|   Best rock drummer (s)? | mad rhetorik
Nov 8, 2003 1:36 PM | | Alright, another somewhat tired thread I'm sure, but who do you consider to be the best in this category? Here's my list:
Keith Moon:
Of course Da Loon tops my list. Nobody could shred through a set of skins like he could. Moon pretty much reinvented the drums as a "lead" instrument, and he was my favorite member of The Who.
John Bonham:
Maybe one of the few drummers in the '70s that could hang with Moon. Exceptional timing and groove, more of a classically trained drummer but amazingly good.
Mitch Mitchell:
It takes serious chops to keep up with one Jimi Hendrix, and Mitch was the only musician able to really push Jimi to his limits. Always a very impressive drummer, though I wondered where he's gone since.
Mike Portnoy:
Amazing drummer that stands out in the midst of some sick company (Dream Theater). Can be a little too showy sometimes, but has killer chops. Songwriting is his Achilles' heel, however.
Nick Menza:
Formerly Megadeth. My favorite thrash drummer. Has all the precision and speed of a jazz drummer but with a helluva lot more force and of course double bass pedals. Makes Lars Ulrich look like a complete schmuck.
Danny Carey:
Tool. This guy sounds like he had extra arms surgically implanted. Incredible sense of timing, could play in 7/8 or 9/13 all day without breaking a sweat.
And now for the overrated list:
Phil Collins:
He's good, no question about it. But he's no match for the likes of, say, Bill Bruford, and should never have been writing or singing songs in the first place.
Lars Ulrich:
Crappy, unimaginative drummer with an arrogant, overbearing attitude at that. So what if he whacks the double bass like a gorilla, for chrissake <b>I</b> could do that! Furthermore, he's also responsible for the whole farging Napster issue. Greedy hypocrite wanker.
Dave Grohl:
Once again, very good drummer, just not as amazing as his fans say. He's solid, has good sense of timing, but not a virtuoso. Dave gets points, though, for collaborating with a lot of worthy bands (Queens Of The Stone Age, Killing Joke).
Charlie Watts:
Not that great. He's pretty much a dependable metronome, and rarely does anything exciting with his kit.
Matt Cameron:
Soundgarden/Pearl Jam. He was great back in his Soundgarden days, but has let his drumming go to crap ever since he switched for Vedder & Co. It's a shame really. |
| Are you a drummer? | DMK
Nov 8, 2003 2:18 PM | | Your list was spot on. I couldn't possibly add a thing. |
| Actually, no. | mad rhetorik
Nov 8, 2003 2:32 PM | | I'm not a drummer, but I when I listen to music I pay a lot of time listening to the rhythm section. The rhythm section can make or break a band, and a smoking drummer definitely doesn't go unnoticed. For me, the drummer is the most important member next to the guitarist. And if I were in a band I think that's the thing I'd want to do most, despite the fact that MY own sense of rhythm is approximate to a man falling down a flight of stairs. : ) |
| I agree... | Whooptee
Nov 8, 2003 2:41 PM | | I agree with pretty much everthing you say. Personally, I like Bonham best. I'd probably put Ginger Baker up there pretty close to those two, and I'd probably put Stewart Copeland not far behind them.
I'm not sure about the Nick Menza pick. I only ever owned one Megadeth record and the only songs I really remember well are Holy Wars and Five Magics. I still have a cassette version of this, but no tape player to listen to it with. Still, if Menza was the drummer on that record, then I wouldn't be inclined to argue with you.
John |
| Nick Menza = part of second lineup. | mad rhetorik
Nov 8, 2003 2:50 PM | | Megadeth's second lineup consisted of Dave Mustaine (guitar, vocals), Marty Friedman (second guitar), Dave Ellefson (bass), and Nick Menza (drums). This was their all-time best and most talented lineup, and recorded from Rust In Peace(classic) to the abysmal Risk. The lineup broke up after 1998, and Megadeth recorded one more album, the passingly decent The World Needs A Hero (2002) before breaking up for good.
It's a shame I haven't heard of any other stuff by Mustaine or Friedman since the breakup. Those two were guitar GAWDS. |
| Nick Menza = part of second lineup. | Mr Peabody
Nov 8, 2003 8:00 PM | | I'm glad to know there are other big Megadeth fans out there. I never understood why Metallica was the darlings of rock radio and Megadeth couldn't get airplay. The album with Symphony of Distruction had several songs that would have been as radio friendly as the Metallica stuff that's played. I think it's funny that bands like Disturbed, Tool, Drowning Pool etc can get airplay, which is good and I like these bands, but the true "Metal" bands still don't get airplay. Bands like Megadeth, Iron Maiden, Accept, Dio and even many 80's bands like Dokken, Skid Row etc are rarely heard. If you have a station that plays this, then you ar fortunate. My hat is off to Megadeth because they were successful without all the hype and promotion that Metallica had. Maybe Dave's addictions and bad attitude shot the band in the foot, who knows? |
| The irony of Megadeth's later albums... | mad rhetorik
Nov 8, 2003 8:33 PM | | ...is that they had a pretty strong commercial bent. They didn't "sell out," per se, but after Rust In Peace they were no longer thrash. Also ironic is that Countdown To Extinction was intended to beat the Black Album, was <b>better</b> than the Black Album IMO, and yet never outcharted the Black Album. "Symphony of Destruction" was only one of several great tracks on there.
The followup Youthanasia was even better, probably the epitome of their post-thrash days. After that, there was a steady decline to the release of Risk, which was almost as bad as Load/Reload.
I think Metallica got an upper hand on Megadeth because Megadeth's early albums were fairly mediocre thrash efforts compared to the high quality of Lightning/Puppets/Justice. Rust In Peace was the first Megadeth album to equal Metallica, and after that Megadeth >>> Metallica(or at least more consistent). |
| Wrong. | Finch Platte
Nov 9, 2003 3:47 AM | | Nick Menza wasn't the drummer on Risk, Jimmy DeGrasso was.
fp |
| re: Best rock drummer (s)? | Troy
Nov 8, 2003 3:45 PM | | Collins is much more accomplished than you give him credit for. Don't believe me? Spin the Brand X albums he plays on. He's an exceptional jazz player. Yeah, put a ball-gag on him and we're rockin'!
