I never understood Charlie Watts...
JimmerG007
gets all this notoriety...he is a very very mediocre four on the floor drummer,
kind of unflashy, just the same beats over and over...same feeling I also have
toward Ringo Starr...both in my opinion are one of the most overrated drummers
ever...
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
The mediocrity of Watts's playing is the key to its popularity.
His playing is accessible, anyone could play like that, no one's daunted
by it.
The simplistic "Less is More" attitude seems to be particularly
prevalent among hack drummers these days. Anyone who's dumb enough to
submit to the "L is M" cliche is probably undiscerning enough to fail to
recognize that Watts's drumming just isn't impressive.
Neil takes on the "Less is More" and "Keep it Simple, Stupid"
cliches in his Work on Progress Video, by the way -- and these comments
of Neil's alone merit the price of admission.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
TIMOTHY GUEGUEN
: I was just thinking today...for some reason, I just don't get why Charlie Watts
: gets all this notoriety...he is a very very mediocre four on the floor drummer,
: kind of unflashy, just the same beats over and over...same feeling I also have
: toward Ringo Starr...both in my opinion are one of the most overrated drummers
: ever...
tish, tish, thump, thump, prapataprata, blam" drum fills every two
seconds doesn't make them a mediocre drummer. BTW if you don't like
Ringo or Watts you'd best not listen to old blues records either.
tim gueguen 101867
Matt Rose
Ringo isn't exactly regarded as a technical expert, but he made many
contributions to music that can't be overlooked. For one thing, he's probably
single-handedly responsible for thousands of drummers out there wanting to play
(and going out and buying Ludwig drums).
I would say he made a lot of sonic contributions as well, mainly in how
acoustic drums are recorded (although George Martin's probably more responsible
for that).
Read Modern Drummer's "13 reasons to respect Ringo".
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
bar...@aol.com.kwyjibo (Matt Rose) wrote:
> >I also have toward Ringo Starr...
>
> Ringo isn't exactly regarded as a technical expert, but he made many
> contributions to music that can't be overlooked. For one thing, he's
probably
> single-handedly responsible for thousands of drummers out there
wanting to play
> (and going out and buying Ludwig drums).
Oh. I assumed we were talking about _positive_ contributions to
music. Seriously, I like some of Ringo's playing (e.g., "Rain" and "A
Day in the Life"), but a lot of the time he's just not up to the task --
a more adroit drummer would have brought more life to the material.
Paul intended "Helter Skelter," for example, as an answer to The Who
(Townshend had recently scared McCartney by talking about how aggressive
new Who stuff was). "Helter" _is_ a potentially-heavy song, but Ringo's
plodding, flaccid drumming detracts from it. (Maybe it was all the
"blisters" on his "fingers," but whatever the case, the track probably
failed to even get K. Moon's notice.) During the making of the "White
Album," Paul was frequently compelled to wait for Ringo to leave the
studio, and then to replace Ringo's drum tracks with his own (i.e.,
Paul's). One of the great Beatle-ironies is that Paul was a better
drummer than Ringo!
>I would say he made a lot of sonic contributions as well, mainly in
how
> acoustic drums are recorded (although George Martin's probably more
responsible
> for that).
From what I've read, Ringo was pretty passive in the studio.
You're probably right to attribute any "sonic" Beatles-drumming
contributions to G. Martin.
JC Martin
<19990814170404...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
>I was just thinking today...for some reason, I just don't get why Charlie
Watts
>gets all this notoriety...he is a very very mediocre four on the floor
drummer,
have
>toward Ringo Starr...both in my opinion are one of the most overrated
drummers
>ever...
Unquestionably, neither have very much chops. But someone like Ringo in
particular has a unique feel. I'd rather hear him playing "A Day In A Life"
than Peart any day.
-JC
JC Martin
>Album," Paul was frequently compelled to wait for Ringo to leave the
>studio, and then to replace Ringo's drum tracks with his own (i.e.,
>Paul's). One of the great Beatle-ironies is that Paul was a better
>drummer than Ringo!
Paul McCartney would disagree, as I've heard him call Ringo one of the
greatest ever. And that's mostly fiction that Ringo's parts were recorded
over. The band and Ringo did have some problems during this recording, and
Ringo almost quit. But Ringo came back to play some of his best work,
particularly on Abbey Road. He was more of a symphonic drummer than a
"balls to the wall" Moon type of player. Each style has its place IMO. Who
wants music to only contain a bunch of metronomic drum clones?
-JC
JC Martin
>Charlie Watts
>> gets all this notoriety...he is a very very mediocre four on the floor
>drummer,
>> kind of unflashy, just the same beats over and over...same feeling I
>also have
>> toward Ringo Starr...both in my opinion are one of the most overrated
>drummers
>> ever...
>
>His playing is accessible, anyone could play like that, no one's daunted
>by it.
>
> The simplistic "Less is More" attitude seems to be particularly
>prevalent among hack drummers these days. Anyone who's dumb enough to
>submit to the "L is M" cliche is probably undiscerning enough to fail to
>recognize that Watts's drumming just isn't impressive.
>
> Neil takes on the "Less is More" and "Keep it Simple, Stupid"
>cliches in his Work on Progress Video, by the way -- and these comments
>of Neil's alone merit the price of admission.
But it's only Neil's opinion. IMO, Neil would butcher a lot of good music
with his style. I love him to death...but I love him to death as Rush's
drummer.
-JC
Pete Chmielewski
JimmerG007 <jimme...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990814170404...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
"JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
> Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote in message During the making of the
"White
> >Album," Paul was frequently compelled to wait for Ringo to leave the
> >studio, and then to replace Ringo's drum tracks with his own (i.e.,
> >Paul's). One of the great Beatle-ironies is that Paul was a better
> >drummer than Ringo!
>
> Paul McCartney would disagree, as I've heard him call Ringo one of the
> greatest ever.
McCartney tends to do that whenever anyone points out his
criticisms of his former Beatles bandmates. Once, after admitting that
he found G. Harrison very unsatisfactory on a certain occasion, Paul
quickly added that George was "one of the greats." Paul's just a very
diplomatic person, as Lennon has pointed out.
By the way, even if Paul has said that "Ringo is the greatest ever"
(I'm not aware of his having said this, but I'll assume you're
being accurate), this in no way refutes my contention that Paul
overdubbed Ringo's parts on several White Album tracks. Any of the
books which discuss the recording of this album in detail will confirm
my contention here.
> And that's mostly fiction that Ringo's parts were
>recorded
> over.
In which cases is it fiction? Did you know that, for some tracks
(e.g., "Why Don't We Do It in the Road"), Ringo _didn't even get the
chance_ to put down tracks? It was Paul by himself -- there wasn't even
a pretense of it being a band project. (Incidentally, the drums on this
track are among the best on the record, at least to my ears.)
> The band and Ringo did have some problems during this
>recording, and
> Ringo almost quit.
He _did_ quit. But he came back. Far be it from _him_ to break up
the Beatles!
> But Ringo came back to play some of his best work,
> particularly on Abbey Road.
I was talking about the White Album. (Although Paul also played
drums on "The Ballad of John and Yoko.")
>He was more of a symphonic drummer than a
> "balls to the wall" Moon type of player.
Who ever claimed Starr was a "Moon-type drummer"?
> Each style has its place
>IMO.
Does my drumming have its own place? (My "style" is limited to
finger-tapping on tables when I'm bored.)
>Who
> wants music to only contain a bunch of metronomic drum clones?
So there _are_ some styles which don't have their place!
