Space Bandit wrote:
grackus wrote:
hugorune wrote:
If 'they' went to all the trouble of replacing a dead Macca they could have at least used someone that can play the bass better than the original.
Someone who could play the bass better than Paul would have been hard to find, especially in the mid-sixties. McCartney brought a composer's melodic sensibility to bass playing. Faul does not. In my opinion this is just one of many identifiable differences between the two people.
Absolute twaddle.
He was known for playing root/fifth basslines (not melodic) prior to Sgt Pepper. Post 1967 he played more melodic basslines. The fact that his style altered does not mean he was altered into somebody else! Obviously he could mix it up, being a talented singer/songwriter/musician, and sometimes prior to 1967 he played more melodic, and post 1967 less melodic. But after 1966-67 The Beatles just took a new direction.
Don't take my word for it... consult a bass guitar magazine with an article about it!
bassmusicianmagazine.com/2012/05/the-mel...tney-by-rob-collier/
ffs find something else to do!
Why the exasperation? I realise that many people think, as you do, that The Beatles "just took a new direction". That's fine. I do not believe that The Beatles "just took a new direction". I'm afraid that telling me my post is "absolute twaddle" does not make it so.
In my opinion Paul pre 67 played beautfully. His guitar playing was great too. Post 67 he played like a sesh in the studio and like an arse when playing live. I am sure you will disagree, but I don't think I will be discussing anything with someone so rude and insulting.
I said it's twaddle, which in itself does not prove it so. However, I also provided a reason and backed it up with evidence...
