I thought it said:
Charlie Watts- no guitar

Well, Charlie DID quit smoking, I believe.

Close, but no guitar.

And how about him smoking a cig?

Quote
schillid
And how about him smoking a cig?

Cigarettes quit him.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
schillid
And how about him smoking a cig?

Cigarettes quit him.

Good he quit the cig else his cancer problems could have been much worse

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
marcovandereijk
Charlie is everybody's darling.
Rightfully so!

A question to the drummers around here: how challenging is an average Stones setlist
for a drummer?
Are there enough variations in rythm, figures and styles to keep yourself interested
as a drummer?

No there really isn't. Especially after you've played the tunes as many times as Charlie has and when your personal tastes are not the Stones style of music. I think obligated is more applicable to Charlie's playing than interested. The few times he can stretch a bit on breakdowns and improvs are few and far between. I suspect Charlie is mostly bored to death playing the warhorses but it's his job, he's well paid and he isn't going to rock the boat.

That being said, Charlie has a style which is not that easy to replicate, it's simple but it can be different, especially the way he pulls the hi hat beat when he hits the snare.

peace

obligated vs. interested /engaged..

when it comes to playing with Keith (and Darryl) I presume, since that's all I can do, that lots of history and ways of making this interesting for them exist between them.

I don't think for a minute that Charlie is bored or plays due to obligation. I think it might look that way..

there are so many ways to put unexpected and subtle shifts in tone and attitude, in music, especially in the way the Stones rely on feeling and that intangible telepathy they have..

I think you'd agree since you are a player too..

Yes I do agree. It's hard to understand or judge Charlie's playing. Sometimes it seems he's just going through the motions and then he'll surprise you with some inspired and perfect stuff. No doubt he is very good at what he does. His tone and energy in that Four Flicks jam recently posted is amazing.

I just imagine that a guy as deep as Charlie who has clearly expressed his feelings of how shallow pop/rock music is in general, must have to dig deep to be inspired playing JJF for the 1000th time. But basically these guys are such pro's in the performance theater it's hard to get anything but great from them. And upon further reflection, I imagine there are some very subtle push and pull things going on between Charlie and the other musicians that keep him somewhat interested. After playing together for so long that intangible telepathy you speak of is certainly amazing and of course Charlie is a big part of it.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
marcovandereijk
Charlie is everybody's darling.
Rightfully so!

A question to the drummers around here: how challenging is an average Stones setlist
for a drummer?
Are there enough variations in rythm, figures and styles to keep yourself interested
as a drummer?

No there really isn't. Especially after you've played the tunes as many times as Charlie has and when your personal tastes are not the Stones style of music. I think obligated is more applicable to Charlie's playing than interested. The few times he can stretch a bit on breakdowns and improvs are few and far between. I suspect Charlie is mostly bored to death playing the warhorses but it's his job, he's well paid and he isn't going to rock the boat.

That being said, Charlie has a style which is not that easy to replicate, it's simple but it can be different, especially the way he pulls the hi hat beat when he hits the snare.

peace

obligated vs. interested /engaged..

when it comes to playing with Keith (and Darryl) I presume, since that's all I can do, that lots of history and ways of making this interesting for them exist between them.

I don't think for a minute that Charlie is bored or plays due to obligation. I think it might look that way..

there are so many ways to put unexpected and subtle shifts in tone and attitude, in music, especially in the way the Stones rely on feeling and that intangible telepathy they have..

I think you'd agree since you are a player too..

Yes I do agree. It's hard to understand or judge Charlie's playing. Sometimes it seems he's just going through the motions and then he'll surprise you with some inspired and perfect stuff. No doubt he is very good at what he does. His tone and energy in that Four Flicks jam recently posted is amazing.

