Drummers who "overplay" the music.

newlin

Member
Also, just a comment on all this "subjective" talk. I agree. Taste is of course, subjective, and people can like different things, and even change their mind about what they like. But "Subjective" should never mean that anything goes, or that all performances, songs and players have equal merit.

All of the things that we're saying on these boards are also subjective. But that doesn't mean language has no rules and anything goes. We all more or less follow the same rules of English grammar to express a subjective opinion.

Same with music. What you do and don't like is kind of up to you. What you play and don't play is up to you. And the rules change all the time -- but nevertheless, there are musical rules. These is such a thing as something that sounds bad or is poorly written. If there weren't such a thing, there'd be nothing for us to "subjectively" like or dislike in the first place.
 

Wave Deckel

Gold Member
there are musical rules. These is such a thing as something that sounds bad or is poorly written. If there weren't such a thing, there'd be nothing for us to "subjectively" like or dislike in the first place.
Hmm... Rules are guidelines and rules need to be broken from time to time in order to get one step further, be it music, painting, literature, physics,... If rules were not broken, then we would still be singing e.g. gregorian chants. No rock, no pop, no jazz, no funk, no baroque, no classical music, no folk, no country,...

Something that is considered "poorly written" might be the in-stuff some decades later. It has been the case in the past and will be the same in the future. Many composers made music that was way ahead of their time (Coltrane e.g.). Many were hated for what the did. And some decades later, everybody loved the music that they hated before.
 

mikel

Platinum Member
Hmm... Rules are guidelines and rules need to be broken from time to time in order to get one step further, be it music, painting, literature, physics,... If rules were not broken, then we would still be singing e.g. gregorian chants. No rock, no pop, no jazz, no funk, no baroque, no classical music, no folk, no country,...

Something that is considered "poorly written" might be the in-stuff some decades later. It has been the case in the past and will be the same in the future. Many composers made music that was way ahead of their time (Coltrane e.g.). Many were hated for what the did. And some decades later, everybody loved the music that they hated before.
I agree. There is no over or under playing, particularly in recordings. If the drummer, the songwriter, the band and the producer thought it was appropriate then it was, and still is.
 

Wave Deckel

Gold Member
If the drummer, the songwriter, the band and the producer thought it was appropriate then it was.
This would be okay. The last part [and still is] is not a useful addition IMO. Because it would state that our musical taste does not change over time, which is not true.

It probably was appropriate when it was recorded back then. But maybe ten years later, everybody says: Uhhhh.... he overdid. ;-)
 

newlin

Member
Hmm... Rules are guidelines and rules need to be broken from time to time in order to get one step further, be it music, painting, literature, physics,... If rules were not broken, then we would still be singing e.g. gregorian chants. No rock, no pop, no jazz, no funk, no baroque, no classical music, no folk, no country,...

Something that is considered "poorly written" might be the in-stuff some decades later. It has been the case in the past and will be the same in the future. Many composers made music that was way ahead of their time (Coltrane e.g.). Many were hated for what the did. And some decades later, everybody loved the music that they hated before.
Totally agree. Some rules were meant to be broke, and it sounds amazing when it is. Rules are always shifting and becoming new. But you can't break a rule that isn't there. And you can't change a rule unless there was one before it.

Just like Old English turned into what we speak now.
 

larryace

"Uncle Larry"
I wanted to comment on the "Oceans" drummer. Not the original Hillsong track, but that video someone made in church. Now the original recording has busy drums....but they are blended much better volume-wise. Now if the video guy totally laid back on the force with which he played....it might have worked way better.

I had that same revelation when I first started recording myself. In this one particular transition in a song, the notes I chose were fine, but I played them too loud, I purposely "stuck it out" and it was anything but fine according to my recording. Next time I played that particular song again, I laid back on the volume during that transition, and voila, on the recording, it sounded exactly as I intended it to sound. Big lesson learned there. If the notes are right but the dynamic is too loud...mark missed. How I play something is equally as important as the notes chosen. It's not what I play it's how I play it. That was my take away from that.

That could be the same thing going on with the "Oceans" dude.
 

Anon La Ply

Renegade
Agree Larry. From my own experience it could be from practising playing along with recorded music. My ears got used to hearing the drums too loud in the mix and it was always hard playing with bands and not being able to hear what I was doing clearly.

Then it twigged in old age that if the drums are really clear there's a good chance they're too loud.

Also agree about trying to get your cool stuff to stand out. Stupid thing to do in hindsight but I did it for yonks. A drum motif or bridge can be a feature in the right place but driving hard in the wrong place sounds more clunky than exciting.

Still, I also like music where pretty ordinary musos screw up all the time, but they do it with style. Today's pop is much more mistake-free and the drumming is always appropriately programmed or played - and much of that music gives me a headache.
 

mikel

Platinum Member
This would be okay. The last part [and still is] is not a useful addition IMO. Because it would state that our musical taste does not change over time, which is not true.

It probably was appropriate when it was recorded back then. But maybe ten years later, everybody says: Uhhhh.... he overdid. ;-)
No, a recording is a snapshot of a moment in time, and on the last point you are again raising "Taste", and taste is always personal and subjective. Its like saying that Bach's music has too many violins and not enough guitar, because guitar is the go to instrument today.
 

