100 Greatest Rock Bass Guitarists

D.J. · **Joined:** Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:33 am **Posts:** 725

Ssoyd wrote:

D.J. wrote:

That's from the old forum:
Versatility: Versatility refers to not only versatility of musical genres, but also versatility in musical roles. Just like a guitarist is more highly regarded if he or she can perform well as a rhythm or lead player, it's the same with bassists. Bassists are the glue that holds the band together, and if the bassist can't fit in wherever the band, as a unit, needs them, they are not being very much of an asset to the band. Also included in this is instrumental versatility. This means playing a stringed instrument, besides bass guitar, in the role of a bass.

I'm not sure what all that means. Versatility in musical roles? Maybe the ability to play solos? Bassist can't fit in wherever the band needs them? That would be a basic function of any bassist. For instance to play melodic harmony where needed or lay down a simple groove where needed. All great bassists should be able to do that. That leaves, as far as I'm concerned, the ability to play well a wide variety of types of music within a genre as well as more than one genre as the most important indication of versatility.

I agree with u...that's alot more reasonable :wink:

Quinnsy Lohan · **Posted:** Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:25 am

So, any suggestions?

Ariel · **Joined:** Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:19 am **Posts:** 1392

D.J. wrote:

ariel wrote:

D.J. wrote:

Why do you think Entwistle's creativity is 13/15 and not 15/15? Are people like Squire or Macca really more creative than him?
Anyway I gave him 9/10 on influence cause I think Jamerson is just a little more influential but it's very close...
So by your scoring we have actually something looking like this:

Jamerson:62
Entwistle:61
McCartney:58
Lee:54 (I'm not sure about his versatility)
JPJ:53

Yeah Squire and Macca take Entwistle. Entwistle's near-genius or genius, nonetheless. 13 is where we get into genius territory when it comes to the creativity criterion.

Ent and Jamerson both deserve 10/10 on influence. They're the only two who do.

Yeah that looks about right. I stress again though, I don't know quite enough about this stuff to trust my own scores fully. I need other people to fill in the blanks with bassists I don't know as much material by, for instance (Lee, etc. I really don't know enough of The Who's career quite yet to know what the Ox's versatility score would be. I will say even if Ox took Jamerson in scores Jamerson still is a #1 lock, scores aren't everything.).

D.J. wrote:

Let's try with Bruce and Squire:

Jack Bruce:
Influence 9/10
Innovation 13/15
Creativity 14/15
Versatility 12/15
Tech skill 11/15

Chris Squire:
Influence 7/10
Innovation 11/15
Creativity 14/15
Versatility 11/15
Tech skill 12/15

What about Graham?

You tend to come up with pretty good scores :-) Are you a bassist?

Mine:
Bruce:
Influence 9/10
Innovation 13/15
Creativity 12/15
Versatility 14/15
Tech 11/15

...59.

Squire:
Influence 8/10
Innovation 13/15
Creativity 15/15
Versatility 13/15
Tech 12/15

...61.

Didn't I already do Graham?

Graham:
Influence 9/10
Innovation 15/15
Creativity 12/15
Versatility 13/15
Tech 13/15

...62.

Incidentally this is why strictly following scores leads to crappy lists. If we were to strictly follow the scores Graham would jump Entwistle which would be retarded or Ent might jump Jamerson (not good IMO). Etc etc. The scores are a guideline as Bassfreak used to say

Well..yes, I like to play bass but it's just an hobby and by the way it's my favourite instrument :cool:

By my scoring I see Bruce taking Squire, I don't see Squire so high about versatility and innovation and I think Bruce is damn creative, he deserves more on creativity;I'm also not sure about Graham versatility...maybe a 12 would fit better for him imo.
Anyway which criterias would you consider for this list instead of scores?

:-)

Squire gets high versatility...prog, fusion & pop.

Bruce gets a 12 on creativity, sorry. 13 is 'genius' territory. Bruce is a very adventurous jazzy/bluesy player who goes all over the fretboard and uses it well. He's my favorite classic rock bassist. But his style isn't as individual or inimitable as Entwistle or Levin, who define 13/15 in creativity to me. I'm not ruling out that Bruce might get 13 though...what tracks should one listen to to hear him at his most creative? (I already know his Cream stuff)

I think Graham can play jazz, rock, funk...? 13/15 if I'm correct, that's what I remember from the old forum

Feel free to correct me on any of this, it's just my impressions.

