Bad Drummers?

[halljams]

What is it about drummers in classic bands anyway? I was listening to "Rumours" last night. How about Mick Fleetwood? What was wrong with that guy? He and Ringo did something special for their bands, they created a strong personality for the the tunes to ride on. Why isn't that something that deserves commending rather than scorn. Why does everyone hate Ringo anyway? These guys did the same thing Bonzo did, they just weren't as strong and crazy. :) I just don't get it.

[vintagevibe]

Mic Fleetwood and Ringo are extremely talented drummers of impeccable taste. Anyone who can't appreciate Ringo's stuff hasn't really listened to it. It was full of pure feel and brilliant ideas.

[jeffbayson]

[quote]Originally posted by halljams: [b] Why does everyone hate Ringo anyway? [/b][/quote]Well, I love the Beatles, even though Paul McCartney is a dangerous cult leader robbing millions of age-addled baby-boomers blind with one hand, while the other hand spoon-feeds them his poisonous blend of nostalgia, patriotism and pop-cheese. Having said that, I can say that I have flipped back and forth on the issue of Ringo's drumming. What I have settled into now: Ringo doesn't have the chops that many drummers have. He can't play as quickly, expressively, poly-rhythmically or dynamically as many, many other drummers. He's not very funky, he can't swing in the conventional sense, and he doesn't rock THAT hard. His fills just kinda plod along. For all of these reasons, it's easy to listen to Ringo's drumming and think, "hell, I could do that." So it's easy to begrudge him his phenomenal success. Having said that... He was able to play within his abilities to complement whatever was happening in the music. He played tastefully. While I can't think of any Beatles songs where his drumming is the driving force behind the song, I don't think he holds any songs back either. A drummer with more conventional "chops" might have been a BAD thing: a drummer with more flourishes and speed might have exposed other weaknesses in the Beatles' sound by opening up areas that the Beatles did not have the chops to fill. The Beatles' strength was their songs. Ringo played with the best songwriting team of his time. His drumming enhanced the songs. So he was probably the best possible drummer for the Beatles.

[Ultravibe]

Mick Fleetwood is one of my favorite drummers. He doesn't just play and fill every once in a while. He composes drum parts that fit the song. I wish I could find drummers who played like that. Hell, I wish I were good enough to play like that.

[Bunny Knutson]

I agree with most of what el jefe said, and I will add this: The drums on some of those Beatles songs were played by Paul McCartney. I think the Beatles would have released incredible albums no matter who was (or wasn't) their drummer. Oh, and that's [b]SIR[/b] Paul McCartney, by the way. ;)

[Hippie]

I think Ringo was great. But, I'm not into really busy drummers (or bass players for that matter). I think it is much more difficult to create and play economically, without any 'expendable' notes. For rock-n-roll, simple is where it's at IMO. Ringo has a definate, identifiable 'thwack' to his style, almost like he uses the side of his sticks or something. I find myself sampling his hits and using them into 'Fruity Loops' quite often. Matt

[Sylver]

You know, in the case of both The Beatles and Fleetwood Mac, there were really no "virtuoso" players in either band. There didn't need to be. The members of these tow bands had there own style and relied heavily on KILLER songwriting. They could play enough to get their message across. Give me George Harrison and Lindsey Buckingham any day over Steve Vai and Joe Satriani.

[Wewus432]

posted by eljefe: [quote]Well, I love the Beatles, even though Paul McCartney is a dangerous cult leader robbing millions of age-addled baby-boomers blind with one hand, while the other hand spoon-feeds them his poisonous blend of nostalgia, patriotism and pop-cheese. [/quote]I totally agree. Your astounding insights into pop music continue to amaze me. (I'm still getting that bill from AOL, what's up with that?) Oh yeah, Ringo was cool.

[jeffbayson]

[quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]I totally agree. Your astounding insights into pop music continue to amaze me. [/b][/quote]I amaze even myself. [quote]I'm still getting that bill from AOL, what's up with that? [/quote]I'm sorry. It totally slipped my mind, what with all of the layoffs, audits, criminal investigations and whatnot. Tell you what... if you're still picking up the Internet directly in your mind, why don't you just give me your IP, and I'll make you forget you ever paid a bill. Ignorance is bliss. [quote] Oh yeah, Ringo was cool.[/quote]Stop dragging us off topic.

