I'm curious as to what one note he was playing when he "played one note the whole time".

I'd like to learn that note.

It might be useful someday.

BGO, listen to Abbey Road and Past Masters Vol. 2 to start your course in McCartney 101. "Something" alone is almost like a master class level song.

It was the note that earned him 3.3 mil for the halftime show appearance.
You know, that note.

Peace,

wraub

Ah, the whole "paid by the note" conundrum.

Definitely a misconception in there -- disjunction between desire and reality, if you will -- that was anathema to Yngwe Malmsteen's career.

Peace.
--SW

(Apologies for disrepecting the deceased)

If you had Linda McCartney holding down the keyboard chair in your band, you'd use backing tapes, too.

At that time, the Mellotron was still the keyboard for "realistic" strings, horns, choirs, etc. The "Strawberry Fields" flutes are a classic Mellotron example. (For "synthetic" strings, the Solina/ARP String Ensemble was the '70s keyboard of choice.)

Didn't Wings include a horn section for live shows? There was one on "Wings Over America".

This was a long time ago so memory is hazy but I don't remember a Mellotron. (This was when Macca was refusing to play ANY Beatles songs - never mind Lennon compositions like SF). There wasn't a horn section in the band I saw.

In those days for a songs like Band on The Run or Live And Let Die you had a choice between a very big band, doing a pared down version that sounded nothing like the record (and probably disappointing a lot of fans) or using backing tapes. Macca used backing tapes. It sounded absolutely wonderful, even to someone who hasn't always been the biggest fan of McCartney's solo career. I wasn't being critical of him for using backing tapes.

Paul practically wrote the book on the crafting of inventive, melodic basslines. Just listen to:

Something
Michelle
8 Days A Week
All My Lovin'
And Your Bird Can Sing
Getting Better
A Little Help From My Friends
Lovely Rita
Silly Love Songs (Wings)
Just Another Day (Wings)

That should give you a good start.

Kirk

:D

Or

Come Together
Taxman
With a Little Help From My Friends

But of course we could start listing the 549 songs he has written so far.

Let me know when your favorite artist writes one tenth that many decent songs.

Hey I'm just glad it was a half time show I could stomach.

Paul is definitely not a "chops" type player. He couldn't compete technically with a Jaco or a Wooten. But, the charm in Paul's playing is his sense of melody and his nice changes in rhythm that he throws in. I've got to say that nobody in pop music plays bass like that anymore. It's sad to see because Paul was super creative in supporting the songs with his basslines.

And it is true that Paul didn't want to play bass early on in The Beatles. But who cares? He left us some nice bits to listen to for the rest of our lives. And obviously he loves playing bass, otherwise he wouldn't be playing it anymore.

Maybe Bassgodoffspring you should go out and buy Abbey Road and listen to it. If you don't get it then, you're a lost cause with respect to Paul's playing.

So, someone has to be able to "compete technically with a Jaco or a Wooton" to be considered a "chops type player?" That would limit the field to, what, maybe fifty people on the entire planet?

Evidence of Paul's "chops" -

- Old Brown Shoe

- Rain

- Penny Lane

- Drive My Car

- Come Together

- The Ballad of John and Yoko

- Day Tripper

- Veronica (recorded by Elvis Costello)

Many others...

I think that Paul's music doesn't tell us if he could do Jaco and Wooten. He just hasn't. But Dan is right - the bridge of Old Brown Shoe is some bit of work.

Tom

On the "was it live or was it " debate, I'd say the whole show was tape and "Milli Vanilli" was broadcast that night. Which is fine; that's what everyone wanted, a predictably good-sounding, good-looking performance. Evidence? Besides the "watch me pick a note out of thin air" trick -- which if he had plucked with his fretting hand would have sounded quite different -- I just had a hard time imagining how a hollow-body could give such even sound without any stray feedback whilst crazily flopping around. (I've only seen one Hoffner bass played live and the thing was extremely touchy to where you pointed it.) Granted, the man's a legend, and if he could pull off a studio-like performance while singing lead and, um, moving about, maybe he should have been in a Canadian rock trio insead.

