Geddy Interview & Demonstration
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
bob_the_bass
- Member
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:29 am
-
just_bassics
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 1244
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:12 am
I love 'em both! And I think Geddy's early recordings are some of the best Ric tones ever recorded.
My father was a professional cinematographer who once spent an evening with Louis Armstrong on a job assignment. The man was a legend, but had eaten something disagreeable and spent the entire evening complaining about gas... From that story, I learned it was perhaps better to keep your idols at a distance. As JFK once stated, "No man can match his rhetoric". Squire CAN be quite frank with his comments at times...
My father was a professional cinematographer who once spent an evening with Louis Armstrong on a job assignment. The man was a legend, but had eaten something disagreeable and spent the entire evening complaining about gas... From that story, I learned it was perhaps better to keep your idols at a distance. As JFK once stated, "No man can match his rhetoric". Squire CAN be quite frank with his comments at times...
You can never own too many guitars!
Bruce, McCartney, Entwhistle, Jones, Squire, Lake, Lee, Clark, Whooten, Claypool.... and scores of others (are all great in their own ways), the list goes on and on. They all have, are, might, or could play Rics. It really doesn't matter. What they are playing right now is where they are at. I play what I play cause that is where I am at. I don't like or dislike someone's playing just because they play it on a certain bass. I like it cause I think it's neat. doesn't really matter if it's on a Ric, Jazz or P-bass, Hofner, EBOL, Carvin, Alembic, Washburn... if it is good then it's good. What determines good - if I like it, then it is good.
The only thing we can perceive are our perceptions - George Berkeley
I think I'm one or two up on you with Rush. You know how I feel about Yes. 
Not in the same fashion. I do like Macca's stuff, very melodic, but not "busy".
One thing you may notice, all three of those fellows play in three piece bands, I prefer a fourth instrument, preferably rythm guitar, but a kb is ok if not overdone. In that case, the bass is not as busy, melodic, or not.
One thing you may notice, all three of those fellows play in three piece bands, I prefer a fourth instrument, preferably rythm guitar, but a kb is ok if not overdone. In that case, the bass is not as busy, melodic, or not.
"I don't like or dislike someone's playing just because they play it on a certain bass. I like it cause I think it's neat. doesn't really matter if it's on a Ric, Jazz or P-bass, Hofner, EBOL, Carvin, Alembic, Washburn . . ."
I would agree, except that some basses have what I consider to be horrifically bad tone. I love Dream Theater and John Myung's playing, but honestly, the bass that he uses makes him lose a lot of points with me. It's not because I don't like Yamaha (I've never played one), but rather because his tone, on albums and in concert, is TERRIBLE. Same with someone like Stu Hamm: he can hold down the fort or play melody or get busy in a solo or PLAY EVERY PART TO THE SONG just on one bass. But his bass sounds horrible. Tone doesn't make a player, but it can certainly help.
That's why I noticed Lee and Squire and Meros and Wetton and Claypool and all to begin with because their tone (at least, their studio tone) was fantastic. It was because of the tone that I paid attention to their playing. That might be the bad way to go about doing it, but honestly, if I hear a song on the radio and the bass is anonymous, I'm not going to care what the bassist is playing. In fact, I'm probably not going to be able to TELL what the bassist is playing.
Honestly, I'm not sure what constitutes "busy" playing as opposed to other types of playing, especially because "busy" is usually used by people to mean "Lots of notes with no 'substance'" (whatever substance is), and it's usually contrasted with like, "tasteful" or "restrained" or some such loaded word.
The primary reasons I like bass playing are if a) the tone stands out and/or is interesting to me and if b) the bass is doing something interesting (to me) in the context of the song. Frankly, Rush would be really boring if Geddy was not typically a "busy" player. At the same time, U2 would sound really weird, and I think bad, if Adam Clayton moved from that root. Chris Squire is one of my favorites because he did something unique and interesting in the context of bass playing AND the context of rock music AND most importantly in the context of Yes.
I could look at a trend among bassists that I like and say, "I tend to like busy bassists" or "I tend to like bassists that play melody and/or counterpoint", but honestly, that's too simplistic. Entwistle was busy . . . SOMETIMES. There is no way his bass-playing on "Baba O'Riley" is busy at all; it's just the opposite. And I still love it, and it's awesome.
So yeah, in conclusion, we like who we like, and I'm not sure we can sufficiently or accurately explain why, but, ultimately, bass rules.
I would agree, except that some basses have what I consider to be horrifically bad tone. I love Dream Theater and John Myung's playing, but honestly, the bass that he uses makes him lose a lot of points with me. It's not because I don't like Yamaha (I've never played one), but rather because his tone, on albums and in concert, is TERRIBLE. Same with someone like Stu Hamm: he can hold down the fort or play melody or get busy in a solo or PLAY EVERY PART TO THE SONG just on one bass. But his bass sounds horrible. Tone doesn't make a player, but it can certainly help.
