Neil Peart

[Matt Bo Eder]

Ok. This looks like the "appeal to wealth" fallacy and the "sold xxx many records (the masses must be right)" argument...

Like the Simpsons said, "50 million smokers can't be wrong."

I suppose that artists who haven't had the benefit or luck of being in the right place at the right time are excluded?

Not that I think this is what's being said, but why not? Artists who nobody knows or who've had no claim to fame, does anyone listen to them? No.

I'm just calling a spade a spade. If you're a nobody, nobody will listen to you. And if you stand on a street corner screaming "I'm an artist dammit and my opinion counts!" you get an even colder shoulder.

Sometimes you just have to STFU and do your time. Like we all do.

 

[DrumEatDrum]

Ok. This looks like the "appeal to wealth" fallacy and the "sold xxx many records (the masses must be right)" argument...

Like the Simpsons said, "50 million smokers can't be wrong."

I suppose that artists who haven't had the benefit or luck of being in the right place at the right time are excluded?

I disagree.

Joey Krammer has appeared on 100 million albums sales.
Charlie Watts has appeared on 250+ million album sales.

Yet there aren't 100's of posts slamming their playing.

 

[davidbehrens3.14]

I disagree.

Joey Krammer has appeared on 100 million albums sales.
Charlie Watts has appeared on 250+ million album sales.

Yet there aren't 100's of posts slamming their playing.

That's because it goes further than that with Neil. I think lots of us have noticed that Neil is often widely touted as the "Greatest Drummer Ever." Moreover, he seems to be investing in that hype himself. I've seen a lot in this discussion saying Neil is humble and all about the music, but I've noticed otherwise. Just watch "Taking Center Stage" (his biographical documentary), or any instructional or promotional stuff you can find floating around the internet, and tell me he's really that humble. He comes off as pretentious and conceited to me.

Charlie Watts, Joey Kramer, and Ringo are, respectively, the drummers for the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, and the Beatles. That's what they are known for, and in terms of well-known artistic output, that's all they'll ever be. And that's great, because they've fit their roles very naturally. Each one was there to help his band feel comfortable playing groundbreaking music over his steady pulse.

Peart doesn't do that at all. He has a massive, custom made, intricately painted, hybrid-electronic, bazillion-piece drum set, on which he plays solos that were written by hand months prior to the show and rehearsed, like some kind of recital piece. If you watch "Taking Center Stage," he'll lecture you for hours on how to play certain songs. Then, he'll gush about how meeting Freddie Gruber made him a great jazz player, and how he likes to hold his sticks with traditional grip for "the jazz section" of his 10-minute solos (this is all true). And just by being quiet and awkward, this guy has convinced most of the world that he's a meek little professor.

When you listen to Rush or watch live recordings, you'll notice that though Neil, Lifeson and Lee play amazingly together, there isn't a deep sense of camaraderie or connection between the three. This is understandable, given the fact that the band's entire purpose when playing live is to be as robotically precise as possible. They merely run note-for-note through the songs they wrote together, long before the show, through long, deep, drawn-out thought. There is no human element because they do nothing in the moment. Therefore, each member of the band is ultimately concerned about their part--NOT what they're a part OF. Like I said, that seems to take away from what Prog is all about, and is, of course, ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE when applied to Jazz-- part of the reason Neil can't swing.

I like listening to Rush, and I like listening to Peart's drumming on their songs. It all sounds good. What I object to is much of the IDEA of Peart, the application of his talent, and his attitude. Before you insist that I'm "slamming" him, a reminder that he has great recorded work out there, and is clearly a talented rock drummer. But the greatest ever? Not close.

 

[drummer-russ]

That's because it goes further than that with Neil. I think lots of us have noticed that Neil is often widely touted as the "Greatest Drummer Ever." Moreover, he seems to be investing in that hype himself. I've seen a lot in this discussion saying Neil is humble and all about the music, but I've noticed otherwise. Just watch "Taking Center Stage" (his biographical documentary), or any instructional or promotional stuff you can find floating around the internet, and tell me he's really that humble. He comes off as pretentious and conceited to me.

Charlie Watts, Joey Kramer, and Ringo are, respectively, the drummers for the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, and the Beatles. That's what they are known for, and in terms of well-known artistic output, that's all they'll ever be. And that's great, because they've fit their roles very naturally. Each one was there to help his band feel comfortable playing groundbreaking music over his steady pulse.

