Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brynjar]

Who wrote and played the bassline on Taxman? Was it Paul? Was it George? I've seen different sources. Was it perhaps nicked from another song?

[BlueMeanie]

They nicked it from Paul Weller.

[tkitna]

Paul played the bass line and probably created it too.

[alexis]

Not knowing any better, I just assumed it was George since it was his song.

Can anyone post a reference otherwise, please?

If it was Paul, well let's see - he wrote the iconic bass line, he performed the incredibly avante gard, complex and just all around kick-*ss guitar solo ... how much of this song was actually George's?

Without the bass line and guitar solo, the song might be considered not much more than an electrified "For You Blue".

** Ducks shoes and other flying objects here ... **

[fendertele]

Not knowing any better, I just assumed it was George since it was his song.

Can anyone post a reference otherwise, please?

If it was Paul, well let's see - he wrote the iconic bass line, he performed the incredibly avante gard, complex and just all around kick-*ss guitar solo ... how much of this song was actually George's?

Without the bass line and guitar solo, the song might be considered not much more than an electrified "For You Blue".

** Ducks shoes and other flying objects here ... **

Paul was always taking a decent song and making it a whole lot better, imagine Rain without his bassline and just basic root notes ? wouldnt be much of a song, same could be said for something,Nowhere man without the bass runs, hey bulldog would be pretty mediocre without his contribution.
 i think that was the one thing that made him stand above the others in the band musically, he wrote great songs and he also had the ability to turn his bandmates songs from an averege tune into a memorable classic, something that wasn't often returned or needed

[An Apple Beatle]

^ Well put sir. The dynamics of this band are so nice to appreciate.

[tkitna]

Can anyone post a reference otherwise, please?

If it was Paul, well let's see - he wrote the iconic bass line, he performed the incredibly avante gard, complex and just all around kick-*ss guitar solo ... how much of this song was actually George's?

http://www.thebeatlesonline.com/pages/beatles_taxman.htm
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Taxman

[alexis]

^ Well put sir. The dynamics of this band are so nice to appreciate.

+1. +1.  

[harihead]

Harrison added more lyrics on that tour, such as "If you're overweight, I'll tax your fat."

Heh. Loved that bit. Thanks for the links!

[Ged]

Great links tkitna.

[Dr Robert]

If it was Paul, well let's see - he wrote the iconic bass line, he performed the incredibly avante gard, complex and just all around kick-*ss guitar solo ... how much of this song was actually George's?

I might be off here, but I would venture to say that except for a few exceptions, none of the songs that any of the Beatles wrote were strictly "their songs." What I mean by that is, the Beatles were actually a band, and even though they each wrote songs, when they played together and worked on the songs they each contributed. I remember reading an interview with George where he talked about his infamous fight with Paul that appeared on the Let It Be movie, where George took offense to Paul's trying to show George how the guitar work should be during "I've Got A Feeling." In the interview, George said something like, "I was the lead guitarist; it was MY job to work out the guitar part of the songs, not Paul's." So I really don't think that when John, Paul, or George wrote a song, that they worked out the guitar riff, the bass line, the drums, and the rhythm and just sort of asked their bandmates to play it that way.

Think about it: Why were none of the Beatles as solo artists able to duplicate the huge success they had as the Beatles? I feel it was simply because they were a band, and each member contributed a little something to make the Beatles so amazing. When they didn't have each other in the recording studio, the sound just didn't come.

That's why I simply can't stand it when people try to argue that George wasn't important to the success of the Beatles, or that Ringo wasn't, or anything along those lines. They truly worked together in a way that can and will never be duplicated.

I guess I just went off on another one of my tangents. At least this time we're not talking about recreational marijuana use!  

[harihead]

This is my take also, Dr Robert. I'm very much a fan of the synergy concept.

I was going to add, that "Tax Man" is as much George's song as "A Day in the Life" is John's. The writer brought in the concept and initial piece, and the band went to work on it. It grew into something much greater than the original offering.