The obvious missing player on your list is Terry Bozzio. Just a monster player and showman with Zappa in the 70s. His time in UK and Missing Persons have some incredibly stylish moments. But it's his playing on the 2 "Bozzio/Levin/Stevens" albums are the best showcases of his talents.
Gavin Harrisson in Porcupine Tree is a wonder to see live. And the real beauty is that you can get close and watch in overplay like crazy.
That Peart fella is no slouch either.
And the missing overrated guy is Ringo. The Watts (and Ringo) comments are sure to rankle some, but the guys just lack style and identity behind the drumset. |
| You Forgot Already ??? | MasterCylinder
Nov 8, 2003 5:23 PM | | Chris Maitland -- Sky Moves Sideways
This is on yer own damm comp -- "NO SOLOS"
In addition,
Rod Morganstern
Simon Phillips
Michael Shreive
Portnoy overplays everything - but is still amazing to watch.
Ever seen Buddy Rich play ROCK ?? Phukin' amazing.
Also -- I can agree with your assessment on Collins -- the DVD you are renting reflects a bit of that talent.
In addition -- I saw (with me own eyes) this summer, one of the best I have ever seen (and this is noshit) :
SHEILA E. -- possibly in the top 5 solos I have witnessed. |
| Nope | Troy
Nov 8, 2003 5:53 PM | | Harrison replaced Maitland last year. The guy is really smokin. Maitland was no slouch either.
Forgot Phillips. The guy can play anything.
Haven't heard Buddy Rich play rock, but I have heard the infamous tape of him chewing out his band on the tour-bus. Classic assholeism.
I AM a fan of overplayers, I'll admit it. Like you say, they are fun to watch. |
| I'm the one that forgot.................. | MasterCylinder
Nov 9, 2003 5:46 AM | | ........about the Buddy Rich tape from the bus and you are correct, what a prick !
Power corrupts. |
| re: Best rock drummer (s)? | Mr Peabody
Nov 8, 2003 7:40 PM | | Carey from Tool would definitely be on my list, as well as Bonham. I am not a big Who fan. I like some of their songs. I disagree on Phil Collins, he may be overrated, but he is a good writer and singer. I like his solo stuff better than Genesis.
I am surprised you didn't mention Neil Pert. That would probably be the #1 answer on Family Fued if their was a rock drummer question. I do think he is worthy and would put him on my list. Are you familiar with Billy Cobham? He is mostly on jazz albums, but would certainly be on my list. He has an album out with Jan Hammer and the late great Tommy Bolin that is good if you like Fusion. Jan Hammer, remember played on Jeff Beck's Wired album, was music guy for Miami Vice, had a song and video with Neil Schon from Journey and also his own jazz albums. |
| re: Best rock drummer (s)? | Dusty Chalk
Nov 8, 2003 8:29 PM | | A couple of my favourites:
The guy from Pitchshifter -- I was just listening to this last night. Basically, they sampled him and played it back, to give it that digital dirty feel. But I was listening to a live CD, and he can pull it <I>all</I> off. It's kind of a d'n'b thing going on.
The guys from Lake Trout and The Real Deal (respectively, no relation) -- pretty much ditto. Precision of a machine, flow of a human.
Martin Atkins -- another one who's just amazing. If you've ever heard "T.V. II", it's basically him replacing a machine on "TV Song" -- b-side of "Jesus Built My Hotrod". He also has this knack of adding energy to a song -- he actually deliberately speeds up across the course of the song.
Bill Rieflin -- another one. I don't know how to describe drummers, but who'all is reading this anyway? You're just reading the names and seeing if you agree or disagree with me. (Or, if you've never heard of him before, going, "who?")
And, of course, Neil Peart. I know J hates him for being an "overplayer", but all he's doing is incorporating the drums into a song <i>as another instrument</I> -- I disagree that there's anything wrong with that. So quit repeating yourself, J. <font size=1>I guess he doesn't need to now, since I did it for him.</font>
Lots of others, can't think of them all now.
Disagree with Phil Collins -- maybe now, but not across his entire history, he was an excellent drummer in his heyday -- and Dave Grohl -- just understated perfection on his part. |
| Just another overplayer | J
Nov 8, 2003 9:09 PM | | >all he's doing is incorporating the drums into a song as another instrument -- I disagree that there's anything wrong with that.
Another LEAD instrument. If drums aren't supposed to be a RHYTHM instrument, then why is the drummer universally considered to be part of the RHYTHM section? |
| Just another overplayer | Troy
Nov 9, 2003 11:11 AM | | That's your own limitation J. Drummers don't HAVE TO be relegated to the background. |
| Just another curmudgeon | Dusty Chalk
Nov 10, 2003 5:35 PM | | You continue to try to perpetuate this myth that the two are mutually exclusive. Many of the drummers I mentioned are both interesting <I>and</I> rhythmically ept (as opposed to inept). In fact, I can't think of too many soloers (other than Peart).
So, in order for someone to be a good drummer in your book, they have to be -- let me get this straight -- BORING? You want your tried, tested and true? Can't possibly have the slightest deviation from the norm?
In a word or two: fcuk taht.
Personally, I want a drummer who stands out from the crowd to actually stand out from the crowd and actually have a style. If you don't, that's fine by you, but...you'd be in the minority.
Did we actually have a bit of a conversation this weekend? I thought conversing on weekends for any duration was prohibited? |
| Puh | J
Nov 10, 2003 6:57 PM | | >You continue to try to perpetuate this myth that the two are mutually exclusive.
I believe I said that I thought the best rock drummer of all time was Keith Moon.
>Many of the drummers I mentioned are both interesting and rhythmically ept
Well, that's fine. I have no interest in Lake Trout (who I've never heard) nor Pitchshifter (who I have), or Neil Peart for that matter. And my marginal interest in Atkins has to do with the music created by the people he was working with; music that didn't affect me one way or the other based on the drumming.
>So, in order for someone to be a good drummer in your book, they have to be -- let me get this straight -- BORING?
