Before I comment on the possibility of Paul playing to synched tracks, let me say that I felt like his halftime show was PERFECT. Not a lot of dancers with ribbons and magic tricks and falling from the ceiling. No causes or head trips. No wardrobe malfunctions. NO MEDLEYS CHOPPING UP SONGS!!!!!!!

That's what it should always be....a concert.

Now:

Paul was playing the bass, no doubt. But his sound wasn't coming through my TV screen. The licks were right, but not always in perfect time. Most importantly, there was one big punch at the end of a tune, with a big loud bass note, but Paul was pointing in the air at the time.

Then, the cymbals looks suspiciously plastic in the way they responded to crashes. (I have a friend who knows someone that played on Letterman. He said that they played along with tracks, but he had plastic cymbals and paper drums that LOOKED like the real thing, but made little sound.)

I think Paul was singing, at least, his phrasing was varied and never seemed out of synch.

So: did it look real or fake to you?

I noticed that point when he hit the note with a hand in the air. I thought he might have been hitting an open string with the other hand.

There was a keyboard player playing on the first two songs, he disappeared when Paul switched to piano. Maybe he hit the note.

For bass content, the drummer was Abe LaBoriel, Jr., the son of the great bassist. He looked like he was playing to me, he looked great.

I don't know who the other guys were.

Yeah Jeremy i saw that hand in the air bit and i too figured that he was just hitting an open note, but it was half past one in the morning where i was so i may have been seeing things

Can anyone tell me who won? i fell asleep just before the start of the second half, i was supporting New England but i have no idea why.

Much Love
Dave

New England won - they're a dynasty! :rolleyes:

I was completely unimpressed. It seeems as though I could have heard that set from ANY bar band in the country. That having been said, I don't know what I was expecting, maybe a great, new song???

One thing that I can offer as a television professional is that some of the cameras covering the event may have been out of sync with the audio. It does happen, and the way the signal was getting back to the production truck from the various cameras on field does vary. Some camera feeds are run over cables while others are sent via wireless devices. Occassionally during a football game you'll see one of these along the sidelines and they'll break up. One or more of these cameras could be responsible for the sync issues you saw.

There's been debate of this topic over on SSS. I'm supporting the "Paul singing live, instruments via recording" theory. That doesn't mean Abe Laboriel Jr. wasn't actually beating the living daylights out of his kit. It just wasn't in the mix.

40 years ago, a twentysomething Paul sang live in a Shea Stadium full of screaming fans (2/9 is the 40th Anniv. of the 1st Ed Sullivan appearance). He's capable of singing live at a Super Bowl.

The difference is that you were seeing the songs performed by the guy that wrote them.

He didn't disappear. He was playing a stack of keyboards throughout the show.
I watched the performance closely, on a high-definition big screen. The drum fills matched up visually/sonically, the singing matched up, the guitar playing matched up.... my band does both GetBack and Live&LetDie, and they ain't that tough to play. Assuming pre-game soundchecks went well, there's really no reason for that band to have used prerecorded tracks.

Over in Craigs Forum they are saying that its impossible to beat the crowd noise at the superbowl, with a live setup. These guys seem to know what they are talking about and think that Paul's vocals were live, and thats it. I dunno, that Drummer looked real to me. The whole performance rocked. IMO. Even if was tracked and pauls vocals were the only live thing. His vocals were outstanding.

kad said Yeah, that's the first time anyone has seen that.

I don't know if this has any significance in anyones thinking, but when Sir Paul switched to piano, the bass tone clearly changed. Paul was playing his trademark Hoffner with a pick and the bass player after the switch was playing a Les Paul bass with his fingers. The tone each of them had, to my ears (I was listening through a loud Hi-fi system), corresponded to what and how they were playing. Even my non musician wife noticed the change in bass tone.

Abe Jr. also seemed to me to be in perfect sync and the whole thing sounded live to me, although possibly a recording of a previous live show.