I'm always amazed at how "live" broadcast singers sound completely different when ad libbing, e.g., "We love you, !". I mean, like they've just stepped up to another microphone plugged into a completely different sound system. (Ok, so I exaggerate.) Anyway, I heard the same thing when Paul did his ad lib: the level dropped noticably even though he didn't stand back from the microphone, and I could have sworn the background increased somewhat. This amazing effect never seems to happen in the smaller more intimate settings.

And what if the whole show was canned? Unlike Milli, I believe that what I was hearing was played by the musicians on stage ... just at a previous point in time. And I got to see Paul McCartney "perform" on stage. Very entertaining! (IMO much better than watching today's Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys, who appears older than Paul to me.)

As for Paul's "chops" and whether or not he only played one note and if that one note was exciting ... well, let's start with what everyone seems to agree on: Paul McCartney is first and foremost a singer . Yes, that's right, a singer, and a darn good one, too, IMO. My range is more like George Harrison (RIP, George), so I can't sing the majority of the Beatles' book because of Paul's (higher) range. (I also can't play left-handed and I look nothing like Paul, so don't look for me in any tribute bands.)

The "one note", I believe, was a G. It is the droning bass note from "Live and Let Die" (the chorus). For those of us that can't help but "listen down" for the bass, no, it's not exciting to hear that G drone on through all the chord changes. (Like Michael Anthony/Van Halen's killer open E bass line to "Jump".) I just searched for the bass tab to "Live and Let Die" to verify that Paul isn't really doing some 16th- or 32nd-note chromatic runs instead of just pounding out that G, but I couldn't find it. Obviously, though, not every song needs to have a killer bass line; in fact, most don't. Sometimes the more simple or plain bass line is more musically correct (i.e., sounds right). For "Live and Let Die" (and a lot of Paul's music, for that matter), I find it easier to appreciate from the singing/melody part or as a whole rather than as a bass line. (Say ... doesn't he play the piano on this one?)

I find it interesting that "Day Tripper" was listed as a piece that shows off Paul's "chops". I purchased the January 2004 Bass Player, which just happens to have the transcription for "Day Tripper". (I think you'll agree, if you can figure out the main riff, you've figured out 99% of the song, so why does the transcription take 4 full pages?) The 8-beat riff is cool, yes, but does simply repeating it over and over again constitute good chops? How about the bridge? According to the transcription the bridge starts off with 4 measures of straight B quarter notes. It looks more like one of the exercises the mag prints to get you to learn to play smoothly and in tempo ("remember to tap your foot and count to yourself -- 1, 2, 3, 4 -- as you play figure 2"). Granted, Paul does go on to vary the rhythm (while still droning on the same B), progressing into the "Smoke on the Water" eighth-eigth-quarter before finally giving us the hard rocker's bread and butter: straight eighths. Now, would the song sound any better if the bass was soloing on that B7 chord (even under/over the guitar solo) instead of the "boring" bass line in the transcription? Maybe, maybe not. I think (sorry, can't remember who) said it best in that you have to appreciate the recording for the time period in which it was made, and not judge it by today's ideas of what a bass should sound like.

Since Abbey Road was mentioned -- and I happened to find a nice link about it -- I thought I'd say a bit about that, too. Being the "young punk" (born after the Beatles) that I am, I first heard the opening track, "ComeTogether", as recorded by Aerosmith. To me, the original seems to be more reserved and lacks the energy of the cover version. (BTW, the credits indicate Paul played a 4001S on this track: sweet!) Since then, I've heard younger bands cover tunes that I did grow up with, and to me the covers never sound as good as the originals. (To each his own, I suppose.) I also noticed that George Martin produced this album. Although I like the "raw edge" of some of the early Beatles (read, not-yet-produced) music, intellectually I prefer the arrangements of George Matrin in the later music. My opinion of the fab four has never been the same after I learned that what I liked most about their sound came from George Martin. (Your mileage may vary.)