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
"JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> But it's only Neil's opinion. IMO, Neil would butcher a lot of good
music
> with his style. I love him to death...but I love him to death as
Rush's
> drummer.
>
To say that a particular view is "just opinion" is a popular way of
avoiding consideration of the view. Opinions are among the most
valuable things we can have, and one opinion may be far more valuable
(and tenable) than the next.
Rather than saying that a certain view is "just opinion," one would
be better off _actively assessing_ the view. (Is the view
well-grounded? Is it plausible? Or is it poorly supported? Or _non_
supported?)
Guy Berger
> Charlie Watts gets all this notoriety...he is a very very mediocre
> four on the floor drummer, kind of unflashy, just the same beats
> over and over...same feeling I also have toward Ringo Starr...both
> in my opinion are one of the most overrated drummers ever...
Maybe it's because not everybody is so fixated on technique that they
ignore the quality of the music it supports?
For what it's worth, Ringo was one of the first rock drummers to play
in nonstandard meters.
Guy
--
Guy Berger
"You're right, its not a habit of mine to read the dictionary. But I
do read the Bible." -- Eric
JC Martin
>In article <7p6p6d$6l2$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> But it's only Neil's opinion. IMO, Neil would butcher a lot of good
>music
>> with his style. I love him to death...but I love him to death as
>Rush's
>> drummer.
>>
>
> To say that a particular view is "just opinion" is a popular way of
>avoiding consideration of the view. Opinions are among the most
>valuable things we can have, and one opinion may be far more valuable
>(and tenable) than the next.
>
> Rather than saying that a certain view is "just opinion," one would
>be better off _actively assessing_ the view. (Is the view
>well-grounded? Is it plausible? Or is it poorly supported? Or _non_
>supported?)
Having worked in bands and having seen my wife go through 4 different
drummers recently has given me some perspective. There are some great
drummers out there who just don't understand how to explore different feels
and colors. Technical chops is just one aspect of music. It is not the
end-all be-all. For instance, a guy like Dave Weckel is probably one of the
most technically accurate drummers this planet has seen. But I much prefer
to hear someone like Elvin Jones or Tony Williams play jazz than Weckel.
Dave is more suited to the jazz/rock fusion variety, which stresses chops
and power over manipulating tonal colors. And FYI, I find Neil's playing to
be pretty weak on the new TFE. IMO (yep, there's those awful opinions
again) Neil sacrificed *feeling* and *uniqueness* for heavy-handed
blandness.
-JC
-JC
JimmerG007
be below many...If you listen to a lot of Rush album, I believe Peart's
technical ability outranks both. I think Natural Science is one great example
of his technical abilities. And for Yes...songs such as Sound Chaser
demonstrate Alan White's quality technical ability. For Bill Bruford, "Red" is
a wonderful album to hear his playing, and especially on Close to the Edge he
really struts his stuff.
Now influentually, they have had great impacts. Ringo in my opinion moreso
than Charlie Watts, especially on the later Beatles albums. Charlie Watts,
when i seen him drum, I just can't feel the emotion behind the percussion...I
will give both credit for their impacts on music, but I feel that people such
as Alan White, Ian Paice, Ray Phillips, and others have not gotten as much
just credit for their abilities. Neil Peart has held an impressive reputation
with most music fans, thus I have not placed him on this list.
Guy Berger
jimme...@aol.com (JimmerG007) wrote:
> Technically, and dynamically, I believe that Charlie Watts and Ringo
> Starr may be below many...If you listen to a lot of Rush album, I
> believe Peart's technical ability outranks both.
I could name dozens of drummers who make Neil sound like a technical
amateur. So what? Technical ability is just one aspect of drumming.
> I think Natural Science is one great example of his technical
> abilities. And for Yes...songs such as Sound Chaser demonstrate
> Alan White's quality technical ability.
White's a great drummer but a little lacking in the creativity
department.
> For Bill Bruford, "Red" is a wonderful album to hear his playing,
> and especially on Close to the Edge he really struts his stuff.
Bruford is decidedly lacking in some areas -- compare his work on
"21st Century Schizoid Man" to that of the more agile Mike Giles.
scar...@my-deja.com
rubbish.
a person who considers charlie watts' playing to be mediocre clearly
does not understand music, especially the playing aspect.
while it is all well and good to consider charlie somewhat pedestrian
compared to show ponies like weckle and all those other posers(who have
yetr to achicve any major impact on modern popular music, let alone
modern culture), a statement like the above shows without doubt that
the author has no real experience in playing music either live or in
the studio
> His playing is accessible, anyone could play like that
wrong.
can you play like that?
no.
have you hear charlie's big band playing? i doubt it.
how do you justify calling fingerprint file, hey negrita, can you hear
me knocking, to name but a few, as playing "anyone can do"?
clearly you are out of your depth here.
>, no one's daunted by it.
since when was "dauntage" a measure of musicianship?
still, it made me laugh.
> The simplistic "Less is More" attitude seems to be particularly
> prevalent among hack drummers these days.
your simplistic appraisal makes us all laugh very hard, that's for sure.
the less is more ethos applies to all spheres of music and art. but
hey, far be it from me to stop you contradicting such "hacks" as
michelangelo, hendrix, hockney, lennon, ringo, ginger baker, satriani,
james joyce, etc etc.
i'm sure you know much better than those people, all of who espoused
and actively displayed their grasp of a concept which appears to be
just slightly beyond your ability.
> Anyone who's dumb enough to submit to the "L is M" cliche is
probably undiscerning enough to fail to
> recognize that Watts's drumming just isn't impressive.
so over 100 million pople are totaly undiscerning?
LOL.
these platitudes you are throwing around are totally worthless in any
form of argument or debate.
btw, tell me, how many records have you sold to date?
>
> Neil takes on the "Less is More" and "Keep it Simple, Stupid"
> cliches in his Work on Progress Video, by the way -- and these
comments of Neil's alone merit the price of admission.
i'm sorry to rain on your parade, but neil and his cronies are simply
tradesmen.
they are not artists.
never have been, never will be.
and to compare them to serious and seriously succesful artists is
simplistic, to put it mildly.
may i suggest you go back and do some homework before you open that
silly mouth and diplay your vast ignorance of music again.
sc.
Reani14
>avoiding consideration of the view. Opinions are among the most
>valuable things we can have, and one opinion may be far more valuable
>(and tenable) than the next.
>
> Rather than saying that a certain view is "just opinion," one would
>be better off _actively assessing_ the view. (Is the view
>well-grounded? Is it plausible? Or is it poorly supported? Or _non_
>supported?)
>
>
One fact for sure, the stones can put shit on a record, and people will love
it no matter what , because its them!!!!!! any ???'s
JC Martin
Not necessarily true. A lot of their recordings have bombed in both the
80's and the 90's. I happen to enjoy their music from the 70's,
particularly the Mick Taylor period.
-JC
Kevin Caffrey
>From: rea...@aol.com (Reani14)
>Date: Mon, 16 August 1999 05:38 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990816173815...@ng-ba1.aol.com>
>
>> To say that a particular view is "just opinion" is a popular way of
>>avoiding consideration of the view. Opinions are among the most
>>valuable things we can have, and one opinion may be far more valuable
>>(and tenable) than the next.
>>
>> Rather than saying that a certain view is "just opinion," one would
>>be better off _actively assessing_ the view. (Is the view
>>well-grounded? Is it plausible? Or is it poorly supported? Or _non_
>>supported?)
>>
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>>
>
>love
>it no matter what , because its them!!!!!! any ???'s
and you think there aren't Rush fans who will buy whatever Rush puts on an
album regardless of quality?
