No, but I can’t imagine how seeing it would make me think less of McCartney as a guitar player (or less of the song “Blackbird”).
Then you don’t understand the essential nature of rock ‘n’ roll.
But he is deficient…how?
Guitar hipster indeed. Give us something of substance here. (I notice you haven’t answered the questions I posed in an effort to clarify your views.)
How does playing left-handed on a right-handed kit produce an idiosyncratic sound? And was Paul’s piano playing idiosyncratic in the same way, since he was playing left-handed on a right-handed piano? I’m not being snarky; I’m seriously interested… That is, on instruments which are configured for right-handed players, is it possible to tell by hearing alone when a left-handed player is playing them, and if so, what specific auditory cues are there?
Bloke I lived next door to knew them. Didn’t say much about this though.
This is CS not GQ, don’t get all citey on me, eh? I went to bed, last time I looked there was no obligation to check with you first?
How is McCartney deficient? His bass-playing does nothing for me, it’s largely invisible, but at times comes to the fore to carry some passably tuneful melodic lines. Nothing more. That is the entirety of my opinion with respect to his bass-playing.
Why I’m not impressed with him as a musician? He seems remarkably clutzy in this video, and is overly impressed by a half-decent stab at Bach’s Bourree, a piece which is on the low slopes of the classical guitar repertoire.
You seem to object to my expection that rock musicians might be virtuoso, well let me clarify; virtuosity simply equals good, nothing poncy or over-intellectualised.
For the record I have loved the Beatles all my life (though I must admit that their music started to age for me sometime in the 90s), IMHO George Martin’s influence on their music and sound cannot be over-estimated.
Yeah, notate in common time:
Crotchet Quaver Quaver-Rest Crotchet Quaver Quaver-Rest
So gracious of you to do so.
I am not going to engage - not worth pushing on a rope. So, those Beatles - meh musicians who may have “had a good ear for catchy melody.” Cool - wonder if they were able to translate that to any success?
:smack:
Which you then go on to do when you equate their success with their musicianship.
There isn’t a head-slap smiley big enough.
For drumming, see the Conan interview of Ringo linked to in post 28 above. Ringo explains that for a roll or fill he “leads” – plays the first “note” – with the left hand, while the snare is to his right. So his fills which start on a snare and end on a floor tom (which is to his left) – this is the most common type-- tend to sound a bit un-fluid – a tad awkward, maybe a bit slow or jerky. But his fills which start with a floor tom – these are less common – sound more fluid than they otherwise would.
Oooh! Oooh! I see the excluded middle!
It’s called “making great music”!
Its Pearson’s r wrt instrumental virtuosity? About 0.31.
Its Pearson’s r wrt commercial success? About 0.38.
(Data obtained ex culo.)
Sorry. I missed the OP where he asked about the talent level of the Beatles.
Now I see the error of my ways. According to one list I found on-line They Are The Most Successful Band Ever.
Therefore they are individually the most talented musicians ever. THREAD CLOSED.
Christ, this arguing is a whole lot easier than I thought.
One aspect of the Beatles that hasn’t been mentioned much is how most of them could play multiple instruments quite well. I think it’s impressive that Paul has played bass, guitar, piano, drums, ukelele, harmonica, trumpet, accordion and numerous other instruments. One source (I have no idea regarding credibility) mentions that he has played 40 instruments. I do recall hearing that he played every instrument (every note) on one of his solo albums. Some of the Beatles most recognizable guitar riffs were played by Paul, not George or John.
The other three members could all play multiple instruments, at least to an extent. When you think of other bands and musicians, this ability is not so apparent.
I’m not in a position to watch the video right now, but in a standard drum set setup, the snare is between one’s legs and the floor tom(s) are to one’s right. Here is a picture of Ringo that illustrates, if not as clearly as I would like. His snare is centered on his body, and his floor tom is barely visible to his right, our left, it is barely peeking over the top of his bass drum.
Obviously, you don’t.