If I had grown up during that time period, I guess my choices would have been to listen to Elvis or the Beatles ... in which case I would have thought the Beatles were sheer geniuses and I would have been one of their biggest fans. Unfortunately, I have to listen to them through time's jaded ear, so I probably appreciate the guy that ripped-off Paul's licks more so than Paul himself.

My apologies if my rampant sarcasm above is not always obvious.

Homework for tonight.

Take any Beatles song. Keep the guitar/drum/vocal arrangement intact.

Now come up with a better bass part.

js

The Hofner was unlikely to feedback considering that there were no amps or speakers onstage.

The Daytripper part is not quite as simple as it seems. IMHO, the Bass Player transcription was not correct.

The riff is in unison with the guitar in E, which means the guitar is using open strings and the bass is on the 12th fret. The riff starts in unison and switches octaves on the A chord.

It was pure genius to NOT play the riff on the B chord....just stay out of the way of the solo and build intensity with that "one note".

Paul does this on other songs, too such as Come Together. And On I Saw Her Standing There, he simplifies the chord progression behind the solo.

Even though I am of the proper age to be a Beatles fanatic, I was not. Remember I was already playing in a band when I first heard the Beatles. We didn't think they rocked hard enough and I guess I still feel that way. But as I go back and transcribe many songs, I appreciate them more and more.

Agreed

I really enjoy McCartney's bass playing, and count him as one of my major inspirations.

Very groovy, musical and melodic basslines that have laid the foundation for so many bassists to come.

Countless Beatles tunes to listen to for reference

Ditto what Jeremy said... I never cared much for the Beatles growing up. However, once I joined the band I've been in for the past 18 years, all of that changed. These guys specialized in Beatles material. Once I actually started playing Beatles songs, I fell in love with them big time.

There is a partial list (not all) of the Beatles tunes we play on our current play list: http://www.remainsmusic.com/PlayList.asp .

Anyone who has never played Beatles music live doesn't know what they're missing - it is SO much fun!!

Kirk

I'm not the proper age to be a Beatles fan, but the more I listen, the more I'm completely stunned by the brilliant writing and arranging.

If I needed someone to write a bassline to a song, Sir Paul would be on the top-5 list of people I would desire. (others would probably include Pino P., N. East, D. Dunn, and L. Sklar, in no particular order).

No disrespect, but Jaco, Wooten, or G. Lee would not be on that list.

It ain't about flash. It's about the song. If you want someone to come in and write something that fits, it's perfect. If you ask me, if a bassline doesn't jump out at you and the song sounds great, you've just played or written a good part.

(P.S. Phil Collins seems to have good taste in bassists)

Post of the day for the best unintentional pun.

(PS You must not know what good bass playing means these days, though, since you put Duck Dunn on your list. I mean, come on, listen to Otis Redding's version of "Respect"--the whole chorus is just quarter note roots! And "Dock of the Bay"? It's got half notes in it, fercryinoutloud. It just doesn't work anymore.)

[/sarcasm]

I think that sounds reasonable. But notice two things.

One, Paul's bass playing still sounds awesome today. If he had been a studio musician, he'd probably still be giving guys like Tony Levin, Lee Sklar, and Will Lee a run for their money.

And two, in Paul's "own time" there was a guy named James Jamerson who played on a record or two, and this guy had the chops that set the bar HIGH, for everybody. That Paul's playing sounds great in its original context is therefore not a very concessive point. It's to say he can stand with the legends of the instrument.

DCR, who said it was unintentional?

I'm listening to Mingus' Goodbye Pork Pie Hat. By all means, not the flashiest or out-front bass by Mingus. Great song. Great part. Did Mingus lack ability to play or write? I don't think so.

You can not like music; nobody will stop you. However, judging a composition or part by how technically difficult it is to deliver is simpleminded.