If Keith Moon's drumming is boring to you, fine. Find me a drummer that plays the way these other guys play who won't admit to being influenced by what he did.
>You want your tried, tested and true? Can't possibly have the slightest deviation from the norm?
That you would say these things gives me the idea that you don't have any Who records. My defense of Ringo & Charlie Watts was aimed at detractors, but the <i>first</i> thing I said was that I agreed with MR that Keith Moon is the best rock drummer of all time. What exactly was 'tried or true' about him? Nobody ever played like him before or since, though many have appropriated bits & pieces of his style, and succeeded only in being able to successfuly incorporate the fact that he overplayed. Unlike him, however, most haven't been able to make it work within the context of music that I think is listenable.
Some people prefer music made on gear that represents the latest in technology. I tend to prefer music that's made on instruments such as Willie Nelson's acoustic with the hole in it. Same goes for drummers. Peart & Portnoy can bang along on their 100-piece kits all night long, and I find <i>that</i> boring. Give me a guy who keeps great time & doesn't need more than 8 pieces. Unless he's Keith Moon, that is.
>Personally, I want a drummer who stands out from the crowd to actually stand out from the crowd and actually have a style.
I'm more interested in a songwriter that stands out from the crowd.
>If you don't, that's fine by you, but...you'd be in the minority.
That's fine by me if I am, but are you sure about that? Last I heard, the Beatles & the Rolling Stones were pretty damn popular. |
| Pehz | Dusty Chalk
Nov 10, 2003 7:40 PM | | No, it's possible I have any Who records, but haven't actually listened intently to the drumming. I'll listen to them when I have a chance. Not meant as an implication of Keith Moon's playing at all.
No, most of my argument was with what <I>you</I> were describing as what you like in a drummer. If that came across badly, that has as much to do with your ability to convey your point as it is my inability to hear it. If so, I apologize for my part, but please feel free to clarify.
I've seen one of the Johns from They Might Be Giants play a very simple kit (snare, high-hat and bass, methinks meremembers), and was pretty impressed with his ability to play a variety of styles. But I wouldn't rate him as one of the best drummers of all time, because I never heard him do anything drummer-god-worthy (and by that, I don't mean a solo, I just meant something interesting -- you know, like playing in 17 time over a 9/8 signature, and coming in on the beat, like "One of these Days" by Pink Floyd [not necessarily 17 over 9/8, but you get the idea]). I think that's just supporting a song, and if that interests you, fine by you.
And WRT the Beatles/Rolling Stones comment -- that's just because the group is popular. That doesn't mean everyone who appreciates them as a group think the drummer is the best, other than as spillover from the popularity of the bands. MHO. WIFBM. (F==Fine, you figure out the rest.) |
| re: Best rock drummer (s)? | J
Nov 8, 2003 8:58 PM | | You're right, it is a tired thread, but as much as we may tire of what Darius calls 'the cult of the individual musician,' I don't think there's much harm in listing favorites every now & then.
I agree with you on Keith Moon; I think he's the best rock drummer of all time. HOWEVER, he was an overplayer extraordinaire, and I hate overplayers. It seems like a million guys listened to him & figured overplaying was a good idea, guys who didn't have one-hundredth the imagination he did, guys who are all chops & no taste, guys who play in bands where technical excellence & all-around business is a key feature of the music. Guys like Neil Peart & Mike Portnoy. And I don't think it's a coincidence that I hate Rush & Dream Theater.
What people lose sight of is that drummers are supposed to be rhythm, not lead, musicians. When the drummer becomes a lead musician is when I start having problems with the music. Not because it's a rule that I can't have broken or else I'll turn into a pumpkin, but I simply have no use for drum solos. Moon never played one. There may be one or two here or there that bother me less than most, but that's a mighty small percentage. And usually they're of the brief, rhythm-based (as opposed to drum-clinic based) variety such as Ringo's on 'The End.' Hell, the last time I heard 'Moby Dick' I was pissing myself laughing.
I say the least technically proficient drummer ever in a major pop/rock act has to have been Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys. Take a good look at the BBs live footage from the early & mid 60s. He's as unsteady as they come, lousy chops, plays like a 12-year old who had his first lesson a week ago or something. Didn't stop the BBs from producing great music, which is most of why how good the drummer is has little meaning for me. Of course, most drummers are much better than DW was in 1964. But then you look at a guy like Tommy Ramone, who wasn't even a drummer. He was a recording engineer whose lack of prowess didn't detract from the first three Ramones albums. Forced to play consecutive 16th notes, you can hear how stiff he is. But he kept up enough to get across what the band needed--barely. The guy who replaced him was way better, but you don't hear an appreciable difference, because what the band did had nothing to do with how good their drummer was.
I'll argue this with Troy EVERY time: all this bullshit about Ringo being 'overrated' is just that, bullshit. Anyone who agrees with him, read this
http://web2.iadfw.net/gshultz/bryant.html
and let me know what you think. As for the rest of yr lists: I don't listen to LZ much any more, but I suppose you can't deny Bonham his due. Still, I think Moon's sheer lunacy put him on a different level. Disagree on Charlie Watts, completely: I don't see what's wrong with a metronome, especially in a band with such a high volume of blues-based & r&b material. I just don't see what 'doing something exciting with the kit' has to do with great rock'n'roll. Moon was the best at it, and I hear very little else that's been written that I like that benefits from anything but steady & dependable time-keeping. Which is why Slim Jim Phantom of the Stray Cats was so refreshing: 3 pieces--a snare, a hi-hat, and a kick, no toms. Outside of the Hendrix stuff, I don't listen to any of the other bands the other guys you list are/were in, so my opinion isn't very relevant beyond not liking their music. And if I don't like their music, I don't care how good they are on the skins.
