Hi,
after Charlie's passing, my colleague David S. Carter and I took an in-depth look at his drumming. We used scholarly methods to examine to what extent he actually played "behind the beat" and how the tempo changed within songs. The result was a comprehensive musicological study, which was recently published open access in the journal Theory & Practice. Here is the link: [tnp.mtsnys.org]

We would be very happy to receive any comments and are glad to answer further questions about it. Please also feel free to share the link with anyone who might be interested.

Here's the abstract:
In this article, we empirically examine microtiming and tempo variability in the drumming of the Rolling Stones’ Charlie Watts. We present a new method for microtiming analysis and use it to examine 81 Rolling Stones recordings and 59 songs by other artists. Our study finds that Watts delayed backbeats more consistently than his contemporaries, particularly in releases dating from 1967 to 1973. We also analyze tempo variability in 133 Rolling Stones studio recordings with Watts, finding that tempo variation often reflected song structure and that the band had a general tendency to accelerate in recordings from this same 1967–73 period. After 1973, the music of the Rolling Stones became much steadier, to some extent aligning with trends in mainstream pop. Ultimately, our study provides some evidence for claims commonly made about Watts, but also suggests that much of the discussion may be colored by romanticized notions of authenticity.

Best regards,
Ralf and David

Mind blown. What a great piece for the ages. This is academia at its best. Got a couple of videos? Glad to see Monkey Man getting its analytical due. It seemed to pose a challenge at rehearsals last year, IIRC. It's another rabbit hole, but Charlie (Stones) vs. Charlie (non-Stones)? - Bringing in his solo output, esp., maybe, the album with Jim Keltner - two drummers for the price of one - though I suspect there was a lot of post-production.

Wow! Nice one! This is going to be interesting to read!

Thanks for posting. Very interesting, although I do admit some of the terms and definitions used are above my head. Next time I play in a band and someone accuses me of not being tight enough, I'll quote this scientific article.

Obviously I haven't read it all yet, but it looks great. A lot of work.
I've been waiting for something like this for a while, so: thanks!!

Wow love the deep, thanks for posting

Holy crap. What a lot to look at.

The general saying is Charlie played according to Keith.

I'd be surprised if someone measured She's So Cold to Rocks Off, in regard to timing of the songs, and that they said 'He never wavered.'

Bullshit.

Charlie's gift was steady wavering. Forget live, which had disasters as well as metronome, it's the studio recordings that matter.

As noted in the essay, tempo variability is a form of expression in music that always existed in any form of music, it doesn't matter if it is African percussions or Chopin's piano sonatas.

Nowadays, unfortunately, it's somehow lost in rock (and roll?), both in studio recordings and live shows.

Live, this is due to the massive use of prerecorded tracks and special effects that require bands to play along a click track.

In studio, apparently it's a recent deliberate artistic choice to "adjust" every single deviation from the grid. It would be interesting to perform a blind test to see if listeners actually do prefer this current "perfected" music.

What surprised me is the information on the delayed backbeat.

It is quite clear with the stones, considering how they worked and recorded, that the final result is not the sum of different parts, rather the combination of contributions by musicians interacting in real time.

Don't know if it is a fact or myth that Charlie followed Keith and not viceversa, but for sure the pulse of the band was created by all the musicians and not only by Charlie or Keith.

With this regard, I didn't expect to see such a significant variation in the delays of the backbeats starting from the second half of the 70s, because the swing was still there.

Was wondering if the data collected in the survey reflects Charlies new drumming style (no hi hat when he plays the backbeat on the snare) - no reference to this in the essay.

C

Quote
liddas
As noted in the essay, tempo variability is a form of expression in music that always existed in any form of music, it doesn't matter if it is African percussions or Chopin's piano sonatas.

Nowadays, unfortunately, it's somehow lost in rock (and roll?), both in studio recordings and live shows.

Live, this is due to the massive use of prerecorded tracks and special effects that require bands to play along a click track.

In studio, apparently it's a recent deliberate artistic choice to "adjust" every single deviation from the grid. It would be interesting to perform a blind test to see if listeners actually do prefer this current "perfected" music.