Peart doesn't do that at all. He has a massive, custom made, intricately painted, hybrid-electronic, bazillion-piece drum set, on which he plays solos that were written by hand months prior to the show and rehearsed, like some kind of recital piece. If you watch "Taking Center Stage," he'll lecture you for hours on how to play certain songs. Then, he'll gush about how meeting Freddie Gruber made him a great jazz player, and how he likes to hold his sticks with traditional grip for "the jazz section" of his 10-minute solos (this is all true). And just by being quiet and awkward, this guy has convinced most of the world that he's a meek little professor.

When you listen to Rush or watch live recordings, you'll notice that though Neil, Lifeson and Lee play amazingly together, there isn't a deep sense of camaraderie or connection between the three. This is understandable, given the fact that the band's entire purpose when playing live is to be as robotically precise as possible. They merely run note-for-note through the songs they wrote together, long before the show, through long, deep, drawn-out thought. There is no human element because they do nothing in the moment. Therefore, each member of the band is ultimately concerned about their part--NOT what they're a part OF. Like I said, that seems to take away from what Prog is all about, and is, of course, ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE when applied to Jazz-- part of the reason Neil can't swing.

I like listening to Rush, and I like listening to Peart's drumming on their songs. It all sounds good. What I object to is much of the IDEA of Peart, the application of his talent, and his attitude. Before you insist that I'm "slamming" him, a reminder that he has great recorded work out there, and is clearly a talented rock drummer. But the greatest ever? Not close.

I think you might be complaining about non drummers proclaiming him the very best drummer. I did not hear that in here. Among the best is all I am ever willing to say about any drummer. It is simply too subjective to state who is the best. Music genre's bands they play in etc, have a huge impact on what these guys play.

I really don't get the lack of camaraderie you mention. I see lots of videos of them clowning around. Just saw one a few weeks ago where Alex acted bored waiting for a section NP plays bells, then when NP finished he sticks his tongue out at Alex. How many bands would simply go on hiatus for years and wait until one mate is ready to restart as a band? No questions asked? At any rate you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[8Mile]

That's because it goes further than that with Neil. I think lots of us have noticed that Neil is often widely touted as the "Greatest Drummer Ever." Moreover, he seems to be investing in that hype himself. I've seen a lot in this discussion saying Neil is humble and all about the music, but I've noticed otherwise. Just watch "Taking Center Stage" (his biographical documentary), or any instructional or promotional stuff you can find floating around the internet, and tell me he's really that humble. He comes off as pretentious and conceited to me.

Charlie Watts, Joey Kramer, and Ringo are, respectively, the drummers for the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, and the Beatles. That's what they are known for, and in terms of well-known artistic output, that's all they'll ever be. And that's great, because they've fit their roles very naturally. Each one was there to help his band feel comfortable playing groundbreaking music over his steady pulse.

Peart doesn't do that at all. He has a massive, custom made, intricately painted, hybrid-electronic, bazillion-piece drum set, on which he plays solos that were written by hand months prior to the show and rehearsed, like some kind of recital piece. If you watch "Taking Center Stage," he'll lecture you for hours on how to play certain songs. Then, he'll gush about how meeting Freddie Gruber made him a great jazz player, and how he likes to hold his sticks with traditional grip for "the jazz section" of his 10-minute solos (this is all true). And just by being quiet and awkward, this guy has convinced most of the world that he's a meek little professor.

When you listen to Rush or watch live recordings, you'll notice that though Neil, Lifeson and Lee play amazingly together, there isn't a deep sense of camaraderie or connection between the three. This is understandable, given the fact that the band's entire purpose when playing live is to be as robotically precise as possible. They merely run note-for-note through the songs they wrote together, long before the show, through long, deep, drawn-out thought. There is no human element because they do nothing in the moment. Therefore, each member of the band is ultimately concerned about their part--NOT what they're a part OF. Like I said, that seems to take away from what Prog is all about, and is, of course, ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE when applied to Jazz-- part of the reason Neil can't swing.

I like listening to Rush, and I like listening to Peart's drumming on their songs. It all sounds good. What I object to is much of the IDEA of Peart, the application of his talent, and his attitude. Before you insist that I'm "slamming" him, a reminder that he has great recorded work out there, and is clearly a talented rock drummer. But the greatest ever? Not close.

My take on Neil is almost 180° from yours. Have you seen Beyond The Lighted Stage, the documentary about Rush? It may give you a different perspective.

I was a huge Neil fan as a young drummer. My tastes have changed, but he'll always hold a special place for me. I've got tickets to their June Detroit show already.

 

[The SunDog]

I disagree.

Joey Krammer has appeared on 100 million albums sales.
Charlie Watts has appeared on 250+ million album sales.

Yet there aren't 100's of posts slamming their playing.