[BP3]

Ringo played [b]songs[/b] and played them well. I've worked with tons of drummers who probably had more chops when they were ten than Ringo will ever have. Despite that, many of these chop monsters have no song sense, don't work much, and wonder why.

[loudist]

Ringo was solid and could groove ie:had great feel. He played appropriately for the song at hand. No he wasn't bombastic, but it also wasn't necessary. Give me one Ringo to ten (fill in the blank) any day. McCartney play drums on a few songs during the White Album phase and the Ballad of John and Yoko. eljefe: Nice theory. The synergy with those particular 4 guys was never duplicated on any solo efforts.

[jpmiii]

I've seen Ringo live and the man can play and well. Often times people think playing with taste somehow means you don't have chops and I can tell you it's a lot harder to not say what does not need to be said then to cover that up with a lot of BS flailing about. The same can be said for Mick

[Rog]

I keep thinking of those fills he does in [i]A Day In The Life[/i], how many drummers would completely overplay those fills? Totally killing the song and turning it into a drummer wank-fest?

[saucyjack]

Another Huge Ringo fan here... I've been rereading the Beatles sessions by Lewisohn and am amazed by the both the sheer number of takes for some of the mid to later (from Revolver on)that Ringo had to perform AND his ability to be able to keep a metronomic groove...A lot of those songs were done as edit pieces....He had to be rock steady.Somewhere Lewisohn writes that in the thousands of hours of Abbey Road tape Ringo messed up a "Handful" of times in all those hours. God please make more Ringo's :idea:

[Magpel]

Yeah, I think history has decided that Ringo was an artist. The disconnect can probably be explained by the aforementioned Bonham, who did more than anyone to change the way we hear drums, I think. Some of those great old school drummers--even contemporaries of Bonham--like Ringo, Ginger Baker, Mitch Mitchell, Keith Moon, man, they just seem to be playing from a different world, our conception of rock drumming has changed so much. Once I *got back* the ears for that kind of drumming, I started preferring it to post-Bonham school, at least for certain kinds of music. So for old style rock and chamber pop, I'll take Ringo. For everything else, Ritchie Hayward would do nicely. :)

[Steve LeBlanc]

[img]http://www.plauder-smilies.com/sad/soupson.gif[/img] I hardly know what to say really...the whole tone of this thread makes me sick to my stomach. Ringo was a fine drummer for rock/pop music...why do people have to turn it into anything more than that. He hit the drums on the right beat in a very simple yet appropriate way...big deal so have countless other drummers. Calling yourself a Ringo fan or saying he was a great artist...I'm sorry I just find it silly to the point of repulsion...he wasn't much more than a beatbox in my opinion. Maybe I'm just in a rotten mood today but I just can't take the flood of Pop/Rock worship that's been hitting the BBs recently without saying something. I know it's normal for most of you wet your pants at the thought of the Beatles or Rolling Stones but I do hope you all die soon so music can be hip again. :p heh P.S. I AM NOT saying drummers who practiced a lot are better...just that they're perhaps more deserving of hero worship or fandom.

[Wewus432]

I totally agree with everything you said Steve including the part about you being a beeotch today.

[Sylver]

[quote]Originally posted by Stephen LeBlanc: [b] [img]http://www.plauder-smilies.com/sad/soupson.gif[/img] I hardly know what to say really...the whole tone of this thread makes me sick to my stomach. Ringo was a fine drummer for rock/pop music...why do people have to turn it into anything more than that. He hit the drums on the right beat in a very simple yet appropriate way...big deal so have countless other drummers. Calling yourself a Ringo fan or saying he was a great artist...I'm sorry I just find it silly to the point of repulsion...he wasn't much more than a beatbox in my opinion. Maybe I'm just in a rotten mood today but I just can't take the flood of Pop/Rock worship that's been hitting the BBs recently without saying something. I know it's normal for most of you wet your pants at the thought of the Beatles or Rolling Stones but I do hope you all die soon so music can be hip again. :p heh P.S. I AM NOT saying drummers who practiced a lot are better...just that they're perhaps more deserving of hero worship or fandom.[/b][/quote]Steve, you are in a pissy mood today.

