Quote
Tate
I love Charlie Watts, but I think the whole jazz thing gets a bit over-imagined when analyzing his playing. Charlie admits he is not much of a jazz player, and he isn't, really. He just loves it. Charlie is a very lazy rock and roll player, which has sort of become his signature sound for the last 30 years-- lopsided fills (heavy on one hand and light on the other), playing only 3/4 of the notes on the hi-hat, and really kind of blasting through some of his older signature fills on stage without much mind. Tumbling Dice, for example-- listen to the lazy intro to almost every live version. And, Charlie makes big mistakes on stage a LOT for a pro in a band with pretty basic drum parts. Now again, I love Charlie Watts and I would want no other drummer for the Stones, but...... when it comes to his technique, it has indeed devolved over the years, I'm afraid. I think most of that happened in the 80's.

The jazz theories make perfect sense for Charlie Watts. Jazz is Charlie's primary love and an artist uses what they love. What Charlie took from jazz isn't so much technique but the philosophy of the genre. The idea that you're there working as a unit to create one sound as a group. His approach to playing in rock and roll is the same of a jazz artist: create friction among each of your band members, don't stick to just the "role" of a rhythm section. Charlie doesn't do polyrhythms or complicated beats of a jazz drummer but he's got the mind of one. The fact that he chooses to stay back and support the song falls under the jazz mind set. That amount of restraint and control isn't common in rock drumming.

Charlie is a very lazy rock and roll player, which has sort of become his signature sound for the last 30 years-- lopsided fills (heavy on one hand and light on the other), playing only 3/4 of the notes on the hi-hat

That's not lazy, it's a somewhat unique technique he uses to allow the snare drum to dominate the back beat. Very effective and classic Charlie.

peace



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-10 21:36 by Naturalust.

Quote
Naturalust
Charlie is a very lazy rock and roll player, which has sort of become his signature sound for the last 30 years-- lopsided fills (heavy on one hand and light on the other), playing only 3/4 of the notes on the hi-hat

That's not lazy, it's a somewhat unique technique he uses to allow the snare drum to dominate the back beat. Very effective and classic Charlie.

peace

But how does playing the hi-hat on the fourth beat in conjunction with the snare take away from the power of the back beat?

It's just a very odd style...I've never seen Jim Keltner play, but supposedly he does the same thing.

I think (if I remember what Charlie said in an interview right) pulling his

right hand up on 2 and 4 to get the sound of the snare only, during

recording..so the hi hat

and snare hits not exactly coming at the same time, wouldn't be a problem,

for recording..then he just kept doing it..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-10 22:32 by duke richardson.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Naturalust
Charlie is a very lazy rock and roll player, which has sort of become his signature sound for the last 30 years-- lopsided fills (heavy on one hand and light on the other), playing only 3/4 of the notes on the hi-hat

That's not lazy, it's a somewhat unique technique he uses to allow the snare drum to dominate the back beat. Very effective and classic Charlie.

peace

But how does playing the hi-hat on the fourth beat in conjunction with the snare take away from the power of the back beat?

It's just a very odd style...I've never seen Jim Keltner play, but supposedly he does the same thing.

Yeah I think Keltner copped that from Charlie but I may be wrong. And while you've never seen Keltner play, I'll bet you've heard him more than you may know. He's everywhere.

As far as taking away from the power of the back beat....the hi-hat is obviously not a "power" part of the kit while the snare and bass drum are the two power players. Having a hole for the snare to pop that back beat, all by itself, without interference from higher frequency things like the hi-hat makes for a very clean and more distinct sounding back beat. And with that back beat being the essence of rock drumming, I think it fits perfectly.

The advantages in a recording situation are just as obvious. You've got that single snare sound to record, EQ and mix however you want, without bleed and interference from the hi-hat attack and shush.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Naturalust
Charlie is a very lazy rock and roll player, which has sort of become his signature sound for the last 30 years-- lopsided fills (heavy on one hand and light on the other), playing only 3/4 of the notes on the hi-hat

That's not lazy, it's a somewhat unique technique he uses to allow the snare drum to dominate the back beat. Very effective and classic Charlie.

peace

But how does playing the hi-hat on the fourth beat in conjunction with the snare take away from the power of the back beat?

