[QUOTE]
[b]joe90 wrote: [/b]
John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie.
Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls.
"Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.[/QUOTE]
If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]joe90 wrote: [/b]
John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie.
Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls.
"Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.
[/QUOTE]
If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines.[/QUOTE]
Jesus. I guess Britney must be the greatest singer alive then going by that reasoning.
Dont be so insecure. Is he a great? Who the fuck knows. All i know is that i enjoy listening to his basslines over most others. Therefore, he's great to me.
It's not a contest.
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]joe90 wrote: [/b]
John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie.
Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls.
"Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.
[/QUOTE]
If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines.[/QUOTE]
Jesus. I guess Britney must be the greatest singer alive then going by that reasoning.
Dont be so insecure. Is he a great? Who the fuck knows. All i know is that i enjoy listening to his basslines over most others. Therefore, he's great to me.
It's not a contest.
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]joe90 wrote: [/b]
John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie.
Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls.
"Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.
[/QUOTE]
If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be one of those people who believe that something is good when many people think it is. That's a fallacy. Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]joe90 wrote: [/b]
John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie.
Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls.
"Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.
[/QUOTE]
If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be one of those people who believe that something is good when many people think it is. That's a fallacy. Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
As Joe90 says:
Is he a great? Who the fuck knows. All i know is that i enjoy listening to
his basslines over most others. Therefore, he's great to me.
Good point. For me one of the few where i follow a bassline the whole song! A joy 2 listen 2!
Same as Freddie.. probably there are better singers out there, but for me He is god!
Is he a great? Who the fuck knows. All i know is that i enjoy listening to
his basslines over most others. Therefore, he's great to me.
Good point. For me one of the few where i follow a bassline the whole song! A joy 2 listen 2!
Same as Freddie.. probably there are better singers out there, but for me He is god!
I'm a bassist and I don't think JD was the best bassist around. He's solid, that's for sure. But he is no John Entwistle or John Paul Jones. I saw The Who play live back in a few years ago, before The Ox passed away. He put on a five minute bass solo which to be honest is the best bass solo I've ever heard in my life. It was quite a humbling experience. I thought I was good, but my God, Entwistle was THE best bassist I've ever scene live.
Although Deacon wasn't the best bassist of his time, his song writing speaks for itself. A very solid bassist with superb writing abilities.
Although Deacon wasn't the best bassist of his time, his song writing speaks for itself. A very solid bassist with superb writing abilities.
Double post.
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote:[/b]
Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but then who decides what characteristics are good and bad? Doesn't that come close to a subjective opinion, even if it is well-informed?
(Don't mind me, this is just something that's been on my mind since the last time QZ got into an argument with Matias).
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote:[/b]
Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but then who decides what characteristics are good and bad? Doesn't that come close to a subjective opinion, even if it is well-informed?
(Don't mind me, this is just something that's been on my mind since the last time QZ got into an argument with Matias).
I play bass and John Deacon is a fantastic bass player who has inspired my style of playing more than any other. He knew when to show off and when to stay in the background, when to play a melodic line or stick to the root notes. If you listen carefully to the music you can here John's subtle brilliance, from his fast runs to muted notes to his jumping up and down an octave.
He was a much better all round player than Mccartney, whose in your face bass lines in almost every song, almost flood the rest of the instruments. John's playing on the other hand never flooded the rest of the instruments, even on the bass heavy songs. So yes in my opinion he was an amazing player.
He was a much better all round player than Mccartney, whose in your face bass lines in almost every song, almost flood the rest of the instruments. John's playing on the other hand never flooded the rest of the instruments, even on the bass heavy songs. So yes in my opinion he was an amazing player.
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]joe90 wrote: [/b]
John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie.
Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls.
"Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.
[/QUOTE]
If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be one of those people who believe that something is good when many people think it is. That's a fallacy. Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
your incorrect on that. Check my profile, most of my favorite musicians are not the most known by the public. Dr. John, randy newman, poor randy gets no respect. Even Queen, I'll say queen are in the top 5 or 10 of the greatest bands ever. Most people in my area (NY) would disagree. Your opinion is that Deacon is a genious bass play, I disagree, IMO, he's a very good one. not a genious. How does that make me insecure?
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]joe90 wrote: [/b]
John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie.
Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls.
"Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.
[/QUOTE]
If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be one of those people who believe that something is good when many people think it is. That's a fallacy. Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
your incorrect on that. Check my profile, most of my favorite musicians are not the most known by the public. Dr. John, randy newman, poor randy gets no respect. Even Queen, I'll say queen are in the top 5 or 10 of the greatest bands ever. Most people in my area (NY) would disagree. Your opinion is that Deacon is a genious bass play, I disagree, IMO, he's a very good one. not a genious. How does that make me insecure?
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote:[/b]
Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but then who decides what characteristics are good and bad? Doesn't that come close to a subjective opinion, even if it is well-informed?
(Don't mind me, this is just something that's been on my mind since the last time QZ got into an argument with Matias).
