Epiphany
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
Having seen Geddy, John and Flea live several times I'd have to agree with Ted; Flea is pretty much as fast as the the other two. I mean I love John and Geddy (AND Flea!); John is in my top couple of bassists of all time,and Geddy was one of my biggest influences, but I wouldn't say any of them are especially fast, and I'm speaking as someone who was, in my youth, known for being pretty rapid (and for playing too many notes 
). Half the bassists I know can play twice as fast as any of them. Doesn't put them in the same category genius-wise though. I'd say someone like Jeff Berlin or Stanley Clarke was pretty fast (yes I know Stanley plays short scales!) .
Personally I think the Who without John is like the Beatles without McCartney. He was probably 85% of what I loved about the Who. I don't see anybody filling his shoes in any way, shape or form. But then I am a little biased....and I think stylistically Geddy isn't the right man for the job even if someone was going to do it.
). Half the bassists I know can play twice as fast as any of them. Doesn't put them in the same category genius-wise though. I'd say someone like Jeff Berlin or Stanley Clarke was pretty fast (yes I know Stanley plays short scales!) . Personally I think the Who without John is like the Beatles without McCartney. He was probably 85% of what I loved about the Who. I don't see anybody filling his shoes in any way, shape or form. But then I am a little biased....and I think stylistically Geddy isn't the right man for the job even if someone was going to do it.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
I agree no one can replace Entwistle, but it ain't about how fast you play, it's about being inventive and spontaneous. Geddy Lee would be like a lead anchor with the Who, so would Flea, they are both very stylized players who would sink outside of their own little niche. You need a spontaneous inspired bass player who knows how to jam for The Who. They need a pure rocker and there aren't many left nowadays.
Anyone can go out and learn a song note for note, that's about as hard as playing in a cover band, it takes talent to go out and re-invent your own music night after night which is what The Who used to do in their heyday. This is sorely lacking in todays so called rock bands. Rock n roll is about taking chances and energy, sometimes you win and sometimes you don't, most bands don't have the balls to try it nowadays, they sound like their records live, don't know how to jam at all. Or worse yet they use volume to cover up their lack of talent. Even the Beatles varied their music live, they knew how to play.
Anyone can go out and learn a song note for note, that's about as hard as playing in a cover band, it takes talent to go out and re-invent your own music night after night which is what The Who used to do in their heyday. This is sorely lacking in todays so called rock bands. Rock n roll is about taking chances and energy, sometimes you win and sometimes you don't, most bands don't have the balls to try it nowadays, they sound like their records live, don't know how to jam at all. Or worse yet they use volume to cover up their lack of talent. Even the Beatles varied their music live, they knew how to play.
Er, Bob, I realised that about speed, which is why I put "Doesn't put them in the same category genius-wise though" . I was actually commenting on the previous statements about 1 or the other being fast, or "fast enough". It has absolutely no bearing on who could/would/should/whatever replace John. Although SOME technical ability might be useful.... John was indeed a spontaneous player, something I share with him (I seldom play anything exactly the same way twice either, it bores the pants off me). I haven't learnt a song note for note in about 20 years. Don't see the point really. Mind you, I've probably played about 5 covers in the last 20 years; don't really see the point of that either, although I'm not knocking those who do.
I think you rather underestimate Flea though. Can't speak for Geddy cause I've never heard him outside of Rush, but Flea has played on loads of other stuff, and I've never heard him come a cropper yet. Not saying he could replace Entwistle, as I've already said I don't think that can be done,and stylistically he isn't the same, but he certainly has more than one string to his bow, and he CERTAINLY knows how to jam. I think calling him a "niche" player is doing him an injustice, and I feel suggests a lack of familiarity with his work. In fact I also disagree with the rather sweeping statement about bands nowadays not being able to jam. What about the whole jam-band "phenomenon" (I use the term loosely)? And for every famous rock band who's forced to play it safe by their record company,or chooses to play it safe for their own reasons (often because of a lack of a receptive public), there are a hundred young bands out there trying to push the envelope. Unfortunately, again often due to the shortsightedness of record companies, many of them aren't getting the chance to do their thing at all. It's very easy to measure modern music by what the labels (or venues) are attempting to force on you, or by casual listening; that doesn't mean that's all there is.