Kevin
"Shut your stinking trap!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - Skank
http://members.aol.com/Snnrissrvd/index.html
Brian
because you "feel" it in an emotional sort of way. Drummers like Charlie
Watts and Ringo Starr were far from the best drummers "technically" but were
very good at giving their music "soul." Neil Peart, and others, on the
other hand, are technically superior but at the same time hard to connect to
in an emotional sense. Neil himself admits to "overplaying everthing."
I love Neil and Rush to death, but there are times when Neil's overplaying
ruins the emotional quality of the song. Take Resist, for example. During
the acoustic bridge, Neil comes in with symbol playing during the second
stanza which absolutely ruins the song.
That's not to say that all of Neils playing comes across like that all the
time, but I can appreciate the point of view that a lot of the
"Rush-bashers" have that their music is not accessible.
WK BEN
>i'm sorry to rain on your parade, but neil and his cronies are simply
>tradesmen.
>they are not artists.
>never have been, never will be.
>and to compare them to serious and seriously succesful artists is
>simplistic, to put it mildly.
>
>may i suggest you go back and do some homework before you open that
>silly mouth and diplay your vast ignorance of music again.
>
>sc.
Are you trying to suggest that Charlie Watts and the Rolling Stones are
"serious and seriously successful artists" and comparing Neil Peart to them
would be simplistic? I can't speak about genres other than Rock or pop, but I
would say that within the context of Rock and Roll Neil and Rush are as
artistic as the next band. They have put out music for the past 25 years
completely on their own terms, surviving the attacks of hostile critics and
defying the trends of image and style over musical substance. You can call
Neil a tradesman if you wish, because he is more concerned with technique than
many drummers, but you are a fool and an ass if you think that advanced
technique negates artistic expression. Look at what the Rolling Stones have
done in the past 15 years. They have signed huge record deals played huge
concerts, not for the love of their "art" but to provide the income to support
their lavish lifestyles. I have read in articles and interviews where Charlie
Watts basically admits that he doesn't give a shit about the Stones music
anymore. Its simply pays the bills. I can't blame him either. Most of his
drumming with the Stones is bland and boring. He just sits up there with the
same old 4/4 bullshit. Sure he has some bright moments on certain songs.
Given the size of the Stones catalog I would expect that. He may even be an
interesting drummer when he does big band stuff. I can't say having not heard
it. My point is that the guy sounds like he is simply going through the
motions on most Stones songs. This is not art. In fact it is quite cynical
and disgusting IMO. If he doesn't care about the music anymore, he should hang
it up. You may not like Neil's style, but I don't think you can accuse him of
going through the motions. If you disagree, watch A Work In Progress and then
talk to me. And do something about your arrogant bitch tone because it fucking
annoying.
-Ben
Matt Mueller
>
> scarifier wrote:
>
> >i'm sorry to rain on your parade, but neil and his cronies are simply
> >tradesmen.
> >they are not artists.
> >never have been, never will be.
> >and to compare them to serious and seriously succesful artists is
> >simplistic, to put it mildly.
> >
> >may i suggest you go back and do some homework before you open that
> >silly mouth and diplay your vast ignorance of music again.
> >
> >sc.
>
> Are you trying to suggest that Charlie Watts and the Rolling Stones are
> "serious and seriously successful artists" and comparing Neil Peart to them
> would be simplistic?
It was Mr. Watts himself who, when asked by an interviewer what it was like to
be a member of the Rolling Stones for 25 years, something like "Five years of playing
and 20 years of hanging about."
scar...@my-deja.com
wk...@aol.com (WK BEN) wrote:
> scarifier wrote:
>
>
> Are you trying to suggest that Charlie Watts and the Rolling Stones
are
> "serious and seriously successful artists" and comparing Neil Peart
to them
> would be simplistic?
did i say that?
all i say is that rush was not responsivle for any ground breaking
music, wheras the stiones most certainly are.
simple really.
> I can't speak about genres other than Rock or pop,
oh dear..:)
>You can call
> Neil a tradesman if you wish, because he is more concerned with
technique than many drummers,
thank you .
and yes, he is.
> but you are a fool and an ass if you think that advanced
> technique negates artistic expression.
now now, who said that?
>Look at what the Rolling Stones have
> done in the past 15 years. They have signed huge record deals played
huge
> concerts, not for the love of their "art" but to provide the income
to support
> their lavish lifestyles.
this is what you have decided,and as such, is fine.
but it isn't the truth.
>I have read in articles and interviews where Charlie
> Watts basically admits that he doesn't give a shit about the Stones
music anymore.
oh really?
that's a rather broad and unsubstantiated claim.
"i have read somehwere"...LOL
> Its simply pays the bills.
oh yes, none of the stones have any money stashed away...no.LOL
the stones play because they like it.
period.
no other reason.
the money is nice, but not "needed" per se.
I can't blame him either. Most of his
> drumming with the Stones is bland and boring.
if you say so.
> He just sits up there with the
> same old 4/4 bullshit.
if you say so.
> Sure he has some bright moments on certain songs.
> Given the size of the Stones catalog I would expect that. He may
even be an
> interesting drummer when he does big band stuff. I can't say having
not heard
> it.
thats right, you haven't heard enough to pass the sort of sweeping
generalisations you seem to think make up solid debate on musical
topics.
my advice is to try listening a bit more before blowing so hard.
>My point is that the guy sounds like he is simply going through the
> motions on most Stones songs.
this is your opinion. nothinkg more.
> This is not art.
oh goody, you can define art.
please go ahead, i'm all ears.
> In fact it is quite cynical
> and disgusting IMO. If he doesn't care about the music anymore, he
should hang
> it up.
who says he doesnt care about it? you?
>And do something about your arrogant bitch tone because it fucking
> annoying.
now this is the pot calling the kettle black isn't it sweetheart?
please do not respond to this post until you have had your daily
sedative.
i wouldnt want you to get too upset and hurt yourself.
sc
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
scar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> a person who considers charlie watts' playing to be mediocre clearly
> does not understand music, especially the playing aspect.
"A person"? Okay, maybe there is _a_ person to somewhere to whom
these silly claims of yours apply. But most -- ALL, come to think of it
-- of the people I know who are unimpressed by Watts's playing know
_much more_ about music than the average, undiscerning, uncritical,
cliche-touting hack.
> while it is all well and good to consider charlie somewhat pedestrian
> compared to show ponies like weckle and all those other posers(who
have
> yetr to achicve any major impact on modern popular music,
I wasn't speaking about Watts' "impact on modern popular music"; I
was speaking about the blandness, the mediocrity of his playing. You
commit the ad Populum fallacy here in appealing to popularity, but
you're guilty of other insidious confusions as well.
Specifically, I dispute that _Watts_ had a "major impact on popular
music." It wasn't _Watts_ who achieved this, it was the Stones. What
may be said of a _group_ does not necessarily apply to a _member_ of
that group. The Stones had an effect -- they inspired a lot of inept
garage bands. But I dispute that these bands were motivated to generate
noise on the basis of _Watts_.
>
> the less is more ethos applies to all spheres of music and art. but
> hey, far be it from me to stop you contradicting such "hacks" as
> michelangelo, hendrix, hockney, lennon, ringo, ginger baker, satriani,
> james joyce, etc etc.
Ringo _was_ a hack. More importantly, it's extremely unfair to
attribute the "less is more" mentality to each of these persons --
especially when you don't offer _any_ reasons at all for doing so.
