|
24 jul 06 "Does the drummer of a band deserve equal revenue sharing? Who is more acclaimed, Phil Collins (Genesis) or Ringo Starr (Beatles)?" i re-did my index page so that the date is displayed to the left of the questions -- this way, visitors can see that the site wasn't abandoned in something like 2002. this question presented indexing problems. when a question is complex (consists of more than one sentence), i try to lift out the "essential" question and print it on the index. however, in this case, these are two almost totally unrelated questions; there was no central question to choose. i couldn't make two seperate entries on the index page, because that would just be improper -- a submission is a submission. i decided to print one arbitrary one the index page, and answer them both here. you can do nothing. see bill buckley bring out the savage beast in noam chomsky (from that infamous "firing line" debate): Buckley: I rejoice in your disposition to argue the Vietnam question, especially when I recognize what an act of self-control this must involve. translation: Buckley: you're a unilateralist, nyeah nyeah. teehee. ok, sorry. back to the drummers. but boy -- i'd hate being at the business-end of some dinner party humiliation at the hands of bill buckley, lemme tell ya. part of his rhetoric's success comes from the conversant being too intimidated by buckley's breeding and wit to utter-back some peep of their own folksy patois. also, he over-generalizes and turns examples into metaphors, and his language is so poetic that it's difficult to fend off with facts or logic. noam chomsky's principle round of ammo is to bombard you with so many historical examples that your eyes glaze over; think of the number of words that man has read in his life. ok, now really back to the drummers. i do apologize. to remind us (put it on my visible screen so i can see it and think about it): Does the drummer of a band deserve equal revenue sharing? yeah, why wouldn't he? if anything, he should get more; the drummer is the essence of a rock and roll band. without 'thud BAP thud BAP thud BAP' (over 'tik tik tik tik tik') there can be no rock and roll. the use of a drum kit playing "even 8ths" (or obvious shuffle-blues swing) is the only consistent identifyer of rock music -- even the verse-chorus structure isn't ubiquitous. all of the other instruments change -- sometimes there aren't any vocals (blind idiot god), sometimes no guitar (depeche mode), sometimes no bass (the doors), and sometimes there's the presence of others (orchestrated 'metallica', 'no doubt'), but there is always a drum kit. either that, or there is an electronic box that is imitating the sounds produced by a drum kit, or at the very least producing some form of loud, overwhelming, simplistic rhythm. i should explain: 'even 8ths' is a swing-less rhythm. without providing an aural example, it's hard to convey. "bam bam bam bam bam" vs. "ba-bam ba-bam ba-bam ba-bam", i suppose. that's as good as you're going to get, anyway. in a sense, the drummer is the rock band, because rhythm is what primarily defines rock and roll. or rather, if we had to pick only one defining element for rock and roll, we'd pick rhythm accentuated by loud beatings on drums. if anyone should get a lower salary, it's the bass player. bass players in rock bands are trivial, with a few exceptions (the eternals "flea" and "les claypool"). the sound of rock and roll is often so dirty and imprecise that one often doesn't notice whether the bass is there or not. many bands set up their sound to minimize any "punch" the bass might have had, and instead turn it into a mere spectral presence felt in the low register, filling out a song. at that point, you may as well just fiddle with the levels while you're mastering until a song sounds bass-y enough. how do ringo starr and phil collins compare in acclaimedness? ringo starr is certainly better-known -- i bet few people are aware that phil collins was once a drummer, and used to sing into the mic that was sticking into his drum kit, like such fellow oddballs as that guy from the eagles (don henley?), and perhaps semi-notable others. i'm not sure if singing-while-drumming is harder to do that than it is to sing while playing the guitar. i've done the latter, and it's easy enough, provided the guitar work is sufficiently rudimentary (strums, for the most part). extrapolating from this makes me think phil collins might not have been that exciting a drummer in his "genesis" days, even though of course his doing both at once speaks to his talents as a drummer and a vocalist. but certainly someone like rush's neal pert would be hard-pressed to sing coherently while batting at his skins as frenetically as he does. the worst drummer in the world is the one in fleetwood mac, whom i understand is either "fleetwood" or "mac" (ie, a founding, consistent member). who's better? i can't say, because i haven't heard much genesis, and the only time i've ever noticed the drums in a beatles song is in "tomorrow never knows". boom boom BAP boom-boom BADAP, boom boom BAP boom-boom BADAP, boom boom BAP boom-boom BADAP, boom boom BAP boom-boom BADAP, boom boom BAP boom-boom BADAP, "open your mind relax and float down stream...etc". good song. i like it because the song centers around a drone (like sitar music, which i think was the idea), and doesn't do the pretty melody and clever chord changes that have managed to get a few beatles songs into "the real book" (a jazz fake book). yeah, i just had a listen to my beatles tracks, and ringo is quite mediocre. but he's pretty much the penultimate, archetypal "drummer", as far as the listening public is concerned (ask 100 people to name "a drummer", and many will name ringo). so, maybe that makes him more acclaimed. i have one genesis song (you guessed it): "edge of night". it employs electronic or at least electric drums, so it doesn't really count. it certainly does have a unique and notable drum sound, though -- it's a song where you notice the sound of the percussion, and go "wow, cool drums", even if phil is programming rather than playing them. ringo has a critical reputation of being a lousy, simplistic drummer; ringo being the least-talented beatle is sort of a running joke in the beatles mythos. apparently, and to his credit, he has a self-effacing sense of humor about it, which speaks to his character. but as far as drummers go, neal pert (rush) and john bonam (led zeppelin) are the only two that stand out for me as "a particularly good drummer". maybe i'm just not attuned to rock and roll drums -- i'm sure a drummer accutely notices other drummers, and whether or not they are good at what they do. critically accalaimed? collins. publicly acclaimed? ringo. phil collins is the more talented (he can sing while drumming), and ringo is pretty much just a beatbox, except that he did write "yellow submarine", which is so unbearably dumb that it's fascinating, and the listener suspects there must be some hidden meaning -- there isn't. ringo is colloquially known as "the dumb beatle". i should download a few genesis songs and listen to them before i leave you. i realize that i did that for my "shakira" response, and that people might think i'm slacking off if i don't do it here. i already have the whole of "rubber soul" ripped to mp3, so i have enough beatles tracks to draw unfavorable conclusions about ringo, i think. listen to the drums in "what goes on", and speculate on what went through ringo's mind as he played his bit (thud BAP thud BAP thud BAP) for that three minutes straight. my new genesis song is "follow you follow me". after listening, i re-affirm that phil collins is a more interesting drummer (even if i don't particularly like the song). i will delete it now. |
ask a question