Bottom line: IMHO, I think either the band was live or they are incredibly good fakers. I thoroughly enjoyed the showed regardless.

I'm still thinkin' vocals live, instruments pre-recorded.

You can whack the livin' daylights outta plastic cymbals and not bleed through vocal mics.

Remember, U2 did say that they sang live to tracks at their appearance.

There are too many clues that tell me the band was playing accurately, live, but to tracks that were mixed and the mixed tracks came out the speaker.

That may well be right.

There's the further question of why it matters.

As some have pointed out, in this case it's obviously not a musical ability issue. If anything, I'd think it's a logistical issue. Did you see all that staging--and did you notice how quickly they were back playing football where a huge stage had been? Within a few minutes. What army of technicians would you need to put up & tear down not just all that stage, but all of that sound equipment, in that teeny little window?

Given those factors, the real question is how much good, real music an artist can deliver within such parameters. The question isn't whether you compromise, it's where & how much. And I think Paul got that EXACTLY right.

I think this was the best half-time show ever. It didn't push any envelopes, but it sure felt good. It's something that just about everybody can appreciate & enjoy. It ain't supposed to be Carnegie Hall. It's supposed to be a good time. And it was the best.

Thanks, Paul!

Paul gave the fans just what they wanted: A solid presentation of musical entertainment, delivered by a veteran professional who doesn't need to fake anything, musically.

However, I am siding with the "backing tracks" camp. The logistics of the stage setup/teardown, the crowd/pyro noise, and the financial pressures of the networks and sponsors pretty much demanded it, I'm sure.

However, while not especially surprising, I thought it was well done.
More enjoyable than the game.

Peace,

wraub

I dunno guys, I still think it could have been live music.

Hell, I can tear down my gear in under 5 minutes, and I don't have an army of roadies.

does anyone know if there's a recording of the half-time show online somewhere? i've been looking for it, but i can't find it. it's the only part of the game i wanted to see, and i missed it.

you can bet i would have found last year's half-time show online by now...

Yes, Maury, but that's because you rock.

Look at it this way: The broadcaster has millions of dollars invested, and plans everything down to fractions of seconds (have you seen time code? ) They, in turn, sell those fractions of seconds to advertisers for millions of dollars, and the advertisers want to be assured that their dollars will not be mis-spent.

The entertainer in this case needs to be able to work within very narrow parameters of time, with no room at all for mistakes, flubs, miscues, etc.
Everything must go off without a hitch, down to the fraction of a second, or mucho money is lost.
And the networks and advertisers hate that.

Sir Paul (and band), in this case, presented a medley of songs (with pyro yet), without a hitch, in front of thousands of people with a good sound mix (and additional instruments), down to the fraction of a second. IMO, the band was actually playing, but they were doing so to backing tracks.
But they sounded good, looked like they might be enjoying themselves, and actually performed like, well, actual performers.

And much money was made by all.
Isn't that what the Super Bowl is really all about, anyway?


Peace,

wraub

I thought Homer and Ned's halftime show was pretty entertaining, too.

What?!?!?!? It's not all about The Luv?!?!?!?

Oh my.

I missed the halftime show. I was busy trying to get one of my kids to bed during halftime. Perhaps I'm a rarity, but I actually watch the game to watch people playing football. Crazy? Me? Perhaps...

Peace.
--Dub $$

i'm glad to see i wasn't the only one with a query about sir paul's performance.
IMHO, whether or not he used tracks, and to what percent, etc. is irrelevent. i'm just thankful to not see his boobies...

I liked the show - was watching the Super Bowl despite not knowing what the hell was going on - I enjoyed Pauls set but I must admit Hey Jude makes me ill these days. It's like he can't end a show with anything else these days.

As for being synched - not sure - wasn't watching that closely. But I'm always aware that an event with that many viewers and that much hype will always have a lot of failsafes built into it.

Loves Live and Let Die and i thought the stage layout was ingenious.

I didn't really notice the out of sync thing but one thing i did notice....

