[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Bo Alex wrote: [/b]
John is a genius. HIs basslines, specially in the 70s, are brilliant. They are so melodic: You're my best friend, The millionaire waltz, Jealousy, Play the game and many others.
[/QUOTE]
Yes but many of those could've been composed by somebody else. John played (and probably still plays) well because his approach was correct, not because the lines were interesting - those are totally different matters.
[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with this. Even if the basslines were composed by somebody else, it would still take enormous talent to play them. It's like with someone like Roger Daltrey; he mightn't write his own lyrics, but that IMO he is able to communicate these lyrics so well arguably makes him a brilliant singer. So with John, he would IMO have to be a brilliant bass player to be able to play these basslines, irrespective of whether he composed them, if one of course regarded the basslines as brilliant.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE]
[b]Amazon wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Bo Alex wrote: [/b]
John is a genius. HIs basslines, specially in the 70s, are brilliant. They are so melodic: You're my best friend, The millionaire waltz, Jealousy, Play the game and many others.
[/QUOTE]
Yes but many of those could've been composed by somebody else. John played (and probably still plays) well because his approach was correct, not because the lines were interesting - those are totally different matters.
[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with this. Even if the basslines were composed by somebody else, it would still take enormous talent to play them. It's like with someone like Roger Daltrey; he mightn't write his own lyrics, but that IMO he is able to communicate these lyrics so well arguably makes him a brilliant singer. So with John, he would IMO have to be a brilliant bass player to be able to play these basslines, irrespective of whether he composed them, if one of course regarded the basslines as brilliant.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, but my point is: Daltrey's an amazing singer because of his voice, his delivery, his strength, etc... not because the melody of 'Behind Blue Eyes' (which isn't his, btw) is beautiful. Same here: Deacon's a great bass player, not because 'Champions' (or any other song for that matter) has a nice bass-line, but because he plays that (and others) with great performance, rhythm, precision, dynamics, etc.
[b]Amazon wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Bo Alex wrote: [/b]
John is a genius. HIs basslines, specially in the 70s, are brilliant. They are so melodic: You're my best friend, The millionaire waltz, Jealousy, Play the game and many others.
[/QUOTE]
Yes but many of those could've been composed by somebody else. John played (and probably still plays) well because his approach was correct, not because the lines were interesting - those are totally different matters.
[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with this. Even if the basslines were composed by somebody else, it would still take enormous talent to play them. It's like with someone like Roger Daltrey; he mightn't write his own lyrics, but that IMO he is able to communicate these lyrics so well arguably makes him a brilliant singer. So with John, he would IMO have to be a brilliant bass player to be able to play these basslines, irrespective of whether he composed them, if one of course regarded the basslines as brilliant.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, but my point is: Daltrey's an amazing singer because of his voice, his delivery, his strength, etc... not because the melody of 'Behind Blue Eyes' (which isn't his, btw) is beautiful. Same here: Deacon's a great bass player, not because 'Champions' (or any other song for that matter) has a nice bass-line, but because he plays that (and others) with great performance, rhythm, precision, dynamics, etc.
I have to say, watching videos on YouTube of people covering John's base lines to songs like The Fairy Feller´s Master Stroke and The Millionaire Waltz REALLY makes me appreciate his playing a lot more. Great stuff.
Adam
Thanks for posting that. I never really listened to it before in isolation.
Thanks for posting that. I never really listened to it before in isolation.
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
[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.
[/QUOTE]
yea right, Dr. John is so famous that I have to explain who he is to most people when I mention him, also, I'm not talking about public appreciation as much as what his peer musicians think. Think about all the huge queen fans, from pop to metal musicians who have come out and said freddie this and freddie that, brian may's uniqe guitar sound. Who ever mentions John or Roger. Entwistle was begged to say something about John, cos no one else mentioned the poor guy, and how about roger?...the only one who praises him is brian may, and that other story about him spending the night in Jail Drunk. Their both respected, but when you throw around the word "genius" it becomes a whole different game.
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
[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.
[/QUOTE]
yea right, Dr. John is so famous that I have to explain who he is to most people when I mention him, also, I'm not talking about public appreciation as much as what his peer musicians think. Think about all the huge queen fans, from pop to metal musicians who have come out and said freddie this and freddie that, brian may's uniqe guitar sound. Who ever mentions John or Roger. Entwistle was begged to say something about John, cos no one else mentioned the poor guy, and how about roger?...the only one who praises him is brian may, and that other story about him spending the night in Jail Drunk. Their both respected, but when you throw around the word "genius" it becomes a whole different game.
Roger Taylor is a unique character, cool, funny, the typical rock star.
He is an efficient drummer, a very good musician. He even has that distinctive beat.
But, no argument possible: John Deacon is WAY better bassist than Roger Taylor a drummer.
He is an efficient drummer, a very good musician. He even has that distinctive beat.
But, no argument possible: John Deacon is WAY better bassist than Roger Taylor a drummer.
Maybe we use the word "genius" because we aprecciate him very much. maybe the correct thing to say is great bass-playeer, who composed some great songs and maybe did some nice arrangements.
