OT: some awkward drumming by Charlie Watts

[Jales]

The other day I was listening a great Stones' singe, namely Let's Spend The Night Together / Ruby Tuesday, and it was the first time I paid special attention to the drums... only to find just how basic Charlie's drumming was, at least on these two tracks... the same fills over and over again, even slightly out of time, played with no passion... and I wonder why he is never criticized the way Ringo is so often (e.g. Ringo not being even the best drummer in the Beatles)

[gemjack]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 11:58:27 -0800 (PST), Jales <jale...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Wondered that for years. He and Ringo are possibly the luckiest
drummers ever, though I do think Ringo has more 'personality' in his
playing.
-gj

[who?]

On Dec 4, 1:58 pm, Jales <jales...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The other day I was listening a great Stones' singe, namely Let's Spend The Night Together / Ruby Tuesday, and it was the first time I paid special attention to the drums... only to find just how basic Charlie's drumming was, at least on these two tracks... the same fills over and over again, even slightly out of time, played with no passion... and I wonder why he is never criticized the way Ringo is so often (e.g. Ringo not being even the best drummer in the Beatles)

The Stones haven't sold the most music of all time. The
Beatles have.

[who?]

On Dec 4, 2:03 pm, gemjack <geminijackso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 11:58:27 -0800 (PST), Jales <jales...@hotmail.com>

Charlie, from what I've heard, is capable of playing Jazz.
Ringo isn't.

[really real]

The Stones songs rock in concert, proving they have a great rhythm
section. The Beatles were not in their league playing live.

Charlie is the key. As they say, "Charlie's good tonight"

[who?]

That's "your' opinion and I'm fine with it.

[IBen Getiner]

On Dec 4, 2:58 pm, Jales <jales...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The other day I was listening a great Stones' singe, namely Let's Spend The Night Together / Ruby Tuesday, and it was the first time I paid special attention to the drums... only to find just how basic Charlie's drumming was, at least on these two tracks... the same fills over and over again, even slightly out of time, played with no passion... and I wonder why he is never criticized the way Ringo is so often (e.g. Ringo not being even the best drummer in the Beatles)

You can't make a blanket judgment based on one song. I think you could
find this to be true with just about every drummer (Ringo included).
Try listening to songs like Gimme Shelter or Midnight Rambler. Even
second rate Stones songs like Hang Fire.... Watts kicks ass. There is
no other drummer quite like him.
Charlie is your typical Jazz drummer. All about driving fills and
sharp timing. Don't expect a Ginger Baker or a Ian Paice because you
won't find one. Same with the power drummer thingie. No John Bonham or
Keith Moon to be found in the person of Charlie Watts. He's just got
the jazz frill on Ringo. That's all. That's why the discrepancies in
criticism. Ringo has a wonderful 'stuttering' timing technique that
few drummers can match (if any). I often point critics of his so-
called 'simple' style in that direction when confronted. Most "never
noticed it before" and come away big fans.

[P-Dub]

On 12/4/2012 2:58 PM, Jales wrote:
> The other day I was listening a great Stones' singe, namely Let's Spend The Night Together / Ruby Tuesday, and it was the first time I paid special attention to the drums... only to find just how basic Charlie's drumming was, at least on these two tracks... the same fills over and over again, even slightly out of time, played with no passion... and I wonder why he is never criticized the way Ringo is so often (e.g. Ringo not being even the best drummer in the Beatles)
>

Ringo's style influenced many drummers that came after him. He was not
very flashy, but he kept a steady beat.

Charlie's early recorded drumming was not very impressive to listen to.
And his beat was sometimes uneven. But his energy was certainly there,
and he fit that band (remember - it was a BLUES band originally) perfectly.

According to Keef's autobiography, they begged Charlie to join the band,
but Charlie didn't want to do it cause he was afraid he wouldn't make
enough money. Finally he agreed when they started getting more gigs -
and promised to pay him well. LOL.

Charlie and Ringo both improved over the years. They both influenced
many who came after them. But I wouldn't call either one of them
excellent drummers. Proficient. But not among the best.

For the 60s rock era, I think Keith Moon was the best. He beat the shit
outta of those drums, and his beat was creative, steady - and fun.

For the 70s rock, John Bonham was the man. There were many great
drummers in the 70s, but Bonham was just awesome.

P-Dub: I can't post this without giving props to the following rock
drummers who also kicked ass: Ginger Baker, Alan White, Bill Bruford,
Phil Collins, Clive Bunker, Neil Peart, Jim McCarty, Ian Paice, Mitch
Mitchell, ...

[Nil]

On 04 Dec 2012, Jales <jale...@hotmail.com> wrote in
rec.music.beatles:

> The other day I was listening a great Stones' singe, namely Let's
> Spend The Night Together / Ruby Tuesday, and it was the first time
> I paid special attention to the drums... only to find just how
> basic Charlie's drumming was, at least on these two tracks... the
> same fills over and over again, even slightly out of time, played
> with no passion...