I just imagine that a guy as deep as Charlie who has clearly expressed his feelings of how shallow pop/rock music is in general, must have to dig deep to be inspired playing JJF for the 1000th time. But basically these guys are such pro's in the performance theater it's hard to get anything but great from them. And upon further reflection, I imagine there are some very subtle push and pull things going on between Charlie and the other musicians that keep him somewhat interested. After playing together for so long that intangible telepathy you speak of is certainly amazing and of course Charlie is a big part of it.

peace

I am sure he enjoys every minute when he is playing on stage else he would not be there. You can see on his face expression when things are going very well, he has this great smile on ....

Quote
1969Fan
Charlie is the prototype for an anti-rock & roll drummer. An uninformed person who sees him walking down the sidewalk may mistake him for an impeccably dressed symphony conductor or entrepreneur. Not a musician who, for over 50 years, has played drums for one of the most notorious musical groups in history. He is yet another signature element of what was, and has remained, the Greatest Rock & Roll Band in the World.

I will go you one further: He is in no sense a rock & roll drummer, and has never considered himslef one. None of his influences are rock drummers (thank God), except perhaps (to a small degree) contemporaries like Ringo and Keith Moon. The Stones with a "normal" rock drummer would be the end of the Stones.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
1969Fan
Charlie is the prototype for an anti-rock & roll drummer. An uninformed person who sees him walking down the sidewalk may mistake him for an impeccably dressed symphony conductor or entrepreneur. Not a musician who, for over 50 years, has played drums for one of the most notorious musical groups in history. He is yet another signature element of what was, and has remained, the Greatest Rock & Roll Band in the World.

I will go you one further: He is in no sense a rock & roll drummer, and has never considered himslef one. None of his influences are rock drummers (thank God), except perhaps (to a small degree) contemporaries like Ringo and Keith Moon. The Stones with a "normal" rock drummer would be the end of the Stones.

Ummm. Except that he plays pretty straight back beat rock and roll drums with a rock and roll band..pretty sure that makes him a rock and roll drummer. Plenty of rock drummers have jazz influences, John Bonham, Mitch Mitchell, Simon Phillips, Stewart Copeland Bill Bruford to name just a few.

But whatever you want to call him, he's pretty damn awesome and one of the reasons I keep attending Stones shows. Check him out here.

[www.youtube.com]

peace

Quote
71Tele

Quote
1969Fan
Charlie is the prototype for an anti-rock & roll drummer. An uninformed person who sees him walking down the sidewalk may mistake him for an impeccably dressed symphony conductor or entrepreneur. Not a musician who, for over 50 years, has played drums for one of the most notorious musical groups in history. He is yet another signature element of what was, and has remained, the Greatest Rock & Roll Band in the World.

I will go you one further: He is in no sense a rock & roll drummer, and has never considered himslef one. None of his influences are rock drummers (thank God), except perhaps (to a small degree) contemporaries like Ringo and Keith Moon. The Stones with a "normal" rock drummer would be the end of the Stones.

He's more influenced by Jim Keltner than by Keith Moon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-13 09:17 by DandelionPowderman.

My absolute favourite person in rock n roll ever, bar none!

Chicago - May 31st, 2013. Charlie's happy tonight isn't he?

that's a great pic!

did you take that one, Jimmy C ?

Ok I see the photographer credit at bottom right..
very cool shot of them...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-13 16:44 by duke richardson.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
marcovandereijk
Charlie is everybody's darling.
Rightfully so!

A question to the drummers around here: how challenging is an average Stones setlist
for a drummer?
Are there enough variations in rythm, figures and styles to keep yourself interested
as a drummer?

No there really isn't. Especially after you've played the tunes as many times as Charlie has and when your personal tastes are not the Stones style of music. I think obligated is more applicable to Charlie's playing than interested. The few times he can stretch a bit on breakdowns and improvs are few and far between. I suspect Charlie is mostly bored to death playing the warhorses but it's his job, he's well paid and he isn't going to rock the boat.

That being said, Charlie has a style which is not that easy to replicate, it's simple but it can be different, especially the way he pulls the hi hat beat when he hits the snare.

peace

Great discussion. Thank you. I don't think a musician's interest in the music is necessarily all intellectual. Regardless of the structure of the song and how fascinating it is or isn't, a lot of musicians, including drummers, get their joy and stay interested simply from trying to find a way to help make this song as beautiful, catchy or exciting (or whatever) as it can be.