I do like Jody Stephens from Big Star, though he's firmly in a Ringo/Watts mold. I also think the Attractions had an amazing rhythm section, and I have to give props to Topper Headon as well. And let's not forget about Bernard Purdie (James Brown), Maureen Tucker (Velvet Underground), Grant Hart (Husker Du), Jerry Nolan (NY Dolls/Heartbreakers), Tre Cool (Green Day), Spit Stix (Fear), and Earl Hudson (Bad Brains). |
| I've read that Ringo link before. | mad rhetorik
Nov 8, 2003 10:02 PM | | The content of the link is all true, and that's why I didn't list Ringo as an overrated drummer. He was(is) a very tasteful player, choosing to be a reliable timekeeper rather than brazenly show off his chops.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against simple drumming, nor am I totally for "overplaying," as you put it. But Charlie Watts is lauded as a great player for his technical ability in some circles, and while I like the 'Stones and I like Watts, his drumming is almost strictly straightforward. Hence the reason I class him as "overrated."
Grant Hart and Maureen Tucker are great BTW. Both underrated "simple" drummers whose playing and level of skill fit the music. |
| Another 'best drummer' discussion | J
Nov 9, 2003 3:57 AM | | The thing with Charlie Watts is that he is a jazz drummer & was before he ever played with the Rolling Stones. I've never heard his jazz stuff, but I would imagine that it's people who have who are 'overrating' him. I can't imagine too many people would point to his 'technical excellence' based on what he's done with the Rolling Stones. When I see 'technical excellence' & 'drummer' in the same sentence I usually think of the usual suspects: Peart, Portnoy, Bruford, or whatever his name is, guys like that. There is an argument that says that being a metronome & little else is in itself technical excellence, but for the sake of this discussion, I'm not sure it applies. However, it is brought up in this thread:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/rock/messages/13450.html
I was poking around on Rocky Road & looking at old posts & found this thread from awhile back. Some good discussion there. And my participation is pretty much the same as in this thread. |
| Ringo and Watts are overrated | Troy
Nov 9, 2003 12:07 PM | | So much of this is about what you, the listener wants to get out of the music.
I'm no fan of the drum solo either, altho I will appreciate them for what they are in the same way I'll appreciate a guitar solo. No steady diet of them please. Hell, I even made a drummers comp called "No Solos". What I do like is a player that adds style and content to the band. Drummers with an identity. Drummers with depth.
You can say that drummers are not supposed to be lead musicians (altho I'm not sure who made this rule. It's ok in jazz but not rock?), but you could also argue that a band is a group effort, an ensemble. In the best ensembles EVERYONE is on an equal footing. The singer or guitarist is not the only focal point. This opens it up for the drummer to take a larger part in creating the band's signature sound. A 3 piece band like Rush HAS TO have the rhythm section take more center stage. Rhythm section is practically all the band is!
That Ringo page is amusing. Lemme get this stright, I'm supposed to respect Ringo because he played Ludwig drums? Because he placed his kit on a riser? A bit of a stretch, doncha think?
Besides, I never said I didn't respect Ringo or Watts, did I? They are cut from the same bolt. Rock steady background players with very little style or input in the sound of the band. You may as well have a drum machine keeping perfect time back there. Face it, both of their bands were all about the guitar players and singers. They didn't WANT some flash drummer hogging the spotlight.
These guys are not overrated in the sense that they can't keep time- job #1 for a drummer. They are very good at that. But it's their total lack of style and identity behind the kit that I find lackluster. So when people put these guys on a pedestal as "drummers of the Gods", I just don't think they deserve it because they play in bands that don't showcase the potential of their instrument. Being as solid as a rock back there just ain't enough.
I'll take a Bruford (legendary for his sloppy lack of time) over a Ringo because Bruford playes with style and passion. I don't really care if the 8 measure solo at the end of "The End" is perfectly timed at 126 BPM. It sounds flat and uninteresting, always has, always will. Listen to it, it's stiff and stilted as hell, so who cares how perfect the time is? OTOH, Bruford's time is all over the map, but he manages to tie it all together with a strange mix of nuance and sheer power that makes you sit up and say "Wow! WTF was THAT!?". In this case, looser is better.
Again, it all depends on what you want to get out of the music. Obviously, I buy into the cult of the musician and that's different from what you want, J. BUT, that doesn't make me WRONG. Only different. |
| Ringo and Watts are overrated | J
Nov 9, 2003 1:59 PM | | >You can say that drummers are not supposed to be lead musicians (altho I'm not sure who made this rule.
If you want to listen to music where drums is a lead instrument, that's fine. Nobody's stopping you. Obviously it's a rule that's meant to be broken. Not in my house, though. Where I come from, the drummer is a member of the RHYTHM section.
>In the best ensembles EVERYONE is on an equal footing.
Not necessarily. See above. I don't have use for much where every instrumentalist is on equal footing. Has nothing to do with what I listen to music for. The rhythm section is the RHYTHM section for a reason. This is a rule that a lot of people break. The ones that I like I can probably count on the fingers of one hand, both hands if you include bass players.
>This opens it up for the drummer to take a larger part in creating the band's signature sound.
My point is, I'm not interested in most bands where drummers have a larger part in creating the band's signature sound.
>A 3 piece band like Rush HAS TO have the rhythm section take more center stage. Rhythm section is practically all the band is!
You could say the same about the Police, but what they did with it I like a hell of a lot more than I like Rush. Meanwhile, there are TONS of 3-piece bands, as well as 3-piece bands + vocalists for whom this doesn't matter. See Husker Du & Sugar for starters. In fact, in both of those cases the bass players overplayed to an extent, but the drummers never had to.
>Lemme get this stright, I'm supposed to respect Ringo because he played Ludwig drums?
No different than respecting Eric Clapton for playing a Stratocaster, Bruce Springsteen for playing a Telecaster, Pete Townshend for using a Gibson SG, Ace Frehley for using a Les Paul, or yr beloved Zappa for recording with Pignose amps. If none of this matters one whit to you, try to keep in mind that the author is a drummer.
>Because he placed his kit on a riser? A bit of a stretch, doncha think?
No. Placing the drums on a riser makes a tremendous difference in terms of sonics & dynamics on a stage. What you can hear when the drums are on the floor & what you can hear when they're elevated are two different things. Remember, there were NO MONITORS in the days when the Beatles were playing in front of screaming girls. Raising the drums helped the band hear the beat. This is something that no one ever seems to mention...because Ringo is 'overrated.'
>They are cut from the same bolt. Rock steady background players with very little style or input in the sound of the band.