In Paul's case, as he went along, he started to write all the parts in his head. He wanted the guitar just so, the bass just so, the drums, etc. A great part of John and George's frustration over being "sidemen" for Paul was that they had no room to contribute. The Beatles worked best, in my opinion, when they worked together as a group. Once they lost that "one for all, all for one" spirit, the group split apart.

[tkitna]

I might be off here, but I would venture to say that except for a few exceptions, none of the songs that any of the Beatles wrote were strictly "their songs." What I mean by that is, the Beatles were actually a band, and even though they each wrote songs, when they played together and worked on the songs they each contributed. I remember reading an interview with George where he talked about his infamous fight with Paul that appeared on the Let It Be movie, where George took offense to Paul's trying to show George how the guitar work should be during "I've Got A Feeling." In the interview, George said something like, "I was the lead guitarist; it was MY job to work out the guitar part of the songs, not Paul's." So I really don't think that when John, Paul, or George wrote a song, that they worked out the guitar riff, the bass line, the drums, and the rhythm and just sort of asked their bandmates to play it that way.

Paul was infamous for telling people what he wanted. 'Ticket To Ride' and Ringo anyone? I truly believe John was on the same lines for a lot more stuff then we know (how many takes of Strawberry Fields was there). My point is that I think it happened way more than we're aware of.

Think about it: Why were none of the Beatles as solo artists able to duplicate the huge success they had as the Beatles? I feel it was simply because they were a band, and each member contributed a little something to make the Beatles so amazing. When they didn't have each other in the recording studio, the sound just didn't come.

Well, i'm in the camp that feels that some of their solo stuff was better than some of the Beatles stuff. Why it doesnt emit is because the Beatles came first and were huge. Its a hell of a measuring stick and more people than not hold a blind eye (or ear) to it.

That's why I simply can't stand it when people try to argue that George wasn't important to the success of the Beatles, or that Ringo wasn't, or anything along those lines. They truly worked together in a way that can and will never be duplicated.

I dont feel George wasnt important to the band. I just feel, he was the least important of the four. They would have still made it without him. I'll go out on a limb and say they would have made it also without Ringo, but it would have been harder. Ringo was almost as much a characcher as a drummer. Lets be honest with ourselves. 95% of the people that listen to music knows nothing about the musicianship thats being played. I'm not saying Ringo was a bad drummer because nothings further from the truth, but 'RINGO STARR' for gods sake. That name pops out at you. You'll remember that name before you really pay attention to what he's doing.

[Kevin]

 the Beatles were actually a band, and even though they each wrote songs, when they played together and worked on the songs they each contributed. I remember reading an interview with George where he talked about his infamous fight with Paul that appeared on the Let It Be movie, where George took offense to Paul's trying to show George how the guitar work should be during "I've Got A Feeling." In the interview, George said something like, "I was the lead guitarist; it was MY job to work out the guitar part of the songs, not Paul's." So I really don't think that when John, Paul, or George wrote a song, that they worked out the guitar riff, the bass line, the drums, and the rhythm and just sort of asked their bandmates to play it that way.

Think about it: Why were none of the Beatles as solo artists able to duplicate the huge success they had as the Beatles? I feel it was simply because they were a band, and each member contributed a little something to make the Beatles so amazing. When they didn't have each other in the recording studio, the sound just didn't come.

That's why I simply can't stand it when people try to argue that George wasn't important to the success of the Beatles, or that Ringo wasn't, or anything along those lines. They truly worked together in a way that can and will never be duplicated.

I'm not sure George's piece of self-testimony would stand up in court. What else would he say.. "I just did what I was told." ?? I'd say his actual reaction ("you tell me what to play and I'll play it.") would carry more weight. And don't forget John's smirking "is that it?" response on first hearing George's proposed intro for Across The Universe.
I could argue that the reason for The Beatles success (and lack of similar solo success) was the variety a Beatles album offered via two (and a half) excellent songwriters rather than any benefits of writing collaboration. A John Lennon or McCartney album just isn't as interesting as a Beatles album. But put the two together....