[Jeebus]

[quote]Originally posted by Stephen LeBlanc: [b] [img]http://www.plauder-smilies.com/sad/soupson.gif[/img] I hardly know what to say really...the whole tone of this thread makes me sick to my stomach. Ringo was a fine drummer for rock/pop music...why do people have to turn it into anything more than that. He hit the drums on the right beat in a very simple yet appropriate way...big deal so have countless other drummers. Calling yourself a Ringo fan or saying he was a great artist...I'm sorry I just find it silly to the point of repulsion...he wasn't much more than a beatbox in my opinion. Maybe I'm just in a rotten mood today but I just can't take the flood of Pop/Rock worship that's been hitting the BBs recently without saying something. I know it's normal for most of you wet your pants at the thought of the Beatles or Rolling Stones but I do hope you all die soon so music can be hip again. :p heh P.S. I AM NOT saying drummers who practiced a lot are better...just that they're perhaps more deserving of hero worship or fandom.[/b][/quote]We sincerely apologize. Perhaps one day the great Fusion Gods will look down upon us and bless us all with incredible and impeccable musicianship.

[Steve LeBlanc]

;)

[phaeton]

I see nothing wrong with Ringo nor Mick Fleetwood. Particularly Mick...... It's been said before, but i'll say it again. Ringo Played Drums. Ringo WORKED. Mick Played Drums. Mick WORKED. They weren't particularly flashy, but they had thier shit together. How many other musicians have we all met (drummers or whatever) that didn't "have it together". I've met a lot of musicians (especially a lot of guitarists) that are nothing more than flashy wankers. They can do all the chops and fills and lightning, but they can't hold a basic tune together. Without a basic tune, what good is all the noodling?

[Sylver]

LOL, and Steve is a great fusion god, too! The bastard plays circles around me on guitar, and he claims to be a keyboard player! My only solace is in hoping that he doesn't sing ...

[Magpel]

Yep, Steve sings pretty well too. But I couldn't disagree with him more on this. I'd never call Ringo a virtuouso, but you don't have to be a virtuoso to be an artist (and vice versa). I hear a lot of subtlety in Ringo's playing. He swings pretty hard on the early stuff, and by the later era, *all* of the Beatles sounded kinda puny as instrumentalists next to their hard rock peers. I mean, much as I love and emulate George's solo playing (in that I favor composed melodic statements to wanking), how quaint and archaic must he have sounded, even in '67 or '68, after you'd been turned on to Hendrix, Beck, and Clapton? Ringo's repetoire of grooves didn't change along with rock. His chops got left n the dust. They're chops from another era. But to me it just doesn't matter. I love the flat, dull sound, the looseness of it. Your problem, Steve, is that you've fallen prey to the myth that music gets better as time passes. ;) :cool: Nope. Just faster and louder. I'll bet you anything that that busybody cat who drums for Dave Mathews couldn't play like Ringo if he wanted to. He might be *thinking* he's doing the Starkey thing, but 4 out of 5 people with soul could tell the difference.

[halljams]

[quote]Originally posted by Swoop: [b]LOL, and Steve is a great fusion god, too! The bastard plays circles around me on guitar, and he claims to be a keyboard player! My only solace is in hoping that he doesn't sing ...[/b][/quote]Actually he is an awesome singer, but still an asshole! :D Steve, thanks for sharing your lovely mood with us all here today. I don't see worship going on here, just appreciation. Didn't it get settled at the end of the 80's that technique and flash and dexterity were of little interest to people other than 15 year old boys. Just because someone works hard to become proficient and push the envelope of harmony and time, doesn't make them interesting or listenable. How can you dig Bob fucking Dylan and knock the Beatles? Sorry to say but you post here today was full of silly snobbery. But hey, i understand completely, we all have those days. ;)

[Steve LeBlanc]