Paul played one note the entire time.....not really the coolest thing to watch.

I will get flamed for this but i can say that i don't like Paul McCartney, i think he is a good musician, but a lousy bassist.

He even said that none of them wanted to be the bass player, to them the bassist was the "fat guy who stood in the back", so Paul i guess lost the bet or something, lol.


Ahh yes, the un named, un rewarded, un noticed musicians playing on the part of the stage, that is technically the stage, but not really lit up.....they're the true magicians.

I don't know whether the music was live or not, but I definately think the vocals were. Man, Sir. Paul puts on a great show!

1) I saw a bass player playing when Paul was doing "Hey, Jude". Despite the effin' A Hofner, I am sure the bassist in the shadows was probably doing a fair amount of playing.

2) If he was lip synching, he did a damned sight better job of it than Ashlee Simpson.

3) It was the Super Bowl, not Ozzfest. There would have to be a slight amount of "preproduction" to get everyone on and off in time for McNabb to embarass himself (don't flame me, I'm an Eagles fan!)

4) It was nice to see something classy for a change, and whether boring and old, or talented and nostalgic, Sir Paul, if nothing, is class.

Now get on with it!

Maybe you whould watch the tape again. If you think that he was playing "one note the entire time," you have ears made of cow doo doo...which makes me doubt your "bass god" status.

That's a very tender sentiment. It's also a very democratic notion. And it's also flatly false.

They're clearly very talented & do their jobs well. They may well have the potential to make great individual contributions to popular music some day. And I hope they do. For now, they're interesting only because of the guy they're playing behind. (And I'll bet they all realize that.)

I saw the show, looked for tell-tale signs, and didn't see or hear any.

So, what somebody has said is that because of the tight schedule, the powers-that-be couldn't trust a guy who's been doing concerts like this longer than the super bowl's been around?

At an Elton John/Billy Joel concert in Wembley Stadium (Billy couldn't be there because he was having a pulip removed from his throat ) I noticed that the sound crew was having a time syncing up the sound system. Think of the "Pride of the Yankees" speech and out of time with the performance. Big stadiums have those problems.

And Dave, you're saying that Will Lee plays along with tracks? Shame.

My two cents worth.



ATM

Didn't say anything at all about Will Lee. The Letterman band is live.

I'm talking about guest artists who play on the show, behind the curtain.

Bass God Offspring: from which loins did you spring?

Paul McCartney, along with Jamerson, Babbitt, Entwhistle, Chuck Rainey and Carol Kaye defined pop bass playing. His playing is melodic, yet powerfully rhythmic. He goes unique places.

Yep, lookin' at McCartney right NOW compared to the rest of the bass world might be blase', simply because millions of recorded notes pay homage to what he did. But look at McCartney in the 60's, comparing him to virtually any other recording of the time...he is definitely a pace setter.

By the way....the riff to "Drive My Car" is harder than you think it is.

I saw Paul with Wings back in the day and he was using a lot of backing tapes. Having said that, it was before technology would have enabled keyboard players in particular to replicate horn sounds/string sounds etc and play these sounds "live" so it would have been impossible to get close to the arrangements on the records without backing tapes. He used to use Alan Gorrie to play most of the bass while he played guitar or piano and sang.

Having said that I've seen broadcasts of Paul's recent performances and he had a smoking band, great drummer, the band was obviously playing live and Macca was mainly playing bass (superbly, I might add). His voice is maybe only 95% of what it was but he had a back catalogue of songs so great that it stretches credibility that they were composed by the same person.

Bass God Offspring, don't despair, a couple of years ago I read an interview with Jeff Berlin where he confessed that it had taken him many years before he realised what an awesome bassplayer Macca was. He admitted he'd been so obsessed with technique he couldn't appreciate the imaginativeness and creativity of Macca's note choices. The penny dropped for Jeff eventually and it probably will for you too.

BGO,

Go purchase all the Beatles albums and learn every bass line. Believe me, it's worth it.

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