> i'm sure you know much better than those people,
I've made no such suggestion. (Come to think of it, there are
_topics_ where I'm sure I know more than the persons you refer to.) But
it's not the persons you list with whom I have a quarrel. It's the
idiotic proponents of the "less is more" cliche that I don't agree with.
> and actively displayed their grasp of a concept which appears to be
> just slightly beyond your ability.
"Less is more: a Concept for the Erudite."
>
> > Anyone who's dumb enough to submit to the "L is M" cliche is
> probably undiscerning enough to fail to
> > recognize that Watts's drumming just isn't impressive.
>
> so over 100 million pople are totaly undiscerning?
>
> LOL.
You mean "totally" undiscerning. Yes, it's entirely plausible to
me that 100 million people are undiscerning in their musical tastes.
(You sure are fond of ad Populum appeals.)
> btw, tell me, how many records have you sold to date?
_Another_ ad Populum appeal? But I thought "less" was "more"!
Look, it might be the case that I've never sold a record in my
life. This is _totally irrelevant_ to the correctness of my stand on
the idiotic "less is more" cliche.
>
> >
> > Neil takes on the "Less is More" and "Keep it Simple, Stupid"
> > cliches in his Work on Progress Video, by the way -- and these
> comments of Neil's alone merit the price of admission.
>
> i'm sorry to rain on your parade, but neil and his cronies are simply
> tradesmen.
> they are not artists.
If Charlie Watts & his cronies are "artists" to your mind, I'm
_glad_ that Neil isn't an "artist." (I'm also glad that I don't have
your mind.)
WK BEN
>>
>>
>> Are you trying to suggest that Charlie Watts and the Rolling Stones
>are
>> "serious and seriously successful artists" and comparing Neil Peart
>to them
>> would be simplistic?
>
>did i say that?
>all i say is that rush was not responsivle for any ground breaking
>music, wheras the stiones most certainly are.
>simple really.
>
First of all, you did say it would be simplistic to compare Neil Peart and his
cronies to serious and successful artists (presumably the Stones). Are you
trying to deny that now? You then present a "simple" statement that Rush was
not responsible for any groundbreaking music while the Stones clearly were.
This "fact" is really a matter of opinion. First I think we would need to
define groudbreaking. I think we can agree that both the Stones and Rush, like
any other band, were influenced by earlier music and to say that either band
did things that were completely "groundbreaking" or without precedent would be
incorrect. Both the Stones and Rush have developed unique styles over the
course of many years and have devoted followings. The Stones may be more
successful artists in terms of sales or even in terms of number of people they
have influenced. This does not mean they are superior artists. A direct
comparison of that sort becomes a matter of taste. Can you comprehend? Your
statement that Rush can not be compared to the Stones (which implies that the
Stones are on a higher level than Rush) is simply incorrect. I personally find
Rush's work more stimulating than the Rolling Stones (although they do have
many great songs).
I would respond to the rest of your comments directly but it really would be
boring and pointless. No I don't keep a file of magazine articles to quote
from so you can call my claims unsubstantiated. That does not change the fact
that Charlie Watts has made it clear in printed articles that the Stones music
is far from being his passion and he is more interested in big band and jazz.
If you want to deny this, be my guest. In my opinion, his relative lack of
passion for the Stones music is apparent in his playing. In many songs he keeps
a simple beat and doesn't do much else. If you could enlighten me about how
there is more going on, I'd love to hear it.
By contrast I feel Neil Peart has far more passion for his playing in Rush.
The music just has a lot more going on and consequently more depth. The video
A Work in Progress gives a view into just how much thought and energy Neil puts
into each song. Of course this is just my opinion. If Charlie Watts drumming
for the Stones is more to your taste, thats fine with me. Its the arrogant,
condecending tone, the "your guy doesn't even compare to my guy" statements
that makes you look like such an asshole.
-Ben
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
scar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> all i say is that rush was not responsivle for any ground breaking
> music, wheras the stiones most certainly are.
The Stones have sold a lot of records, as you continuously point
out, but it doesn't follow that their music is groundbreaking.
Their music is incredibly, blatantly _derivative_, actually. They
_follow_ trends instead of starting them. Now, it's common for bands to
_start out_ sounding a lot like their influences. It's just that good,
imaginative bands go on to create something original. The Stones have
failed to do this.
They started out by ripping off blues artists.
When the Beatles had tremendous success with Sgt. Pepper, the
Stones shamelessly went "psychedelic" (with HILARIOUSLY BAD results).
In the mid-70s, the Stones went reggae.
In the late 70s, the Stones went disco.
From the 80s on, the Stones have just rewritten their old songs.
So there's this pattern with the Stones of merely complying with
whatever's trendy. In this process -- which Rush would never stoop to
-- they happened to make a lot of money. To say that they're innovators
is absurd. And to suggest that Charlie Watts is a better drummer than
Peart is _laughable_.
JC Martin
No one is saying that. What they are saying is that drummers like Ringo and
Charlie serve their music more than Peart could. Peart would overplay and
butcher most Beatles or Stones songs. Why? Because he can't *feel* in that
way. It's foreign to him.
BTW, Stones indeed did make great records and *influential* records. About
70% of their music is meaningless to me. But when they were at their
creative peak, no one could say that they weren't serious about making high
quality and artful rock music.
-JC
JC Martin
> Ringo _was_ a hack.
You lose me here man. Ringo's playing on a song like "A Day In A Life" is
genius. Those are very unique drum parts that carry a lot of feeling.
Technically, Ringo didn't have a lot of ability. But he did have a creative
mind and his drum parts are very memorable. Can you imagine Neil coming up
with a drum part for "Come Together"? It would have been awful.
-JC
WK BEN
>with a drum part for "Come Together"? It would have been awful.
>
>-JC
How on earth could you have any idea what Neil would come up with? What an
absurd notion. Maybe his part would have sounded better, maybe worse.
I can easily imagine Neil playing Ringo's part in "Come Together", but I have a
very hard time imagining Ringo playing "Subdivisions". I think that is a more
useful comparison than guessing what they might have come up with if they were
transposed.
Erasmus Brown
. And to suggest that Charlie Watts is a better drummer than
> >Peart is _laughable_.
>
> No one is saying that. What they are saying is that drummers like Ringo and
> Charlie serve their music more than Peart could. Peart would overplay and
> butcher most Beatles or Stones songs. Why? Because he can't *feel* in that
> way. It's foreign to him.
Suuuuuuure....
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
"JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> No one is saying that. What they are saying is that drummers like
Ringo and
> Charlie serve their music more than Peart could. Peart would overplay
and
> butcher most Beatles or Stones songs. Why? Because he can't *feel*
in that
> way. It's foreign to him.
We _don't know_ what Neil would play if he were given songs like
those of the Beatles to work with. However, you're being silly in
assuming that he would treat such songs as Rush songs.
People (particularly inept and unimaginative drummers) love to go
on about how "Peart overplays," but Neil's drumming is _appropriate_ for
Rush. Moreover, it seems to me that Neil's contributions to non-Rush
projects are excellent -- and perfectly suited to the music at hand.
I'd like to mention a test I subjected a longtime drummer and
Peart-critic to. I played for this person the entire first volume of
Burning for Buddy, without telling him who the various drummers were.
He was severely critical of a lot of the drumming on this CD, but he
nodded appreciatively throughout "Cotton Tail" (Peart's track) and
ultimately pronounced that _this_ drumming, more so than any other on
the CD, was reminiscent of Buddy Rich.
Now, perhaps you'll go on and say that Buddy Rich wouldn't be able
to play a Beatles song, either.