Sometimes, music that interests me intellectually doesn't engage me emotionally, and vice-versa, but maybe that's another topic.

Quote
flacnvinyl
NO ONE plays like Charlie. The highhat skip leaves room for the snare to sound huge. <-- provided the person mixing house sound doesn't make it sound like a tom with mid-range ringing. Charlie Watts is the man.

Charlie plays a lot of cymbals in the songs. More than many drummers.

Unfortunately, he has play behind some lackluster guitar playing and harmonies. Even Mick's singing seems uninspired.

Quote
texas fan

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
marcovandereijk
Charlie is everybody's darling.
Rightfully so!

A question to the drummers around here: how challenging is an average Stones setlist
for a drummer?
Are there enough variations in rythm, figures and styles to keep yourself interested
as a drummer?

No there really isn't. Especially after you've played the tunes as many times as Charlie has and when your personal tastes are not the Stones style of music. I think obligated is more applicable to Charlie's playing than interested. The few times he can stretch a bit on breakdowns and improvs are few and far between. I suspect Charlie is mostly bored to death playing the warhorses but it's his job, he's well paid and he isn't going to rock the boat.

That being said, Charlie has a style which is not that easy to replicate, it's simple but it can be different, especially the way he pulls the hi hat beat when he hits the snare.

peace

Great discussion. Thank you. I don't think a musician's interest in the music is necessarily all intellectual. Regardless of the structure of the song and how fascinating it is or isn't, a lot of musicians, including drummers, get their joy and stay interested simply from trying to find a way to help make this song as beautiful, catchy or exciting (or whatever) as it can be.

Sometimes, music that interests me intellectually doesn't engage me emotionally, and vice-versa, but maybe that's another topic.

Well said!

Charlie is not a great rock drummer by any means. Put him together with any musician and he would stand out as the weak link. As a jazz-drummer, he is average.

However, there is no question that he is the best Rolling Stones drummer in the world.

That said, I sometimes can get a little tired over the fan-hype "Charlie-is-cool-and-the-world's-best-drummer-because-he-is-looking-bored"-thing. Any other band would have fired him decades ago, with the attitude he has showed over the years.

But I like him and he is an important part of the sound of the band. That's as far as I can go.

Quote
Blueranger
Charlie is not a great rock drummer by any means. Put him together with any musician and he would stand out as the weak link. As a jazz-drummer, he is average.

However, there is no question that he is the best Rolling Stones drummer in the world.

That said, I sometimes can get a little tired over the fan-hype "Charlie-is-cool-and-the-world's-best-drummer-because-he-is-looking-bored"-thing. Any other band would have fired him decades ago, with the attitude he has showed over the years.

But I like him and he is an important part of the sound of the band. That's as far as I can go.

going by that, other bands would fire a steady, swinging, tasteful, absolutely loyal musician?

hmmm..

rather unlikely unless other bands don't value that, which is possible in many of them I guess..

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
texas fan

Great discussion. Thank you. I don't think a musician's interest in the music is necessarily all intellectual. Regardless of the structure of the song and how fascinating it is or isn't, a lot of musicians, including drummers, get their joy and stay interested simply from trying to find a way to help make this song as beautiful, catchy or exciting (or whatever) as it can be.

Sometimes, music that interests me intellectually doesn't engage me emotionally, and vice-versa, but maybe that's another topic.

Well said!

Yes excellent point texas fan.

peace

Quote
Blueranger
Charlie is not a great rock drummer by any means. Put him together with any musician and he would stand out as the weak link. As a jazz-drummer, he is average.

However, there is no question that he is the best Rolling Stones drummer in the world.

That said, I sometimes can get a little tired over the fan-hype "Charlie-is-cool-and-the-world's-best-drummer-because-he-is-looking-bored"-thing. Any other band would have fired him decades ago, with the attitude he has showed over the years.