I agree with WordMan; further engagement would not only be futile, but manifestly unpleasant.
Let’s just say I’m glad I’ll never have the opportunity to see your “musicianship” on display…much less share a stage with you.
Please feel free to jump in with the last word. We know you just can’t wait.
Ah, thanks. I misunderstood the details. I’m pretty sure I got the general gist right, though.
Great point. While he dragged the Stones down in his personal habits and nasty streak, Brian Jones’ similar multi-instrumental talents were a big part of what made the 1966-67 Stones music such a delight (Between the Buttons is still one of my favorite all-time albums). As Keith said, “that cat could play anything, man.”
Yep, I have no quibbles about the point you were making, just wanted to nitpick the geographic details. 
Thanks DChord.
Again, not looking to engage with The Great Unwashed (a truism never more true than now). Provocation is fun if it can be backed up, but if it’s just “I think that supermodel has sharp knees, and if you disagree with me, you are a poopyhead” then there is really no place to go.
Either they were mediocre musicians who got once-in-a-century lucky, perhaps because of “their way with a melody” - or there is a bit more to their talent.
Have fun slapping your forehead, TGU.
Again you are equating musicianship with success which is simply bizarre unless you define one to mean the other, in which case the thread is a no brainer, the Beatles were phenomenally successful therefore they were great musicians.
“if you disagree with me, you are a poopyhead” does not correspond to any content that I have posted. Have a look, you’ll see that I have been subjected to some subtle and some not quite so subtle ad hominems, if I’ve returned a shot, it has been a return.
I don’t follow why the statement “I don’t really rate McCartney as a musician” could even invite the antagonism displayed, but hey-ho!
FTR, I attribute a very large part of the Beatles’ success to George Martin, it’s not an experiment we can perform, but I imagine that without his presence they would have been significantly less important in the canon of 60s music.
A few words on Paul’s “virtuousity,” or lack thereof, as a bass player:
First, as far as I can tell (and I’m not a musical historian or any kind of expert, not by a long shot), in those days there was no such thing as an electric bass virtuoso. Leo Fender consciously designed the Precision Bass (yes, I know, Paul didn’t play a Fender) to be really easy to play.
Listen to the best bass lines of the ‘60s. They’re mostly pretty easy to play. Listen to Motown records – James Jamerson came up with some great lines, lines that made the songs that they underpinned – but anyone with a year of bass lessons under their belt can play them, in the sense that they can reproduce them. The “virtuoso” element in Paul’s bass playing is in his creative process, not in his playing. Paul played the bass on stage because nobody else was playing it. As far as I can tell, in the studio, he played whatever was needed for the song. His musicianship was not expressed through his playing of any particular instrument.
Virtuoso electric bass playing didn’t come into being until after the Beatles’ heyday. In the 70s we got the Johnson brothers (I forget which one played the bass) and Larry Graham and a bunch of others, who transformed the electric bass into something entirely new, something that really hadn’t existed before they came along.
Instrumental virtuousity, as others have pointed out, is meaningless in the absence of true musical creativity. Would you rather listen to an Yngwie Malmsteen record or a B.B. King record? Or even a Hound Dog Taylor record?
Sometimes you get both in one package. Bela Fleck and the Flecktones come to mind.
But I bet even Victor Wooten would speak well of Paul as a bass player.
Saintly Loser, I agree with most of what you say, but I would like to add something. Bass guitar in rock had generally been considered a primarily rhythmic instrument, and Paul was good at that aspect of it. I think that what he did that was innovative was to recognize songs that did not need the bass to be in the rhythm section, and to then do something new (at the time) and different with the bass line in those songs. The example I will use is Something. After the basic tracks for the song were recorded, including a standard, rhythm section-style bass part, Paul went home and composed a bass part, came back to the studio the next day and recorded it without the other guys present. That bass part is beautiful, melodic, not tied to thumping on specific beats in a measure; it is a wonderful addition to a great song, and it was very different from most of what was happening at the time.
