3 ms·

Paul was most certainly a virtuosic bass player, and both he and John could be called virtuosic singers. At least by rock music standards.

• polishdude20 3y ago
  Hearing actual virtuoso bass players, I'd say Paul isn't really a virtuoso. A lot of his bass lines are very simple. He's more of a piano player than a bass player.
  • strunz 3y ago
    Virtuoso does not mean "plays a lot of notes". Music isn't an olympiad. Paul is virtuosic in his creativity and originality, note choices, rhythms, tone, as well as playing many complex parts in relation to the rest of the song.
  • rc5150 3y ago
    Not sure who you're actually referring to in terms of virtuosos, but I'm assuming you're referring to the likes of Wooten and Miller and Graham and such, but as a band leader I'd pick Paul over any of them because his track record (heh) of elevating the song, even with his distinct simplicity, adds more to the composition (more often than not) than any other. Sure, I'm biased toward a steady diet of Beatles and blues as my musical foundation, but even dipping into jazz, latin, afro-beat, etc, his compositional contributions are second to very few, and to me, that beats out flashy playing (even when it showcases complicated understanding of theory) every single day of the week.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]