I think Charlie's genius is that he doesn't stand out- he is rock solid and he swings.

I personally get bored with drummers who play 10 minute solos and don't keep a solid beat.

Both drummers had an ENORMOUS influence on their bands. Not so much musically but more mentaly.

I don't care if Ringo sang and Charlie didn't. Each band had different approaches of making a band.

I have to say Ringo Starr on this subject. Simply because he was more inventive as a drummer. All bands back then used Ringo as reference. Plus he had a solid beat which always kept the band together. More important: he never "ran". Something which Charlie had more tendence to do.

Charlie had a solid beat also, but sometimes he sounded uninspired and he simply didn't create as many legendary drum-fills as Ringo did.

No, Ringo can't play swing, but you can't use that as an arguement, since niether band played Jazzy tunes.

Quote
mitchflorida
It isn't that I don't like Watts' drumming. It is that there is nothing exceptional or particularly interesting about it. I had a friend who was a drummer and couldn't see what he does that is all that great. I mean John Bonham or Keith Moon or Mitch Mitchell . . there have to be ten rock drummers that really stand out.

You can`t put Bonham or Moon into the rest of Stones. It does`nt fit. They got their own style in bands with different style than Stones.

Charlie doesn`t make mistakes. He is solid and drummers that I know like his easy stile when it comes to drumsett. He doesn`t need 20 different drums to make dthe perfect drumsound to Stones-music.

Listen to Paint It Black and 2000 Man. Stones themselves are unbelieveble good to make good songs with easy methodes. That`s art

When I listen to Some Girls or Emotional Rescue Charlie's drumming just blows mi mind.

Very silly to do this kind of comparaisons really. They are the heart of the greates rock bands ever, so the real question is who do you like best, and that is a matter of taste.

What about Mr Zak Starkey? he's good, isn't he?

Quote
ghostryder13
john lennon once said that ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the beatles but lennon was an @#$%&

Was waiting for someone to bring this up.

Its actually a myth. Lennon NEVER said anything of the sort.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-07 21:18 by Gazza.

Quote
mitchflorida
It isn't that I don't like Watts' drumming. It is that there is nothing exceptional or particularly interesting about it. I had a friend who was a drummer and couldn't see what he does that is all that great. I mean John Bonham or Keith Moon or Mitch Mitchell . . there have to be ten rock drummers that really stand out.

The role of a drummer is not to get attention -- it's to make the song move as it should. Please judge Charlie in that light...

Quote
ghostryder13
john lennon once said that ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the beatles but lennon was an ass hole .both ringo and charlie are better drummers than overrated cause their dead drummers like keith moon and john bonham

Lennon was right and you are wrong, especially with regard to Moonie.

Quote
texas fan
The role of a drummer is not to get attention.

Sometimes a drummer is just so f----ing incredible he can't HELP but get attention. Gene Krupa? BuddY Rich? Chick Webb? Their role was to NOT be noticed???



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-07 16:39 by tatters.

Quote
Blueranger
Both drummers had an ENORMOUS influence on their bands. Not so much musically but more mentaly.

I don't care if Ringo sang and Charlie didn't. Each band had different approaches of making a band.

I have to say Ringo Starr on this subject. Simply because he was more inventive as a drummer. All bands back then used Ringo as reference. Plus he had a solid beat which always kept the band together. More important: he never "ran". Something which Charlie had more tendence to do.

Charlie had a solid beat also, but sometimes he sounded uninspired and he simply didn't create as many legendary drum-fills as Ringo did.

No, Ringo can't play swing, but you can't use that as an arguement, since niether band played Jazzy tunes.

agree 100%. these days an uninspired charlie often ruins otherwise good songs.

Watts better of the two; Ringo was the perfect drummer for The Beatles..not too overpowering and I feel underated..but doesn't compare to Charlie

Quote
B-Flat
Ringo Starr is not a drummer.

These days he's really more of a song and dance man. He lets Sheila E. do his drumming for him. At one Ringo concert I went to I sat next to a guy who was simply appalled that Sheila was doing solos and the crowd was going crazy for it. He was like, "Why is everyone standing for HER? Why isn't Ringo doing this? Why isn't Ringo the drummer?" I said, "Ringo is not THAT kind of drummer".

Quote
tatters

Quote
texas fan
The role of a drummer is not to get attention.