My point, however, is that there is _no reason_, given the
information we have, for assuming that Neil would play _any_ song as
though it were a Rush song.
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
"JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
> Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote in message
> > Ringo _was_ a hack.
>
> You lose me here man. Ringo's playing on a song like "A Day In A
Life" is
> genius. Those are very unique drum parts that carry a lot of feeling.
I like his drumming on "A Day in the Life," too. But let us not
forget that the Beatles put out a LOT of material, and that MOST of
Ringo's playing is thoroughly forgettable. Yes, there's the
_occasional_ great drum part -- and these are the exceptions which prove
the rule.
Peart's playing, on the other hand, is _invariably_ engaging.
Moreover, his playing is essential to Rush's music. The same claim
cannot be made about Ringo & the Beatles.
> Can you imagine Neil
>coming up
> with a drum part for "Come Together"? It would have been awful.
>
Can you imagine Ringo playing on "The Ballad of John and Yoko" or
"Why Can't We Do It in the Road?"? Paul McCartney certainly couldn't.
He played those drums himself.
And, as someone else in this NG pointed out, if you think it's hard
to imagine Neil playing Ringo's parts, JUST TRY and imagine the
converse.
scar...@my-deja.com
Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I'd like to mention a test I subjected a longtime drummer and
> Peart-critic to. I played for this person the entire first volume of
> Burning for Buddy, without telling him who the various drummers were.
> He was severely critical of a lot of the drumming on this CD, but he
> nodded appreciatively throughout "Cotton Tail" (Peart's track) and
> ultimately pronounced that _this_ drumming, more so than any other on
> the CD, was reminiscent of Buddy Rich.
yes yes, your friend's opinion really settles that.....LOL
>
> Now, perhaps you'll go on and say that Buddy Rich wouldn't be
able
> to play a Beatles song, either.
>
> My point, however, is that there is _no reason_, given the
> information we have, for assuming that Neil would play _any_ song as
> though it were a Rush song.
no.
only his overblown "style".
JC Martin
>In article <7pjren$dd7$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> No one is saying that. What they are saying is that drummers like
>Ringo and
>> Charlie serve their music more than Peart could. Peart would overplay
>and
>> butcher most Beatles or Stones songs. Why? Because he can't *feel*
>in that
>> way. It's foreign to him.
>
> We _don't know_ what Neil would play if he were given songs like
>those of the Beatles to work with. However, you're being silly in
>assuming that he would treat such songs as Rush >songs.
No I'm not. I have some experience in this area. I've had drummers with
master's degrees try to play simple music with the right feel, and time &
time again they fail. Neil's viewpoints on the Beatles and pop music in
general would greatly hinder his feel for playing the music. Playing
Buddy's music is not an emotional or dynamic stretch for Peart. Buddy
wasn't even a great small-band jazz drummer. A guy like Max Roach was used
more often for jazz sessions.
-JC
-JC
JC Martin
<19990820214100...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
>"JC Martin", in a moment of confusion, wrote:
>
>>> Peart would overplay and
>>> butcher most Beatles or Stones songs.
>Why? Because he can't *feel*
>>>in that way. It's foreign to him.
>
>
"Grand
>Finale".
>
> Now listen to the second side for some of Neil's most tasteful and
restrained
>moments.
>
> Particularly "A Passage to Bangkok", "The Twilight Zone", and especially
>"Tears".
> Now check out "Madrigal" from 1977's A Farewell to Kings
> Wow... he could lay back even in those halcyon days of yore.
>
> Now, jump forward 20 years...
>
> "Half the World" and "Resist" from 1996's "Test For Echo". Damn!... very
>tastful. No drum avalanches or crazy odd meters. Nice little groove he's
got
>going on the former. Who'd a thunk it?
>
>...look into it, and get back to us, JC.
Don't make me laugh Jim. You're the one with the ego. I can appreciate the
simplest of things. The fact remains that Neil and someone like Ringo
approach drums in a completely different way. I appreciate both sides. You
obviously don't. My experience with different drummers tells me that
schooled drummers often lack the ability to come up with new ideas and
express abstract and broken-down feels, and that most great new ideas are
deemed *blasphemy*. Ornette Coleman is a perfect example. He didn't have
the chops of a Sonny Stitt, but he had a much bigger impact on music
overall.
BTW, being a Rush and Neil fan, I am well aware of Neil's strengths and
weaknesses. I don't need to re-listen to albums I've already heard 100's if
not 1000's of times before. Perhaps though you ought to explore percussion
and how simplicity and lack of schooling can be both a beautiful and magical
thing.
-JC
JC Martin
> My point, however, is that there is _no reason_, given the
>information we have, for assuming that Neil would play _any_ song as
>though it were a Rush song.
And my point is that drummers are bonna fide musicians, all with different
feels, bodies, experiences, viewpoints, levels of training, etc. It's like
saying that Eddie Van Halen could cop the feel of BB King. It just doesn't
work that way. Sure, Eddie could imitate the sound and transcribe a BB King
solo. But he will never cop the feel BB King has exactly. And certainly BB
King couldn't play Eddie's stuff at all. He doesn't possess the dexterity.
But that doesn't make BB any less a guitarist.
I think the progressive rock crowd (a crowd I'm part of on many levels)
tends to believe that their favorite musicians can imitate any less
complicated forms of music. Well, being able to play it and being able to
feel it are two different things entirely. I'm sorry, but I don't want to
hear Steve Vai play on a Radiohead record, nor would I want to hear Peart on
a Beatle record.
-JC
scar...@my-deja.com
Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <7pa1qc$q86$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> scar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > a person who considers charlie watts' playing to be mediocre clearly
> > does not understand music, especially the playing aspect.
>
> "A person"? Okay, maybe there is _a_ person to somewhere to
whom
> these silly claims of yours apply. But most -- ALL, come to think of
it
> -- of the people I know who are unimpressed by Watts's playing know
> _much more_ about music than the average, undiscerning, uncritical,
> cliche-touting hack.
now now, no need to be so down on yourself man....:)
>
> I wasn't speaking about Watts' "impact on modern popular music";
I
> was speaking about the blandness, the mediocrity of his playing. You
> commit the ad Populum fallacy here in appealing to popularity, but
> you're guilty of other insidious confusions as well.
LOL....do you speak like this in real life? LOL
It never ceases to amaze me how true the axiom that "empty vessels make
the most noise" actuallty is.
Your bomabstic _style_ is laughable nylon.\
Why do you feel the need to talk _like this_ on usenet?
"ad Popalum".....how old are you may i ask?
>
> Specifically, I dispute that _Watts_ had a "major impact on
popular
> music."
oh of course, he had nothing to do with it.
no.
*snicker*
>It wasn't _Watts_ who achieved this, it was the Stones.
ooh yeah, changeing horses in the middle of the stream alwyas helps!
>What
> may be said of a _group_ does not necessarily apply to a _member_ of
> that group. The Stones had an effect -- they inspired a lot of inept
> garage bands. But I dispute that these bands were motivated to
generate
> noise on the basis of _Watts_.
You may dispute it, but you are clearly in the wrong.
Sorry.
Next.
>
> >
> > the less is more ethos applies to all spheres of music and art. but
> > hey, far be it from me to stop you contradicting such "hacks" as
> > michelangelo, hendrix, hockney, lennon, ringo, ginger baker,
satriani,
> > james joyce, etc etc.
>
> Ringo _was_ a hack.
LOL.
Ignorance *is* bliss.