I don't think it's accurate to say Paul's lines are nothing special in the context of modern music. It's actually the opposite. A lot of basslines in post-Beatles music is not very special because of Paul's lines.

PS - Am I the only one that makes a connection between Sir Paul's playing and John Paul Jones' playing? The sly-melody parts grab me. Totally different technique and approach, but something connect the two in my ears.

see, i knew i'd get flamed by all the beatles fans here. oh well.

hey it's my opinion.

And it's wrong

Hey BGO,

I don't think you were really flamed. I believe that we were trying to get you to see the light .

Beatles fan or not, you can't contest the man's abilities. Now that is an open invite for flaming.

ATM

Not flamin' really. As a matter of fact, I see a great deal of respect and restraint as people try to crack open a young mind.

And a couple of people specifically mentioned they weren't Beatles fans. I wasn't either, at first.

In fact, I bought my first Beatles album in 1986. Then another, and another and another.

They kinda won me over, you might say.

Point taken. Paul's parts presently perform perfectly pleasingly.

First off, it's hard to define "better"; such a subjective word. I can definitely come up with something that sounds better to me . I think the original point was there has to be something more interesting to play/listen to than "one note" played repetitively or simple quarter-note rhythms. (Certainly, that's not to say that's all Paul plays, or that such simple devices have no place in music at all. Imagine the intro to "Running With the Devil"/Van Halen without that quarter-note pulse in the bass?)

Keep the rest of the track intact? I guess that rules out any Metallica-like metal playing. Kind of like, "take any country song and make it better, but you still have to use root and V and quarter notes." Seriously, though, a group ensamble has to listen and adjust to each other; the tracks "as is" are already adjusted for Paul's lines, so yes, it will be difficult to come up with something "better".

Could Paul have substituted for John Entwistle (RIP, John) of The Who, or vice versa? If John were a Beatle he certainly wouldn't need to use any of his fancy thunder-finger stuff, because the Beatles' sound did not emphasize the bass. John could probably have "played back" and come up with something that fit the Beatles' sound. On the other hand, The Who's sound depended greatly on John's bass, typically out front. If Paul just tried to politely play behind Pete Townsend, what would that sound like? "Talking 'Bout My Generation" without any of the bass fills? Or does Paul actually have the "chops" to "bring it"?

Okay, so maybe that's not his style, so maybe that's not so fair.

Talking about style ... I'm not fond of playing country, but I did as part of a tongue-in-cheek group for my high school talent show. Another band was in the show, and they played rock, which I would have rather done myself. Well, the other bass player seemed to struggle a bit -- maybe he was a beginner -- and after the show he came over and complimented my bass playing, which surprised me because I thought I had played too simply for any praise. (Yeah, I was doing a LOT of root/V's!) Anyway, the moral is it's better to play stylistically correct than to try to throw a bunch of fancy stuff into everything you do.

So, stylistically, Paul is a great early-British-invasion-pop bass player -- in fact, he defined the Beatles sound which many have tried to emulate. Is this what you guys are getting at?

(Sorry, had to respond to this one, too.)

I don't quite get what's meant by "sly-melody". Like "Black Dog" and ... what? (Well, that's just a riff, not a melody.) "Lemon Song"? Then listen to JPJ's newer solo stuff on "Zooma" and "Thunderthief". JPJ gives us a bass solo (ok, duet) on "Bass 'n' Drums"; did Paul ever record a bass solo?

Maybe there's a similarity because they both also play piano? Every piano player loves a good I-IV transition and lots of connecting chromatics. (Lots of fun improving with a guitar-lead band and then "changing gears" to go to a piano-lead band.)

I'm more tempted to compare (Beatles producer) George Martin and JPJ as arrangers. Think: "Mellow Yellow". Of course, JPJ is still at it, while Sir George has gone back to producing classical only.

Yup. There are two short bass solos on "I'll Cry Instead".

I never really made a connection between Paul and JPJ, but now that I think about it I can definitely hear a similar vibe...

Kirk