Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
eagle87

Top Three Bassist

Recommended Posts

I mentioned them as examples and yes, they're as good as Entwistle and JPJ. Different but high caliber.

You arent suggesting Squire or Jack Bruce are nearly as good as Entwistle or JPJ are you?? I think not. But of course Yes and Cream to me are not in the same league as Zeppelin and the Who.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would indicate to me that folks don't listen to much music outside of their safety boundaries

Again I say, "so what?" If Person X only listens to music made between 1960 and 1980, does that make them less of a music fan or less knowledgeable than someone who listens to music from the first note recorded to something that came out yesterday? No, it doesn't. It makes them a fan of that kind of music while Person Y likes something else. It's subjective, no one is right and no one is wrong. Who gives a rat's ass if everyone here picked the same 3 or 4 people? You're not the authority on who's right and who's wrong around here.

in which case I would think they might wanna expand those boundaries being this is already 2008 and all but to each their own.

And again I say, "so what?" What if they've listened to some contemporary artists and found nothing they liked? Are they forced to listen to something and then discuss it just to keep you from annoyed? Myself personally, I don't care for 99.9% of current rock music. I just don't like it. I've listened to it, I've decided I don't care for it. So I put my Doors CD back on and enjoy music I like. Maybe others here feel the same way. Does that make you better than me and those people because you "expand your boundaries"? No, it doesn't.

Some like living with their heads buried in the sand.

And others like being music snobs who get the vapors when someone discusses too many classic rock/oldies artists in ratings/ranking thread. Every single damn thread like this in this section, your posts come off the same way. The nanosecond people suggest too many names or bands or albums or songs that aren't from the last 15 years, you get your boxers in a wad about how no one here "expands their boundaries", how they all have their heads in the sand and how everyone just listens to the same things all the time. You constantly criticize what people like and what they choose to listen to and it's aggravating as fuck. And before you say you don't criticize, yes you do. What do you think "some like living with their heads buried in the sand" is......a compliment?

We get it already. You're musicly evolved. You're better than the rest of us. Don't associate with the riff-raff then, if we're such an embarrassment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again I say, "so what?" If Person X only listens to music made between 1960 and 1980, does that make them less of a music fan or less knowledgeable than someone who listens to music from the first note recorded to something that came out yesterday? No, it doesn't. It makes them a fan of that kind of music while Person Y likes something else. It's subjective, no one is right and no one is wrong. Who gives a rat's ass if everyone here picked the same 3 or 4 people? You're not the authority on who's right and who's wrong around here.

And again I say, "so what?" What if they've listened to some contemporary artists and found nothing they liked? Are they forced to listen to something and then discuss it just to keep you from annoyed? Myself personally, I don't care for 99.9% of current rock music. I just don't like it. I've listened to it, I've decided I don't care for it. So I put my Doors CD back on and enjoy music I like. Maybe others here feel the same way. Does that make you better than me and those people because you "expand your boundaries"? No, it doesn't.

And others like being music snobs who get the vapors when someone discusses too many classic rock/oldies artists in ratings/ranking thread. Every single damn thread like this in this section, your posts come off the same way. The nanosecond people suggest too many names or bands or albums or songs that aren't from the last 15 years, you get your boxers in a wad about how no one here "expands their boundaries", how they all have their heads in the sand and how everyone just listens to the same things all the time. You constantly criticize what people like and what they choose to listen to and it's aggravating as fuck. And before you say you don't criticize, yes you do. What do you think "some like living with their heads buried in the sand" is......a compliment?

We get it already. You're musicly evolved. You're better than the rest of us. Don't associate with the riff-raff then, if we're such an embarrassment.

You read much more into my statements than I ever say, especially in this case. I merely made an observation, I didn't say anyone was wrong or that my opinion was superior. If someone thinks some bass player from the past is the best of all time that is wonderful, I just think it's telling that more people didn't name more current bass players. Now, see what meanings I never intended you can twist those words into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Some people like living with their heads buried in the sand".

Praytell, if that's not an insult.....then what is it? A compliment? A pat on the back? Really now....elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Some people like living with their heads buried in the sand".

Praytell, if that's not an insult.....then what is it? A compliment? A pat on the back? Really now....elaborate.