Absolutely wrong. Charlie Watts was a jazz drummer, unlike Ringo. And you have to be DAMN GOOD to rein in jazz impulses & play as simply, and steadily, as the Rolling Stones' music demanded.
>Face it, both of their bands were all about the guitar players and singers. They didn't WANT some flash drummer hogging the spotlight.
Yeah, and that's something I LIKE about them. I'm not interested in ANY band who has some flash drummer hogging the spotlight, except for perhaps the Who. Because drums are a rhythm instrument.
>Being as solid as a rock back there just ain't enough.
It's plenty for me. You're interested in music performed by virtuosos. I'm interested in music that's performed by mentally ill, drug-addicted, introspective juvenile delinquent-types who just happen to play instruments & write songs. Remember, strangers have the best candy.
>BUT, that doesn't make me WRONG. Only different.
Different is fine. I'll only cry 'wrong' on the facts. The fact is, the genie's been out of the bottle for a long, long time in rock music, and nobody's going to stop overplaying just because I think it's self-indulgent bullshit. But the fact is also that drums were intended, in rock music, to be a rhythm instrument, not a lead instrument. And that's an idea I don't see much need to deviate from. |
| The Facts | MasterCylinder
Nov 10, 2003 5:55 AM | | These are facts:
In jazz and lab band tradition, the guitar, as well as drums, the bass and the piano are considered the "rhythm section".
I'm not certain of such a strict definition applied to a rock format -- never heard of one anyway. |
| Oh J . . . | Troy
Nov 10, 2003 7:45 AM | | You're always so much fun to talk to.
I loved what Stewart Copeland added to the Police sound. His play was integral to the band's sound. He usually doesn't make these drummer lists and perhaps should more often. However, I saw a concert on HBO of a band called "Oysterhead" he was in with Trey Anistesio and the Primus bass player and he was off time thru most of the show . . .
I SO don't care what brand instrument a musician plays! So Springsteen plays a Telecaster. Who gives 2 shits except the Fender company and all the wannbe Springsteens out there? Besides, it doesn't make him a better player, does it? What on earth does that have to do with me respecting him as a musician? I fail to see the point.
Ditto the riser issue. First, it doesn't improve his playing or technique, only his "amplification". And second, are we really sure he was the first (I seem to recall some big bands that had drummers on risers . . . ) or that it was actually his idea?
Your idea that drums are ONLY a rhythm instrument and unworthy of larger role in a band's sound (but ONLY in rock) is a needlessly limited self-imposed attitude. |
| You're a golden fountain of conversation yrself | J
Nov 10, 2003 1:12 PM | | >I saw a concert on HBO of a band called "Oysterhead" he was in with Trey Anistesio and the Primus bass player and he was off time thru most of the show . . .
Are you really surprised? Put three overplayers not used to overplaying with each other on the same stage & look what can happen. Of the three I'll bet Copeland was the most capable of restraint, too.
>I SO don't care what brand instrument a musician plays! So Springsteen plays a Telecaster. Who gives 2 shits except the Fender company and all the wannbe Springsteens out there? Besides, it doesn't make him a better player, does it? What on earth does that have to do with me respecting him as a musician? I fail to see the point.
You're missing something BIG here. Clapton & Hendrix MADE the Stratocaster what it is--the ultimate rock guitar, in a league only with the Les Paul. Those two have been kings of the hill for decades, and for a reason. They achieved sounds no other guitar could. It's part of the identity of a player, what gear he chooses. They all do different things & achieve different results. Eddie Van Halen played a Jackson because the guy was willing to build him a gtr that had only ONE knob. Some of the old blues guys achieved a particular sound because they chose to play resonator guitars. Country & Western Swing players chose the Broadcaster (later the Telecaster) on the basis of the specific sound that emanated from the pickups, which was a single coil sound that nobody else could get, not even Les Paul with the soapbox pickups on the early goldtop Les Pauls. The Beatles went for specific sounds with Gretsches & Rickenbackers--and Vox amps. Lemmy gets a fuzz sound with a Rickenbacker bass that he'd never quite get with a Fender. The Byrds, Beach Boys, & Tom Petty all used Rickenbackers for a reason; the Ventures & Johnny Ramone got distinctive sounds out of Mosrites, as did Joe Maphis & Larry Collins. And nobody, not even Hendrix, ever got the sound out of a Strat that Dick Dale did, and it has as much to do with the gear as his playing. Johnny Cash only played Martins; Brian Setzer is partial to Gretsches; and Les Paul still makes jokes about Fenders in his stage act. To someone who's not a player, this sort of stuff may not matter--but it's a HUGE part of what gives artists & players their sounds & identities. And looks. Springsteen, for instance. He could've played any number of guitars, because as rhythm guitarist, what he played was not exactly crucial to the sound of the band. But during a time when Clapton & Hendrix had popularized the Strat, and many others such as Townshend & Page mostly stuck with Gibsons, there weren't a lot of Tele players around. Springsteen's old Tele (pre-CBS) is such a trademark of his that it became a cliche. But it's an inextricable part of his legacy, and part of what that means is that you can look at him & his gear & know that you're not going to hear guitars with humbuckers screaming through Marshalls.
Now...how this relates to Ringo & his Ludwigs, I'm not sure. I'm not a drummer & I don't know enough about it. But I've spent enough time with drummers to know that there's a Sonor cult, and a fierce rivalry between Zildjian & Paiste. People take this stuff real seriously. And you know what? Prior to Ringo endorsing the Ludwigs, I'm not even sure it was thought of all that much.
>Ditto the riser issue. First, it doesn't improve his playing or technique, only his "amplification". And second, are we really sure he was the first (I seem to recall some big bands that had drummers on risers . . . ) or that it was actually his idea?
If he's not on the same level as the amps, you can't say what it does for or to his playing or his technique. Or, if the amps are mounted on boxes, as I believe was the case, it may improve his ability to hear what's being played, which was crucial. You're still not acknowledging that these guys played in front of deafening screams with NO MONITORS, and Ringo manage |
| You got cut off | Troy
Nov 10, 2003 2:51 PM | | But all this talk about who plays what has no bearing on why I should respect them (or Ringo) for it. So the guy is identified with Ludwig drums and he put them on the map. BFD.