[/QUOTE]
To get to the bottom of this, we'd have to launch into a very long discussion of continental aesthetics. I personally don't feel like doing that right now, so I'll try to summarize my views on the philosophical side of this question:
A work of art is a work of art regardless of the context wherein it is found (Heidegger). Therefore, what makes it art is to be found in the artwork itself. Many attempts at a formalist definition of art (i.e. one where inherent characteristics are taken to define an artwork AND where these characteristics are defined) have been attempted, and all failed (see Hanslick for a good example of this), because they were either too inclusive or too exclusive. The fact that the public's opinion on what is and is not art is often wrong has been shown throughout history by the numerous artists who did not gain recognition until late in their careers or after their deaths, as well as by Dadaism and parts of the Expressionist movement. This I personally explain by saying "people as a whole like art they understand, and they only understand [logical necessity] what they already know". Therefore, people do not want to be given a new perspective on art appreciation and thus will deny the art-ness of modern art.
An absolute solution to the problem is not to be found, as no person or group of persons is capable of infallible judgement over the work of art. The pragmatic solution offered is to give every individual the right to define anything as being either art or non-art, but this is, as I said, merely pragmatism. Objectivity is a fully theoretical construction, as it is technically impossible to experience anything through anything else than our own senses, which makes any experience subjective. Thus, the quality (or art-ness) of a work of art cannot be defined, but it is, with Heidegger's simple statement I opened with, evident that whatever makes something art is present in the art-work.
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote:[/b]
Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but then who decides what characteristics are good and bad? Doesn't that come close to a subjective opinion, even if it is well-informed?
(Don't mind me, this is just something that's been on my mind since the last time QZ got into an argument with Matias).
[/QUOTE]
To get to the bottom of this, we'd have to launch into a very long discussion of continental aesthetics. I personally don't feel like doing that right now, so I'll try to summarize my views on the philosophical side of this question:
A work of art is a work of art regardless of the context wherein it is found (Heidegger). Therefore, what makes it art is to be found in the artwork itself. Many attempts at a formalist definition of art (i.e. one where inherent characteristics are taken to define an artwork AND where these characteristics are defined) have been attempted, and all failed (see Hanslick for a good example of this), because they were either too inclusive or too exclusive. The fact that the public's opinion on what is and is not art is often wrong has been shown throughout history by the numerous artists who did not gain recognition until late in their careers or after their deaths, as well as by Dadaism and parts of the Expressionist movement. This I personally explain by saying "people as a whole like art they understand, and they only understand [logical necessity] what they already know". Therefore, people do not want to be given a new perspective on art appreciation and thus will deny the art-ness of modern art.
An absolute solution to the problem is not to be found, as no person or group of persons is capable of infallible judgement over the work of art. The pragmatic solution offered is to give every individual the right to define anything as being either art or non-art, but this is, as I said, merely pragmatism. Objectivity is a fully theoretical construction, as it is technically impossible to experience anything through anything else than our own senses, which makes any experience subjective. Thus, the quality (or art-ness) of a work of art cannot be defined, but it is, with Heidegger's simple statement I opened with, evident that whatever makes something art is present in the art-work.
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]joe90 wrote: [/b]
John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie.
Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls.
"Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.
[/QUOTE]
If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be one of those people who believe that something is good when many people think it is. That's a fallacy. Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
your incorrect on that. Check my profile, most of my favorite musicians are not the most known by the public. Dr. John, randy newman, poor randy gets no respect. Even Queen, I'll say queen are in the top 5 or 10 of the greatest bands ever. Most people in my area (NY) would disagree. Your opinion is that Deacon is a genious bass play, I disagree, IMO, he's a very good one. not a genious. How does that make me insecure?
[/QUOTE]
I do not consider John Deacon "a genius bass player". I consider him to be thoroughly competent if slightly dull. I do not frankly care too much what your taste in music is, as that is something for you to decide yourself and doesn't involve me (incidentally, Dr. John and Randy Newman are still extremely famous musicians). I respond merely to what you said, which was "If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often". That presupposes that greatness is measured by public appreciation, which was what I responded to.
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]joe90 wrote: [/b]
John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie.
Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls.
"Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.
[/QUOTE]
If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be one of those people who believe that something is good when many people think it is. That's a fallacy. Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
your incorrect on that. Check my profile, most of my favorite musicians are not the most known by the public. Dr. John, randy newman, poor randy gets no respect. Even Queen, I'll say queen are in the top 5 or 10 of the greatest bands ever. Most people in my area (NY) would disagree. Your opinion is that Deacon is a genious bass play, I disagree, IMO, he's a very good one. not a genious. How does that make me insecure?
[/QUOTE]
I do not consider John Deacon "a genius bass player". I consider him to be thoroughly competent if slightly dull. I do not frankly care too much what your taste in music is, as that is something for you to decide yourself and doesn't involve me (incidentally, Dr. John and Randy Newman are still extremely famous musicians). I respond merely to what you said, which was "If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often". That presupposes that greatness is measured by public appreciation, which was what I responded to.
I've been reading "genius" here quite often in this thread.
IMHO, if there was a genius in Queen, it was Freddie Mercury, in terms of songwriting.
IMHO, if there was a genius in Queen, it was Freddie Mercury, in terms of songwriting.
[QUOTE]
[b]Al TurHao wrote: [/b]
I've been reading "genius" here quite often in this thread.
IMHO, if there was a genius in Queen, it was Freddie Mercury, in terms of songwriting.[/QUOTE]
And Brian May wasn't one, in terms of composing and arranging songs...?
[b]Al TurHao wrote: [/b]
I've been reading "genius" here quite often in this thread.
IMHO, if there was a genius in Queen, it was Freddie Mercury, in terms of songwriting.[/QUOTE]
And Brian May wasn't one, in terms of composing and arranging songs...?
Like most people, he is confusing performance and compositional skills.