My point about criteria is that while this criteria is excellent as a criteria strictly following a set of criteria can lead to a warped list. I'm not okay with Graham threatening Entwistle or Entwistle jumping Jamerson. We could either change the criteria to make it give a perfect list (very difficult or impossible) or we could use discretion and only use the critieria as a guideline rather than as an absolute, unimpeachable bible.

Ssoyd wrote:

ariel wrote:

Ent and Jamerson both deserve 10/10 on influence. They're the only two who do.

Yeah that looks about right. I stress again though, I don't know quite enough about this stuff to trust my own scores fully. I need other people to fill in the blanks with bassists I don't know as much material by, for instance (Lee, etc. I really don't know enough of The Who's career quite yet to know what the Ox's versatility score would be. I will say even if Ox took Jamerson in scores Jamerson still is a #1 lock, scores aren't everything.).

Versatility is probably Entwistle's weakest point. He played one style of music with one band with occasional excursions on his own playing very similar material. McCartney and Jamerson played a much wider range of material.

Jamerson would definitely be #1 in influence while McCartney could very well be #2.

Reg. Ox, that was my suspicion. Are you very familiar with his solo stuff? I don't think he deserves a bad versatility score since he changed between My Generation (the album) and Quad for instance. He also could do smooth, soft, supportive backing stuff (Behind Blue Eyes) and straight-ahead rockin' style (Won't Get Fooled Again), and also he could dominate the song for real when he felt like it (The Real Me). Contrary to popular belief he didn't ALWAYS take up all the sonic space he could play basslines too when he felt like it (Drowned). He experimented with tone too over his career. Not a really great versatility score but not a terrible one either IMO.

I politely disagree on influence...no way Macca takes the Ox in influence IMO. Macca's style wasn't really developed/fully unique until around mid 1965 I reckon. Ent burst on the scene with "My Generation" 'round the same time and his style, especially after he'd matured (Tommy and on?), was kind of more unprecedented and out there and revolutionary. It made more of a splash as far as I can tell. Many more bassists cite him as a direct influence too from everything I know. Macca's top 5 influence probably?

Again just my opinions.

D.J. wrote:

That's from the old forum:
Versatility: Versatility refers to not only versatility of musical genres, but also versatility in musical roles. Just like a guitarist is more highly regarded if he or she can perform well as a rhythm or lead player, it's the same with bassists. Bassists are the glue that holds the band together, and if the bassist can't fit in wherever the band, as a unit, needs them, they are not being very much of an asset to the band. Also included in this is instrumental versatility. This means playing a stringed instrument, besides bass guitar, in the role of a bass.

I tend to like this criteria.

Ssoyd wrote:

D.J. wrote:

That's from the old forum:
Versatility: Versatility refers to not only versatility of musical genres, but also versatility in musical roles. Just like a guitarist is more highly regarded if he or she can perform well as a rhythm or lead player, it's the same with bassists. Bassists are the glue that holds the band together, and if the bassist can't fit in wherever the band, as a unit, needs them, they are not being very much of an asset to the band. Also included in this is instrumental versatility. This means playing a stringed instrument, besides bass guitar, in the role of a bass.

I'm not sure what all that means. Versatility in musical roles? Maybe the ability to play solos? Bassist can't fit in wherever the band needs them? That would be a basic function of any bassist. For instance to play melodic harmony where needed or lay down a simple groove where needed. All great bassists should be able to do that. That leaves, as far as I'm concerned, the ability to play well a wide variety of types of music within a genre as well as more than one genre as the most important indication of versatility.

Versatility in musical roles...the ability to play supportive backing touches in soft parts/songs, to play rock basslines, to play walking bass lines, to play solos and short breaks, to play the 'lead' role in a song...these are all different skills. The ability to play funk. Many rock bassists haven't really developed these skills. The ability to play wildly different genres. I consider 'instrumental versatility' part of versatility too since being able to play upright or cello inherently requires developing a different intuitive approach to the bass role, a different 'touch'.

Quinnsy Lohan wrote:

So, any suggestions?

I'd be rather hesitant to make any changes just yet, we haven't reached any conclusions.

Speaking of which, can someone who knows more about Lee than I do a criteria breakdown? Macca might have to jump Lee I'm thinking...but we need a Lee defender here first :-)

I also question whether Miller should make this list...is he 'rock' enough?