It's just a very odd style...I've never seen Jim Keltner play, but supposedly he does the same thing.

Yeah I think Keltner copped that from Charlie but I may be wrong. And while you've never seen Keltner play, I'll bet you've heard him more than you may know. He's everywhere.

As far as taking away from the power of the back beat....the hi-hat is obviously not a "power" part of the kit while the snare and bass drum are the two power players. Having a hole for the snare to pop that back beat, all by itself, without interference from higher frequency things like the hi-hat makes for a very clean and more distinct sounding back beat. And with that back beat being the essence of rock drumming, I think it fits perfectly.

The advantages in a recording situation are just as obvious. You've got that single snare sound to record, EQ and mix however you want, without bleed and interference from the hi-hat attack and shush.

peace

Oh, I've definitely heard Keltner play on many, many recordings...I've just never had the privilege of watching him play live.

Do you know of any YouTube concert vids that would give an example of his playing style?

Thanks for the describing the benefits of Charlie's technique...makes sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-10 23:00 by keefriff99.

Quote
keefriff99
But how does playing the hi-hat on the fourth beat in conjunction with the snare take away from the power of the back beat?

If he skips the 4, his hand to play the hi-hat is out of the way, so he can hit the snare with more force.

Quote
Koen

Quote
keefriff99
But how does playing the hi-hat on the fourth beat in conjunction with the snare take away from the power of the back beat?

If he skips the 4, his hand to play the hi-hat is out of the way, so he can hit the snare with more force.

LOL, I actually play drums (not well, but I can manage), so I get what you're saying, but it's not like Charlie is swinging his arms around wildly like a hard rock or heavy metal drummer.

Hell, Phil Rudd practically swings his left stick up over his head when bringing it down on the snare, and never misses a hi-hat lick.

Well I don't play the drums at all, so what do I know

Yeah, the hi-hat snare thing has a subtly distinct sound, but I think it is rooted in laziness. I do it sometimes when I play, when my right wrist gets tired. The 4 ride beats keep the rhythm steady. I find Charlie's playing a tad unsteady at times and even sloppy. Hey, I doubt I will be much of a drummer when I am his age, so I am not knocking him. It's just that much of his playing many years ago was really stellar, he just laid just such a gritty groove. I am thinking of Stray Cat Blues, and all the earlier live versions of Midnight Rambler, etc. the groove all through Ya Ya's is just legendary, and I'd argue that he just does not have that feel anymore, and hasn't for a very long time. The kind of jazz he seems to love is basic, and he does fine on the brushes, but I just don't think it influences his playing with the Stones much, save for some of the newer tunes that have jazzy brush work. His most common bap-bap-bap-bap-boom-boom-boom-boom Crash! fills these days are just very straightforward lazy rock and roll. Hey, that's what the Stones are these days, IMO, a lazy rock and roll band. A very great, legendary, beloved, lazy rock and roll band. IMHO.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I love when he start riding on the crash. That is a real Charlie thing.
One can really hear how Charlie follows Keith and Mick. Charlie always is playing the SONG, not just a beat keeper.

Actually, I HATE that aspect of his drumming, and he only started doing it frequently over the past 12 years starting on the Live Licks tour.

I much preferred it when he used his ride cymbal properly...he has a nice light touch with the ride and it sounds so smooth. I don't understand why he has to clang up his sound by beating on his crash like that.

What I like so much about it though is that once again, he is playing the song. Here is the instrumental break after second chlorus, so it is time to rev it up even more. Since ( like any decent drummer) he only has the basic kit the crash is the obvious choice.
It's weird - I actually think he has a terrible touch on the ride . I keep expecting him to lose the stick.

