I should mention that I’m a drummer. For some reason, Charlie Watts gets listed as a great drummer a lot, while Ringo is routinely (and unfairly, IMO) bashed. This despite the fact that I’ve never heard Watts do anything even remotely more complicated or interesting than Starr. I mean, I could play pretty much any Rolling Stones song after about the first 3 months I started drumming, and I can probably name off the top of my head at least a hundred better players, both from a technical and an innovative standpoint. The guy does basically the same 4/4 rock beat on every song, so why the love?
Because he’s a member of the Stones, man!
Plus it’s entertaining to watch him talk to himself as he drums.
I too have no idea, I have seen them live a couple of times and Charlie defiantly gets the biggest ovation when they step on stage.
Do people love him for his drumming? Most of the love I’ve seen for him pertains to his persona. He’s just…cool. By being so damn normal, he’s cooler than the rest of them.
Mick has the debauchery and the Mars bars stories, Keith looks like he would have died 30 years ago if the Grim Reaper weren’t afraid of him, Brian Jones was all kinds of messed up. Hell, even poker-faced stoic Bill Wyman is crazy enough to have his mother-in-law and daughter-in-law be the same person. But Charlie is so damn clean and normal. Not only that, he’d rather be playing jazz. Being in the “greatest rock and roll band in the world” just pays the bills. He was an anti-rock star years before grunge made it fashionable. If punk is doing your own thing, he’s incredibly punk. Which makes him just…cool. If you go to a Stones show, he always gets the biggest cheers for the crowd.
From a drumming perspective, sure, he’s no Moon or Bonham, he just keeps the beat like a human metronome. He does what the song needs, and no more. In that way, he and Ringo are very similar. Ringo wasn’t flashy, but he had an intuitive way of supplying exactly what the song needed. Same thing with Charlie. He and Bill provided the foundation that Mick and Keith could build on.
Can you explain how that works?
I would frame this differently.
-
Ringo kept a steady beat, rarely made errors in the studio (if ever), was an easy-going guy who had great chemistry with the other Fabs and he provided a foundation for the creativity that was The Beatles
-
Charlie - well, he’s different. He plays with a very light touch and REALLY keys off of Keith Richards. You say “he keeps the beat like a human metronome” - I don’t know that that is true. The Stones play a peculiar sort of rhythm style that really depends on how the two guitars weave together. I commented on this here (link to other SDMB thread) where I talk about the first three songs in the latest Scorsese / Stones doc, Shine a Light. Some stuff that the Stones do sounds like a single guitar, but it really depends on Keef hitting a chord or lick and Ron Wood hitting a chord or lick and whether they: a) happen in the right sequence; or b) blend together. So that “single guitar” is really two guitars meshing. I point this out in the other thread about Jumping Jack Flash - it sounds pretty bad (to my ears) in Shine a Light because the classic JJF riff sounds like one guitar, but is really two - and in this case, they are off a bit.
Why I am discussing guitars when the thread is about drumming? Well, because Charlie’s role is to help the guitarists find their sync-points. His backbeat provides the foundation that influences which parts Richards chooses to punctuate. And if either Keef or Woody aren’t holding up their end, Charlie can help them find their groove based on how he hits fills or how much open space he leaves in the mix.
The bottom line is The Stones are actively constructing the songs as they go along and Charlie contributes actively to that. And he is less like a human metronome that he is an active participant - he will speed up or slow down during the song as part of keeping the parts moving together as a whole…at least that’s what I hear…
But I don’t think your average listener is aware of all that going on - they just think the Stones sound good (or don’t). From that perspective I would assume that Watts is held up as a good drummer because the Stones are famous and he is their drummer.
But that’s a guitarist’s perspective - I would be interested in what Doper Drummers like percussion, DfrntBreign, **pulykamell ** and others have to say…
Well, as I said, I’m a drummer, and I don’t get it.
How does that explain his mother-in-law and his daughter-in-law being the same person? He divorced Mandy. As your cite states, his son’s wife is his *former *mother-in-law.
I never said they were same person at the same time. The same individual did fill both those roles, although not simultaneously. Sorry if my original post was misleading.
I think Ringo deserves a little more than that. He was a very good drummer not just in being able to keep the beat, but in being innovative. There are a lot of Beatle songs that have very unique drum parts. His fills were original and unique. Of course, sometimes the song required him to just play a straight beat, but there are lots of songs on which Ringo really shines.