[harihead]

Yes, the variety was a key point. You couldn't get tired of the style because up would pop another style. But in my opinion this really worked well only when there was some semblance of teamwork going on. For example, Abbey Road is perhaps my favorite album, but I dislike the White Album-LIB era. Every once in a while a song rises above the chaos-- about as often as you'd find on an average record-- but on the whole it feels too half-baked and self-indulgent to me.

i'm in the camp that feels that some of their solo stuff was better than some of the Beatles stuff.

I agree. I think they started getting lazy as Beatles after they made it-- why wouldn't they? As long as they had enough good stuff, they could sell anything. As soloists, they had to work harder-- with the normal success/failure pattern that you'll see on any artist's record. With a full band, they could take the best from each person to make a really strong album-- and you have the benefit of that synergy, which I'm still a big fan of.

[An Apple Beatle]

Yes, the variety was a key point. You couldn't get tired of the style because up would pop another style. But in my opinion this really worked well only when there was some semblance of teamwork going on.. I think they started getting lazy as Beatles after they made it-- why wouldn't they? As long as they had enough good stuff, they could sell anything. As soloists, they had to work harder-- with the normal success/failure pattern that you'll see on any artist's record. With a full band, they could take the best from each person to make a really strong album-- and you have the benefit of that synergy, which I'm still a big fan of.

Nice.

[Kevin]

Yes, the variety was a key point. You couldn't get tired of the style because up would pop another style. But in my opinion this really worked well only when there was some semblance of teamwork going on. For example, Abbey Road is perhaps my favorite album, but I dislike the White Album-LIB era. Every once in a while a song rises above the chaos-- about as often as you'd find on an average record-- but on the whole it feels too half-baked and self-indulgent to me.

 

But but but.....if you took the dross out of the White album would it reaklly serious differ from Revolver? More a lack of quality control (this never would have happened in the days when they still listened to Mr Martin)
And the two albums that sound as if they are the result of teamwork - Pepper and Abbey Road, have actually had their cohesion imposed upon them by one Beatle (Paul). Which actually negates my original "variety" argument. Damn.

[harihead]

No, no. I don't see your argument is contradicted at all. George Martin or Paul McCartney, somebody took a larger view of the work and tried to make it come out a coherent whole. That doesn't mean these "editors" (if I may call them that) had any less variety to work with. Remember Paul's quote about John's "Day in the Life" -- "Oh, I can't wait to get my hands on this!" He wouldn't have written it, but he recognized its beauty and how it would fit into the overall scheme.

That's what I think is the "art" of a piece of art. Life is chaotic. When art gets too close to life, it loses something, in my view. Art transcends; it imposes or implies order that helps uplift us; see something in a way we hadn't seen it before. I'm not a fan of random, not for art (for life, yes-- bring experience on!). But I want the artist to show me skill-- artistry. That's what I honor about his or her ability.


As far as the White Album goes, I think in my case it's more a matter of personal taste. 2/3rds of the songs aren't bad-- but I only really listen to 4 or 5 songs off the entire 4-side set. I personally would have gone for some George Martin quality control, but there are many who rate this album at the top of their list, so my opinion doesn't really count. The good news is it's there for the people who love it, and I have plenty of other choices to listen to.

[glass onion]

perhaps the self-indulgent parts of the white album were to do with that 'era'.you could say a lot of bands were being self-indulgent around that time.stones.kinks,hendrix even(maybe).i still think that even the not-so-good beatle tunes were perhaps very listenable.the white album is a very interesting album as a whole.lots of variety on those 4 sides.i do agree with the statement that the quality control was amiss-i am personally glad about that!but i never really go on the'revolver is better than pepper'style of argument.perhaps abbey rd.is better than the white album-to me all the beatles albums from rubber soul forwards have something really great about them.all have something different to offer-like harihead states,there are other things to listen to if you ain't that keen.and very well put as well.

[harihead]

Nice perspective, GO. It's actually my loss for the things I don't like. I think life is funner when you enjoy as many things as possible.