The fact that Springsteen sold a bazillion Telecasters for Fender is nothing to respect him for . . . unless you are the marketing guy for Fender.
These instruments are part of these guys sound, no argument there. But that has nothing to do with whether they are good players.
I'd like to see what your comments were on the riser issue. |
| Since you asked | J
Nov 10, 2003 4:32 PM | | I was actually going to forget about it, but I'll beat any argument into the ground if there's someone willing to allow me to be foolish enough. And you never let me down. So...
>Ditto the riser issue. First, it doesn't improve his playing or technique, only his "amplification". And second, are we really sure he was the first (I seem to recall some big bands that had drummers on risers . . . ) or that it was actually his idea?
If he's not on the same level as the amps, you can't say what it does for or to his playing or his technique. Or, if the amps are mounted on boxes, as I believe was the case, it may improve his ability to hear what's being played, which was crucial. You're still not acknowledging that these guys played in front of deafening screams with NO MONITORS, and Ringo managed to hold it all together--there's plenty of footage that bears this out. As for big bands, they didn't have to contend with the stage conditions the Beatles did. I talked about this in the first post I ever put up on this site. Why did he play on a riser? Was it his idea? I don't know the answer to either of those questions. But I know what it achieved, and it had to do with a lot more than amplification. It had to do with doing what the drummer is supposed to do--assume his rightful place as the anchor of the rhythm section. Without the riser, playing (not lip-synching) on a live television performance, the results would likely have been quite different. So I say it made him a better player, whether or not it was his idea.
>But all this talk about who plays what has no bearing on why I should respect them (or Ringo) for it.
Disagree. Anyone who you like who has a distinctive sound has that sound partially as a result of the gear that they use. Everyone has choices. If they choose something that provides them with a distinctive sound, I don't see why that wouldn't weigh into yr appreciation of them. You don't have any respect for people making the correct choices when it comes to artistic tools? Being that you're an artist yrself, that surprises me. Of course, in some cases I could easily say that I care only about the results--but this is music. When it comes to food, for instance, I'm less concerned with hair-splitting on ingredients & more concerned with the results, but this is music--and while I don't consider myself a gear-head, there are aspects of gear-geek-guitar/music culture that I do consider to be vitally important. I'll always wonder who improved on the frying pan & came up with the first <i>real</i> electric guitar--Leo Fender, Les Paul, or Merle Travis. I'll always marvel at the fierce rivalry that existed between the Dobro Brothers & Adolph Rickenbacker & George Beauchamp. And I'll always know that because of Springsteen's embrace of a very worthy instrument, that it never got relegated to the second-class status that the rise of the Strat threatened. Just as the hair metal bands of the 80s favored models such as Ibanez, Hamer, Schecter, and the like, the Strat is, in a general sense, the guitar of the overplayer. Springsteen showed that not every Fender player had to play one, and it had an impact, as did Elvis Costello with his Jazzmaster, and Kurt Cobain with his Jaguars & Mustangs. It's not about how many units Fender sold, it's about the resulting effect on MUSIC--like the Byrds using Rickenbackers because of the distinctive sound captured by George Harrison, and Slash using a Les Paul instead of one of those stupid Vai/Satriani heavy metal guitars, because of players like Ace Frehley. Call me a guitar geek for caring about this stuff, but I do. And if Ringo's use of Ludwig had an effect on the drummer who wrote that article, I certainly respect that, because I can relate, at least to an extent.
>Your idea that drums are ONLY a rhythm instrument and unworthy of larger role in a band's sound (but ONLY in rock) is a needlessly limited self-imposed attitude.
Needless only |
| Wow, you type a lot | Troy
Nov 11, 2003 7:52 AM | | But you have come nowhere near swaying me.
As a guy that likes punk so much, normally played on junk gear with a lot of energy and emotion, your gearhead knowledge/obsession surprises me.
All you're talking about is your vast knowledge of what band played what. As you said, when it comes to food, the deal is the finished meal, whether it's cooked in a $200 pot on a Viking stove or in a $2 pot on a Coleman Camp stove.
I use all junk gear in my photography. The bulk of it is bought second-hand at swap-meets. You just don't need the best gear (or even name brands) to do good work and this is true in music too. My only real top of the line equipment is my computer because I want to do the work fast in a turn-key environment. I don't want to spend time thinking about how to make the computer work, I just want it to work.
However, having a fast and durable computer DOES NOT make me a better computer artist. Ringo's Ludwig kit DOES NOT make him a better drummer.
What you're talking about is the impact these musicians had on the the musicians that came after them. You like this guys playing and sound, you're gonna use the same gear as him to get that same sound. While I understand that Bozzio consiously chose DW drums and Sabian cymbals because of their sound, that's not why I should respect the guy. I should resapect the guy because he can pound, swing or play melodies on tuned pecussion . . . and do it all in 13 . . . cross-handed . . . while singing in a rubber devil mask. Things that Ringo and Watts just can't do.
http://www.terrybozzio.com/setup.html |
| I have come to a conclusion: | mad rhetorik
Nov 11, 2003 9:21 AM | | Bozzio is INSANE. I have never seen that many drums packed into close quarters before. |
| Yup | Troy
Nov 11, 2003 12:56 PM | | Go to here:
http://www.terrybozzio.com/audio.html
And take a look at some of the videos. I've seen him live, there honsetly is no one that plays like him out there. |
| Wow, you type a lot | J
Nov 11, 2003 12:01 PM | | >you have come nowhere near swaying me.
I'm not trying to. But when you say things I know to be untrue, such as
>These instruments are part of these guys sound, no argument there. But that has nothing to do with whether they are good players.
Bad generalization. It might actually be true 99% of the time, but I don't think there's any question that playing certain instruments enables certain players to better themselves due to the capabilities the instrument affords. The Stratocaster is a prime example. I'll guarantee you that the guitar-god-dom of Hendrix & Clapton would not have been what it became if not for the Strat. When it hit the market it was ridiculed, but players found that you could do things with it that you could do with no other guitar. Less than 15 years later, you have Hendrix & Clapton doing things nobody had ever done before, things that may not have been possible had they not had that particular instrument on which to develop skills.
