And for us horse-crazy folk, the man along with his wife is a top-notch breeder of some of the loveliest Arabian horses I’ve ever seen.
[The story about him putting Mick into his place is excellent too!!]
I hear this a lot from drummers - on most any subject.
I’m not worked up at all, but your own description proves my point. If she “went from” being one thing to another, she can’t have been both.
As fas as it being a fun tidbit, I’ll ask again. What does his son’s choice in a wife have to do with Wyman’s craziness? It really seems to me to be a “factoid” that is offered, tabloid style, simply for it’s shock value, which, upon closer examination, is baseless. Two different individuals made marital choices, years apart. So what? How does one’s choice reflect on the other?
I’ve heard 'em all, Moto; I’ve heard 'em all. I tell you, after playing drums for 24 years, I take umbrage at the idea that…wait, what was I talking about? I lost track.
plnnr, that’s an awesome story. I may never love Watts’s drumming, but he definitely gets cool points for that one.
Maybe, as some have said, Charlie plays to complement Keith (rather than Bill Wyman, which is the way most rock drummers operate) - I’ve never noticed, and it would make for interesting listening. And I agree that rock drummers need to be steady, and having a solid beat is enough. However, there are tons of drummers who are dead-on steady, and I tend to appreciate those who add a little more to the basic expected beat. It is true that not a lot of rock drummers swing, but again, there are just enough that do (and manage to be innovative, to boot) that Charlie Watts doesn’t rank that high in my book. Not that I think he’s horrible; just not very impressive. Perhaps if I listened to some of his jazz work…
The great thing about music is that the best bands are most frequently not staffed by the best musicians.
Hell, Rush is extraordinarily talented, but I’d be forced to shoot myself if that’s what music sounded like. The Sex Pistols were worthless… and phenomenal.
While everyone thought Charlie was nice and reserved, he kept quite a quiet little heroin habit throughout the years. He also made nice sketches of every hotel room he stayed in after the shows and printed a book of them a few years ago.
Oh, I agree - I spent the years I actually played in bands playing sloppy punk, and I don’t particularly care how great a musician is if their music is crap (Rush is the perfect example). I did, however, spend a ton of time learning Rush (and Police) songs when I was starting out, which made me think differently about style, and helped me add a little more than the basic 300bpm 1-2-3-4 to the punk songs I played. Charlie Watts does his job with a minimum of fuss - there’s just nothing that impressive about how he does it, in my mind.
I agree that Watts may not win any kudos for innovation, but he will win for taste. He does follow Wyman around, of course. The kick is in groove with the bass parts. What I’m trying to say is that the snare lays a tiny bit behind the beat, echoing Richards.
If you’ve played along with a lot of Police, then you know what playing on top of the beat is. Copeland’s parts very much attack the beat and even in slower tempo songs, his playing right at the front of the beat give the songs a propulsive pulse. Watts does the opposite: he plays mostly on the backside of the beat, giving the songs a lazy, jazzy swagger. (John Bonham is similar in the way he plays on the backside of the beat, but he hits the drums much harder and his tempo is rock steady, giving Zep songs a thunderous, yet still swinging, feel.)
This along, with the naturally shifting tempos give Stone songs their cool, relaxed vibe. It’s difficult for me to imagine the Stones with another drummer as much as it is for me to imagine the Beatles with another drummer. He’s not one of my top rated drummers, but I can see why somebody can make a good argument for him.
I remember once a reporter or magazine polled the Stones and asked for some informal tallies of all the groupies each member had banged over the years being on tour.
You would expect astronomical (and highly-contested) amounts for Jagger & Richards, with Wyman and Wood pulling in some not-too-shabby numbers themselves. But everyone unaninimously agreed on what Charlie’s tally was:
Zero (he married his wife in '64)
I’m not a drummer but a guitarist, mainly. I like simple drumming, generally speaking, and have nothing bad to say about Ringo. (For all his simplicity he’ll often create a part that doesn’t sound like any other drumming I’ve ever heard. Like what the hell is going on in “In My Life”?)
Anyway, I think Charlie Watts has a much lighter, swingier touch than Ringo, he just doesn’t let it shine too much. I was learning “19th Nervous Breakdown” last year and it struck me for the first time how great the drumming is – he’s playing a really light swinging part in this otherwise stompy rock song but it never intrudes. I’d probably heard the song 150 times without ever really hearing it. Think the subtle switch in “Midnight Rambler,” or any number of loose, woozy intros and fills on Exile. If you could play like that after 3 months, you have amazing feel.