That's why I noticed Lee and Squire and Meros and Wetton and Claypool and all to begin with because their tone (at least, their studio tone) was fantastic. It was because of the tone that I paid attention to their playing. That might be the bad way to go about doing it, but honestly, if I hear a song on the radio and the bass is anonymous, I'm not going to care what the bassist is playing. In fact, I'm probably not going to be able to TELL what the bassist is playing.
Honestly, I'm not sure what constitutes "busy" playing as opposed to other types of playing, especially because "busy" is usually used by people to mean "Lots of notes with no 'substance'" (whatever substance is), and it's usually contrasted with like, "tasteful" or "restrained" or some such loaded word.
The primary reasons I like bass playing are if a) the tone stands out and/or is interesting to me and if b) the bass is doing something interesting (to me) in the context of the song. Frankly, Rush would be really boring if Geddy was not typically a "busy" player. At the same time, U2 would sound really weird, and I think bad, if Adam Clayton moved from that root. Chris Squire is one of my favorites because he did something unique and interesting in the context of bass playing AND the context of rock music AND most importantly in the context of Yes.
I could look at a trend among bassists that I like and say, "I tend to like busy bassists" or "I tend to like bassists that play melody and/or counterpoint", but honestly, that's too simplistic. Entwistle was busy . . . SOMETIMES. There is no way his bass-playing on "Baba O'Riley" is busy at all; it's just the opposite. And I still love it, and it's awesome.
So yeah, in conclusion, we like who we like, and I'm not sure we can sufficiently or accurately explain why, but, ultimately, bass rules.
Lee, Squire, Crimson-Wetton...these are guys who are described as "busy", but really what's going on is that their respective bands have the bass as an integral dynamic part of the group's compositions, as opposed to a root-oriented player who is essentially holding down the bottom end sonically, and who could in theory be replaced by any competant root player without affecting the compositions. So to me the issue is not "less or more", but rather how involved and dynamic the bass part is harmonically in a composition. A truly great player to me is one who can really drive the tune forward, but also can lay way back in the same song... take a song like "Spirits in the Material World" by the Police... there's an very busy bassline in the verses, but not many would describe Sting as a busy player... McCartney also has some very busy moments as well..."The Lemon Song" with John Paul Jones...busy and also way laid back when parts of the tune call for it. I think "busy" is often used as a derogitory term when a player SHOULD be laying back but insists on overplaying. "Different Strings" on Rush's Permanent Waves album... he plays very simple root bass...it's not like he said "I'm Geddy f**ing Lee" and stomped all over the tune.. I guess it's really all about tasteful playing, and I don't believe simple bass parts are what's always called for in some music. But it's also pretty horrible to hear someone needlessly noodling their bassline when it really needs to be a simple root part so the other instruments can make their statement.
Jim Boyle wrote: "From that story, I learned it was perhaps better to keep your idols at a distance."
Indeed. In an interview with Geddy during the Permanent Waves tour, he is asked whether he has met any of his idols and what it was like. He replies that it was very disappointing as the person was drunk.
Chris was definitely a big influence on Geddy at one point, but Geddy further developed his own style and is miles away from Chris now. I find CS's parts harder but I think it's because what Geddy is doing is closer to my own natural style - either that or I've been playing Rush stuff too long!
Neither bass player is too busy in my opinion. Both are just perfect for the bands they are in. I can't imagine Yes without Chris's soaring basslines. Rush would be a bit 'empty' with a more 'traditional' bass player. Yet Geddy can sit back when the need arises, as Jo Joseph points out above.
Indeed. In an interview with Geddy during the Permanent Waves tour, he is asked whether he has met any of his idols and what it was like. He replies that it was very disappointing as the person was drunk.
Chris was definitely a big influence on Geddy at one point, but Geddy further developed his own style and is miles away from Chris now. I find CS's parts harder but I think it's because what Geddy is doing is closer to my own natural style - either that or I've been playing Rush stuff too long!
Neither bass player is too busy in my opinion. Both are just perfect for the bands they are in. I can't imagine Yes without Chris's soaring basslines. Rush would be a bit 'empty' with a more 'traditional' bass player. Yet Geddy can sit back when the need arises, as Jo Joseph points out above.
Rickenbackers: 4003 FG, 4080 BG, 4001CS, 4003 DCM, 4080/12 MG, 4003s5 JG, 4004Cii MG.
Others by: Wal, Fender, Warwick & Washburn
Amps by : TC Electronics & Ashdown.
Others by: Wal, Fender, Warwick & Washburn
Amps by : TC Electronics & Ashdown.
I didn't realize my comments would be that volatile. I think it is ok to be in my camp too. I see the bass as a rhythm instrument. I think Geddy's solo on the live version of Closer to the Heart, is one of the best bass lines I have heard, It is very rhythmic.
I have no love for the various bass soloists (no band), but a lot of folks love that style. Each to his own......
I have no love for the various bass soloists (no band), but a lot of folks love that style. Each to his own......