What surprised me is the information on the delayed backbeat.

It is quite clear with the stones, considering how they worked and recorded, that the final result is not the sum of different parts, rather the combination of contributions by musicians interacting in real time.

Don't know if it is a fact or myth that Charlie followed Keith and not viceversa, but for sure the pulse of the band was created by all the musicians and not only by Charlie or Keith.

With this regard, I didn't expect to see such a significant variation in the delays of the backbeats starting from the second half of the 70s, because the swing was still there.

Was wondering if the data collected in the survey reflects Charlies new drumming style (no hi hat when he plays the backbeat on the snare) - no reference to this in the essay.

C

I think this study finds that Keith followed Charlie more than the other way around. I know this claim contradicts Stones mythology, but science based data is hard to argue against. This study provides loads of examples of songs with a Keith intro that is played rather slow before Charlie kicks in and raises the tempo - and Keith then follows Charlie.

Another interesting find is how Charlie quite often raises the tempo during the chorus, and plays slower during the verse (which is not unusual I guess), but it's interesting that they use Start Me Up from Sweet Summer Sun as a case study where this pattern is pretty clear: It makes me wonder if this is what's 'missing' with Steve Jordan on Start Me Up, maybe he plays verse and chorus with more or less the same tempo thus making it less dynamic?

It's both.

I can't find it but Charlie does talk about it, following Keith.

There have been exceptions, like She's So Cold in 1982 ha ha.

.......... I am not a musician, but I have always regarded Charlie's drumming as "other worldly", especially when he uses the hi-hat (which I am not sure most rock 'n rollers have in their kit), and how he he ends "START ME UP" with that one-two thing he does,and grabs the cymbal right at the end beat to stop it from "ringing".

INCREDIBLE, and well-documented by other famous drummers.

Also.the faint beat he sneaks into the end of "Brown Sugar". AMAZING-- Raise a pint for Mr.Watts!!!

Quote
liddas

Was wondering if the data collected in the survey reflects Charlies new drumming style (no hi hat when he plays the backbeat on the snare) - no reference to this in the essay.

C

Our reference to Charlie not playing the hihat cymbals when he's hitting the snare is hidden in footnote 19:

"Stones guitarist Keith Richards has linked the practice of delaying the backbeat to Watts’s idiosyncratic habit of not playing the hi-hat when he hits the snare (Richards 2010, 121). Despite Richards’s claim, there is little evidence that Watts’s habit of not hitting the hi-hat on beats 2 and 4 caused him to play behind the beat. The fact that Watts did not always play behind the beat when using the technique calls into question Richards’s contention. Video of the Stones playing “I Got the Blues” (The Rolling Stones 2022), for instance, clearly shows Watts using this technique, but analysis of this performance reveals that he played the backbeats consistently early. Also undermining Richards’s theory is the fact that the snare is at times delayed when Watts uses the ride cymbal instead of the hi-hats for eighth-note subdivisions, as in the studio recordings of “Angie” (1:43–1:56) and “No Use in Crying” (0:40–1:00); Watts typically played all eighth-note subdivisions when playing the ride"

Really interesting and thought-provoking work. I don't know the difference between a hi-hat and a ride cymbal but my foot always taps vigorously to Charlie even on Stones songs I despise. Even as a kid I thought there was something different and "wrong" about If You Can't Rock Me, and this paper may identify the reason.

I think there is a general correlation between the originality/thrill level of Keith's riff in a song and how much Charlie plays behind the beat. But that's probably too subjective a proposition for rigorous analysis.

Musicians can be just as challenged in describing music in words as their fans are -- I just think Keith has meant over the years that Charlie is a uniquely sympathetic drummer for his riff creations. Keith's rhythm guitar playing is itself a separate rhythm instrument, but most rhythm guitarists just play chords TO the rhythm, which is a very different (and lesser, non-Stonesy) thing.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Holy crap. What a lot to look at.
The general saying is Charlie played according to Keith.

I'd be surprised if someone measured She's So Cold to Rocks Off, in regard to timing of the songs, and that they said 'He never wavered.'

