Classical Music Forum banner

Greatest rock drummer

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Double post (subliminally inspired by Bruford)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Jaki Liebezeit (Can) would be my choice ... can't believe he isn't on here, unless you just haven't heard him :confused:

Ringo Starr :lol:

(Fyi, Bill Bruford is listed twice)

Of those on the poll, I'd go with Charlie Watts or Bill Bruford (but just once, not twice :tiphat:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Keith Moon or Neil Peart (or Bonham) are all excellent selections, and one of them will surely win (unless there's enough biased Beatles fans to select Starr)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
He didn't quite make the cut, and not only on my list.
Well, it's your poll, and many of the choices are good/excellent, and as expected. Ringo Starr is the only one I outright disagree with because he was so mundane, not an extraordinary drummer at all. If you're not really looking for drummers who elevated the talent to an entirely new art, creating whole sound worlds/environments with the instrument that had never been attempted before, then I can see why you wouldn't include Liebezeit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Jaki Liebezeit:

(Note: believe it or not the drumming on these songs are not mechanically/electronically enhanced)



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Don't start. Why single out Beatles fans with accusations of bias? By the same token, Bruford will win because of 'biased' King Crimson fans, Carl Palmer will win 'because' of ELP fans
Why not? Is it possible to be a more average drummer than Ringo Starr? His inclusion among the likes of Keith Moon, Neil Peart, Charlie Watts, John Bonham, etc, and to not include so many others in his place, is delusional, and disrespectful to the great drummers of rock history (good thing this isn't a Jazz list too!). Over 20+ years, Ive never encountered a fanbase of any artist (any art form) that was, on average, more misinformed or exaggerative of their band's talents/accomplishments (granted, I make it a point never to discuss music with, say, Justin Beiber fans!) ... Obviously not applicable to all Beatles fans. After all, I am a fan of some of their albums, and miscellaneous other songs, even some outside of their more creative period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Starr was the best drummer for The Beatles.
Nonsense. He could hardly have been more unimaginative. Come to think of it, in all of Rock history from 1963-present, it is difficult to think of a more mediocre drummer of a good (or greater) band than Ringo Starr. Any other drummer from this list could've filled in and done exactly what he did plus added much more creative touches or, even (gasp!) some extra doses of emotional conviction (!!!), to their music.

Re: Led Zepp/Bonham ... I agree that Bonham's place can be exaggerated a bit too, but at least it has some basis in reality. ... I don't think I've ever met any frothing at the mouth Tull fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EdwardBast

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Jaki Liebezeit:


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
So you know better? Since your opinion is so strikingly consistent with Scaruffi, I'm going be attacking Scaruffi, who is the source of many of your opinions. Him putting down the Beatles and elevating Beefheart, Wyatt, Buckley, and Red Crayola is a very specific, singular view, which is good, but also very narrow and imbalanced. So while it's interesting, his opinion shouldn't be taken too seriously. From reading his reviews he seems to have no knowledge of musical theory or composition, and prefers to delve in extraneous non-musical qualities. I never heard a single comment from him on the constructs of the music he is reviewing, other than gearing some very rudimentary, general elements that mean nothing by themselves, towards his bias. He is incapable of producing a musical analysis like Howard Goodall did with the Beatles. He can't knock down the Beatles musically, and he was dead wrong in saying none of their contemporaries ever spoke highly of them as I proved on another thread with Keith Richards and Leonard Bernstein (need I find more examples? :D). Any attempt to elevate Beefheart's Trout Mask over Rite of Spring was just nonsensical, as Rite of Spring is at the same time more complex, intricate, and developmental than Trout Mask for anyone who correctly analysed the music or looked at the score and sheet music for both.

In regards to including Starr in the list, He was top 15 in ALL the best drummers lists I've seen, so if I'm doing a disservice to the great drummers in rock, then I'm definitely not alone. He struck me as imaginitive in his accompaniments in certain songs like Rain, Strawberry Fields, and the latter half of Abbey Road.
Re: So you know better? ... Well, there is some or a lot of subjectivity at play as in all things art, but aside from that: Yes, in the sense that I've assimilated far more art than any hardcore Beatles fan I've ever met, and can therefore compare their work to the history of art in its proper context. Of course, it's still subjective in the end, but I would also say that I have never seen someone else take a similar path of experience and then draw the conclusion that The Beatles were among the most significant artists in rock (or any) history.

Re: Scaruffi ... Scaruffi actually talks about composition quite a bit, and the technical side of music quite a bit, when necessary. In general he discusses the result of the music (emotionally/conceptually/creatively) in relation to the art at hand, and in relation to rock history. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand or how it could possibly be invalid (aside from the subjective aspect of simply disagreeing with him). I haven't seen a single bit of in depth analysis of your own that even approaches the lengths or detail he's gone to (with works he cares about).