Yeah, the hi-hat snare thing has a subtly distinct sound, but I think it is rooted in laziness

Naw, it seems too deliberate and overly emphasized to be a lazy thing. I think it's just his proven style when playing Rock with the Stones.

He doesn't always do it. Here's a good example of him hitting the hi-hat (and ride) together with the snare but with that Charlie back beat still solid as ever.





But, it's not just about his leaving the hi-hat out....check out what he does do with the hi-hat on Stray Cat Blues for instance. He swings it and plays combinations of open and closed that really work for the song.

peace

Naturalust, I totally agree with you on Stray Cat Blues, it was brilliant on the hats, but it is a slower tempo and (correct me if I am mistaken) he does not do that when they play it live these days. I love the clip you posted! Notice when he switches from the hi-hat to the ride cymbal (0:26), his tight, swingy half-shuffle on the hi-hat (tat ta-tat, tat ta-tat...) changes to a non-shuffle on the cymbal (ting, ting, ting, ting...). Why not keep the shuffle going? I think he has a bit more respect for his jazz music than he does his rock and roll, which is why he puts the effort into the rhythm on the hi-hat, but then when he heads over to the cymbal here he is simplifying things yet again. When he skips the note on stage with the Stones, it is usually playing 8th notes (1-2-x-4-1-2-x-4) whereas the ride cymbal beat above he is only playing quarter notes so there is less of a need to skip a beat.

It is fun to examine and discuss stuff like this!

Quote
Naturalust
Yeah, the hi-hat snare thing has a subtly distinct sound, but I think it is rooted in laziness

Naw, it seems too deliberate and overly emphasized to be a lazy thing. I think it's just his proven style when playing Rock with the Stones.

He doesn't always do it. Here's a good example of him hitting the hi-hat (and ride) together with the snare but with that Charlie back beat still solid as ever.





But, it's not just about his leaving the hi-hat out....check out what he does do with the hi-hat on Stray Cat Blues for instance. He swings it and plays combinations of open and closed that really work for the song.

peace

It's not laziness. It's something he discovered after Keith changed his sound with his open G-riffing. Makes more room for a very distinct-sounding guitar. He achieves a double effect, because now the drums sounded unique as well, by skipping the hi hat-beat.

Very interesting, from drummagazine.com:

"I never knew I did that until Jim Keltner saw me play in 1970. He asked me why I did it, and I didn’t know what he was talking about. And I still don’t know what it is, and I still don’t know I’m doing it. People have asked me to explain why I do it. The only way I can imagine is I play [traditional grip] with my left hand. And maybe it’s a way of getting one hand to make the backbeat bigger. I don’t know. It’s an unconscious thing."

So it may not be intentional, which makes me even more convinced it IS a kind of laziness, as you mostly see him doing it on faster rock songs. It takes 25% of the work away from the right hand. "It actually annoys me when I see myself doing it," he says in this interview in Modern Drummer (1990):

One thing [Jim] Keltner pointed out to Charlie was his
habit of coming off the hi-hat with his right hand
whenever he would hit a backbeat with his left. "I was
never conscious of it until Jim mentioned it," Charlie
comments. "But I do it a lot. I've noticed it on
videos, and it actually annoys me to see myself doing
it. It really comes, I think, from coming down heavy
on the backbeat. I don't use that [matched] grip that
Ringo uses. I did for a few years, because I thought
it was popular. But then I was told to go back to the
other way by Ian Stewart, who used to set up my drums.
He virtually ordered me to go back to what he called
'the proper way of playing'" Charlie laughs. "So I
went back to the military grip, and I really do prefer
it, but because of the amount you ride on the hi-hat,
I suppose I got into the habit of pulling the other
stick out of the way to get a louder sound.

"I've never consciously done it, but a lot of times
when we make a record I am consciously _not_ doing it,
because sometimes you hear the beat go 'di-dit,
di-dit'" Charlie says, tapping out notes that
are slightly squeezed together. "That works on some
things, but other times you need it perfectly even
because the microphone records everything in such a
nit-picky way".