. I was actually commenting on the previous statements about 1 or the other being fast, or "fast enough". It has absolutely no bearing on who could/would/should/whatever replace John. Although SOME technical ability might be useful.... John was indeed a spontaneous player, something I share with him (I seldom play anything exactly the same way twice either, it bores the pants off me). I haven't learnt a song note for note in about 20 years. Don't see the point really. Mind you, I've probably played about 5 covers in the last 20 years; don't really see the point of that either, although I'm not knocking those who do. I think you rather underestimate Flea though. Can't speak for Geddy cause I've never heard him outside of Rush, but Flea has played on loads of other stuff, and I've never heard him come a cropper yet. Not saying he could replace Entwistle, as I've already said I don't think that can be done,and stylistically he isn't the same, but he certainly has more than one string to his bow, and he CERTAINLY knows how to jam. I think calling him a "niche" player is doing him an injustice, and I feel suggests a lack of familiarity with his work. In fact I also disagree with the rather sweeping statement about bands nowadays not being able to jam. What about the whole jam-band "phenomenon" (I use the term loosely)? And for every famous rock band who's forced to play it safe by their record company,or chooses to play it safe for their own reasons (often because of a lack of a receptive public), there are a hundred young bands out there trying to push the envelope. Unfortunately, again often due to the shortsightedness of record companies, many of them aren't getting the chance to do their thing at all. It's very easy to measure modern music by what the labels (or venues) are attempting to force on you, or by casual listening; that doesn't mean that's all there is.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
I think Flea is great at his patented thumb and finger style (I won't call it funky because I beieve that that style in and of itself is not necessarily funky) but he's kind of mediocre when playing traditional finger style, and most importantly he's not a rocker. Geddy Lee is probably technically the best singer/bassist I have ever seen, (even though I really disliked his voice until it dropped an octave recently) but I don't consider him to be a rocker either. As far as the jam bands go I think 99% of them are terrible, they give the word jam a bad name and the ones I've heard certainly aren't even in the ballpark of rock. I was talking about rock which is what The Who were. Very few real rock bands left IMHO. If that is the fault of the record companies well that is what I hear on the radio, and that is why I don't listen to FM radio anymore except for for non-commercial radio and AM oldies.
There are many bassplayers past and present who I think were unbelieveable like Jaco and Jamerson and many others who could probably blow Entwistle away with technique but I wouldn't say any of them could play what he did either.
Anyway I was just trying to get the Geddy boys going, hahah!
There are many bassplayers past and present who I think were unbelieveable like Jaco and Jamerson and many others who could probably blow Entwistle away with technique but I wouldn't say any of them could play what he did either.
Anyway I was just trying to get the Geddy boys going, hahah!
Shaun, Bob, you both make good points, and I agree with you. I heard John a few years ago on a radio interview and he was asked about his ability to run up and down the fretboard with such little effort.
His reply was that he was always blessed to be able to play as fast as he could think literally. Now, that may seem flippant and a little offhand, but he was entirely genuine. He explained that whatever he could think of in his head he could immeadiatley transpose to the fretboard, regardless of how fast, or complex. If you think about it, that's one helluva'n ability !!!!
Shaun, from your earlier post, I think John, and Keith were 85% of what the Who were on stage, once Keith was lost there was a huge hole in the soundstage that was never truly filled. They both had the ability to improvise around each others playing styles, and make it seem effortless. Now that we've lost John in all reality the Who are sadly no more.
His reply was that he was always blessed to be able to play as fast as he could think literally. Now, that may seem flippant and a little offhand, but he was entirely genuine. He explained that whatever he could think of in his head he could immeadiatley transpose to the fretboard, regardless of how fast, or complex. If you think about it, that's one helluva'n ability !!!!
Shaun, from your earlier post, I think John, and Keith were 85% of what the Who were on stage, once Keith was lost there was a huge hole in the soundstage that was never truly filled. They both had the ability to improvise around each others playing styles, and make it seem effortless. Now that we've lost John in all reality the Who are sadly no more.
"It's Red Jim, but not as we know it...."
Yeah I agree Jim, when Moon the Loon died the heart and zaniness and most of the spontaneity went out of the band. And actually I believe because he had such a bad drinking problem they lost a lot during the 70's and were coasting the last few years before he died, he was not playing up to par. I have read stories where they had to have doctors give him stimulants just to be able to play concerts the last years. I don't know if the stories are true or not but I wouldn't doubt it as listening to their late stuff he just didn't seem to have it anymore.
Have to agree they were better with Keith, but then how many great bands could survive the loss (even if initially not the physical loss) of such a key player with no effect? Although personally my favourite Entwistle period by a long way was when he went to Alembic. Thought his tone then was awesome, better than anytime before or since IMHO. In fact that period pretty much defines good bass tone for me.
Bob, I notice you don't regard Flea or Geddy as rock players. Just out of interest, and not trying to play devil's advocate, what players would you describe as such? And what would be your personal definition of a rock band? Personally I don't really like to pigeonhole bands or music, but I'd be interested to hear your take on it.