By the way, I always thought that John has composed almost all the bass lines, even if the song hasn't composed by him. That's because I called him genius.
By the way, I always thought that John has composed almost all the bass lines, even if the song hasn't composed by him. That's because I called him genius.
More often than not, the creator of the song composed all parts for all instruments.
[QUOTE]
[b]Al TurHao wrote: [/b]
Roger Taylor is a unique character, cool, funny, the typical rock star.
He is an efficient drummer, a very good musician. He even has that distinctive beat.
But, no argument possible: John Deacon is WAY better bassist than Roger Taylor a drummer.[/QUOTE]
nice post, and I agree. Roger and John are good musicians. The typical rock star to me is boring, guys like tommy lee, roger talyor don't impress me. Roger vs john?...I'm not sure, the live shows roger was better.
[b]Al TurHao wrote: [/b]
Roger Taylor is a unique character, cool, funny, the typical rock star.
He is an efficient drummer, a very good musician. He even has that distinctive beat.
But, no argument possible: John Deacon is WAY better bassist than Roger Taylor a drummer.[/QUOTE]
nice post, and I agree. Roger and John are good musicians. The typical rock star to me is boring, guys like tommy lee, roger talyor don't impress me. Roger vs john?...I'm not sure, the live shows roger was better.
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
More often than not, the creator of the song composed all parts for all instruments.
[/QUOTE]
Highly unlikely. Scratch that - completely unfounded and absolute tosh.
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
More often than not, the creator of the song composed all parts for all instruments.
[/QUOTE]
Highly unlikely. Scratch that - completely unfounded and absolute tosh.
[QUOTE]
[b]Negative Creep wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
More often than not, the creator of the song composed all parts for all instruments.
[/QUOTE]
Highly unlikely. Scratch that - completely unfounded and absolute tosh.
[/QUOTE]
agreed
[b]Negative Creep wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
More often than not, the creator of the song composed all parts for all instruments.
[/QUOTE]
Highly unlikely. Scratch that - completely unfounded and absolute tosh.
[/QUOTE]
agreed
It's not unfounded. Just because a person's not a bassist doesn't mean they can't write for bass. Same with other instruments.
Or do you think Mozart could sing all the bass, tenor, alto and soprano arias of his operas?
Do you think John Deacon could sing Best Friend that well?
Do you think Lloyd Webber could hit the high notes of Phantom of the Opera?
Or do you think Mozart could sing all the bass, tenor, alto and soprano arias of his operas?
Do you think John Deacon could sing Best Friend that well?
Do you think Lloyd Webber could hit the high notes of Phantom of the Opera?
It's very true of the examples you picked, but hardly applicable to loads of other musicians and groups. Given the number of artists who write as a team rather than pitching completed songs to each other, I don't think it works as a 'rule',
but as you say it's quite appropriate for classical composers and, of course, Queen themselves. There's plenty of evidence of parts being written in advance for the other members (as well as bits where the players were given free reign to do what they liked, such as Brian's solo in Bohemian Rhapsody).
but as you say it's quite appropriate for classical composers and, of course, Queen themselves. There's plenty of evidence of parts being written in advance for the other members (as well as bits where the players were given free reign to do what they liked, such as Brian's solo in Bohemian Rhapsody).
I still have to side with Sebastian here. It is more common for the composer to also do the arranging than it is for a separate composer and arranger to work on songs, especially in the rock and pop worlds (jazz and classical music are different matters, for highly complicated reasons of their own).
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
It's very true of the examples you picked, but hardly applicable to loads of other musicians and groups. Given the number of artists who write as a team rather than pitching completed songs to each other, I don't think it works as a 'rule', but as you say it's quite appropriate for classical composers and, of course, Queen themselves. There's plenty of evidence of parts being written in advance for the other members (as well as bits where the players were given free reign to do what they liked, such as Brian's solo in Bohemian Rhapsody).
[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course it's not a 'rule', but the ultimate fact is: very very very very often, the person who recorded the part did not compose it (and very very very very often, they did). For instance, whoever played violin on [i]Yesterday[/i] didn't invent the line, George Martin did; whoever sings on 'Cats' didn't compose the melodies, Andrew Lloyd-Webber did.
All the Queen members were/are professional enough to be able to write for other instruments, even if they can't play them themselves. That includes John Deacon (not a singer) writing beautiful melodies and lyrics for vocals (an instrument he's not proficient on). Of course Brian could (and did) write for drums, as well as Roger for keyboards, Freddie for bass, and so on.
Known cases where 'common sense' fails are usual too: Brian had some input on [i]It's a Hard Life[/i]; not on guitars though, but on lyrics. Freddie's main contribution to [i]A Kind of Magic[/i] wasn't on keyboards or vocals, but on the bass motif (which John played but didn't compose).
Beatles were also known for arranging themselves all the band parts, many times: McCartney, especially in the early days, played only bass, but he invented the guitar parts for John & George, the drum part for Ringo, and the harmonies (if any). On [i]Ticket to Ride[/i], Paul didn't invent the bass-line, but the drum part. Lennon wrote all of [i]Day Tripper[/i], even if neither the solo nor the lead vocal are done (recorded) by him.