Like I said, you have a way of reading stuff into things I've said that were never my intention. Again, that was merely an observation and if you look back through the thread and see the names listed you'll see it's a fairly accurate one. Like I said, it's all well and good if someone thinks some bass player from the past is the best of all time but there have been some very prominent and talented bassists since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, you have a way of reading stuff into things I've said that were never my intention. Again, that was merely an observation and if you look back through the thread and see the names listed you'll see it's a fairly accurate one. Like I said, it's all well and good if someone thinks some bass player from the past is the best of all time but there have been some very prominent and talented bassists since then.

So what? If I think John Paul Jones is the best and you think some random yahoo from a band formed 3 years ago is......it doesn't mean I have my head "buried in the sand".

It was an insult. A derision of people's tastes and choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what? If I think John Paul Jones is the best and you think some random yahoo from a band formed 3 years ago is......it doesn't mean I have my head "buried in the sand".

You must have missed the part where I said, "if someone thinks some bass player from the past is the best of all time that is wonderful...".

It was an insult. A derision of people's tastes and choices.

Again, you misconstrue my words. It was just an observation, not a condemnation. If it makes you feel better to think you were insulted, go right ahead and feel that way. All I'm saying is that there's been some very worthwhile bassists since the 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya gotta give some credit to Gene Simmons, wearing all the make-up, the outfits and the platform shows and he can still play his instrument. Oh and flicking the tongue is also pretty difficult.

Edited by JethroTull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you need to do a little research before making such generalized statements about a band you obviously know so very little about. I'm not being aggressive, I'm just calling it like I see it. If you're going to say a band like R.E.M. has a "classic rock tilt", at least be able to back it up with some facts. John Paul Jones doing the string arrangements for four songs on Automatic didn't suddenly cause them to have a "classic rock" sound. "Classic Rock" itself is pretty much a meaningless term anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because R.E.M. signed to Warner Brothers doesn't mean they suddenly became "commercial". They were previously on I.R.S., an subsidiary of A & M so in essence they were already involved with a major label. Has their musicianship improved over the years? Of course it has, that happens when you play music for a living. In one breath you admit to not knowing what albums some of R.E.M.'s songs are on, in the next you say you know an "awful" lot about R.E.M. I gather you don't know enough to lend any credence to your statement that their music suddenly took on a "classic rock tilt" with Automatic for the People, not to mention your assumption that if they did, that John Paul Jones working on the string arrangements for four songs somehow had something to do with it. You may hear a "classic rock tilt" to their music beginning with Automatic, I don't. The biggest giveaway that you're obviously not very familiar with R.E.M. was your statement about not knowing they are alternative or that they are credited with pioneering the genre. Even their most casual fan is most likely well aware of the fact that R.E.M. pretty much put "college rock" on the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because R.E.M. signed to Warner Brothers doesn't mean they suddenly became "commercial". They were previously on I.R.S., an subsidiary of A & M so in essence they were already involved with a major label. Has their musicianship improved over the years? Of course it has, that happens when you play music for a living. In one breath you admit to not knowing what albums some of R.E.M.'s songs are on, in the next you say you know an "awful" lot about R.E.M. I gather you don't know enough to lend any credence to your statement that their music suddenly took on a "classic rock tilt" with Automatic for the People, not to mention your assumption that if they did, that John Paul Jones working on the string arrangements for four songs somehow had something to do with it. You may hear a "classic rock tilt" to their music beginning with Automatic, I don't. The biggest giveaway that you're obviously not very familiar with R.E.M. was your statement about not knowing they are alternative or that they are credited with pioneering the genre. Even their most casual fan is most likely well aware of the fact that R.E.M. pretty much put "college rock" on the map.

Did you even read what I said?

I don't particularly care what albums those songs were on.

These were my opinions an you either agree or disagree but you don't denigrate anyone for having them.

I don't have to justify anything to anybody.

Where did I say that I didn't know that they were alternative?

As for pioneering the genre, "alternative" is as meaningless as "classic rock".

"College rock", how many people outside the US would have heard of it or cared less about it?