More importantly, it's extremely unfair to
> attribute the "less is more" mentality to each of these persons --
> especially when you don't offer _any_ reasons at all for doing so.
FFS, their work is enough reason.
If you are not familiar with their work, i suggest you keep quiet.
>
> > i'm sure you know much better than those people,
>
> I've made no such suggestion.
Yes you did.
Somethign about "drumming your fingers"...?
(selective memories are so in these days)
>But
> it's not the persons you list with whom I have a quarrel.
Indeed ,seeing as you admit to being ignorant of their work.
> It's the
> idiotic proponents of the "less is more" cliche that I don't agree
with.
Those who cant create are keen to criticise.
:)
> >
> > > Anyone who's dumb enough to submit to the "L is M" cliche is
> > probably undiscerning enough to fail to
> > > recognize that Watts's drumming just isn't impressive.
If you say so.
LOL.
> >
> > so over 100 million pople are totaly undiscerning?
> >
> > LOL.
>
> You mean "totally" undiscerning. Yes, it's entirely plausible to
> me that 100 million people are undiscerning in their musical tastes.
>
> (You sure are fond of ad Populum appeals.)
Again with the big words?
Haven't your mummy and daddy told you that using big words to impress
simply makes you look silly?
>
> > btw, tell me, how many records have you sold to date?
>
> _Another_ ad Populum appeal? But I thought "less" was "more"!
Ah, personal attacks when _logic_ fails...laughable.
>
> Look, it might be the case that I've never sold a record in my
> life.
No,it _is_ the case.
This is _totally irrelevant_ to the correctness of my stand on
> the idiotic "less is more" cliche.
You appear so foolish when trying to bluster your way thru with big
words, man.
Speak normally.
>
> If Charlie Watts & his cronies are "artists" to your mind, I'm
> _glad_ that Neil isn't an "artist."
You said it!
Jim Geiger
>> Peart would overplay and
>> butcher most Beatles or Stones songs.
Why? Because he can't *feel*
>>in that way. It's foreign to him.
1976's 2112 - Peart at his most frenetic on "Temples of Syrinx" and "Grand
Finale".
Now listen to the second side for some of Neil's most tasteful and restrained
moments.
Particularly "A Passage to Bangkok", "The Twilight Zone", and especially
"Tears".
Now check out "Madrigal" from 1977's A Farewell to Kings
Wow... he could lay back even in those halcyon days of yore.
Now, jump forward 20 years...
"Half the World" and "Resist" from 1996's "Test For Echo". Damn!... very
tastful. No drum avalanches or crazy odd meters. Nice little groove he's got
going on the former. Who'd a thunk it?
...look into it, and get back to us, JC.
==========================================================
Jim Geiger (not Geddy Lee)
remove "x" from address to reply
Kevin Caffrey
>Date: Fri, 20 August 1999 07:42 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7pkp5t$k4l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <7pkmuc$if4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I'd like to mention a test I subjected a longtime drummer and
>> Peart-critic to. I played for this person the entire first volume of
>> Burning for Buddy, without telling him who the various drummers were.
>> He was severely critical of a lot of the drumming on this CD, but he
>> nodded appreciatively throughout "Cotton Tail" (Peart's track) and
>> ultimately pronounced that _this_ drumming, more so than any other on
>> the CD, was reminiscent of Buddy Rich.
>
>yes yes, your friend's opinion really settles that.....LOL
>
>
>>
>> Now, perhaps you'll go on and say that Buddy Rich wouldn't be
>able
>> to play a Beatles song, either.
>>
>> information we have, for assuming that Neil would play _any_ song as
>> though it were a Rush song.
>
>only his overblown "style".
This is pretty arrogant to say. It's as if you think Neil is incapable of
comprehending the difference in styles of his music with Rush and the music of
The Beatles.
Kevin
NP: tori amos, _under the pink_
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
LOL LOL LOL...big words...LOL...you suck....LOL....LOL
scar...@my-deja.com
*ppppptooooie..............................*plonk!!!*
(the sound of the dummy being spat)
Really, you are so lame when you are shown to be devoid of any worthy
ideas. For all your bluster and posturing, you are simply an everyday
common garden variety spoilt brat.
Much like you vaccuous notions concerning art and creativity.
Sad really.
Jim Geiger
>simplest of things.
>obviously don't.
See...there you go masturbating your brain, again.
I am a Beatles historian. I have contributed articles to Beatle rags. I know
most everything there is to know about the band... not because I want to
impress anyone, they just interest me and I love their artistry that much.
I would dare say (risking my integrity on this board) that The Beatles are my
favorite group, of all time.
I can point to all kind of things Ringo did that are great. I remember the
day the Beatles called it quits... hell, me and John Lennon (and Sean) share a
birthday.
What I was saying about Neil is a valid point, that you seem to want to
ignore. Those songs are very "earthy" as far as his playing goes, and show that
he can play like that, when needed.
You say you appreciate different styles, but in your condescending tone, you
actually make it sound like Neil isn't fit to carry Ringo's sticks. You are
about as unobjective a critic as I've ever seen.
> My experience with different drummers tells me that
>schooled drummers often lack the ability to come up with new ideas and
>express abstract and broken-down feels, and that most great new ideas are
>deemed *blasphemy*
Obviously, you are some kind of phony-intellectual musician who likes to
pidgeonhole things.
You obviously haven't "experienced" enough schooled drummers. To think that
most drummers who have studied the art are that fucking bourgeois is just an
ignorant thing to say.
I was at a drum seminar (and I'm not even a drummer, but I appreciate and
learn from all instruments and musicians)
with some dude from Berklee. He wasn't famous, but he was an instructor there,
and he was telling us a story about Dave Weckl and Chad Wackerman talking about
how influential and underrated Ringo was.
Saying that Ringo as a drummer cannot be dissmissed just because, when one
thinks of him, the first image is that guy with the big nose swaying his head
from side to side, playing "I Want to Hold Your Hand".
> Perhaps though you ought to explore percussion
>and how simplicity and lack of schooling can be both a beautiful and magical
>thing.
Lessee... I'm a huge Velvet Underground fan. It doesn't get much more
primitive than Mo Tucker. I also enjoyed Dave Grohl's drumming, a lot.
I doubt if Ian Paice had any musical training, but I think he's the ultimate
hard rock drummer.
Then there's someone like Manu Katche, who is very restrained in his playing,
but so elegant. You can hear his knowledge in the simplest of fills.
So, know your facts before you start hurling insults about my supposed"ego",
J.C. Most of my musician buddies agree that I'm extremely talented and
soulful, but accuse me of actually underplaying, saying I need a BIGGER ego, if
anything.
JC Martin
>>Don't make me laugh Jim. You're the one with the ego. I can appreciate
the
>>simplest of things.
>> I appreciate both sides. You
>>obviously don't.
>
> See...there you go masturbating your brain, again.
>
> I am a Beatles historian. I have contributed articles to Beatle rags. I
know
>most everything there is to know about the band... not because I want to
>impress anyone, they just interest me and I love their artistry that much.
>I would dare say (risking my integrity on this board) that The Beatles are
my
>favorite group, of all time.
> I can point to all kind of things Ringo did that are >great.
Well then, that's my only point. We seem to agree. For me this debate was
never about knocking Neil.
I remember the
>day the Beatles called it quits... hell, me and John Lennon (and Sean)
share a
>birthday.
>
> What I was saying about Neil is a valid point, that you seem to want to
>ignore. Those songs are very "earthy" as far as his playing goes, and show
that
>he can play like that, when needed.