The bottomlines are:
Mercury could write for guitar, and did so, many times, even not being a guitarist himself.
Mercury could write for bass, and did so, many times, even not being a bassist himself.
Mercury could write for drums, and did so, many times, even not being a drummer himself.
May could write for bass, and did so, many times, even not being the one who recorded the lines.
May could write for drums, and did so, many times, even not being a drummer himself.
Taylor could write for guitar, and did so, many times, even if May recorded them in the end.
Taylor could write for bass, and did so, many times, even if Deacon recorded them in the end.
Taylor could write for keyboards, and did so, many times, even not being a keyboardist himself.
Deacon could write for vocals, and did so, many times, even not being a singer himself.
Deacon could write for guitars, and did so, many times, even if May recorded them in the end.
Deacon could write for drums, and did so, many times, even not being a drummer himself.
Deacon could write for piano, and did so, many times, even if Mercury recorded them in the end.
Mercury could sing beautifully, melodies he hadn't composed (e.g. [i]Show Must Go On[/i])
Deacon could play beautifully, bass-lines he hadn't composed (e.g. [i]Under Pressure[/i])
May could play beautifully, guitar parts (rhythm, solo, choir) he hadn't composed (e.g. [i]Best Friend[/i])
Taylor could play beautifully, drum parts he hadn't composed (e.g. [i]Sweet Lady[/i])
And neither of the above points makes Mercury less of a singer, Deacon less of a bassist, May less of a guitarist or Taylor less of a drummer. But the point remains the same:
[b]More often than not (in Queen, that is), the creator of the song composed all parts for all instruments.[/b]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
It's very true of the examples you picked, but hardly applicable to loads of other musicians and groups. Given the number of artists who write as a team rather than pitching completed songs to each other, I don't think it works as a 'rule', but as you say it's quite appropriate for classical composers and, of course, Queen themselves. There's plenty of evidence of parts being written in advance for the other members (as well as bits where the players were given free reign to do what they liked, such as Brian's solo in Bohemian Rhapsody).
[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course it's not a 'rule', but the ultimate fact is: very very very very often, the person who recorded the part did not compose it (and very very very very often, they did). For instance, whoever played violin on [i]Yesterday[/i] didn't invent the line, George Martin did; whoever sings on 'Cats' didn't compose the melodies, Andrew Lloyd-Webber did.
All the Queen members were/are professional enough to be able to write for other instruments, even if they can't play them themselves. That includes John Deacon (not a singer) writing beautiful melodies and lyrics for vocals (an instrument he's not proficient on). Of course Brian could (and did) write for drums, as well as Roger for keyboards, Freddie for bass, and so on.
Known cases where 'common sense' fails are usual too: Brian had some input on [i]It's a Hard Life[/i]; not on guitars though, but on lyrics. Freddie's main contribution to [i]A Kind of Magic[/i] wasn't on keyboards or vocals, but on the bass motif (which John played but didn't compose).
Beatles were also known for arranging themselves all the band parts, many times: McCartney, especially in the early days, played only bass, but he invented the guitar parts for John & George, the drum part for Ringo, and the harmonies (if any). On [i]Ticket to Ride[/i], Paul didn't invent the bass-line, but the drum part. Lennon wrote all of [i]Day Tripper[/i], even if neither the solo nor the lead vocal are done (recorded) by him.
The bottomlines are:
Mercury could write for guitar, and did so, many times, even not being a guitarist himself.
Mercury could write for bass, and did so, many times, even not being a bassist himself.
Mercury could write for drums, and did so, many times, even not being a drummer himself.
May could write for bass, and did so, many times, even not being the one who recorded the lines.
May could write for drums, and did so, many times, even not being a drummer himself.
Taylor could write for guitar, and did so, many times, even if May recorded them in the end.
Taylor could write for bass, and did so, many times, even if Deacon recorded them in the end.
Taylor could write for keyboards, and did so, many times, even not being a keyboardist himself.
Deacon could write for vocals, and did so, many times, even not being a singer himself.
Deacon could write for guitars, and did so, many times, even if May recorded them in the end.
Deacon could write for drums, and did so, many times, even not being a drummer himself.
Deacon could write for piano, and did so, many times, even if Mercury recorded them in the end.
Mercury could sing beautifully, melodies he hadn't composed (e.g. [i]Show Must Go On[/i])
Deacon could play beautifully, bass-lines he hadn't composed (e.g. [i]Under Pressure[/i])
May could play beautifully, guitar parts (rhythm, solo, choir) he hadn't composed (e.g. [i]Best Friend[/i])
Taylor could play beautifully, drum parts he hadn't composed (e.g. [i]Sweet Lady[/i])
And neither of the above points makes Mercury less of a singer, Deacon less of a bassist, May less of a guitarist or Taylor less of a drummer. But the point remains the same:
[b]More often than not (in Queen, that is), the creator of the song composed all parts for all instruments.[/b]