FWIW I agree pretty strongly with Boobs here.
If you read my follow up I think you'll get a different perspective. He and I have a different idea of what the words "crazy" and 'Tasteful" mean in a musical context.
I agree with pretty much everything Boo Boo has said so far in this whole discussion about 'crazy'. I also to some extent assumed when you said 'crazy' you were thinking more Squire/Wetton/Claypool/etc.
I have two pretty strong beliefs here:
1) In music - and probably all art - there seems to be this strange resistance on the part of much of the musician/artist community to new ideas and styles of playing an instrument, or whatever. This by the way is why I'm not subscribed to Bass Player mag, despite their cool interviews and stuff they as an editorial board very transparently believe and not-so-subtly consistently push the idea that the only 'real' bass playing is 'traditional' playing, which, as Boobs said, basically means boring/derivative/musically inoffensive playing which has no ambition of moving bass playing forward as an art or even being musically distinctive. Nothing WRONG per se with that style of playing but to privilege that style of playing OVER more creative or new or unique styles seems at best wrongheaded to me.
2) There's a very, very thin and blurry line, it seems to me, between 'busy' and 'too busy' bass playing (same with drumming etc). Keith Moon was as busy as any drummer ever has been in rock, but this ENHANCED the music by creating a sort of wall of sound and an energy sonically. So the idea that playing very fast or complicated lines on drums or bass or what have you is linked to 'damaging' the music seems wrong to me, to put it bluntly.
Squire, Burton, Harris, (early) David Ellefson, Billy Sheehan, Claypool, Jack Bruce, Martin Turner, Geddy, Entwistle obviously, I could go on and on...Clarke in the realm of fusion...these dudes played very, very busy and often improvisational bass parts, and it MADE THE BAND BETTER AND MORE INTERESTING AND DYNAMIC. The idea that playing 'busy' parts or improvising heavily is a bad thing on bass in rock is frankly anathema to me and irritates me greatly. As a musician, I personally take after the type of bass player we're talking about here. I'm glad I do. I think more of us should strive to be the Keith Moon (in a way a model to me of what free-spirited playing can be if it's musically or artistically interesting, a style that's a musical ambition of mine as a musician), less of us the Cliff Williams, to put it rather bluntly.
By and large, NONE of the players I just mentioned very often get 'too busy' in my opinion. This is where I may happen to disagree with many 'traditionalists' in the bass community. But frankly, I think I'm right here.
While we're at it...I hasten to note that most all (maybe all?) of the great rock ensembles are great precisely because they're made up of combos of musicians who are each individually highly distinctive and artistically ambitious and not afraid to innovate or even 'break the rules' on their instrument, or at the very least have prominent and creative musical voices...from the Who to Yes to Rust-era Megadeth to Cream to Zeppelin to the Beatles to even the Stones, to Rush to 80s Crimson to Queen to 80s Metallica to Iron Maiden to 90s Death to...