He can play *earthly* in his own style. Playing simplistic and playing with
a broken-down/ unschooled feel are two different things entirely. Your
examples may show Neil's sense of dynamics (and
I believe that Neil is one of the most dynamic progressive rock drummers out
there), but they don't show me that he can come up with the kind of drum
parts Ringo did. In fact, Neil's sensibilities are different. Really, they
are two completely different musicians. And drummers *are* musicians,
right? Just as Steve Vai can't 100% duplicate the feel of BB King, the same
would apply here.
> You say you appreciate different styles, but in your condescending tone,
you
>actually make it sound like Neil isn't fit to carry Ringo's sticks. You are
>about as unobjective a critic as I've ever seen.
I'm more objective than you can see. You're resorting to personal attacks
to make your point. That's not a good place to go.
>> My experience with different drummers tells me that
>>schooled drummers often lack the ability to come up with new ideas and
>>express abstract and broken-down feels, and that most great new ideas are
>>deemed *blasphemy*
>
> Obviously, you are some kind of phony-intellectual musician who likes to
>pidgeonhole things.
Phony-intellectual? *LOL* Okay man, whatever floats your boat.
> You obviously haven't "experienced" enough schooled drummers. To think
that
>most drummers who have studied the art are that fucking bourgeois is just
an
>ignorant thing to say.
It's called experience bud. A very large percentage of schooled drummers
I've worked with believe they are above certain types of music. Again, you
can't cop the feel and play music well if you don't like it, nor are you
going to be very creative in that format. Ever hear of Brian MacLeod? He's
a drummer used on a lot of pop albums these days. He has no formal music
training yet he comes up with incredible grooves and feels that fit nicely
in the pop rock/ songwriter format. I know for a fact that he's been
brought into sessions where more diciplined and trained drummers failed to
get the right feel. Now everyone uses Brian.
> I was at a drum seminar (and I'm not even a drummer, but I appreciate
and
>learn from all instruments and musicians)
> with some dude from Berklee. He wasn't famous, but he was an instructor
there,
>and he was telling us a story about Dave Weckl and Chad Wackerman talking
about
>how influential and underrated Ringo was.
> Saying that Ringo as a drummer cannot be dissmissed just because, when one
>thinks of him, the first image is that guy with the big nose swaying his
head
>from side to side, playing "I Want to Hold Your >Hand".
And I appreciate that those guys have a broader perspective. Weckel is a
great player. But if you talk to him (and I have), he would tell you that
he's not a jazz drummer, he's a rock drummer. Dave appreciates guys like
Elvin Jones and Billy Higgins, but he also know that he can't duplicate
their feels.
>> Perhaps though you ought to explore percussion
>>and how simplicity and lack of schooling can be both a beautiful and
magical
>>thing.
>
> Lessee... I'm a huge Velvet Underground fan. It doesn't get much more
>primitive than Mo Tucker. I also enjoyed Dave Grohl's drumming, a lot.
> I doubt if Ian Paice had any musical training, but I think he's the
ultimate
>hard rock drummer.
> Then there's someone like Manu Katche, who is very restrained in his
playing,
>but so elegant. You can hear his knowledge in the >simplest of fills.
Well, there you go. Maybe were both too quick to judge. I appreciate that
you respect simple forms of music. To me, this thread was really about the
snotty "Neil can do anything" crowd. I was responding to that.
> So, know your facts before you start hurling insults about my
supposed"ego",
>J.C. Most of my musician buddies agree that I'm extremely talented and
>soulful, but accuse me of actually underplaying, saying I need a BIGGER
ego, if
>anything.
Jim, you started with the insults without knowing much about me. I'm just
trying to have a friendly debate. This isn't life or death to me.
Take care,
JC
Starless and Bible Black
>Message-id: <7pkqnb$l7r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>LOL....do you speak like this in real life? LOL
>
>It never ceases to amaze me how true the axiom that "empty vessels make
>the most noise" actuallty is.
>Your bomabstic _style_ is laughable nylon.\
>
>Why do you feel the need to talk _like this_ on usenet?
>
>"ad Popalum".....how old are you may i >ask?
Translation: "I'm too dumb to understand what he's sayin', so I'll just make
fun of his funny moon language...."
Really, "scarifier", the only thing you're doing is scaring me by showing that
people as dumb as you really _do_ exist.
Jim Gordon
The Missing Link (members.aol.com/JGordon452/missinglink1.html); a web page
devoid of all quality. Best viewed in Explorer; better viewed not at all. Now
un-updated!
" "- King Crimson, Larks' Tongues In Aspic Pt. I
joan may
Beatles and Stones by Nyarla...@hotmail.com
My take on Charlie Watts is that he's in a 3-way tie with Max Weinberg
and Bill Wyman for the "Luckiest Guy in Rock" Award. <G>
Best, Joan
http://www.procolharum.com/procolbj.htm
http://www.procolharum.com/synthophobia.htm
JC Martin
>In article <7pjren$dd7$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> No one is saying that. What they are saying is that drummers like
>Ringo and
>and
>> butcher most Beatles or Stones songs. Why? Because he can't *feel*
>in that
>> way. It's foreign to him.
>
>those of the Beatles to work with. However, you're being silly in
>assuming that he would treat such songs as Rush >songs.
Never said Neil would make the Beatles sound like Rush. But he does have a
style and feel no matter what music he would play. Physical
characteristics, mental state, views on music, etc. all factor in here.
It's pretty obvious then that Neil would not of come up with Ringo's parts.
And really, what Ringo came up with is perfect on many Beatle songs.
> People (particularly inept and unimaginative drummers) love to go
>on about how "Peart overplays," but Neil's drumming is _appropriate_ for
>Rush.
And I would agree with that.
>Moreover, it seems to me that Neil's contributions to non-Rush
>projects are excellent -- and perfectly suited to the >music at hand.
He still sounds like Neil though. At least give him credit for being a
musician who has his own sound. Artistry and technical ability are two
separate things entirely. It's pretty easy to pick Neil out on "Burning For
Buddy".
> I'd like to mention a test I subjected a longtime drummer and
>Peart-critic to. I played for this person the entire first volume of
>Burning for Buddy, without telling him who the various drummers were.
>He was severely critical of a lot of the drumming on this CD, but he
>nodded appreciatively throughout "Cotton Tail" (Peart's track) and
>ultimately pronounced that _this_ drumming, more >so than any other on
>the CD, was reminiscent of Buddy Rich.
To be honest, I don't care much for Buddy. He was a great big band drummer
(though I much prefer someone like Mel Lewis), but he couldn't play
small-group jazz for shit...or even swing for that matter.
> Now, perhaps you'll go on and say that Buddy Rich wouldn't be able
>to play a Beatles song, either.
It would be horrifying actually. Buddy's ego would destroy the music
entirely.
> My point, however, is that there is _no reason_, given the
>information we have, for assuming that Neil would play _any_ song as
>though it were a Rush song.
No but there is enough information to demonstrate that Neil has a particular
feel and style, a style that really wouldn't be too well suited for the
Beatles's music IMO.
-JC
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
je...@webtv.net (joan may) wrote:
> I've enjoyed reading this thread, especially the insights about the
> Beatles and Stones by Nyarla...@hotmail.com
Thank you, Joan!
Pete Chmielewski
JC Martin <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7pqf0t$906$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
talking about one man, two sticks, one drum......And I'll agree to disagree;
no argument.
-pc>
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
"JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
> Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote in message
<7pkmuc$if4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <7pjren$dd7$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> No one is saying that. What they are saying is that drummers like
> >Ringo and
> >> Charlie serve their music more than Peart could. Peart would
overplay
> >and
> >> butcher most Beatles or Stones songs. Why? Because he can't
*feel*
> >in that
> >> way. It's foreign to him.