But I like him and he is an important part of the sound of the band. That's as far as I can go.

You have to give the Stones credit, I don't think any of them have ever claimed to be great musicians. Indeed, i think Keith and Charlie are the most modest of all about their skills. They know as well as we do that the magic is with how they play together as a band, and the songs they wrote.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
1969Fan
Charlie is the prototype for an anti-rock & roll drummer. An uninformed person who sees him walking down the sidewalk may mistake him for an impeccably dressed symphony conductor or entrepreneur. Not a musician who, for over 50 years, has played drums for one of the most notorious musical groups in history. He is yet another signature element of what was, and has remained, the Greatest Rock & Roll Band in the World.

I will go you one further: He is in no sense a rock & roll drummer, and has never considered himslef one. None of his influences are rock drummers (thank God), except perhaps (to a small degree) contemporaries like Ringo and Keith Moon. The Stones with a "normal" rock drummer would be the end of the Stones.

He's more influenced by Jim Keltner than by Keith Moon.

The Stones could have recruited a more flashy drummer any time during their meteoric rise to the top. But they didn't. If you look back, Keith and Mick are loyal. Keith was once quoted as saying, 'The only way you leave this band is in a coffin.' This seems to apply to band members, backup musicians, and backup singers at the visible end of the spectrum; and to 'behind the scenes staff' such as security personnel at the less visible end of the spectrum. I'm sure there are countless high profile R&R drummers who would have jumped at the opportunity to join the Stones if the gig ever became available, but it never did and it never will. I'm also quite certain the Stones have sizable egos, but they check them at the door when it comes to what is good for the band.

When I was with Annie Leibovitz during the 1975 Montauk rehearsals I was completely and totally star-struck. But once I had the opportunity to speak with them, one on one, over the kitchen table, the thing that impressed me the most was how approachable they all were. This didn't diminish the fact that this Clueless White Kid From Glendale was in awe of them, but I realized they are people too. Just one hell of a lot more in the public eye (and in those days, in the eye of the hurricane), than Yours Truly.

Quote
Bsebastian

Quote
Blueranger
Charlie is not a great rock drummer by any means. Put him together with any musician and he would stand out as the weak link. As a jazz-drummer, he is average.

However, there is no question that he is the best Rolling Stones drummer in the world.

That said, I sometimes can get a little tired over the fan-hype "Charlie-is-cool-and-the-world's-best-drummer-because-he-is-looking-bored"-thing. Any other band would have fired him decades ago, with the attitude he has showed over the years.

But I like him and he is an important part of the sound of the band. That's as far as I can go.

You have to give the Stones credit, I don't think any of them have ever claimed to be great musicians. Indeed, i
think Keith and Charlie are the most modest of all about their skills. They know as well as we do that the magic is with how they play together as a band, and the songs they wrote.

If Keith Richards was really modest about his skills he wouldn't butcher his songs and the band would have split up in the early 70's.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele

Quote
1969Fan
Charlie is the prototype for an anti-rock & roll drummer. An uninformed person who sees him walking down the sidewalk may mistake him for an impeccably dressed symphony conductor or entrepreneur. Not a musician who, for over 50 years, has played drums for one of the most notorious musical groups in history. He is yet another signature element of what was, and has remained, the Greatest Rock & Roll Band in the World.

I will go you one further: He is in no sense a rock & roll drummer, and has never considered himslef one. None of his influences are rock drummers (thank God), except perhaps (to a small degree) contemporaries like Ringo and Keith Moon. The Stones with a "normal" rock drummer would be the end of the Stones.

Ummm. Except that he plays pretty straight back beat rock and roll drums with a rock and roll band..pretty sure that makes him a rock and roll drummer. Plenty of rock drummers have jazz influences, John Bonham, Mitch Mitchell, Simon Phillips, Stewart Copeland Bill Bruford to name just a few.

But whatever you want to call him, he's pretty damn awesome and one of the reasons I keep attending Stones shows. Check him out here.

