This is one I've been meaning to make for a long time (though I hadn't yet seen the other threads for underrated players).

Which bassist is the most under-recognized in prog?

My vote is for Ray Shulman from Gentle Giant. He contributes a ton in terms of melody and counterpoint and he's one of the least mentioned when people talk about virtuosity in bass playing. I think of all the bands I've heard GG may be one whose sound is most indebted to complex bass lines!

As a player, John Mole of Colosseum ll

Just kidding of course. I actually can't think of many I consider under rated. I kind of think Mike Rutherford is under rated though.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: I kind of think Mike Rutherford is under rated though.

Yeah - he's kind of like some of his fellow bandmembers (i.e. Tony Banks and Anthony Phillips on their instruments) in that he's not as flashy a player but he really makes the rhythm section rock - along with Phil of course.

there is a thread going already

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=120471" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=120471

for me has to be Klaus Peter-Matziol of Eloy.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=120471" rel="nofollow -

Rutherford is underrated simply because he can play pretty much everything! Jumping back and forth on guitar and bass, holding the damn band together, and Phil gets all the credit! .

My thoughts exactly! Prog Rock would be a lot poorer without him...

well said! I think from W and W on he seemed to contribute some of the weakest individual songs on each album which is maybe why he's not mentioned in a lot of who makes Genesis great comments---he's also a reserved stand offish snobby British gentlemen 

At least once a year, my husband begs me to play air-bass on this version, of this song.   Whoever plays bass on this, is underrated.  

and ummm.. air bass huh.  Sheesh he most unsexy of all air instruments.. next time to want to get Mr. Ompha really hot and bothered.. and spice things up..  I can say with utmost confidence and experience.. there is nothing.. NOTHING that will drive a man more wild than...

air drums..  especially to a Who album

Micky tested ..  Micky approved..

I can't think of another Heep track where Thain does so many runs ...are we sure that's Thain.?

According to our PA logs it's Clarke.

Maybe not under-rated as much as unknown is Roger Newell, just for his playing on Wakemans' Journey to the Centre of the Earth. If there was a category ' Best Bassist in an Ensemble ', that would be the choice.

 

Mostly noted as a session player for the singer/sonwriter crowd in the 70s, but might be more known to fans of this site as the bassist on Billy Cobham's "Spectrum" album, easily one of the greatest bass performances of all time in any genre.  

Rednight wrote: progmatic wrote: Percy Jones And Jeff Berlin.

 

Not underrated, especially Jeff, who's something of an icon in the world of bass-playing.

Yes. Lee Sklar rules. He's played on everything with everyone. I didn't even realize that was him on Cobham's "Spectrum" until I checked the booklet. Arguably one of the most ubiquitous bass players of all time!

Without a doubt, Triumvirat's great bassist, the late Helmut Koellen (who incidentally, also played six string guitar, and sang lead vocals).

     He was at the forefront of the new progressive rock sound of the early to mid seventies, and was really the greatest thing that happened to Triumvirat, and was instrumental (no pun intended) in putting that band on the musical map, but is hardly ever mentioned in polls, lists, etc. of bassists. No doubt because of his early death way back in 1977 at the age of 27. Listen to his two Triumvirat albums, and if you can find it, his posthumously released solo album You Won't See Me, and if you do, then maybe he will become more well renowned, and rightly so!

I think this will be an unpopular comment, but for me, in PROGRESSIVE MUSIC there is no best bass player, or keyboard player ... because it is about the MUSIC and its complete piece of work.

The main issue, for me, is that there are so many different styles of playing, and so many different uses for all the music, that choosing one, becomes just a preference for a song or two that we have ... and to me, that is not "progressive music" thinking.

To say, that YES is about Chris is sad ... it kinda invalidates all the work that the others put in that was also fabulous ... thus, my preferences always go with the music from the band ... not individuals!

 

That's true but I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Squire is a very prominent bass player but obviously Yes are about the rest of the band as well, and Squire is hardly underrated anyway.

 

I was in band once and our manager told me the bass player was the most important member of the band (although I think he was just saying that to get me to play better). Though it pains me to say this, it's not true, it's the drummer.

I've not seen anyone say that Yes is just about Squire or whatever. Usual making up stuff that simply doesn't exist from Mosh.

My 'shout out' Klaus Peter Matziol could create a whole tapestry of music underneath the band and I find that fascinating. But I love the keyboards (loads of synths) as well obviously and the whole band sound is very impressive. All the elements come together. There was not a better band than Eloy around about 1982 imo.

I've been listening to Refugee again with the re-issue of their one and only album and Lee Jackson surely deserves a mention. Lovely crisp bass sound that supports Moraz perfectly. Davison is also on fire. This album eclipsed everything The Nice did and some!

chopper wrote: I was in band once and our manager told me the bass player was the most important member of the band (although I think he was just saying that to get me to play better). Though it pains me to say this, it's not true, it's the drummer.