I agree about the repetitive fills - they can be annoying when you
focus on them. Charlie is a good drummer for the Stones, and apparently
they really depend on him. However, I don't think he is particularly
imaginative or interesting. He gets a good sound and drives the band,
which I guess is his real value.

I think Charlie started off sounding kind of amateurish, but got better
in the late '60s/early '70s. Nowadays, he seems to have let some of
that go, and he uses similar rhythms for a lot of their stuff and looks
bored on stage much of the time.

> and I wonder why he is never criticized the way
> Ringo is so often (e.g. Ringo not being even the best drummer in
> the Beatles)

I've heard Charlie criticized quite a bit. I like Ringo a whole lot
more - Ringo was a powerful slammer in the early days, and developed in
to a beautifully orchestral player who added a lot to the arrangements.

[Jales]

On 4 dic, 17:03, gemjack <geminijackso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> though I do think Ringo has more 'personality' in his
> playing.
> -gj

I agree. I think he's more versatile

[Jales]

On 4 dic, 22:29, "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Charlie, from what I've heard, is capable of playing Jazz.

> Ringo isn't.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>

Maybe, but he's also a rock band drummer. I bet Ringo could play jazz
as good as Charlie

[Jales]

On 4 dic, 23:40, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> The Stones songs rock in concert, proving they have a great rhythm
> section. The Beatles were not in their league playing live.

The Beatles' concert years were before technology allowed rock bands
to play big open air concerts. But if you listen to them playing live
on the Apple rooftop, you'd realize they were not as bad as people
tend to think. Then listen to Get Your YaYa's Out, from around the
same era, and you'll find the Stones were not that better a live band
when compared to the Beatles. I think Wyman was not a better bass
player than McCartney

[Jales]

On 5 dic, 05:27, IBen Getiner <LloydsEelAa...@AOL.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2:58 pm, Jales <jales...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The other day I was listening a great Stones' singe, namely Let's Spend The Night Together / Ruby Tuesday, and it was the first time I paid special attention to the drums... only to find just how basic Charlie's drumming was, at least on these two tracks... the same fills over and over again, even slightly out of time, played with no passion... and I wonder why he is never criticized the way Ringo is so often (e.g. Ringo not being even the best drummer in the Beatles)
>
> You can't make a blanket judgment based on one song. I think you could
> find this to be true with just about every drummer (Ringo included).
> Try listening to songs like Gimme Shelter or Midnight Rambler. Even
> second rate Stones songs like Hang Fire.... Watts kicks ass. There is
> no other drummer quite like him.

That's what I was writing about. I'm not saying he's a bad drummer.
There's no such category. Every band has its drummer, and every
drummer fits the sound and style of the band they're part of. I'm
saying he's a little overrated

>  Charlie is your typical Jazz drummer. All about driving fills and
> sharp timing. Don't expect a Ginger Baker or a Ian Paice because you
> won't find one. Same with the power drummer thingie. No John Bonham or
> Keith Moon to be found in the person of Charlie Watts. He's just got
> the jazz frill on Ringo. That's all. That's why the discrepancies in
> criticism. Ringo has a wonderful 'stuttering' timing technique that
> few drummers can match (if any). I often point critics of his so-
> called 'simple' style in that direction when confronted. Most "never
> noticed it before" and come away big fans.

I think Charlie is a lot more simpler than Ringo. But they both are in
the same league. Other english bands from the same period had more
technically skilled drummers (Kinks, Who, Hollies) but that doesn't
mean a thing

As for Charlie's timing, I'm not so sure about it... He tends to be a
little behind the beat (of the top of my mind: Carol on their irst
LP)... If I had the time, I'd list a number of songs where his dumming
sounds a bit sloppy, specially on the sixties recordings (then he got
better). There's another big drumming mistake on I'm Free (I think
it's on the last chorus)... At least you should recognize Ringo is no
worst than Charlie, timing wise

[Jales]

On 5 dic, 11:41, P-Dub <pwolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ringo's style influenced many drummers that came after him. He was not
> very flashy, but he kept a steady beat.
>
> Charlie's early recorded drumming was not very impressive to listen to.
> And his beat was sometimes uneven. But his energy was certainly there,
> and he fit that band (remember - it was a BLUES band originally) perfectly.

Agreed 100%

> According to Keef's autobiography, they begged Charlie to join the band,
> but Charlie didn't want to do it cause he was afraid he wouldn't make
> enough money. Finally he agreed when they started getting more gigs -
> and promised to pay him well. LOL.
>
> Charlie and Ringo both improved over the years. They both influenced
> many who came after them. But I wouldn't call either one of them
> excellent drummers. Proficient. But not among the best.