> >
> > We _don't know_ what Neil would play if he were given songs like
> >those of the Beatles to work with. However, you're being silly in
> >assuming that he would treat such songs as Rush >songs.
>
> Never said Neil would make the Beatles sound like Rush. But he does
have a
> style and feel no matter what music he would play. Physical
> characteristics, mental state, views on music, etc. all factor in
here.
I think we're arguing for different conclusions. Your contention
seems to be that Neil has a distinct style that could recognized
_whatever_ music he's playing. My point is that, were Neil given
Beatle-esque material to work with, he wouldn't approach it as he
approaches Rush's music. (As others have pointed out, by the way, Neil
does demonstrate _restraint_ in certain Rush songs -- even
understatement.) There's not really any conflict between our different
conclusions.
> It's pretty obvious then that Neil would not of come up with Ringo's
>parts.
> And really, what Ringo came up with is perfect on many Beatle songs.
I'm an avid Beatles fan, and I'm just now back, as a matter of
fact, from seeing/hearing a lot of their live footage from '65. They
were a surprisingly good live band (i.e., given how bad sound conditions
were back then, etc.). However, it's obvious that Ringo wasn't that
great a timekeeper, and -- as far as I'm concerned, anyway -- that many
of the Beatles' songs would've benefitted from a drummer who had a
little more imagination, a few more tricks at his disposal.
I agree that there _are_ certain studio recordings -- e.g., "Rain,"
or "A Day in the Life" -- where Ringo's contribution _is_ perfect.
JC Martin
agreements lead to different conclusions. Ringo certainly wasn't the
greatest of timekeepers (the older tunes suffer more than anything). But I
enjoy many of his parts and the *feel* he employs on the Beatles' more
quirky material. Anyway, the debates on this thread were pretty thoughtful
for the most part. I enjoyed it.
Take care,
JC
Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote in message <7psicu$qle$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
JC Martin
>>I agree about us seeing things somewhat similarlily, yet having those
>>agreements lead to different conclusions. Ringo certainly wasn't the
>>greatest of timekeepers (the older tunes suffer more than anything).
>
>drummer after 1965.
>
> Ringo was a God of timekeeping compared to his predecessor. Listen to Pete
>Best's wretched take on "Love Me Do" from Anthology 1.
>
> Then Listen to Andy White's version (45 version w/Ringo on tambourine),
then
>the LP version with Ringo on drums.
>
> Ringo has the best time and feel of the song of the three.
I agree with you. But Ringo did have weaknesses in some cases. That was my
only point of agreement.
-JC
Guy Berger
"JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
> My experience with different drummers tells me that schooled drummers
> often lack the ability to come up with new ideas and express abstract
> and broken-down feels, and that most great new ideas are deemed
> the chops of a Sonny Stitt, but he had a much bigger impact on music
> overall.
An important point -- technique can often be a straightjacket,
leading musicians to fall back on what they 'know'. Didn't Fripp come
up with his new tuning specifically because of this?
Guy
--
Guy Berger
"You're right, its not a habit of mine to read the dictionary. But I
do read the Bible." -- Eric
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
Guy Berger <ham...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> An important point -- technique can often be a straightjacket,
> leading musicians to fall back on what they 'know'. Didn't Fripp come
> up with his new tuning specifically because of this?
If technique is a "straightjacket," what's _absence_ of technique?
I find it odd, Guy, that to support your view, you cite Fripp --
someone who's totally technique-oriented, and who hasn't displayed
anything new in about two decades (I _acknowledge_ Fripp's impressive
technique, of course, and his moments of brilliance [e.g., on Another
Green World]).
As for Fripp's new tuning, well, it's really not all that new (and
it sure doesn't alter Fripp's sound, to my mind). The five lowest
strings are just tuned so that, played open, the intervals between them
are fifths. (If memory serves, the interval between the highest string
& the next highest string is a third.)
Now, I've got a hypothesis to propose. Fripp loves to tell
wonderful, almost mystical stories about how the idea for this tuning
"presented itself" (in Fripp's silly words) to him. (See his late 80s
interviews in Musician magazine.)
But it seems to me that there's a more prosaic explanation for how
this "new" tuning may have occurred to Fripp.
At least as far back as '77, Fripp had worked with bassist Tony
Levin (on P. Gabriel's solo albums). Then, beginning in '80, Fripp
began to work extensively with Levin, in that decade's version of King
Crimson. Much of Levin's work on this music was performed not on a
regular electric bass but with a Chapman Stick -- the "bass" half of
which is tuned in fifths!
Tony Levin has spoken about how the Stick, with its unusual
tuning, made him come up with very different bass lines than he'd play
on a 4-string -- but Levin didn't need to say this, since his Stick
lines are _obviously_ very different from his "regular" bass lines.
This difference cannot have been lost on Fripp -- and, needless to say,
I think this is what prompted him to try a fifths-based tuning in
guitar.
Guy Berger
wrote:
> If technique is a "straightjacket," what's _absence_ of
technique?
It can be a straightjacket too. My point was that quite often,
technique ends up limiting the way musicians constrained. Somebody who
is limited in speed or knowledge of theory may be inventive in some
other manner. Consider the case of Thurston Moore vs. Joe Satriani.
Thelonious Monk vs. other 50s pianists. I could give other examples.
> I find it odd, Guy, that to support your view, you cite Fripp --
> someone who's totally technique-oriented, and who hasn't displayed
> anything new in about two decades (I _acknowledge_ Fripp's impressive
> technique, of course, and his moments of brilliance [e.g., on Another
> Green World]).
Fripp's 90s playing *is* different from the _Discipline_ period, even
if it isn't shockingly innovative compared to his previous work.
Despite his gifted technique, I don't see that as the orientation of
his playing -- he's more interested in weird textures, harmonic
dissonance and angular playing.
> As for Fripp's new tuning, well, it's really not all that new
> (and it sure doesn't alter Fripp's sound, to my mind). The five
> lowest strings are just tuned so that, played open, the intervals
> between them are fifths. (If memory serves, the interval between
> the highest string & the next highest string is a third.)
I didn't use 'new' in a literal sense, nor did I claim it changed his
sound. What I meant is that it forced him to re-evaluate his previous
knowledge.
<SNIP>
> Tony Levin has spoken about how the Stick, with its unusual
> tuning, made him come up with very different bass lines than he'd play
> on a 4-string -- but Levin didn't need to say this, since his Stick
> lines are _obviously_ very different from his "regular" bass lines.
> This difference cannot have been lost on Fripp -- and, needless to
> say, I think this is what prompted him to try a fifths-based tuning
> in guitar.
I think this pretty much agrees with what I say above, no?
Guy
--
Guy Berger
"You're right, its not a habit of mine to read the dictionary. But I
do read the Bible." -- Eric
Geezer Butler
really talks like that in "real life"?
--
Geezer
Dig me, but don't...
bury me.
<scar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7plkdr$6o0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7pl8gb$u46$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > LOL LOL LOL...big words...LOL...you suck....LOL....LOL
> >
>
>
> *ppppptooooie..............................*plonk!!!*
>
> (the sound of the dummy being spat)
>
>
>
> Really, you are so lame when you are shown to be devoid of any worthy
> ideas. For all your bluster and posturing, you are simply an everyday
> common garden variety spoilt brat.
>
>
> Much like you vaccuous notions concerning art and creativity.
>
> Sad really.
>
>