Wave Deckel

Gold Member
a recording is a snapshot of a moment in time
No. A recording is a snapshot of a moment in time with music that was right at that moment considered to be well made, tasty, perfectly arranged.

Bachs music, which was considered masterful work during his lifetime, btw. was highly unpopular just a few decades after his death. Too complex, too serious, too much organ, blablabla. It took quite a long time for people to appreciate his music again. And it needed the work of Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy to do so. Without him, we probably still wouldn't care about Bach.
 

mikel

Platinum Member
No. A recording is a snapshot of a moment in time with music that was right at that moment considered to be well made, tasty, perfectly arranged.

Bachs music, which was considered masterful work during his lifetime, btw. was highly unpopular just a few decades after his death. Too complex, too serious, too much organ, blablabla. It took quite a long time for people to appreciate his music again. And it needed the work of Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy to do so. Without him, we probably still wouldn't care about Bach.
I dont care about Bach, but, once again, thats personal taste. It still comes down to the same thing.

And, the moment in time is still relevant. It was perfect then and its still perfect now because it captured the "Emotion" of the recording. No matter how rough, no matter how much music may have "Moved on" since. Most people I know are not fickle enough to go with every fashion change in music.

Listen to "Twist and Shout" by the Beatles. Its raw and rough, mic's are popping, John's voice is almost at breaking point, there are tempo fluctuations, but If it fails to make the hair on the back of your neck stand up I feel truly sorry for you. Thats a perfect moment in time.
 

Wave Deckel

Gold Member
I dont care about Bach
You brought him up dude...

And, the moment in time is still relevant.
If we speak of a recording as a historical document, then yes.
It was perfect then and its still perfect now because it captured the "Emotion" of the recording.
What is "perfect" is highly debatable (nothing is really perfect, everything is subjective) and it is completely defined by subjective appraisal or criticism, which is based on your socialization, your edcation, the culture you live in, the era you live in etc.. A recording made in a special way at a special time in a special environment was considered perfect by those, who made the record and a bunch of people who shared a similar education, socialisation and culture. People who cheered to the The Who or the Sex Pistols back then were mainly working-class people, just like the Band members. British Aristocracy, nor the upper class were amused with The Who's music, neither with the Sex Pistols. Just an example of thousands.

Listen to "Twist and Shout" by the Beatles. ... but If it fails to make the hair on the back of your neck stand up I feel truly sorry for you. Thats a perfect moment in time.
IMHO there are way better Beatles songs. Twist & Shout does not make the hair on my neck stand up. Sorry. I guess we come from different socialisations, different educational backgrounds etc. What works for one person does not usually work for all. If this were not true, then we ALL would love e.g. the music of Engelbert Humperdinck and nothing else. *Beurk!* And we would not even discuss if drummers overplay or not.

Midnite Zephyr said:
Whether or not he overplays (subjective), Carter Beauford is fun to watch play drums. He uses all 4 limbs at will.
Agreed.
 

mikel

Platinum Member
You brought him up dude...

If we speak of a recording as a historical document, then yes. What is "perfect" is highly debatable (nothing is really perfect, everything is subjective) and it is completely defined by subjective appraisal or criticism, which is based on your socialization, your edcation, the culture you live in, the era you live in etc.. A recording made in a special way at a special time in a special environment was considered perfect by those, who made the record and a bunch of people who shared a similar education, socialisation and culture. People who cheered to the The Who or the Sex Pistols back then were mainly working-class people, just like the Band members. British Aristocracy, nor the upper class were amused with The Who's music, neither with the Sex Pistols. Just an example of thousands.

IMHO there are way better Beatles songs. Twist & Shout does not make the hair on my neck stand up. Sorry. I guess we come from different socialisations, different educational backgrounds etc. What works for one person does not usually work for all. If this were not true, then we ALL would love e.g. the music of Engelbert Humperdinck and nothing else. *Beurk!* And we would not even discuss if drummers overplay or not.

Agreed.
Couldnt agree more , you have just made my point for me. Its all subjective. And It was you that stated for a while people didnt care about Bach, just saying I STILL dont care about him, I could have used any classical composer as an example.

Back to "Twist and Shout". Didnt claim it was there best work simply used it as it greatly excited me when it was released. To my very young ears it brought it home to me that music can be more than just a nice melody or a clever song, It can inspire genuine emotion and excitement. 50 odd years on that song still makes me want to jump about. It is still perfect the way it is, there is nothing about it I would change.

It does nothing for you? well, you cant learn emotion.
 

AudioWonderland

Silver Member
I'm not a huge DMB fan either, but I was listening to the Crash album today (which is beautifully mastered by the way) and it came to me that Carter's playing is so crazy. It's crazy good; I don't deny that, but its also just plain 'ole crazy.

I listen to the music and can easily strip out 80% of his playing and still keep a very similar feel to the music. As a drummer I enjoy listening to his playing, but to a layman is this something bothersome to them? Would it be the equivalent of a guitarist throwing in random solo during the verses of the songs only to put in a screeching solo during the chorus?
Judging from the number of records sold. I don't think anyone minded
 

steadypocket

Gold Member
Saw Carl Palmer live once. Incredible drummer but I thought he was a bit busy. Of course no examination of overplaying can be complete without looking at perhaps the most flamboyant drummer on the planet: https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=a9kPfelTEds

Poor dynamics and timing aside, when you just listen to the music without watching him, it isn't as bad as it looks.
 
Top