Sometimes a drummer is just so f----ing incredible he can't HELP but get attention. Gene Krupa? BuddY Rich? Chick Webb? Their role was to NOT be noticed???

Throw in Louis Belson while your at it. There are plenty of drummers out there like that.

The which one is better contest always just comes down to personal taste.

Quote
BluzDude
Everything I did not like about Ringo's drumming, I later heard was because George Martin wanted it that way.

I still have to go with Charlie!

what exactly do you mean??

I will have to say that I don't think Mick and Keith wanted a drummer that would stand out all that much. Mick isn't especially sentimental .. he is a hard-headed businessman, and he would have dumped Charlie Watts in a minute if he thought he was holding back the group in any way shape or form.

George Martin is the one who demanded that Pete Best be kicked out of the Beatles and wanted Ringo Starr in his place . . at least that is what I had read.

Another Mick Taylor fan screwing things up as usual.

John Bonham had his own style - it happened to be a big part of becoming a, not the, definitive way of playing the drums in a heavy way. Regardless of that, he had his own style/sound.

Ringo the same.

Charlie the same.

Phil Rudd the same.

I'll give it a shot, songs that could be viewed (listened? heard?) as something exceptional Charlie has done that's either flashy or what the ultimate drummer wants - down the middle holding it solid rhythm:

What To Do - Swing. This has more swing to it than the entire Beatles catalogue.

100 Years Ago - Huge swing on this tune. Charlie sort of oozes through the song with his rhythm changing a little here and there, the fills working in participation of the next stanza of whatever.

Jigsaw Puzzle - very Ringo here - rumble tom fills much like I Am The Walrus. This is where Charlie and Ringo are almost the exact same DNA - holding down the middle, the meter is steady and heavy and light. What some people might consider to be a hip-hop beat.

Monkey Man - see Jigsaw Puzzle. Only this has way more swing to it.

Let It Bleed - some kind of lazy hitch going on with this one that is very difficult to play. Hell, even Charlie doesn't play it like this when they play this live.

Can't You Hear Me Knocking - Probably Charlie's most different style of his entire career with the Stones. He plays around the riff. It's steady one second, then there's a two-note, hell, there are two-note snares all over the place; that rolling with the rhythm snare. There's a counter-rhythm where he screwed up going into the B part of the song (Help me baby, ain't no stranger) to the ride, which he does twice but different the second time (Hear me ringin', big bell tolls); then there's the entire instrumental where he holds down the meter and does all kinds of jazz playing, fills, rumbles, whatever. Perhaps the Stones

She's So Cold - You probably don't know what this song is since you stopped listening after 1974. This song is on EMOTIONAL RESCUE. Another way where Ringo and Charlie are similar in the meter. This is possibly Charlie's crispiest drumming ever. Absolutely brilliant.

Not sure if that's what you mean by pointing out something that makes Charlie different or whatever. Those songs - maybe some more - make him quite unique to me. But that's all it is. There are plenty of other drummers out there that do their thing that makes them them and the best at what they do. So saying Charlie is better than Ringo is - would Charlie've played I Am The Walrus any better? Doubtful. In fact, it's Ringo's style that makes that song such a heavy song. That's one thing Charlie has never done, is that exact kind of playing that is the backbone of I Am The Walrus. That's part of Ringo's style. He had some similar styles to Charlie's, the double kick and snare, but it didn't have the swing that Charlie has. Very similar but not the same. Two of a kind but not a pair kind of deal.

Have to chime in here... I love the Stones, #1 always to me, but... I.m.o. Ringo is by far the faster, the cleaner, the more skilled rock drummer. The "he can't swing" comment is not accurate. His early playing has plenty of examples of very fast shuffle rhythms that are impressive for any drummer. As for Charlie's jazz playing, he loves jazz, but he is a very plain jazz drummer, and he admits this. Charlie loves jazz, but he is a rock drummer. They both are and were rock drummers, they both simplified their playing over time, but at their peak, Ringo was tighter and faster by a long shot.

HOWEVER... We all know Charlie is the ONLY drummer for the Stones and is brilliant in what he has contributed to the band. He is humble, and his playing is not short of perfect for what the Stones are and play. Same for Ringo with the Beatles. This topic is a bit tired and irrelevant, as once again we are comparing apples and oranges, really, but while my allegiance and devotion is to the Stones as a group, the drummer in me goes with Ringo as the 'better' drummer.