>As a guy that likes punk so much, normally played on junk gear with a lot of energy and emotion
Wrong, most punk rock was NOT played on junk gear. Take a good look at the photos. Most of the bass players used Precisions, and few if any guitar players used budget models such as Harmony or Kay or Silvertone or Danelectro. The 'vintage' stuff didn't come into vogue until much later.
>your gearhead knowledge/obsession surprises me.
I'm a player, remember? Also...I used to have this here book, which I learned a great deal from. However, most guitar fanatics I actually don't like.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0062731548/qid=1068579399/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-4745822-1327865?v=glance&s=books
>As you said, when it comes to food, the deal is the finished meal
Right, but that's when it comes to food. When it comes to music I tend to care more, sometimes a lot more.
>You just don't need the best gear (or even name brands) to do good work and this is true in music too.
Another generalization that may be true 99% of the time, but definitely not 100%. There are plenty of things you can't do with junk gear.
>Ringo's Ludwig kit DOES NOT make him a better drummer.
Probably not, but you DON'T know that. If Hendrix or Clapton were, or became, better players as a result of their equipment--and they did--then you simply cannot say it didn't affect this guy or that guy as a blanket statement. It may apply to Ringo, but it might not. I don't know enough about drums to say. But I reject that for the possibility that it's not true.
>I understand that Bozzio consiously chose DW drums and Sabian cymbals because of their sound, that's not why I should respect the guy.
I'll always respect a musician for consciously making the right choices when it comes to their product. You have any albums where you hate the production? Ever stop to think that part of the sound might be due to a bad fit equipment-wise? This can ruin otherwise-decent records.
>Things that Ringo and Watts just can't do.
For all of the bragging on Bozzio's site, I have a feeling that somewhere there's a Neil Peart fan saying, 'bullshit!' Maybe Peart could play that kit; maybe he could do it better than Bozzio. Maybe Portnoy could. Oh, but Bozzio sings...am I supposed to care if I don't give a shit about the music? Which is why I don't care about what Bozzio can do that Ringo & Watts 'can't.' |
| Not going into an in-depth discussion about it, but... | tentoze
Nov 9, 2003 8:29 PM | | I can recall listening to "1" for the 1st time, and on one of the early songs (I don't recall which one, but certainly 64-66-ish vintage, and one of the radio hits), Ringo sounded like he was playing on an entirely diferent song than the rest of the band. He never impressed me. Charlie Watts always sounded like a clobberer, but I was never a Stones fan. |
| Ringo on Abbey Road | Mr MidFi
Nov 10, 2003 7:28 AM | | I don't remember where I read this, but I think Paul has claimed credit for the drums on that whole medley that closes the album. I don't know how true that is. |
| Not true | J
Nov 10, 2003 8:23 AM | | Never seen or heard that. It's on a couple of songs on the White Album that Paul played drums, and The Ballad Of John & Yoko. There is verification of Ringo being the drummer on the entire Abbey Road album in the book that covers each individual Beatles recording session. Any idea where you might've seen this? Sounds like a misunderstanding, somebody got a detail wrong, most likely. |
| Can't remember... | Mr MidFi
Nov 10, 2003 9:21 AM | | ...so I'll chalk it up to faulty memory and apologize to Mr. Starkey for perpetuating an untruth, which I now whole-heartedly retract. |
| Can't remember... | J
Nov 10, 2003 12:18 PM | | People make up stuff like this sometimes, or, consciously or not, mangle facts. Something like this happened on the Howard Stern show a few years ago. Ringo was often a source of a chuckle or two, and some of the dimmer characters on the show who don't know a lot about music made jokes about his ability--probably based on his clownish persona, as opposed to his actual playing. There'd be a voice or two, knowledgeable about music, who'd try to interject some logic into the discussion, but they were usually shouted down, likely because it made for better radio to put the guy down because of the persona, rather than acknowledge his musicianship. So things were said about him that were untrue, and most on the show agreed--he was not a great drummer. One day he came in, to promote one of his All-Starr tours, and he set the record straight on what he had & hadn't played on. He was actually quite critical of Paul's drumming on 'Dear Prudence.' But the point is that stories get started, and it becomes fashionable to make this or that comment based on a particular perception, rather than make a judgment based solely on the merits of the issue (this is something many are guilty of at times, including myself). So...some months back there was another drummer thread on Rocky Road, and this guy started in with this stuff about how there were lots of Beatles songs that Ringo didn't play on; the thread is here, http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/rock/messages/27018.html
As an aside, the same guy saying this about Ringo suggested elsewhere on that board not long afterward that George Harrison didn't play this or that solo, that the Beatles always brought in outside musicians. Yeah, on Eleanor Rigby...one hears that George didn't play the solo on 'Taxman' or 'Can't Buy Me Love,' but somehow it doesn't register that it was actually Paul playing those solos (as Lennon played the lead on 'You Can't Do That'), and between that, 'Eleanor Rigby,' Billy Preston on 'Get Back,' and Eric Clapton on 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps,' and people start thinking that the Beatles 'always' brought in outside musicians. OBVIOUSLY outside players were used on 'A Day In The Life' and 'Goodnight,' but that gets twisted into this notion that the Beatles didn't play on their own records, and that's just ridiculous. |
| Simple is better | maf
Nov 8, 2003 9:57 PM | | Some of my favorites:
Pete Thomas - The Attractions
Pete deFreitas - Echo & the Bunnymen
Budgie - Siouxsie & the Banshees
Victor DeLorenzo - Violent Femmes
Stephen Morris - Joy Division/New Order
Sly Dunbar
Robert Gotobed - Wire
Anton Fier - The Feelies/Pere Ubu/Golden Palominos
Mark |
| Here is another great rock "over-player" | MasterCylinder
Nov 9, 2003 5:53 AM | | Went to a concert where MEGADETH was the opening act -- did not care much to see this band -- had my earplugs on the ready.