Quote
Koen
Well I don't play the drums at all, so what do I know

From the drummagazine quote above, it looks like Charlie agrees with me

Quote
Tate
I love the clip you posted! Notice when he switches from the hi-hat to the ride cymbal (0:26), his tight, swingy half-shuffle on the hi-hat (tat ta-tat, tat ta-tat...) changes to a non-shuffle on the cymbal (ting, ting, ting, ting...). Why not keep the shuffle going? I think he has a bit more respect for his jazz music than he does his rock and roll, which is why he puts the effort into the rhythm on the hi-hat, but then when he heads over to the cymbal here he is simplifying things yet again.

I think he changes from the shuffle beat just for the sake of change and improvisation, trying to be true to the genre he is playing, where basically anything goes.

As far as simplifying goes, I think it's just part of Charlie's DNA. Simple but effective pretty much defines Charlie's playing.

I actually love minimalistic drumming, rock drumming that focuses on the back beat and a few fills and set ups to move the song along, with subtle hi-hat work to get the swing and groove. Too many rock drummers overplay their mostly huge kits to very little effect. It takes away from the music and basically becomes more of a distraction, imo.

A perfect example of this in the earlier days (for me) was what Mitch Mitchell did with the Jimi Hendrix Experience. Good thing Jimi was so good that his music prevails in spite of Mitch's tactics!

Don't get me wrong, I love listening to Buddy Rich, his drumming is flashy and incredible and he always seemed to make it work in that Big Band setting. And my all time favorite drummer to listen to was Richie Hayward (RIP) from Little Feat, that guy had a groove and pocket like no other, just amazing. Probably the drummer which was most fun to watch was Michael Lee (RIP), he was so friggin' energetic and always looked like he was having the time of his life. His drumming on the Page/Plant tour was exceptional.

Finally I always smile when I think of my Dad's statement about drummers..."they should only be heard by the band in order to keep time, I don't want to hear 'em".

peace

Quote
Tate
Very interesting, from drummagazine.com:

"I never knew I did that until Jim Keltner saw me play in 1970. He asked me why I did it, and I didn’t know what he was talking about. And I still don’t know what it is, and I still don’t know I’m doing it. People have asked me to explain why I do it. The only way I can imagine is I play [traditional grip] with my left hand. And maybe it’s a way of getting one hand to make the backbeat bigger. I don’t know. It’s an unconscious thing."

So it may not be intentional, which makes me even more convinced it IS a kind of laziness, as you mostly see him doing it on faster rock songs. It takes 25% of the work away from the right hand. "It actually annoys me when I see myself doing it," he says in this interview in Modern Drummer (1990):

One thing [Jim] Keltner pointed out to Charlie was his
habit of coming off the hi-hat with his right hand
whenever he would hit a backbeat with his left. "I was
never conscious of it until Jim mentioned it," Charlie
comments. "But I do it a lot. I've noticed it on
videos, and it actually annoys me to see myself doing
it. It really comes, I think, from coming down heavy
on the backbeat. I don't use that [matched] grip that
Ringo uses. I did for a few years, because I thought
it was popular. But then I was told to go back to the
other way by Ian Stewart, who used to set up my drums.
He virtually ordered me to go back to what he called
'the proper way of playing'" Charlie laughs. "So I
went back to the military grip, and I really do prefer
it, but because of the amount you ride on the hi-hat,
I suppose I got into the habit of pulling the other
stick out of the way to get a louder sound.

"I've never consciously done it, but a lot of times
when we make a record I am consciously _not_ doing it,
because sometimes you hear the beat go 'di-dit,
di-dit'" Charlie says, tapping out notes that
are slightly squeezed together. "That works on some
things, but other times you need it perfectly even
because the microphone records everything in such a
nit-picky way".

Well these quotes confirm, more than anything, that his style isn't based on some grand scheme or sonic enhancement...it's just pure neglect of technique.