You told Electrophile that they were reading something else into something you had or had not said, methinks you are guilty of the same thing.

I like Americans, however, one of the things that amazes me is that whilst they know a lot about the USA they don't seem to know much about anywhere else, yet expect everyone else to know all about the USA.

I don't know why that is, it just is.

Merely an observation.

I hear North & South Carolina are going to unify.

I bet that news made your day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you even read what I said?

I don't particularly care what albums those songs were on.

These were my opinions an you either agree or disagree but you don't denigrate anyone for having them.

I don't have to justify anything to anybody.

Where did I say that I didn't know that they were alternative?

As for pioneering the genre, "alternative" is as meaningless as "classic rock".

"College rock", how many people outside the US would have heard of it or cared less about it?

You told Electrophile that they were reading something else into something you had or had not said, methinks you are guilty of the same thing.

I like Americans, however, one of the things that amazes me is that whilst they know a lot about the USA they don't seem to know much about anywhere else, yet expect everyone else to know all about the USA.

I don't know why that is, it just is.

Merely an observation.

I hear North & South Carolina are going to unify.

I bet that news made your day?

What does any of this have to do with your statement that R.E.M. took on a "classic rock tilt" after working with John Paul Jones on Automatic for the People? Not a damn thing as far as I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus christ, this thread just got fucking retarded.

You say retarded, I say interesting. It was an enlightening day for me when I realized that I (or anybody else for that matter) could never get the last word in with our resident musicologist.

Edited by JethroTull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say retarded, I say interesting. It was an enlightening day for me when I realized that I (or anybody else for that matter) could never get the last word in with our resident musicologist.

In a word: bullshit. You obviously haven't been around here long enough to get to know me very well or you would know it isn't a case of trying to get the last word in. I simply disagree with the notion that R.E.M. suddenly took on a "classic rock tilt" following their work with John Paul Jones on four songs from Automatic For the People. If so, I simply don't hear it. They are much more steeped in influence via Patti Smith, Television, the Cramps, the Sex Pistols, the Velvet Underground, etc. than anything even remotely resembling "classic rock". If there's any hint of vintage rock n' roll in their sound it was there long before that album and it's not of the "classic rock" variety, it would be more of the artists they used to cover in concert leading up to being signed by I.R.S. which would be more like your 60s garage bands as represented on compilations like Nuggets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From some of the same ol' names that keep popping up in this thread one might get the distinct impression that all anyone listens to here is "classic rock".

You say retarded, I say interesting. It was an enlightening day for me when I realized that I (or anybody else for that matter) could never get the last word in with our resident musicologist.

Exactly even though he missed every other bassist that was named that wasn't classic rock oriented, even though this is a classic rock website so you assume people like classic rock the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly even though he missed every other bassist that was named that wasn't classic rock oriented, even though this is a classic rock website so you assume people like classic rock the most.

I guess you know what they say about "assume"? Plus, I said some of the bass players named not all so I didn't miss shit. In fact, aside from Stanley Clarke (who's primarily known as a jazz bassist) the two other bass players I mentioned were Victor Wooten (Bela Fleck and the Flecktones) and Jimmy Smith (the Gourds). Hell, I may as well throw Mike Mills in there too as he is also one of my favorite bassists. As for this being a "classic rock" website, not everyone here even agrees on the meaning of that term, much less the assumpation that everyone here likes old rock n' roll the most. I know I sure as hell don't. Does it form a great deal of the music I listen to? Of course, but it's not the be all and end all for me like it may be for some people. I love music from many different time periods, music worthy of my attention didn't suddenly stop being made at the end of 1979.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love music from many different time periods, music worthy of my attention didn't suddenly stop being made at the end of 1979.

I couldn't agree more. :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the songs "The Pot" and "Schism" are both objective proof that Justin Chancellor is in fact the greatest bassist of all time..... :D

*waits for the incoming flames*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure who the musician is, but I like the bass playing that occurs during Seinfeld episodes.

Jonathan Wolff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the songs "The Pot" and "Schism" are both objective proof that Justin Chancellor is in fact the greatest bassist of all time..... :D

*waits for the incoming flames*

Of course he's not the greatest of all time....but he's got a fantastic start, and time. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...