Bob, I notice you don't regard Flea or Geddy as rock players. Just out of interest, and not trying to play devil's advocate, what players would you describe as such? And what would be your personal definition of a rock band? Personally I don't really like to pigeonhole bands or music, but I'd be interested to hear your take on it.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
Oh BTW, I'd probably say Richard Bona was the best singer/bassist I've ever seen...he's incredible. And ol' Mark King's not bad either. In fact considering how contrapuntal his bassparts/vocal lines are, Chris Squire does ok too....I'm sure there are many others I can't think of right now.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
There has been some quite heavyish stuff wrote in the latter part of this thread. It was just my overactive mind thinking what if..... But I do have some thoughts on The Who. I have only been a fan since the late 70's due to my age. Obviously I have caught up on earlier material since. I wasnt fortunate enough to see them with Moony. I did however see them with Kenney Jones. Now that for me was a lousy and ill thought out replacement for KM. Bob I believe you to be correct in saying KM's drumming was on its way out before he died. The reality of it is, that if The Who had wanted to carry on and KM had lived, he probably would have been fired anyway ! He was a liability, he was drumming badly and he was a mess of a drugged up drunk. He may have recovered but I think we all know that the destruct button had been pressed with no return. I think when they chose Kenney Jones they wanted stability but what they got was sterility and boredom. There is no wonder they packed it in. It wasnt until the mid to late 90's when they got Zak Starkey in that the band got its fire back. Zak is a natural replacement for Mooney and although not as visual he is a superior drummer IMO. Anyone who says he is not is just being nostalgic. This brings me to Entwistle, now his death is a more serious loss to The Who. I dont think that they have made the right choice for his replacement, it is Kenney Jones syndrome once again. I dont know whether they will get a permanent replacement, I doubt they will. But one thing I cannot understand is why should they stop ?? They obviously think enough about each other to want to carry on working together, so why shouldnt it be as The Who. Its evolved (Jeff, that was for you)into something else...yes the best days are behind them but I dont think people should want to put it down like a wounded animal. The fact is that if it had been the other way round and it had been Moony and Ent who were still alive there would be no Who. Daltry and Townshend are the main men and with those 2 still alive and doing it there can be an evolved version of The Who. All they need now is someone that is a bit more flash than Pino Paladino. Geddy are reading this ??????? LOL
BTW Keith, you're right about Zak fitting in well; he's played with them both times I saw them and he was great, and yes, I would have to agree technically better than Keith, although I think Keith was an integral part of their makeup as a band. There's some great stuff on the Albert Hall DVD actually, stick it on surround sound and it rocks, especially "The Real Me" (no change there then!)
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
I also agree Jeff, that technically Rush's stuff would be harder to cover (at least for me) than The Whos because Rush's stuff is much more rigid than The Whos is and The Who listen to each other and play off one another instead of playing rehearsed parts or at least used to. The whole point of The Who was they were a great rock jam band who came up and learned how to play together.
I haven't heard many good rock players lately. I have to go back to the 60's for players like Entwistle, Tim Bogart, Ron wood (yes of the Stones, listen to Beckola by The Jeff Beck Band, he was a great rock bass player).
I think my definition of rock starts with Chuck Berry and goes from there, fast with a lot of energy, punk bands like The Ramones were rock. I think the early Who were more rock than later stuff. I think a lot of bands today fall under the umbrella of rock but if you really examine them there are many splinter bands, rock-funk, rock this rock that etc. Everyone once in a while a real rock tune comes along like for example that tune from last year by Queens of The Stone Age rocked. There have been others lately but I can't remember the names of them. I just haven't heard many fluid rock bass players for a long time, guys who could walk out on a stage and just plug in and go wild with three other rock players and make good live spontaneous music. I'm sure there are plenty of bands like that but they aren't being played on the radio or at least the radio I rejected some years ago because I was bored stiff. I think stuff like The Reverand Horton Heat rocks, those guys can play and live on the road, that's my definition of rock I guess.. all the stuff i've talked about, but as usual it's all MHO. I think many of the bands today take all the fun out of music, take themselves way too seriously, at that point it ceases to be rock for me. I'm not saying it's bad music, I even love acoustic jazz for example but even that stuff was very spontaneous, I love the 50's rock and 50's music in general because it was recorded in takes one 1 and 2 track machines, all live, take the best take, done.
I haven't heard many good rock players lately. I have to go back to the 60's for players like Entwistle, Tim Bogart, Ron wood (yes of the Stones, listen to Beckola by The Jeff Beck Band, he was a great rock bass player).
I think my definition of rock starts with Chuck Berry and goes from there, fast with a lot of energy, punk bands like The Ramones were rock. I think the early Who were more rock than later stuff. I think a lot of bands today fall under the umbrella of rock but if you really examine them there are many splinter bands, rock-funk, rock this rock that etc. Everyone once in a while a real rock tune comes along like for example that tune from last year by Queens of The Stone Age rocked. There have been others lately but I can't remember the names of them. I just haven't heard many fluid rock bass players for a long time, guys who could walk out on a stage and just plug in and go wild with three other rock players and make good live spontaneous music. I'm sure there are plenty of bands like that but they aren't being played on the radio or at least the radio I rejected some years ago because I was bored stiff. I think stuff like The Reverand Horton Heat rocks, those guys can play and live on the road, that's my definition of rock I guess.. all the stuff i've talked about, but as usual it's all MHO. I think many of the bands today take all the fun out of music, take themselves way too seriously, at that point it ceases to be rock for me. I'm not saying it's bad music, I even love acoustic jazz for example but even that stuff was very spontaneous, I love the 50's rock and 50's music in general because it was recorded in takes one 1 and 2 track machines, all live, take the best take, done.