And don't get me wrong...I LOVE Charlie. He's the first drummer that really caught my attention as a kid, mostly because he was so conservative and proper-looking on the kit, while wild men Mick, Keith and Ronnie rocked out around them.

I still remember the first time I watched them live (I was 15), on the MTV Music Awards, when they played Love Is Strong and Start Me Up, and Charlie has short, white hair and a SUIT AND TIE on, while the other three are in traditional rock'n'roll attire.

I was instantly in love with the guy, not to mention his tradtional jazz grip caught my eye.

Regardless of his limitations as a drummer, he's PERFECT for the Stones, and I would never want to see Mick and Keith onstage without him.

Oh, I couldn't agree more about your philosophy of drumming, Naturalust... I have always felt the drummer's role is to help make the band sound great, as opposed to being noticed as a great technical drummer. Keith Moon, of course, was over the top crazy, but was he not an integral part of The Who's sound? Charlie is just as important to the Stones, imo, as Keith Moon was to the Who, or John Bonham was to Led Zeppelin. And like Charlie, I do not care for the vast majority of all drum solos (I rarely play them myself). In fact, my favorite rock and roll drum solo ever is Ringo's on 'The End.' Super simple, but the kinetic energy embedded in that drum transition is amazing, and creates what I consider to be one of the best 90 seconds in all of rock and roll. So it is not Charlie's minimalist style that I accuse of being lazy, because I love that style and emulate it in my own playing. But there are some times when I listen to Charlie playing live (within the past 25 years), and I end up shaking my head.. Couldn't he have just tightened that up a bit? Couldn't he have played a slightly more soulful fill, truer to the feel of the song, than THAT? There are many modern era live versions of songs that fall flat in part due to Charlie's latter-day "lazy" playing, in my opinion. I don't want him to be flashier, or to play more aggressively, I just want him to be a bit more into the music and put a little more of that artistic effort and finesse into his playing. But hey. Again, he is how old? I might not be all that excited about playing with the same band for 50+ years, and many of the same songs for 30+ years.

Just re-read and in no way am I suggesting or wishing Charlie sounded more like Keith Moon, just saying each drummer is unique and a great drummer is only great for how he makes the MUSIC sound great. I also agree with Keef... Charlie is perfect for the Stones and always has been.

I get what you're saying, Tate. It makes sense. But laziness isn't the word I'd use. Maybe adaptability is a better word?

I'm a rock drumming enthusiast, and I love everything from the ludicrously minimalist but badass groove of Phil Rudd to the most complicated beats of Neil Peart, Danny Carey or Mike Portnoy.

I have no all-encompassing "ALL drumming should sound like THIS" philosophy. It's all about the musical context. What works in AC/DC or the Stones wouldn't work in Tool or Rush, and vice versa.

A fascinating thread, and I really enjoy reading the insights here.

I guess the thing with the Rolling Stones members typically is that they they are pretty hard to 'judge' objectively as players, since they just happen to make so incredible music together, which we Stones fans love so much. The key players of their sound - Keith, Bill, and Charlie - all of them have a certain signature style, that is pretty much suited to serve the music of the Stones, but outside of that scheme, they all are rather mediocre players technicalwise (and the Stones music doesn't need much technical skills). Yes, they have an idiosyncratic touch and feel, but I guess there is also a bit romanticism involved in our views; we which probably is not that credible in actual world of musicians (which is not just to be reduced to show business and 'popular' success).

Charlie's own accounts are very illuminating of the origin of his style. Probably for some that is a work of (unconscious) genious, for some lazyness, but I guess for the majority, just very basic and simple drumming, which suits damn well to the sound - or even 'groove' - of The Rolling Stones. The 'jazz element' in it is most likely in the ears of Rolling Stones fans who have their homework and know Charlie's musical background and taste. The rest - especially jazz circles - wouldn't notice it. I'm with Tate in that.

The 'feel', 'less is more', 'serve to a song', 'groove', 'swing', 'fitting', 'simple but effective' - we know the vocabulary by which we adore our heroes here...

