| 11th November 2006 05:24 PM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
quote:
Bruno wrote:
Yeah, while Keith is keeping the groove Ronnie is soloing, he ends with the lever and then Mick looks at him and "wait". Really a great moment, the best performance from Four Flicks.
Yup...you nailed it! |
| 11th November 2006 06:09 PM |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
Fortunately, Charlie is not flashy (he doesn't need to be). What makes him amazing is that he can handle any sort of music. Hard Rock? Pick one of many. Bo Diddley Beat? Mona, Not Fade Away, Please Go Home. Skiffle? I Can't Be Satisfied, Hip Shake. World music? Paint It Black, Continental Drift. Disco? Too Much Blood. Reggae? Many, but Feel On Baby is the best. C & W? Check out Beggar's Banquet. Jazz? Can't You Hear Me Knocking. Can you imagine Ringo Starr, Ginger Baker, or Keith Moon being able to handle all of those types of drumming? I can't.
The other amazing thing about Charlie is that he can get such big sound out of so small a drum kit and do it with a remarkable economy of effort. Because he doesn't flail around wasting energy like so many other "rock" drummers, he's still at the top of his game, even in his Social Security years.
If you want to hear a microcosm of his versatility, check out the Undercover album. More than any other, that album allows Charlie to explore various styles of drumming. |
| 11th November 2006 06:20 PM |
|
|
| Highwire Rob |
You Got Me Rockin' |
| 11th November 2006 06:38 PM |
|
|
| StarvinMarvin |
quote:
Stonesthrow wrote:
Fortunately, Charlie is not flashy (he doesn't need to be). What makes him amazing is that he can handle any sort of music. Hard Rock? Pick one of many. Bo Diddley Beat? Mona, Not Fade Away, Please Go Home. Skiffle? I Can't Be Satisfied, Hip Shake. World music? Paint It Black, Continental Drift. Disco? Too Much Blood. Reggae? Many, but Feel On Baby is the best. C & W? Check out Beggar's Banquet. Jazz? Can't You Hear Me Knocking. Can you imagine Ringo Starr, Ginger Baker, or Keith Moon being able to handle all of those types of drumming? I can't.
The other amazing thing about Charlie is that he can get such big sound out of so small a drum kit and do it with a remarkable economy of effort. Because he doesn't flail around wasting energy like so many other "rock" drummers, he's still at the top of his game, even in his Social Security years.
If you want to hear a microcosm of his versatility, check out the Undercover album. More than any other, that album allows Charlie to explore various styles of drumming.
This is not meant as a slight against Charlie (who, incidentally, is one of the graetest rock drummers ever), but I would argue that Rigo Starr is more versatile than Charlie Watts. The Beatles were a more versatile band than The Stones were/are, and this was due in part to Ringo's ability to play any style of music effectively. Ringo isn't a flashy drummer either, so I admire him quite a lot too.
Charlie is great though, and very versatile as well. However, I think his drumming slipped a tiny bit around the time of Some Girls (I'm not a huge fan of his drumming on tracks luike 'Respectable,' etc), but it's held steady since then. |
| 11th November 2006 07:32 PM |
|
|
| Rip This Joint |
gimme little drink... |
| 11th November 2006 08:24 PM |
|
|
| deuce |
FLIP THE SWITCH |
| 12th November 2006 12:10 AM |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
This is not meant as a slight against Charlie (who, incidentally, is one of the graetest rock drummers ever), but I would argue that Rigo Starr is more versatile than Charlie Watts. The Beatles were a more versatile band than The Stones were/are, and this was due in part to Ringo's ability to play any style of music effectively. Ringo isn't a flashy drummer either, so I admire him quite a lot too.
Charlie is great though, and very versatile as well. However, I think his drumming slipped a tiny bit around the time of Some Girls (I'm not a huge fan of his drumming on tracks luike 'Respectable,' etc), but it's held steady since then.
I gave you examples of all the different musical genres that Charlie has handled well. I don't think you can provide examples of all of those for Ringo. In fact, Ringo may not have been the best drummer in the group. From what I have heard, Paul was as competent as he was. Ringo's an ok drummer but not in Charlie's league for versatility.
|
| 12th November 2006 12:19 AM |
|
|
| StarvinMarvin |
quote:
Stonesthrow wrote:
I gave you examples of all the different musical genres that Charlie has handled well. I don't think you can provide examples of all of those for Ringo. In fact, Ringo may not have been the best drummer in the group. From what I have heard, Paul was as competent as he was. Ringo's an ok drummer but not in Charlie's league for versatility.