Depends what's meant by 'important'.   The bass is in many ways the most important element in terms of cohesion:  Adam Clayton is certainly not important to the music of U2 nor an extraordinary bass player, but his contribution is absolutely essential for the execution and gelling of the music.   The bass is the invisible unsung hero of rock.   Without it Zeppelin would sound shrill, Hendrix a mess, Floyd untethered, Van Halen one-dimensional.

And this is my point ... we're making it sound like the completeness of the music is not helped by the bass player and that he/she dominates the proceedings, which is not true. Again, if the composition for the works was not there, Jaco might not have been able to go as free as he did ... and a lot of the same thing happens to the other bands and their combinations.

To me, it's about all of it ... not just one piece. Although we can find some very notable exceptions, and all you have to do is listen/see the Tom Dowd DVD to learn something about one of the greatest guitar duets ... that was caught "accidentally", and the rest of the music added to it.

Yes, there are individual bits and pieces and moments, however, if it is not incorporated correctly, then either the band is not capable of handling the better player, or the player knows its not going to work.

I rather think that with LZ, JPJ and the rest of the folks worked on their combinations and relationships in order to be able to add/subtract/include some bits and pieces of this and that to augment the quality of the music and playing ... and making the whole piece of music better for it.

For me, it wasn't just about JPJ ... it was about the other three folks being able to add each and everyone's bits and pieces and making it work to enhance the quality of the experience and the music ... and this is almost impossible to be done these days on a DAW, without the REAL/active human element involved.

Any band saying that a bass or drums are the most important is not looking at their composition ... they are merely counting and hoping to stay in form the whole way, which is usually the case if the whole thing is just riff driven, and not music design or composition driven, specially when done by all the members of the band!

Drums are a different matter. It would be hard to name a great band with a poor drummer. A poor drummer is someone who could be replaced by a metronome imo. Bass on the other hand can be a lot of things and it can even not be there ( or replaced by a hand on the keyboard) as was often the case with ELP. Yeah of course the composition of the music is everything. Who wants to hear bad music played by great musicians (probably the reason I don't care about Jazz much < insert winky emoticon here> )

He's great, but I felt playing the Fish was a step too far, even though his performance was excellent.

I'd say Tull always had underrated bassists. 

Or the guy from Eloy.

Try losing the bassist in rock or replacing them with a keyboard--  it doesn't work.   Sure ELP and others would sometimes do it, but that was out of necessity and only because Keith's sound was so full and rich it was a good substitute for a bass, not a replacement.   And even then they knew enough to make sure whatever was generating it, there was a bass part.   Without it, ELP would've sounded thin, flat, and unprofessional.

I think this is grossly unfair. The idea was NEVER to have the same instruments and the same sound and the same composition design ... as EVERYONE ELSE ... which is what you are basically stating if I do not mis-understand it.

A bass, or a guitar, or drums, is NEVER a must ... except that your ears are so stuck with one style of music and sound, that you are having a hard time explaining ELP without a bass guitar, or Greg merely filling in here and there to augment things some ... but you certainly can see that ELP was not about a "bass" guitar, or whatever a fan wants to hear ... it was about its own music and its own presentation.

Please, do not "demand" that a band have this or that, and take their individuality out ... "progressive" music was built on this individuality, not on your, or mine, design for music ... but we can't grow out of that top ten thinking and must have this and that instrument ... that is just so sad ... and you are a representative of this board saying something that is NOT "progressive" in my seeing of things.

I'm a Rickenbacker player, so naturally, any of the prog bassists who concentrated on that axe are favorites! 

I suppose that's fair, but I stand by the importance of both the bass part which is the compositional ground of the piece, and the bass sound which adds dimension and depth tho the music.   Of course there can be parts that don't have or need any bass at all, but that's an exception.   The bass ~ especially in a band with very little guitar ~ is the cake, and everything else is the icing.  

Again, remove the bass from ELP or Floyd or Zeppelin or any other important acts in rock, and you get something that simply doesn't have the sonic potential or depth it would otherwise.

I do think we all get very confused about this. Yes of course you can have any make up of instruments in a band. You can strip it down or add as a is necessary. ELP were quite keen not to have hidden musicians on stage and made a point of it so occasionally Greg would play lead guitar and Keith had to fill in. This could be quite interesting and worked tremendously well on for instance Tarkus (Battlefield section). But really there are no rules here. I don't think anyone is suggesting that bass has to be present or not be present but a lot of great rock music would be less great without the bass. Rush are one my favourite bands and no bass would just not be an option. Freewill would indeed be nothing without it but then Rush would never have written the song with no bass , that would be insane!

Not to mention organ, piano, mellotron, synthesizer, upright bass, mandolin, lute, arranging & studio directing.

While a little limited (with all due respect to the player), I'd stil much rather hear this than the modern day weedy typewriter acrobatics that comprises modern playing.

Or just listen to Tony Levin, who is god

Seconded!

Third and seconded, respectively!