- Doxa

Quote
Tate
In fact, my favorite rock and roll drum solo ever is Ringo's on 'The End.' Super simple, but the kinetic energy embedded in that drum transition is amazing, and creates what I consider to be one of the best 90 seconds in all of rock and roll. So it is not Charlie's minimalist style that I accuse of being lazy, because I love that style and emulate it in my own playing. But there are some times when I listen to Charlie playing live (within the past 25 years), and I end up shaking my head.. Couldn't he have just tightened that up a bit? Couldn't he have played a slightly more soulful fill, truer to the feel of the song, than THAT? There are many modern era live versions of songs that fall flat in part due to Charlie's latter-day "lazy" playing, in my opinion.

yeah

Just went back and listened to that Ringo part, , yeah that is indeed wonderful and thanks for pointing it out. Especially great when you listen to how Paul's drummer doesn't really come close when he performs that Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End medley in his live performances. What a treat it would be to hear what Ringo would do sitting in for Charlie with the Stones. I think he would surprise us all!

And I totally agree with you about Charlie's stuff, however dangerous that may be on this site..lol. I can only imagine that Charlie is getting a bit tired of playing the same tunes soo many times, and his incentive to excel is somewhat overshadowed by his need to not screw it up and just keep Mick and Keith happy. In any case his $/beat is probably the highest in the biz and his reluctant rock star personality must carry over to his playing somewhat, how could it not?

In any case I'd bet that you are a great drummer yourself Tate, and the musicians playing with you are lucky to have you.

peace

video: [www.youtube.com]

I love this video



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-11 23:44 by goingmad.

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-12 00:00 by goingmad.

Hey goingmad, that last link ain't working and if you erase the "s" in https the embedded video's you share here will come up in video mode instead of just a link.

peace

Naturalust, Doxa, Keef, Dandelion, others, I wish I could meet up with y'all after work... Alas, I imagine an ocean divides us. Thank you for the insight. Naturalust-- Thanks for the ego-boost. When it comes down to it, I am a bit of a lazy drummer myself. Perhaps I have been projecting all along! ;^) Or maybe I just recognize all the shortcuts, heh... Well we all love Charlie and his contribution to The Rolling Stones. Can you imagine anyone else in his shoes? I mean Steve Jordan is great, but even if he sat in it would not be the Rolling Stones, now would it? Charlie Watts makes us all smile and cheer the loudest for when introduced at the shows... What a character. What a drummer. Peace and Love from Maine, everyone! Happy Holidays.....

Quote
Tate
Naturalust, Doxa, Keef, Dandelion, others, I wish I could meet up with y'all after work... Alas, I imagine an ocean divides us. Thank you for the insight. Naturalust-- Thanks for the ego-boost. When it comes down to it, I am a bit of a lazy drummer myself. Perhaps I have been projecting all along! ;^) Or maybe I just recognize all the shortcuts, heh... Well we all love Charlie and his contribution to The Rolling Stones. Can you imagine anyone else in his shoes? I mean Steve Jordan is great, but even if he sat in it would not be the Rolling Stones, now would it? Charlie Watts makes us all smile and cheer the loudest for when introduced at the shows... What a character. What a drummer. Peace and Love from Maine, everyone! Happy Holidays.....

Maine, huh? Well, I'm from Connecticut, so no oceans here...unless you live out on one of those tiny islands

Happy Holidays to you too!

Lifting the highhat on the snare hits is the key to his sound. She's So Cold is the quintessentially example. This clip is killer.

I was lucky enough to be at the Beacon shows and loved it! The problem with Shine A Light is the sound mix. That's a whole post in itself. The snare is mixed poorly so it sounds thin regardless of the tuning.. guitars go from being inaudible to very loud (for sonic/visual effect and very stupidly).. Jagger's vocals should have a low end rolloff at 80-120 MINIMUM.. instead sometimes his vocals end up being in the same sound spectrum as the dang kick drum!