I agree. Ringo has never been able to branch out into styles like reggae, disco, or blues rock, but that's not the point. The point is that The Beatles had a much more diverse sound over the course of their 7 years as recording artists than the Stones have ever had in their 44 years. If you have ever listened to Beatles album, especially the later ones, you will see that the Beatles tried EVERYTHING. The Stones were trying to keep up with them in the 60's. They did very well, but they never won the battle. |
| 12th November 2006 12:32 AM |
|
|
| Scottfree |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
I agree. Ringo has never been able to branch out into styles like reggae, disco, or blues rock, but that's not the point. The point is that The Beatles had a much more diverse sound over the course of their 7 years as recording artists than the Stones have ever had in their 44 years. If you have ever listened to Beatles album, especially the later ones, you will see that the Beatles tried EVERYTHING. The Stones were trying to keep up with them in the 60's. They did very well, but they never won the battle.
I've never witnessed such an off base diatribe, you sir are a moron, sorry to say.... |
| 12th November 2006 12:38 AM |
|
|
| StarvinMarvin |
I'm surprised you know the word diatribe, but whatever.... |
| 12th November 2006 01:21 AM |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
I agree. Ringo has never been able to branch out into styles like reggae, disco, or blues rock, but that's not the point. The point is that The Beatles had a much more diverse sound over the course of their 7 years as recording artists than the Stones have ever had in their 44 years. If you have ever listened to Beatles album, especially the later ones, you will see that the Beatles tried EVERYTHING. The Stones were trying to keep up with them in the 60's. They did very well, but they never won the battle.
Marvin, you admitted that Ringo had not been able to branch out into all of those styles (maybe because John, Paul, and George did not write songs in those genres and Ringo couldn't do so on his own?) then you said that the Beatles had a more diverse sound in 7 years than the Stones had in 44 years. Do those two statements of yours sound the least bit contradictory to you? In light of your admissions here, your claim that the Beatles tried EVERYTHING also seems rather hollow. All that aside, this is not a Beatles vs. Stones issue. It is Charley's versatility vs. Ringo's. For the reasons I've already shared, the human metronome wins going away. I will give you this. Barbara Bach is nicer looking than Shirley Watts.
[Edited by Stonesthrow] |
| 12th November 2006 01:29 AM |
|
|
| StarvinMarvin |
Let me put it to you this way, The Stones pulled off a few musical styles that the Beatles didn't attempt (like disco and reggae), but overall The Beatles delved into far more musical genres than Mick and co. ever did. Why is that so difficult to understand. And if you still think The Stones are more diverse than the Beatles, than you either haven't listened to many Beatles albums front-to-back, or else you just don't have a very discerning ear. |
| 12th November 2006 02:54 AM |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
Let me put it to you this way, The Stones pulled off a few musical styles that the Beatles didn't attempt (like disco and reggae), but overall The Beatles delved into far more musical genres than Mick and co. ever did. Why is that so difficult to understand. And if you still think The Stones are more diverse than the Beatles, than you either haven't listened to many Beatles albums front-to-back, or else you just don't have a very discerning ear.
I have all the Beatles albums and both ears are sufficiently discerning. In fact, the Stones did sample more different genres than the Beatles. Does that mean they are more diverse? You did not provide your definition of diverse. Aside from disco and reggae you cited above, you forgot to include skiffle, and world music (e.g. Continental Drift). The Stones were also more heavily into blues and Jazz than the Beatles. About the closest thing to jazz the Beatles did was the solo guitar on I Want You/She's So Heavy. The Beatles were more creative regarding studio production techniques, e.g. editing, feedback, double tracking, cacaphonous orchestral sounds, etc. However, those are not musical genres. They are techniques to be used within the genres already being sampled. In a related matter, though I generally like the Beatles' original compositions, they were a lousy cover band. I can think of maybe one song they covered which was better than the original-- Till There Was You, which originally came from a musical (The Music Man). Don't try to say Twist And Shout. Although I never heard the original version by the Topnotes, The Isley Bros. preceded the Beatles and did it far better. Conversely, the Stones improved on many of the songs they covered. Examples include, Not Fade Away, Mona, Little Red Rooster, Down Home Girl, It's All Over Now, Time Is On My Side, Good Times, You Better Move On, Fortune Teller, I've Been Loving You Too Long, anything by Chuck Berry, and oh yeah, I Wanna Be Your Man.