I agree. But it's a fact that neither of these two bands would have
been what they are/were with different drummers

[Jales]

On 5 dic, 16:21, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> I agree about the repetitive fills - they can be annoying when you
> focus on them. Charlie is a good drummer for the Stones, and apparently
> they really depend on him. However, I don't think he is particularly
> imaginative or interesting. He gets a good sound and drives the band,
> which I guess is his real value.
>
> I think Charlie started off sounding kind of amateurish, but got better
> in the late '60s/early '70s. Nowadays, he seems to have let some of
> that go, and he uses similar rhythms for a lot of their stuff and looks
> bored on stage much of the time.
>
> > and I wonder why he is never criticized the way
> > Ringo is so often (e.g. Ringo not being even the best drummer in
> > the Beatles)
>
> I've heard Charlie criticized quite a bit. I like Ringo a whole lot
> more - Ringo was a powerful slammer in the early days, and developed in
> to a beautifully orchestral player who added a lot to the arrangements.

You are reading my mind here

[IBen Getiner]

Sounds like you're still stuck in the Stone's early era. Isn't that a
little too soon to have your mind made up? Listen to their entire
cataloge and then get back with me.

[really real]

The Stones were pretty damn good in Get Your YaYa's Out. The Stones have
been a good live act in all their performances. The Beatles at Shea
Stadium wasn't exactly a great live performance.

[abe slaney]

On Dec 5, 11:20 pm, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> The Stones were pretty damn good in Get Your YaYa's Out. The Stones have
> been a good live act in all their performances. The Beatles at Shea
> Stadium wasn't exactly a great live performance.

The better comparison in that case (Shea) would be with "Got Live If
You Want It', which isn't exactly a masterpiece. In fact, nobody even
remembers it. And if you compare their early TV performances, i.e, "I
Saw Her Standing There" vs. "Time Is On My Side", Beatles win hands
down.

[Mister Snot]

On 05-Dec-12 09:41, P-Dub wrote:
> On 12/4/2012 2:58 PM, Jales wrote:
>> The other day I was listening a great Stones' singe, namely Let's
>> Spend The Night Together / Ruby Tuesday, and it was the first time I
>> paid special attention to the drums... only to find just how basic
>> Charlie's drumming was, at least on these two tracks... the same fills
>> over and over again, even slightly out of time, played with no
>> passion... and I wonder why he is never criticized the way Ringo is so
>> often (e.g. Ringo not being even the best drummer in the Beatles)
>>
>
> Ringo's style influenced many drummers that came after him. He was not
> very flashy, but he kept a steady beat.

So do metronomes.

> Charlie's early recorded drumming was not very impressive to listen to.
> And his beat was sometimes uneven. But his energy was certainly there,
> and he fit that band (remember - it was a BLUES band originally) perfectly.

Cause he sucked and so did the band. They all sucked together just like you.

> According to Keef's autobiography, they begged Charlie to join the band,
> but Charlie didn't want to do it cause he was afraid he wouldn't make
> enough money. Finally he agreed when they started getting more gigs -
> and promised to pay him well. LOL.

Who cares?

> Charlie and Ringo both improved over the years. They both influenced
> many who came after them. But I wouldn't call either one of them
> excellent drummers. Proficient. But not among the best.

Nobody takes your evaluations seriously, dingleberry.

> For the 60s rock era, I think Keith Moon was the best. He beat the shit
> outta of those drums, and his beat was creative, steady - and fun.

This is why nobody takes your evaluations seriously.

TOWNSHEND himself has said that Moon sucked as a drummer and played the
same thing over and over.

> For the 70s rock, John Bonham was the man. There were many great
> drummers in the 70s, but Bonham was just awesome.

Your evaluations of drummers makes your claim of perfect pitch look even
siller.

> P-Dub: I can't post this without giving props to the following rock
> drummers who also kicked ass: Ginger Baker, Alan White, Bill Bruford,
> Phil Collins, Clive Bunker, Neil Peart, Jim McCarty, Ian Paice, Mitch
> Mitchell, ...

P-Douche: He can't post anything without taking a swipe at Yoko Ono.

[Jales]

Thanks! I was gonna post the same reply!

[Jales]

> cataloge and then get back with me.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
I've done it, several times... and I can tell you Ringo never sounded
as amateurish as Charlie did, and the latter never got anywhere near
to some of Ringo's drumming: Something, Rain, Long Tall Sally, Oh
Darling, I Feel Fine, etc, etc, etc. And don't forget Jimmy Miller
played drums on You Can't Always Get What You Want because Chalie
couldn't get that particular drum pattern

[IBen Getiner]

Ringo sounds twice as amateurish as Watts. Especially on the later
stuff. But it's a matter of opinion......
As to the real reason why Miller handled drums on that tune... It was
because he was a fucking AZZHOLE. Watts was (and still is) furious
about it.

Everybody knows Miller was an azzhole. It’s the stuff of legend in the
Stones camp.