Bullshit.

Charlie's gift was steady wavering. Forget live, which had disasters as well as metronome, it's the studio recordings that matter.

I agree, with the emphasis on crap. Only a dry mathematical analysis, for nerds. Nothing to do with music, being realistic. Not even Buddy Rich was able to interact with his bandmates to controle every MSec.

very interesting ! thanks for sharing

Very interesting and very technical, at least for me.

One stupid question, though : wouldn't it be better to use bootleg live recordings or at least unedited radio broadcasts to do the comparison ? Just asking...

[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

Quote
Doc
Very interesting and very technical, at least for me.

One stupid question, though : wouldn't it be better to use bootleg live recordings or at least unedited radio broadcasts to do the comparison ? Just asking...

Yeah, my assumption is that the generally accepted notion of Charlie following Keith is more about the live performances rather than the studio recordings on which the op’s theory is (mostly if not entirely) based according to the abstract/summary he posted (no, I haven’t read the entire thesis).

This is interesting, but it should be noted in the first paragraph for at least the first 15 years, the Stones tracked live in the studio (basic tracking) without a click track; Watts often followed Keith Richards and they played off one another.

Back then, bands actually recorded as a unit, so just focusing on the drums seems to be a bit of an incomplete analysis. What makes it even more complex is sometimes Richards would wipe his original rhythm part and re-track it!

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Doc
Very interesting and very technical, at least for me.

One stupid question, though : wouldn't it be better to use bootleg live recordings or at least unedited radio broadcasts to do the comparison ? Just asking...

Charlie's unique drumming was also only truly noticeable for a fairly small part of the Stones career -1969 to 1978, with 1972 and 1973 as most exceptional. To my mind, analyzing his drums from, say, Aftermath will not yield surprising conclusions. Analyzing Exile, and Brussels Affair, LA Friday and Texas 1978 is where the goldmine is to be found.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Doc
Very interesting and very technical, at least for me.

One stupid question, though : wouldn't it be better to use bootleg live recordings or at least unedited radio broadcasts to do the comparison ? Just asking...

Charlie's unique drumming was also only truly noticeable for a fairly small part of the Stones career -1969 to 1978, with 1972 and 1973 as most exceptional. To my mind, analyzing his drums from, say, Aftermath will not yield surprising conclusions. Analyzing Exile, and Brussels Affair, LA Friday and Texas 1978 is where the goldmine is to be found.

Mathijs

I disagree. Charlie's drumming was always unique. He was simply a very unique drummer and he contributed significantly to the sound of the Rolling Stones throughout. The sound hasn't been the same since Charlie left.

Quote
1962

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Doc
Very interesting and very technical, at least for me.

One stupid question, though : wouldn't it be better to use bootleg live recordings or at least unedited radio broadcasts to do the comparison ? Just asking...

Charlie's unique drumming was also only truly noticeable for a fairly small part of the Stones career -1969 to 1978, with 1972 and 1973 as most exceptional. To my mind, analyzing his drums from, say, Aftermath will not yield surprising conclusions. Analyzing Exile, and Brussels Affair, LA Friday and Texas 1978 is where the goldmine is to be found.

Mathijs

I disagree. Charlie's drumming was always unique. He was simply a very unique drummer and he contributed significantly to the sound of the Rolling Stones throughout. The sound hasn't been the same since Charlie left.

Well, yeah, sure...but his drumming was a little more unique in certain periods, and a little less in others. The same for Keith's playing, Jagger's vocals, etc etc...

Mathijs

Quote
TravelinMan
This is interesting, but it should be noted in the first paragraph for at least the first 15 years, the Stones tracked live in the studio (basic tracking) without a click track; Watts often followed Keith Richards and they played off one another.

Back then, bands actually recorded as a unit, so just focusing on the drums seems to be a bit of an incomplete analysis. What makes it even more complex is sometimes Richards would wipe his original rhythm part and re-track it!

To add to that particular aspect, Hang Fire is a great example: on the album it starts with a snare ramble - on tape it's the band coming out of the bridge as the beginning intro going into the verse.