To my surprise, I actually enjoyed the set.......thanks to JIMMY DeGRASSO.........an amazing machine of a rock drummer.
Similar to a Peart/Portnoy mixed style......and powerful. |
| Two faves | Jim Clark
Nov 9, 2003 9:09 AM | | I wouldn't know a good drummer from a bad one, unless he/she was obviously bad. By obviously bad I mean like me on drums. There are a couple that I know by name that I enjoy a great deal.
Joe Nanini, late drummer of Wall of Voodoo. Technically I'm pretty confident that he was at least competent. Creatively, he seems to me to be a cut above most. His oddball collection of pots and pans add just the right touch to the music of WOV. If you can make music on pots and pans and have it sound as good as WOV sounds to me, well you're aces in my book.
Budgie-The Creatures/Siouxsie and The Banshees. Don't mean to copy Maf, but I agree wholeheartedly. Don't know too much about him other than he hits hard, so hard I'm pretty sure he wears gloves, but it doesn't necessarily sound like he's sitting there with a sledgehammer. His rythms are tribal, and he can pull his influences from anywhere in the world and make it blend right in. In most instances, much like Joe Nanini it isn't just drums but more of the overall 'percussion' aspect that I enjoy.
I'm sure the other guys are just fine, but then again they aren't playing music that I enjoy as much. Actually it's fairly rare that I even notice a drummer. I like that most don't call attention to themselves and are content to be a part of the music and work to blend in seamlessly.
jc |
| Your post reminded me... | mad rhetorik
Nov 9, 2003 9:17 AM | | ...of the Blue Man Group. As far as creative (as opposed to "technical") percussionists go, they are the benchmark. Their variety of custom drums (most made from PVC tubing) is extremely sick, as are their live shows. I think you'd like 'em if you are into wild percussion. Check out their instrumental album Audio. |
| Got it | Jim Clark
Nov 9, 2003 9:48 AM | | Funny thing is that after my post I elected to put on "The Complex" rather than "End Of The Century". Saw them about a month ago during a KC stop with one of the variations of the band. Tracy Bonham came along for the ride. It was a remarkable and extremely entertaining show. As much for the visuals as the music.
Of course much of the music I listen to doesn't even have a drummer. Don't recall who offered the quote in an article I was reading lately but he offered up this little nugget, "The benefit of a drum machine is that you only have to program the machine once.". I thought it was fairly humorous anyway. Every now and then a band will use a real human with excellent results. The drums and percussion on Juno Reactor's "Bible Of Dreams" is wicked good.
Have a great day,
jc |
| Nanini rocks | Troy
Nov 9, 2003 11:34 AM | | I always forget about him.
Yeah, not flashy, but loads of style and FUN. Any drummer who's kit consists of pots and pans and random bits of metal and found debris is a guy with my kinda style. |
| Klaus Dinger and Stanley Demeski | Davey
Nov 9, 2003 9:16 AM | | There's a couple names you don't see often but I always loved the sound Klaus Dinger got on those very early Kraftwerk albums. It sounded and felt almost like he was in the room, so dynamic yet spacious too. Of course he went on to more (?) notoriety as half of Neu. And another favorite is Stanley Demeski, originally in the Feelies, and then later the drummer in Luna (at least until he got tired of not getting paid and left). Also loved some of that early stuff Phil Collins did in support of Brain Eno, especially on Before and After Science. I think he's brilliant on Energy Fools the Magician. Beautiful drum sound. Always thought Charlie Watts was one of the best too, but I'm not really all that big on drumming myself. I usually prefer it not to stand out so generally don't appreciate some of the big names that you mention. That's just me though :-) |
| re: Best rock drummer (s)? | nobody
Nov 10, 2003 9:51 AM | | I'm in the keep it simple camp. I've seen so many bands just ruined by a drummer trying to play too much. especially in the 90s when the chili peppers were big. Seemed every crappy bar band wanted to be a little "funky", which meant all the rhythm sections fell to shit. Bass players and drummers were equally at fault. Truly miserable listening to all that crap. I so longed to walk into a bar and hear a drummer playing a simple beat.
Anyway...lots of good suggestions, nobody new to add to the mix, but I will chime in in agreement for a couple of my favorites.
Moe Tucker was amazing and innovative. She is probably the only one I see on this list that jumps out at me as being both innovative and keeping it simple at once.
Slim Jim Phantom is another that I liked for his simplicity.
I don't care enough about the Stones to have a strong feeling about Charlie Watts one way or another, but it's funny that your description of why he's overrated as being a dependable metronome that does nothing exciting is pretty much a description of my ideal drummer in 90% of situations.
And, ya know, Ringo's alwasy been my favorite Beatle. |
| re: Best rock drummer (s)? | nobody
Nov 10, 2003 9:52 AM | | I'm in the keep it simple camp. I've seen so many bands just ruined by a drummer trying to play too much. especially in the 90s when the chili peppers were big. Seemed every crappy bar band wanted to be a little "funky", which meant all the rhythm sections fell to shit. Bass players and drummers were equally at fault. Truly miserable listening to all that crap. I so longed to walk into a bar and hear a drummer playing a simple beat.
Anyway...lots of good suggestions, nobody new to add to the mix, but I will chime in in agreement for a couple of my favorites.
Moe Tucker was amazing and innovative. She is probably the only one I see on this list that jumps out at me as being both innovative and keeping it simple at once.
Slim Jim Phantom is another that I liked for his simplicity.
And, props top the mention of DeLorenzo from the Violent Femmes. Always loved that.
I don't care enough about the Stones to have a strong feeling about Charlie Watts one way or another, but it's funny that your description of why he's overrated as being a dependable metronome that does nothing exciting is pretty much a description of my ideal drummer in 90% of situations.
And, ya know, Ringo's alwasy been my favorite Beatle. |
| Danny Carey, hands down nt | AD
Nov 10, 2003 1:43 PM | | |
| How come nobody voted for my friend MasterCylinder?? | YECH
Nov 10, 2003 3:18 PM | | BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cause he sucks.
YECH |
| Thanks for remembering -- you are a swell guy | MasterCylinder
Nov 10, 2003 7:33 PM | | NOT ! |
| |