I think his lack of recognition comes from the the opposite reason Charlie Watts’ is given more credit than he should have had - Watts was cool and straight and unflappable and the anti-rock star. Ringo was lovable and goofy and self deprecating. Also, Ringo had the ‘misfortune’ of being a great musician in a band full of even greater musicians, so he came in last. Had he been in any other band from that era, he would probably be remembered as a great drummer.
Charlie Watts is the anti-Neil Peart, the anti-Mike Portnoy, and, in my opinion one of the greats of rock drumming. He is not flashy, but he is strong and steady. And, in my opinion again, that is all a good rock drummer needs to be. Stylistically, Ringo and Watts are as different as the Stones and Beatles and I think you would compare them only because they are comtemporaries. Ringo is underrated, I agree, he plays lots of interesting things through years, while Watts keeps steady. And strong, with bluesy, steady beats. I would love to be able to play just like him.
I’m not a huge Stones listener, and I tend to be a bigger fan of Ringo for his quirky and original drum parts. That said, I think what makes Charlie Watts so rated as a drummer I can only describe as his distinctive voice and ability to “swing”. I have no doubt you can play Rolling Stones drum parts. Hell, I can play Rolling Stones drum parts. But can I make them sound like Charlie Watts? No.
He is definitely one of those quintessential less-is-more drummers, and the more I listen to the Stones, the more I appreciate Watts’ contribution. It’s a very distinctive, jazz-influenced touch he has on the drums, which compliments the rootsy, blues-based barroom sound the Stones have. Part of what made him sound great in that context is the interaction between Keith Richards, who would tend to lay a little behind the beat, with Watts following by holding off on the snares ever so slightly to groove with Richards, but getting those kicks in on top of the beat. Charlie Watts swings. He’s not metronomic, his tempo does vary, but he’s always complementing and following the energy of the band, and keeps those Stones tracks sounding loose, relaxed, and simply cool.
Not at the same time? Are you kidding? His mother-in-law and his daughter-in-law were never the same person at any time. There was never a time when he could point to one person and say “She is both my mother-in-law and my daughter-in-law.”
You used the present tense. There existed no “present” where his MIL and his DIL were the same person.
But even granting your tortured logic, so what? What does he have to do with the marital choices of his son? Why does that speak to how “crazy” he was?
Contrapuntal:
Can’t tell if if you’re legitimately worked up over it, but an individual went from being his mother-in-law to his daughter-in-law. It would have been worded better in reverse (“to have the same person be his mother-in-law and then his daughter-in-law”), but, whatever, it’s a fun tidbit, and ChockFull clarified it well.
'Cause it’s not crazy enough that he was dating a 13 year-old when he was 47.
Sorry - yeah, I noted that in your OP - I just felt I was trying to articulate what I heard in Watt’s drumming, but since I am not a drummer, was hoping that: a) I was articulating something worth noting; and b) a person who speaks drum could comment on it, since you **wsbb **didn’t seem to hear the stuff I heard, based on the OP…
**pulykamell ** seems to have done that - thank you sir. The stuff he talks about between Keith and Charlie, and the emphasis on Watt’s jazz-based swing is what I was trying to conjure up as well.
And as for Ringo - oh, yeah, he was innovative - the drum lines for Ticket to Ride and Tomorrow Never Knows are worth the price of admission alone. Nothing but respect for Ringo from here.
Doesn’t a lot of the respect for Watts’ drumming come from his non-Stones jazz recordings?
I saw a interview with Keith Richards once and he related the following story:
After a particularly successful show, Mick and Keith were in a hotel room getting completely smashed. Charlie Watts had, as is his custom, gone to be early. Mick got more and more obnoxious, screaming “Where’s MY drummer? Where the hell’s MY drummer?” He then proceeded to call Charlie’s room and wake him up. “Get your ass down here! You’re MY drummer!”
Charlie Watts got out of bed, showered, got completely dressed in a suit and tie (he’s a very sharp dresser) came down to the room…and punched Jagger flush in the jaw with a punch that would have knocked out Ali. He then straightened his jacket and said, “You, sir, are MY singer. And don’t you forget it.” He then went back to bed.
That’s enough in my book.
I am not a Stones fan, and never have been. But after a story like that, I could definitely be a Charlie Watts fan.