I'd consider moving Burton up slightly.

I'd put Newsted on the list most likely, and Martin Turner.

The bottom of the list seems to have been somewhat randomly put together.

Anyway, just some random thoughts. What do people think?

beaverteeth92 · **Joined:** Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:09 pm **Posts:** 1163

What about Justin Chancellor from Tool? Is he good enough for the Top 100?

Doctor_Pik_Jr · **Joined:** Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:19 pm **Posts:** 119

What about Harvey Brooks? He played on Highway 61 Revisited and Bitches Brew and was a member of Electric Flag. I believe he also sessioned on a Doors album as well as many other artists. Great basslines.

Ssoyd · **Joined:** Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:06 pm **Posts:** 373

Doctor_Pik_Jr wrote:

What about Harvey Brooks? He played on Highway 61 Revisited and Bitches Brew and was a member of Electric Flag. I believe he also sessioned on a Doors album as well as many other artists. Great basslines.

Harvey brooks was very good and was sited By Jaco as an influence.

Ariel · **Joined:** Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:19 am **Posts:** 1392

Justin Chancellor's sick, IMO he absolutely deserves a spot on the list. 13/15 on creativity IMO...unfortunately don't know Tool that well though.

Session guys are kinda weird...they tend to have good chops and versatility, and often have pretty decent creativity...but often little influence, and no innovation. A lot of them probably deserve to make the list by the criteria. Never heard of Brooks but he sounds like a good candidate.

People need to start giving criteria breakdowns and detailed explanations for people they want raised/lowered or there's not much to go off of.

Doctor_Pik_Jr · **Joined:** Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:19 pm **Posts:** 119

ariel wrote:

Justin Chancellor's sick, IMO he absolutely deserves a spot on the list. 13/15 on creativity IMO...unfortunately don't know Tool that well though.

Session guys are kinda weird...they tend to have good chops and versatility, and often have pretty decent creativity...but often little influence, and no innovation. A lot of them probably deserve to make the list by the criteria. Never heard of Brooks but he sounds like a good candidate.

People need to start giving criteria breakdowns and detailed explanations for people they want raised/lowered or there's not much to go off of.

That's the problem with session guys, they aren't very recognizable cause they never appear in band pics, and until the 70s they weren't usually credited (my Highway 61 copy doesn't have any credits), it's kind of a shame really because there are great performances out there where it isn't listed who the musician is. And it's hard to have influence if nobody knows who you are. Only the biggest session men have some influence and they're only a handful. I've seen Brooks cited as an influence on a few occassions though. No innovation is easy to explain, session men usually have to do what the artists tell them and are only allowed limited artistic freedom. And because they play with everyone they often have to play different styles which prevents them from developing a distinctive style.

Here's a list of Brooks' credits, though I doubt it's complete:

http://allmusic.com/artist/harvey-brooks-p59698/credits

Ssoyd · **Joined:** Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:06 pm **Posts:** 373

Doctor_Pik_Jr wrote:

That's the problem with session guys, they aren't very recognizable cause they never appear in band pics, and until the 70s they weren't usually credited (my Highway 61 copy doesn't have any credits), it's kind of a shame really because there are great performances out there where it isn't listed who the musician is. And it's hard to have influence if nobody knows who you are. Only the biggest session men have some influence and they're only a handful. I've seen Brooks cited as an influence on a few occassions though. No innovation is easy to explain, session men usually have to do what the artists tell them and are only allowed limited artistic freedom. And because they play with everyone they often have to play different styles which prevents them from developing a distinctive style.

Here's a list of Brooks' credits, though I doubt it's complete:

http://allmusic.com/artist/harvey-brooks-p59698/credits

On the contrary the best studio bass players do have a distinctive style. Studio bass players are often free to play whatever they feel fits the song. People like James Jamerson, Harvey Brooks, Joe Osborne, Carol Kaye, Tommy Cogbill, Chuck Rainey and Donald "Duck" Dunn all had a distinctive style that was desired by record producers. The ability to adapt their style to different types of music made them especially great. Today players like Will Lee, Nathan East, Tony Levin, Abe Laboriel and Willie Weeks among others stand out. Remember that Studio players often play on the Road in bands as well.

