The role of the bass in a band, in music in general, is crucial. The bass part is similar to a planet - in that it exerts a gravitational pull on the other parts, which can perhaps leap or even occasionally fly, but not escape. In fact, one of the elements that gives music its powerful emotional force is the gravitational or magnetic attraction between the bass and the rest of the instrumentation. Therefore, it is not a surprise that, like Motown with James Jamerson, the best player in the Beatles was the bassist. Ringo Starr once called Paul McCartney the most melodic of bass players, which is succinct and true; his playing always has a singing quality (cf. Duke Ellington who used to ask his band, after they had played something new, if everyone liked their parts). It was an irreplaceable element of the Beatles' music, in whatever style they explored. The two most notable tracks on Starr's recent release, Y Not (2010), both feature McCartney: one as a singer and the other as a bassist. On the former, "Walk with You", it is interesting to hear him in a duet with Ringo. The Beatles rarely used this device, in the sense where more than one singer can be clearly identified as singing from their own personality. Usually, there was a lead vocal performance with the identity of the singer easy to hear, and the others providing backing with the singers much harder to pinpoint. It was amazing, and I don't know how they did it. But on this track, it's clearly Ringo and Paul singing together (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c68v6WIZeRI). The other track is called "Peace Dream", and it's a wonderful treat to hear the great rhythm section together again. Also, check out the very cool references to Lennon and Harrison, via both lyrical and guitar allusions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE7ju4lU2W0

John Lennon's first solo album, John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band (1970) is usually considered to be his best. I'm not entirely sure about that, but it is a very powerful record. On the musical side, Ringo Starr's drumming is a big reason. His listening ability is what sets him apart from the pack. Like the r&b guitarist Steve Cropper, his technical prowess is not based on velocity or the number of notes, but rather feel and placement. Only great listeners can do it. An analogy could be drawn to the world of team sports, where there are certain players who are concerned with personal statistics and getting attention, and there are others who play only to benefit the team and who have the ability to make those around them perform better. If Starr were an athlete, he would be of the latter type. I'll be writing about some of his solo work tomorrow.

Lennon's instrumental contributions are equally brilliant. It's very interesting to hear him away from the other Beatles, and to be able to clearly distinguish his style and touch. For example, his guitar sound contains a very cool fifties reference through the use of tremolo. A good tune on which to hear it is "Hold On": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLOTD7wrbtQ&feature=related. (Note the Sesame Street reference.)

One aspect of his writing that has always interested me is how much he gets out of chords. Many of his most beautiful melodies come from very spare harmonic settings. He doesn't change chords just for the sake of it, in other words. His melodies, therefore, have the quality of being necessary, called for. This also is the result of advanced listening. Lyrically, the album was at the beginning of a long run of ultra-honest writing. In fact it could be argued that the most telling characteristic of his solo career was its honesty, which some found off-putting at times with its renderings of emotional and marital intimacy as well as his uncompromising political views. Fair enough, he wasn't asking for our permission anyway. But I remember something one of my teachers said once. An artist must do two things: 1. Be honest. 2. Develop the technical means to communicate that honesty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkybcZ_stAk&feature=related

Howdy. Further to yesterday's discussion: The ability to maintain tempo, even as intensity rises or falls, is much more difficult than it sounds. It's a bit like the way that draftsmen can draw very straight lines freehand - much practice required. The greatest musicians in any style are always the ones with this quality. Glenn Gould, Jimi Hendrix, James Jamerson, John Coltrane, Ringo Starr. You can hear it in the music. The spaces between the notes are beautiful, thrilling, awe-inspiring. The difficulty in finding musicians capable of playing like this has unfortunately led to pop music essentially being played by machines. This might pass for a while - i.e. the time it takes for teenagers to buy a product en masse, make people famous, etc. but ultimately music made this way will not have the staying power of music played by humans.
So back to the Stones - to their credit, they know how good Charlie is, and at their best, they play with him. When they run into trouble, they don't. Sometimes, the band starts very strongly and then gets a bit out of control ("rushes", in Musician) as the track goes along. Sometimes they don't lock in with him at all.
On the Stones' website, there's a video of Charlie talking about jazz drumming, where he discusses, almost apologetically, the fact that what he knows he learned from copying, and he speaks with the humility found in all great musicians. But this is how all serious musicians learn. One of the paradoxes involved in music, and the other arts as well, is that the more copying someone has done, the more originality they end up contributing. (For a literary parallel, read T.S. Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent".) This also leads to the aforementioned humility.
Suggested listening: "Bitch", "A Day in the Life", "Little Wing", "My Favorite Things","Ain't No Mountain High Enough" (Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell), The Goldberg Variations 1981 (cf. 1955).

Hi. This blog is about listening to music. The focus is on the listener, not the artist. It's about getting as much as possible out of music.
Here goes: Topic for consideration and/or discussion: Great rock bands have several things in common. First among these things - a great drummer. Led Zeppelin, Radiohead, the Beatles (by the way, if you are among those who don't think that Ringo Starr is a great drummer: 1. You're wrong. 2. Listen to the placement of the snare on "Lovely Rita". It's so beautifully behind the beat, and he holds it there - that is, his sense of tempo is almost unerring. Among musicians, this is known as having "great time." Much more on this as we go. 3. He is known as someone who almost never makes a mistake in the studio. Think of how many great takes have been wasted by playing errors. Not by Ringo. 4. Listen to the drum entry on "Hey Jude". 5. Do you really think that the three other Beatles and George Martin wouldn't have noticed that the drummer on all those tracks wasn't good? 6. Disregard John's statement about Ringo not being the best drummer in the Beatles. That was John being "iconoclastic" or, if you prefer, "idiotic". He was - by a mile.), and of course, the Stones. With all due respect, etc., Charlie is the best musician in the band. I very much doubt that they would have been famous without him. Suggested listening: "Let it Loose", "Love in Vain", "Jigsaw Puzzle".