For each of my arguments, I provided specific examples to prove the point. You on the other hand had only vague generalities. When those didn't work, you resorted to a personal attack by questioning my musical taste (my discerning ear). Even worse, you ignored my arguments altogether-- you still have not rebutted what I said about Charlie vs. Ringo. That's no way to win an argument.
|
| 12th November 2006 05:34 AM |
|
|
| marko |
Midnight Rambler and Beast of burden.Both studio and live. |
| 12th November 2006 10:31 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
Let me put it to you this way, The Stones pulled off a few musical styles that the Beatles didn't attempt (like disco and reggae), but overall The Beatles delved into far more musical genres than Mick and co. ever did. Why is that so difficult to understand. And if you still think The Stones are more diverse than the Beatles, than you either haven't listened to many Beatles albums front-to-back, or else you just don't have a very discerning ear.
Most of the 'different' sounds found on Beatles albums...were/are special affects and new recording techniques.And one thing I do know...Ringo does not belong in the list of great drummers.Competent at best on his best days.... |
| 12th November 2006 11:48 AM |
|
|
| Kilroy |
quote:
Stonesthrow wrote:
Fortunately, Charlie is not flashy (he doesn't need to be). What makes him amazing is that he can handle any sort of music. Hard Rock? Pick one of many. Bo Diddley Beat? Mona, Not Fade Away, Please Go Home. Skiffle? I Can't Be Satisfied, Hip Shake. World music? Paint It Black, Continental Drift. Disco? Too Much Blood. Reggae? Many, but Feel On Baby is the best. C & W? Check out Beggar's Banquet. Jazz? Can't You Hear Me Knocking. Can you imagine Ringo Starr, Ginger Baker, or Keith Moon being able to handle all of those types of drumming? I can't.
The other amazing thing about Charlie is that he can get such big sound out of so small a drum kit and do it with a remarkable economy of effort. Because he doesn't flail around wasting energy like so many other "rock" drummers, he's still at the top of his game, even in his Social Security years.
If you want to hear a microcosm of his versatility, check out the Undercover album. More than any other, that album allows Charlie to explore various styles of drumming.
Very True Each of those others could not handle the drumming variety that Charlie has done so effectively for many years. I agree with you. Being a drummer I feel you hit the hail on the drum head, well said. Thank you. Big fan of the other three but when it comes to the best I gotta go with Charlie.
I went to see the Stones But Really What I went to see was Charlie Playing Drums with the others.
[Edited by Kilroy] |
| 12th November 2006 01:23 PM |
|
|
| Steel Wheels |
Charlie Watts reigns on Midnight Rambler, You Got Me Rocking, Thru And Thru, and his sound is great on Almost Hear You Sigh. |
| 12th November 2006 09:27 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Get Off Of My Cloud
Monkey Man
Sway
and the whole SG, ER and TY trio |
| 13th November 2006 10:09 PM |
|
|
| real wild child |
Charlie is the best drummer in rock and roll history...period...Maybe he´s a little better on stage but he did a tremendous work in Exile and Some Girls those were his two highlights with the band...Charlie never had ups and downs in his playing like other Stones...especially Ronnie... |
| 14th November 2006 05:26 AM |
|
|
| Zack |
quote:
real wild child wrote:
Charlie is the best drummer in rock and roll history...period...Maybe he´s a little better on stage but he did a tremendous work in Exile and Some Girls those were his two highlights with the band...Charlie never had ups and downs in his playing like other Stones...especially Ronnie...
Joey, break out the Moon pictures, please.
Dirty Work was sort of a down for Charlie, bless him.
Everybody like my new avatar? Some upstart appropriated my old old. |
| 14th November 2006 07:21 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
_Boomy_ wrote:
All of "Emotional Rescue".
"Summer Romance" and "Where the Boys Go" may not be great Stones tunes when put up against their best, but Charlie is on fire on these two tracks.
Alleluyah! |
| 14th November 2006 02:28 PM |
|
|
| texile |
charlie is rock steady....and versatile.
i won't get into the beatles vs stones debate because i love both.....but the stones had more of a groove and that's because of charlie.
always loved sway...
but all of some girls and emotional rescue kicks ass.
charlie slams through rockers like when the whip comes down, respectable and she's so cold,
but then lays down that funky groove all through miss you and dance.
can you imagine ANY other rock and roll or soul drummer doing both?
nope.
charlie is incomperable.
|
|