[www.youtube.com]

peace

Yes, he does play a rock beat, but it has nuances that are not straight rock (thankfully), and none of his formative influences were rock. This (combined with Bill's odd playing) gave the Stones a very different feel, even within what superficially is "rock" music.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele

Quote
1969Fan
Charlie is the prototype for an anti-rock & roll drummer. An uninformed person who sees him walking down the sidewalk may mistake him for an impeccably dressed symphony conductor or entrepreneur. Not a musician who, for over 50 years, has played drums for one of the most notorious musical groups in history. He is yet another signature element of what was, and has remained, the Greatest Rock & Roll Band in the World.

I will go you one further: He is in no sense a rock & roll drummer, and has never considered himslef one. None of his influences are rock drummers (thank God), except perhaps (to a small degree) contemporaries like Ringo and Keith Moon. The Stones with a "normal" rock drummer would be the end of the Stones.

Ummm. Except that he plays pretty straight back beat rock and roll drums with a rock and roll band..pretty sure that makes him a rock and roll drummer. Plenty of rock drummers have jazz influences, John Bonham, Mitch Mitchell, Simon Phillips, Stewart Copeland Bill Bruford to name just a few.

But whatever you want to call him, he's pretty damn awesome and one of the reasons I keep attending Stones shows. Check him out here.

[www.youtube.com]

peace

Yes, he does play a rock beat, but it has nuances that are not straight rock (thankfully), and none of his formative influences were rock. This (combined with Bill's odd playing) gave the Stones a very different feel, even within what superficially is "rock" music.

I know what you mean for sure. Charlie's mistakes alone have made Stones tunes great. I think he actually hits the pocket with Darryl really well too, just wish we could hear Darryl a bit more, he seems to get lost in the mix more than Bill ever did. Not sure the reason, perhaps his bass rig, perhaps by the intention of the FOH mixer, but I'd bet Darryl is plenty loud and clear in Charlie's monitor.

I've posted this before but it's worth a second post. The name of the tune alone is classic....Cornerstones, Bill and Charlie with Peter Frampton.





peace

Quote
ChelseaGirls

Quote
Bsebastian

Quote
Blueranger
Charlie is not a great rock drummer by any means. Put him together with any musician and he would stand out as the weak link. As a jazz-drummer, he is average.

However, there is no question that he is the best Rolling Stones drummer in the world.

That said, I sometimes can get a little tired over the fan-hype "Charlie-is-cool-and-the-world's-best-drummer-because-he-is-looking-bored"-thing. Any other band would have fired him decades ago, with the attitude he has showed over the years.

But I like him and he is an important part of the sound of the band. That's as far as I can go.

You have to give the Stones credit, I don't think any of them have ever claimed to be great musicians. Indeed, i
think Keith and Charlie are the most modest of all about their skills. They know as well as we do that the magic is with how they play together as a band, and the songs they wrote.

If Keith Richards was really modest about his skills he wouldn't butcher his songs and the band would have split up in the early 70's.

oh you are so wrong, the money is too good to stop. he can be modest about his skills and at the same time give in when people beg him to tour again.

Quote
duke richardson
the great, modest, tasteful, soulful drummer is the main reason the Rolling Stones still exist..

he could have retired, like Bill Wyman, long ago, but he didn't.

Imagine if he'd upped and quit, feeling that the Stones had peaked, say in..1974..?

he is still getting on the plane, still going out to play the music, with his friends.

Thanks, Charlie.

The quitting part can go two ways.

Quote
duke richardson
the great, modest, tasteful, soulful drummer is the main reason the Rolling Stones still exist..

he could have retired, like Bill Wyman, long ago, but he didn't.

Imagine if he'd upped and quit, feeling that the Stones had peaked, say in..1974..?

he is still getting on the plane, still going out to play the music, with his friends.

Thanks, Charlie.

Thanks Bill Wyman, Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, the Rolling Stones QUIT you to make the band about 2 people.

It's like the Idiots who when a pick up game of football/soccer want one person to play goalkeeper so they can run around the pitch.