I think of Topper Headon of The Clash as a similar player. A very light touch that doesn’t go noticed much because he isn’t flashy and because of the band he’s in.
What is the Mick mars bars story?
Is it true or not that when some journalist mentioned to McCartney that Ringo might not be the best drummer in the world, he laughed and said Ringo’s not even the best drummer in the Beatles.
Plnnr’s Charlie story raises the bar even a little higher.
Carmine Appice
It’s bullshit. Supposedly when police made a drug bust on Keith Richards’ home, they caught Jagger in the act of eating a Mars bar out of Marianne Faithfull’s private parts.
I’ve seen that alleged quote attributed to all three of the other Beatles. I don’t believe for a minute that any of them would say that to a journalist; they always stuck by Ringo.
My favourite Charlie Watts story comes from an interview he did with Q magazine a few years back: the man basically collects finely tailored suits, but he doesn’t always wear them straight away; some of them, the Bertie Woosters, he leaves them in the closet to “marinate” {his own words} for a few years.
Its all in how he grooves, he plays real simple stuff that just makes the the whole band fall into the pocket (magical music area where everything feels good, for non drumming persons in the thread…)
For instance, listen to jumpin jack flash, He plays a straight up rock groove really but takes the hi hat out on beats two in four that creates this little hicup that just just helps the song bounce around, it feels great and he just sits on it the entire tune and lets the rest of the band do their thing. Simplicity is key in drum set playing…those flashy drum fill for miles guys are a dime a dozen and they don’t even sound good. really!!
Think about like…even tunes like love is strong, how good does that back beat feel (snare drum, beats on beats 2 and 4)
or shit, the tune miss you… Its all groove and it feels like a million bucks!!
so in short, Charlie Watts plays very simple, very tight, very quiet and grooves like a mother fucker while doing it.
So, **woodstockbirdybird ** - where do you go from here? As you state, you’re a drummer. You’ve stated your OP trying to understand Charlie Watts. A few of us, including a couple of other drummers, have tried to not just say “cuz I say so” but instead break it down to Watts’ style, how he works the beat, how he contributes to the unique Stones sound, etc. - but citing technical explanations, examples and insights to back them up.
So? You think you might listen again or are you unmoved and unpersuaded?
No, I’ll definitely listen again. I’m always willing to give all things music-related way more of a chance than most sane people would. I’ll let you know if I hear anything you guys are describing.
If you are a fan of classic rock then you are a fan of the Rolling Stones. Any questions? No? Good.
Now then. I can’t add much that hasn’t already been said but all of the big name classic rock groups employed fantastic -and substantially different- guys working the skins. Take any one of these groups (Zeppelin, Floyd, the Who) and you can point to several songs that seemed to be built around the drum section and up. I’m not talking about great drum solos or fills that are sprinkled in this tune or that but instances where the entire song is wholly centered on the drumming.
With the Stones, I’ll submit this one.
Great melody, lyrics, hook, etc. but here’s a song that if you don’t have the right guy behind the drum kit it wouldn’t be anywhere near as effective.
Does Watts deserve to be considered one of the great ones? I rest my case.
The Beatles are proof that no man or group of men (using definition 2 here, which includes women) will ever be loved by everybody. As many people love them, there are people out there that have to hate them for just that reason. I cannot stand it when the Beatles come up and all some prick has to say is, “Ringo is a shitty drummer.”
The Stones, while huge in their own right, never quite got to the level at which a large number of people felt like they had to hate them just because so many people loved them.
My two cents.
IMHO, Watts should be regarded as great because of his beat on the toms and bass drum in Brown Sugar. That’s the reason I love this song. And I’m not a great Rolling Stones fan, although I admire their work.
How many drummers does it take to change a light bulb?
Just one. He holds the bulb and lets the world revolve around him.
Seriously, listen to, say, ‘A Day In The Life’ and then point to something that Watts has done equally innovative comparatively.
this can’t go well.
I guess I would put it this way: It depends on how you define “innovative” and the role the drummer has in that. Are you implying that Ringo was the driving force behind A Day in the Life? Of course he wasn’t - but his drumming was a key anchor in the song and his role in general in the Beatles was critical.
Well, same with Charlie Watts. However, I would say that his swinging style, combined with the complex approach to collaboration that he, Richards, Wyman and Jones/Taylor/Wood developed is innovative - their collective musicianship (when it is working live and in the studio on their best albums) is a wonderful thing…and his ability to take blues-with-a-swing jazz sensibility and translate it to bluesy pop is also super-influential…