line is going...

As someone who grew up with the cassette of Appetite For Destruction in their car's tape deck- I'd say GnR were more known for "Sweet Child O Mine" or "Welcome To The Jungle" than "Rocket Queen." As I listened to the song a little bit ago- I don't hear a female vocal on there.

As far as "Every Rose Has It's Thorn..." man, every cock rock pop "metal" band had their power ballad in 1988.


I would venture to say, better.

I see it as a visa-versa scenario. I think Clapton's palate has many more colors that Harrison's.
How many Beatles songs would be best served with a comp or a riff, punctuated by a blazing pentatonic minor solo with magnificent bending? That's what Clapton did. That's pretty much all Clapton did. And he did it well. Find me something from the Yardbirds to Blind Faith that he did anything different.

Don't get me wrong, I love Clapton- but especially from 65-69, versatility was not his strong suit. Clapton's legend is borne out of "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl." After that he graduated to using a few more notes in the scale. And it's always been appropriate to say he's gotten the most use out of 5 frets.

Again, actually think and see what you would come up with for Clapton's guitar parts on some Beatles songs, rather than just blindly saying 'he would do better than Harrison.'



Mingus and a complete hoard of Jazz upright bassists. I think McCartney's lines are pretty basic, but you can hear the Jamerson influence in them.
I don't understand the answer. What does Mingus or any horde of jazz upright bass players have anything to do with:

Since this discussion is ostensibly about McCartney, what are some similar songs that a contemporary bass player played something "better?" How about deconstructing a song, removing McCartney's bass line- what would you do to make it "better?" What would one of McCartney's peers have done to make it "better?" For example, how would Chas Chandler have done up "Paperback Writer?" How would Entwistle have approached "Penny Lane?"

Again, jazz is not the Beatles, the Beatles are not jazz.

I don't understand how you can hear Jamerson's influence in a "basic" bass line. Most bassists don't consider Jamerson's lines "basic," so what McCartney lines are "basic" yet 'Jamerson influenced?'

Here is why I think folks think the Beatles's were great musicians: simply because they pioneered a genre, the British invasion. No one can deny the influence they brought from this and I have acknowledged that. But if you use a parallel to this, say when Nirvana and grunge hit in the 90's. It was a whole new genre, and influenced a lot of people. But I am not going to sit here and say Kurt Cobain was a great musician. He was a good song writer, he pioneered a genre but that was it.
It's not only that the Beatles pioneered the genre- who was ostensibly "better" within the genre at the time in which they were doing it? The Yardbirds released "Good Morning Little School Girl" in 1964. The Beatles released "Can't Buy Me Love" in 1964. Harrison's solo in "CBML" is faster and has more notes than Clapton's solo in "GMLSG." Therefore it must be "better," right?

The point is that the Beatles, individually and collectively, were as good or better than anyone else that was playing pop/rock music at the time. So much of what we take for granted as always having been there was initiated and popularized by the Beatles. What we take as good musical common sense is based on what the Beatles popularized.

Again, go through Beatles songs and see what you would do "better." Who are the musicians that you think would suit those songs "better?"

But this thread is going in a direction I hadn't intended. Like I said, I am not here to crap on anyone's heroes, but it has been an interesting conversation and I thank you for it.
I realize you're not doing this to get a rise out of people or piss anyone off- just attempting to explain why you think what you think. I just think you're way off 'bass,' comparing apples to watermelons.

[Rick N Boogie]

Wow, tough read, but I read it. Beatles were/are, the most influential rock band ever, and their music was exactly what it should've been. Finely crafted pop/rock, and later, a bit more progressive, then finally, pop/rock. Pure greatness.

[Ravindave_3600]

Hey GoldenBoy, you're only two posts from 10,000! :banana

Thanks for all your input! :aok








































Oh, and you spend waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time here. :D

[Ephi82]

So,

No one knows which songs were definitively recorded with the Jazz? If someone does, I am intersested.

Second, can anyone tell me what amps McCartney used in the studio from Rubber Soul on?

I "hear" Fender Bassman sometimes, but could be also the Vox solid state too?

[macca]

So,

No one knows which songs were definitively recorded with the Jazz? If someone does, I am intersested.

Second, can anyone tell me what amps McCartney used in the studio from Rubber Soul on?

I "hear" Fender Bassman sometimes, but could be also the Vox solid state too?


http://www.beatlesgear.com/

[Ephi82]

Excellent Site Thank you!

[slopeshoulder]

Macca:
- GREAT SINGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wtf to think otherwise?
- Innovative and wonderful lines, matched by few. Guitar player my ass.
- he wasn't a cheapskate, he was broke. he was also prudent which has served him well.
- He also has said he liked the Hofner due to the short scale and narrow neck.

[SGNick]

I'd read *somewhere* there are only 5 verifiable tracks with the Jazz.

I don't know how true that is. But it did kind of shock me because of how few songs that is- and that's just the ones that scream "I'M NOT EITHER HOFNER OR THE RICK!!!"

So that would be- (to my way of thinking)

"Dear Prudence"
"Glass Onion"
"While My Guitar..."
"Yer Blues"
"Helter Skelter."

I'd like to know if Hofner #1 actually showed up in any recordings after 67 to the time it was stolen. Just in the use of it from the "Revolution" film clip and it's presence from the beginning of the Get Back sessions, it seemed like McCartney was getting re-adjusted to what that bass could do. And to tell you the truth- anyone would be hard pressed to tell the difference between Hofner #1 and Hofner #2 and the Rick (the way McCartney was using them) on a mixed recording.


Dear Prudence sounds more like a Rick to me

Helter Skelter doesn't even have a McCartney bassline, it's Lennon.

As for the difference between Hofner and Rick, you can definitely tell the difference (in most cases).

For example, you can tell it's the Hofner on certain takes of Don't Let Me Down because the intonation is off on the Hofner and it goes sharp on the higher parts of the neck.