Here are the ratings for the Top 25 Rock Drummers

1. Neil Peart (Rush)
2. John Bonham* (Led Zeppelin)
3. Keith Moon* (The Who)
4. Carl Palmer (ELP)
5. Ginger Baker (Cream)
6. Terry Bozzio (Frank Zappa)
7. Bill Bruford (Yes, King Crimson)
8. Hal Blaine (Session man)
9. Ian Paice (Deep Purple)
10. Mike Portnoy (Dream Theater)
11. Dave Lombardo (Slayer)
12. Danny Carey (Tool)
13. Ringo Starr (The Beatles)
14. Carmine Appice (Vanilla Fudge)
15. Earl Palmer (Session man)
16. Benny Benjamin* (Funk Brothers)
17. Jeff Porcaro* (Toto)
18. Stewart Copeland (The Police)
19. Tommy Aldridge (Ozzy Osbourne)
20. Bernard Purdie (Session)
21. Bill Ward (Black Sabbath)
22. Steve Smith (Journey)
23. Mitch Mitchell (Jimi Hendrix)
24. David Garabaldi (Tower Of Power)
25. Mike Shrieve (Santana)


[digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com]

Neil Peart. He doesn't play the drums, he just makes a bunch of fast noise.

Those are ratings according to who? The usual pyrotechnic drummers are at the top at first. It's the same with these guitarist rankings. People like Joe Satriani are at the top with Keith nowhere to be found. This is based on a complete mistaking of technical prowess for musical validity, taste and influence. Who will want to hear a Rush song or Joe Satriani song (whatever that is) in 50 years?

In the ratings for rock guitarists, Mick Taylor is #45, Keith is #51, and Ron Wood is, oops, #124.

Maybe that is why I stopped listening to them.

Keith is a lot more than a rock guitarist of course. He has written a lot of influential and important rock songs.

Quote
mitchflorida
In the ratings for rock guitarists, Mick Taylor is #45, Keith is #51, and Ron Wood is, oops, #124.
.

i am used to the fact that those lists often ignore the rolling stones. which is a joke. but to have another guitarist from within the rolling stones higher than keith in a list of rock guitarists is without words.

So you stopped listening to them because of their ranking in some jagoff poll?

Well you go right on not listening anymore. Like I said, another Mick Taylor nut screwing shit up. You're not saying anything new.

I think some of Charlie's best drumming can be found on Sticky Fingers. Sister Morphine, Dead Flowers, and Moonlight Mile. In Louisville I was back stage when they did a run through of Dead Flowers, The way Charlie moved the song along was amazing. He waited for Ronnie and Keith to work out the chords (recall the chords) and jumped right in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-07 18:40 by johnhenry.

Well, I am 56, so a lot of the music that I used to love when I was younger (Van Halen, for instance), doesn't interest me any more.

I think Jeff Beck and Hendrix are in a class by themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-07 18:43 by mitchflorida.

this is a joke

David Grohl made a comment once that a great drummer is one that has such a distinct style you can make out who it is with out hearing the rest of the band. Thats defo the case with Ringo and to a degree Watts. Both superb drummers.

Which color is better,
Blue or Red?

Makes about as much sense as this question

Marv

Marv Peck

Y'all remember that rubber legged boy

Quote
tatters

Quote
texas fan
The role of a drummer is not to get attention.

Sometimes a drummer is just so f----ing incredible he can't HELP but get attention. Gene Krupa? BuddY Rich? Chick Webb? Their role was to NOT be noticed???

Perhaps I didn't say it correctly: I didn't mean they should actively avoid attention, just that it's not their job to get attention. Sure, certain band leaders that happen to be drummers are going to structure things to glorify themselves.

But, flash is secondary at best, and it definitely can be counterproductive in rock music. It's the groove that matters -- the groove must be served at all costs, including the drummer's ego.



Just my opinion, of course.

Quote
mitchflorida
I will have to say that I don't think Mick and Keith wanted a drummer that would stand out all that much. Mick isn't especially sentimental .. he is a hard-headed businessman, and he would have dumped Charlie Watts in a minute if he thought he was holding back the group in any way shape or form.

1. Mick isn't Charlie's 'boss'. He can't 'dump' him.

2. How many other musicians in the last 40 years has the 'hard-headed' Mick 'dumped' for holding the band back?