Ariel · **Joined:** Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:19 am **Posts:** 1392

Doctor_Pik_Jr wrote:

ariel wrote:

Justin Chancellor's sick, IMO he absolutely deserves a spot on the list. 13/15 on creativity IMO...unfortunately don't know Tool that well though.

Session guys are kinda weird...they tend to have good chops and versatility, and often have pretty decent creativity...but often little influence, and no innovation. A lot of them probably deserve to make the list by the criteria. Never heard of Brooks but he sounds like a good candidate.

People need to start giving criteria breakdowns and detailed explanations for people they want raised/lowered or there's not much to go off of.

That's the problem with session guys, they aren't very recognizable cause they never appear in band pics, and until the 70s they weren't usually credited (my Highway 61 copy doesn't have any credits), it's kind of a shame really because there are great performances out there where it isn't listed who the musician is. And it's hard to have influence if nobody knows who you are. Only the biggest session men have some influence and they're only a handful. I've seen Brooks cited as an influence on a few occassions though. No innovation is easy to explain, session men usually have to do what the artists tell them and are only allowed limited artistic freedom. And because they play with everyone they often have to play different styles which prevents them from developing a distinctive style.

Here's a list of Brooks' credits, though I doubt it's complete:

http://allmusic.com/artist/harvey-brooks-p59698/credits

Aside from your last sentence in your paragraph, this sounds right to me.

Ssoyd wrote:

Doctor_Pik_Jr wrote:

That's the problem with session guys, they aren't very recognizable cause they never appear in band pics, and until the 70s they weren't usually credited (my Highway 61 copy doesn't have any credits), it's kind of a shame really because there are great performances out there where it isn't listed who the musician is. And it's hard to have influence if nobody knows who you are. Only the biggest session men have some influence and they're only a handful. I've seen Brooks cited as an influence on a few occassions though. No innovation is easy to explain, session men usually have to do what the artists tell them and are only allowed limited artistic freedom. And because they play with everyone they often have to play different styles which prevents them from developing a distinctive style.

Here's a list of Brooks' credits, though I doubt it's complete:

http://allmusic.com/artist/harvey-brooks-p59698/credits

On the contrary the best studio bass players do have a distinctive style. Studio bass players are often free to play whatever they feel fits the song. People like James Jamerson, Harvey Brooks, Joe Osborne, Carol Kaye, Tommy Cogbill, Chuck Rainey and Donald "Duck" Dunn all had a distinctive style that was desired by record producers. The ability to adapt their style to different types of music made them especially great. Today players like Will Lee, Nathan East, Tony Levin, Abe Laboriel and Willie Weeks among others stand out. Remember that Studio players often play on the Road in bands as well.

Which is why I said session dudes often have good creativity. Also, I LOVE Abe Laboriel. What stuff has he played on that I should check out, that really displays his playing, ssoyd?

Echoes · **Joined:** Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:43 pm **Posts:** 3664

Doctor_Pik_Jr wrote:

JPJ wipes the floor with Geezer.

JPJ should be ahead of Geezer.

Ariel · **Joined:** Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:19 am **Posts:** 1392

KeithMoonIsGod · **Posted:** Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:45 pm

Radiohead wrote:

Doctor_Pik_Jr wrote:

JPJ wipes the floor with Geezer.

JPJ should be ahead of Geezer.

Naw dude. Geezer owns John Paul Jones, and makes him his bitch. Frankly, I like JPJ, but methinks he's a tad bit over-rated.

Ariel · **Joined:** Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:19 am **Posts:** 1392

KeithMoonIsGod wrote:

Radiohead wrote:

Doctor_Pik_Jr wrote:

JPJ wipes the floor with Geezer.

JPJ should be ahead of Geezer.

Naw dude. Geezer owns John Paul Jones, and makes him his bitch. Frankly, I like JPJ, but methinks he's a tad bit over-rated.

Yes.

D.J. · **Joined:** Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:33 am **Posts:** 725

KeithMoonIsGod wrote:

Radiohead wrote:

Doctor_Pik_Jr wrote:

JPJ wipes the floor with Geezer.

JPJ should be ahead of Geezer.

Naw dude. Geezer owns John Paul Jones, and makes him his bitch. Frankly, I like JPJ, but methinks he's a tad bit over-rated.

That looks a little exaggerated..i could see them very close, JPJ is a great bassist beside the fact he was in LZ as you can notice checking his solo works too.

100 Greatest Rock Bass Guitarists

Who is online