HAHAHAHA...it gets even weirder. When did I say anything about flash, fusion or virtuoso? [quote]I mean, much as I love and emulate George's solo playing (in that I favor composed melodic statements to wanking), how quaint and archaic must he have sounded, even in '67 or '68, after you'd been turned on to Hendrix, Beck, and Clapton?[/quote]George was an excellent guitar player who had decent technique...more importantly he really knew how to put together a great solo. Louis Bellson was drumming years before Ringo, so where's Ringo's excuse again? Some of the later Beatles stuff really has a great groove (Abbey Road comes to mind) but on the majority of their stuff the drums ain't all that great IMO. [quote]I'll bet you anything that that busybody cat who drums for Dave Mathews couldn't play like Ringo if he wanted to.[/quote]But Kenny Aronoff sure could and I would bet it would feel better. Yeah Kenny would probably say Ringo is great and all but if he were totally honest I bet he'd admit he would have played those tunes differently. Regardless...all of those old Beatles albums are snapshots in time. I can't really argue that they would have been better with a different drummer because they are what they are but I really think they would have been better. I'm not talking about ability to do Quadruplets or quick single stroke rolls...I'm talking about knowing your instrument. I know you guys are joshing with me a bit but I if you really have listened to my music...I [b]REALLY[/b] hope you noticed the 1/4 notes as much as the 32nds...I don't play fast all the time...damn...and I damn well know you're not calling me a wanker! :)

[Rim]

[quote]Originally posted by eljefe: [b]While I can't think of any Beatles songs where his drumming is the driving force behind the song ...[/b][/quote]Have a listen to "What You're Doing" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" - they both have the same pattern but it is very distinct and drives the song IMO. Other songs with very tasty fills: "Long, Long, Long", "The End", "Strawberry Fields", "Baby You're a Rich Man". On Sir Paul's song "So Bad", Ringo's fill of three floor tom hits during the chorus is so freaking dead on it is perfection. Ringo is understandably under-rated especially with the major talent he played with. There are definitely songs (like the ones I listed) where it would be hard for me to imagine a different drum part sounding any better. Part of Ringo's tastiness is he knows when not to play. Sure, he's not the most technical drummer but some of his stuff is almost hummable. How many drummers can you say that about? :)

[Salyphus]

So now we have a Ringo bashing thread. Gee I guess we'll get one bashing George next for not sounding like Ynweenie :rolleyes: Nobody needs to apologize for Ringo's drumming, I'd say he is one of the greatest pop/rock drummers [b]ever[/b]. Of course, he played on some of the best pop/rock recordings ever, but how can you seperate the drumming from the song? It's that train of thought that leads to wankery IMHO. His drumming was as much a crucial musical element of the Beatles' music as any of the other parts, and what he didn't play counts for as much as what he did play. I think some of you need to go back and listen to the original recordings again, rather than relying on jaded memories... If you want to talk about technical abilities and musicianship, you can forget about rock and pop music altogether. Jazz drummers leave any rock musician in the dust. If you don't understand what I mean by this then listen to some recordings featuring Roy Haynes, Elvin Jones, Jack DeJohnette, Max Roach...

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]So now we have a Ringo bashing thread. Gee I guess we'll get one bashing George next for not sounding like Ynweenie[/quote]For chrissake...THIS is the only reason I even posted to this thread...why is it called "bashing" when you say someone [b]isn't[/b] "one of the greatest drummers..."? I haven't bashed Ringo...I just felt like downplaying some of the praise he received here. It's a matter of personal taste anyway...my opinion could be wrong...I don't care about that. So why do you feel so comfortable bashing Yngvie?

[Salyphus]

[quote]Originally posted by Stephen LeBlanc: [b]For chrissake...THIS is the only reason I even posted to this thread...why is it called "bashing" when you say someone [b]isn't[/b] "one of the greatest drummers..."? I haven't bashed Ringo...I just felt like downplaying some of the praise he received here. It's a matter of personal taste anyway...my opinion could be wrong...I don't care about that. [/b][/quote]Hmm, for some reason you seem to think I'm responding specifically to your posts? Easy tiger, nothing to get worked up about. ;) Remember, I get to have an opinion too :wave: And I think that my point about the drumming and the song being inexorably linked added value to the discussion, whether you agree or not. Though I wouldn't know because you chose not to comment on that. [quote][b] So why do you feel so comfortable bashing Yngvie?[/b][/quote]Um, because he is the musical equivalent of crusty diarrhea? :p

[Steve LeBlanc]

oh and in case all the smilies weren't enough...I really am smiling throughout this thread...just kidding around a bit. Ringo was great...ok? I wouldn't necessarily hire him if I had the choice of any drummer but he played what Paul and John wanted.