Re: Goodall ... If an analysis such as Howard Goodall's leads one to believe the Beatles are the most significant artists since Beethoven, then I would pass, as he is ignoring the resulting music which is the only thing that is important in the end (and granting way too much significance to other factors). And also, clearly hasn't indulged in the same evaluation and "insights" as to thousands of artists that were and are far more musically advanced/striking and creative than The Beatles (aside from the popularity/cultural phenomenon).

Re: TMR or Rite of Spring ... I don't think Scaruffi has ever compared the two (unless I'm mistaken). If you're referring to me, I think you're granting way too much significance to my statement that I think TMR is the greater work, that it takes its art to a greater extent. That it goes much further, to a greater extent than Rite of Spring is true even if only for the simple fact that it is a far longer work and continues innovating the entire time. Whether one thinks TMR is "better" is up to them. But I think Rite of Spring is among the greatest works of music in history too, so I don't understand why this is such a big deal to you.

Re: Starr ... He is on the lists because he was one of The Beatles, and it is practically an obligation. I'm sure George Harrison is among the greatest guitarists rivaling Jimi Hendrix ... and ... what-the-hell, Paul McCartney would rival Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau if you were to do a combined poll of Classical/Rock vocalists. If you think Ringo was a truly extraordinary drummer, by all means...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
I once read that all other three Beatles were actually better drummers than Ringo Starr.
I've never read that, but it doesn't surprise me at all. I went with some friends to a show 2 weeks ago where their sons were playing in an amateur high school band that was playing covers of The Beatles + The Monkees' I'm a Believer. And although they weren't as good at harmonies, and none of them were as good as Lennon's vocals, they were each vastly superior technicians (of guitar, bass and drums) than their Beatles counterparts (despite being random amateurs) and the songs bristled with heft and a frantic, vibrant, extra degree of excitement (in those parts).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Phil and AfterHours, I think the two of you may want to spend this year's summer holiday together! And have a conference! You really have a lot to talk about. :lol:
I think arguments can appear exaggerated by the internet, by the text of it all which isn't always the best at showing nuance, facial expression, tone of voice. My life is quite busy. When I post here it is usually from my phone, and I don't have a ton of time to beat around the bush, so my directness can appear more antagonistic than it really is. Sometimes it really is, and I try and distinguish the two so it is evident! :lol: In the end, Phil and I just have different views and criteria, especially in Rock and probably Jazz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Casebearer

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Why are people dissing Ringo when he wasn't a Rock drummer but a Pop one?
Because it's a poll of the "greatest" drummers, which implies that one is among the most extraordinary and outstanding in Rock history. It's not (or shouldn't be) a poll of those that fared okay in the songs they played, were un-extraordinary, and that we have to make concessions for just because of the limited format of the genre they performed in. One wouldn't include the pianist for the band Hansen (Youtube:
) among the likes of Richter, Argerich, Arrau, Pollini, Kempff and Gilels for the title of "greatest pianist" with the concession that "he fared just fine in the pop songs he was performing".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
We can all see the gulf between classical piano and pop piano.
Yes, that's why it's a valid analogy, though your attempt to make what I said seem overly literal doesn't disguise the obvious. We can all see the massive gulf between Ringo's drumming and anyone on this list ... or really, any above average-to-great drummer that comes to mind. Honestly: name a good-or-better band that incorporates drums and the chances are you will find a superior drummer, pop music or otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
The OP says rock drummer. As I said earlier, if you want to include funk and fusion then Coleman, Carlock, Weckl, Hakim, Gadd, Erskine are better drummers than any on that list by a long way.
Though I don't particularly disagree with your point about those other drummers (to an extent), my post did say:

"...which implies that one is among the most extraordinary and outstanding in Rock history."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
I don't understand what you mean here.
Just that I wasn't trying to be perfectly literal in how "exact" the correlation, genre-to-genre was. Just the general idea, an expression of the gap between them. My example was somewhat "exaggerated for effect", but not by that much. Though very far from a masterpiece and not something I personally listen to, I actually think that Hanson song is just as good as many Beatles songs. Its no less successfully melodic and exuberant, and a similar degree of emotional conviction as most of their pre-1966 peak-Beatlemania repertoire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
So your comparisons within, without and across genres are not to be taken too literally, despite your insistence that the OP is talking about rock drummers. I can't follow your argument any longer.
Oh well... I wasn't under the impression you were trying to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hpowders
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top