I was reading some thing about drummers, and they were praising Ringo. I am among those who thinks that Ringo is one great drummer. The poster said that Ringo was great because he knew when to stand aside, and then the person dissed on Peart. Accused Peart of stepping on everything else.
Ahem. One thing about Rush is that they play as a unit, their music has cohesiveness, like it or not, that is something of a trademark. Peart’s drumming blends with Lifeson’s guitar, Lee’s bass and vocals, to make music that is at the very least unified.
So, what I am trying to say is that if you want to criticize drummers for not playing along, Peart is the last one you want to pick. Arrgh. Should this be in the pit? :mad::mad::mad:
Yes, I am a huge Rush fan. Yes, I am a huge Ringo fan.
There’s no argument about Neil Peart. However, I don’t get the quote about why Ringo was such a great drummer. What does that mean? He knew when to stand aside? i.e., He knew when to stop playing??? I have always heard Ringo being accused of being a bad drummer - very simplistic. But then again, knowing some drums and piano, I find many (esp. early) Beatles songs very simplistic, too. So? They filled the world with those silly love songs, right? And, to borrow a phrase, what’s wrong with that? I’d like to know…
If you want a drummer who makes a nice metronome, go for Ringo. If you want a drummer to show you what drumming means, go for Neil Peart.
This is slightly off-topic, and I’mma let you finish, but this is the greatest YYZ video of all time: YYZ girl All time! She’s not doing the drums, though.
I’m…just not up for comparing Neil Peart to Ringo Starr. It’s kind of one of those “why the heck do we need to go THERE?” deals. I prefer to just let them both be great in their own way.
You need to listen more carefully to the Beatles. Just because Ringo didn’t get into hyperkinetic thrashing doesn’t mean his drumming was robotic. Almost every Beatles song has a unique beat to it, and Ringo’s fills were always interesting.
Sure, it’s easy to play Ringo’s drum parts. It doesn’t take a lot of talent to duplicate it. But then, it’s really easy to sing “Yesterday” or “Let it Be”, too. The hard part was creating it. And that’s where Ringo’s talent is. He has musical taste. He has a great sense of exactly what kind of drumming a song needs, where the fills belong and what they should be. His drumming always fits the song perfectly and compliments it.
And Ringo was always dead-on with his timing. Always ‘in the pocket’ so to speak. And that makes a big difference.
He really is one of the great rock drummers. And so is Neil Peart.
I think you could say that about Harrison’s guitar playing, or maybe even the Beatles as a whole.
Harrison was a good guitarist, but didn’t show off. He did exactly what the song needed, and no more. For example, the solo in “I Should Have Known Better” could be played by a monkey with a Rickenbacker (or perhaps vice versa). But Harrison had the acumen to realize that that was what the song needed, and he made it sound great. That’s being a musician, not just a guitarist.
A Jimi Hendrix in the Beatles would have been a disaster. But that doesn’t mean Hendrix or Harrison were inherently “better” guitarists. So it’s apples and oranges. Neal Peart is the right drummer for Rush. Ringo was the right guy for the Beatles.
I’m a big fan of Ringo’s drumming. And Charlie Watts of the Stones. Peart does some very unusual stuff, but it calls attention to itself a bit much for my liking.
The question is, did x drummer do what was right for what that group was doing? Had Ringo been born ten years later, he would have been building on what the Beatles had done. Peart is one of the must technically gifted drummers you are ever going to find, but when it comes to art there really is no best or greatest.
I have the entire Rush catalog on my ipod, but I also have quite a bit of the Beatles, and others. Sometimes you want Freewill, sometimes you want some Help.