You need to check your facts. Records and albums are two different categories. The Stones and Aerosmith have not sold more albums than the Beatles.

 

[AudioWonderland]

You need to check your facts. Records and albums are two different categories. The Stones and Aerosmith have not sold more albums than the Beatles.

Quit nit picking. The point is well made and the substantial number of records sold that they were involved in is more than enough to support it

 

[Brian]

Yet there aren't 100's of posts slamming their playing.

That is an awfully touchy definition of "slamming".

Most people are just giving their opinion based upon analysis of his playing and approach.

In other words, saying "water is wet" is not slamming the water for being wet...

 

[Hewitt2]

That is an awfully touchy definition of "slamming".

Most people are just giving their opinion based upon analysis of his playing and approach.

In other words, saying "water is wet" is not slamming the water for being wet...

Yup, and even among those who have not been universally positive (myself included), many have made sure to acknowledge his various strengths.

 

[davidbehrens3.14]

I think you might be complaining about non drummers proclaiming him the very best drummer.

Yes.

I really don't get the lack of camaraderie you mention. I see lots of videos of them clowning around.

I didn't mean in general as friends or dedicated bandmates, I just meant musically, there's no need for that beautiful, conversational musical element when everything is precisely orchestrated. I personally miss that specifically because I come from a jazz background, in which on-the-spot communication is a crucial part of the art.

 

[AudioWonderland]

That is an awfully touchy definition of "slamming".

Most people are just giving their opinion based upon analysis of his playing and approach.

In other words, saying "water is wet" is not slamming the water for being wet...

I seriously doubt much analysis of anything was done...

 

[opentune]

I suppose that artists who haven't had the benefit or luck of being in the right place at the right time are excluded?

Well they kind of are....from discussion.
Nobody is talking about Jimmy Witherspoon, the great jazz drummer down at the corner bar, who can play right up there with Max or Buddy. Why? Because Jimmy is on no well-known selling jazz records. He is known to nobody on this site, and doesn't have his own thread either. It doesn't make him any less, or more, a person or drummer.

 

[AudioWonderland]

Yup, and even among those who have not been universally positive (myself included), many have made sure to acknowledge his various strengths.

I think the point here is that Peart gets substantially more scrutiny of his playing than the more popular drumming legends, not whether begrudging credit is given for this or that. John Bonham outside of Led Zeppelin would be a very different thing to see. The difference is he never did that. Peart had the balls to go do a style of music that he had little experience with and is the polar opposite of his strengths. What other name drummer has gone that far outside their comfort zone, particularly now that we have the internet where everything you have ever done will be out there forever to be endlessly scrutinized. No, he didn't light the world on fire but it was competent. No train wrecks. No wildly varying tempos. Frankly, it was better than the vast majority or rock drummers could have done.

This idea that "swing" defines drumming excellence is nonsense. Prior to the 1920's that concept didn't really even exist. Its one aspect. Its one style. The idea that it transcends genres and is the crucible of all drumming that defines greatness is just ridiculous.

 

[AudioWonderland]

That's because it goes further than that with Neil. I think lots of us have noticed that Neil is often widely touted as the "Greatest Drummer Ever." Moreover, he seems to be investing in that hype himself. I've seen a lot in this discussion saying Neil is humble and all about the music, but I've noticed otherwise. Just watch "Taking Center Stage" (his biographical documentary), or any instructional or promotional stuff you can find floating around the internet, and tell me he's really that humble. He comes off as pretentious and conceited to me.

Charlie Watts, Joey Kramer, and Ringo are, respectively, the drummers for the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, and the Beatles. That's what they are known for, and in terms of well-known artistic output, that's all they'll ever be. And that's great, because they've fit their roles very naturally. Each one was there to help his band feel comfortable playing groundbreaking music over his steady pulse.

Peart doesn't do that at all. He has a massive, custom made, intricately painted, hybrid-electronic, bazillion-piece drum set, on which he plays solos that were written by hand months prior to the show and rehearsed, like some kind of recital piece. If you watch "Taking Center Stage," he'll lecture you for hours on how to play certain songs. Then, he'll gush about how meeting Freddie Gruber made him a great jazz player, and how he likes to hold his sticks with traditional grip for "the jazz section" of his 10-minute solos (this is all true). And just by being quiet and awkward, this guy has convinced most of the world that he's a meek little professor.

When you listen to Rush or watch live recordings, you'll notice that though Neil, Lifeson and Lee play amazingly together, there isn't a deep sense of camaraderie or connection between the three. This is understandable, given the fact that the band's entire purpose when playing live is to be as robotically precise as possible. They merely run note-for-note through the songs they wrote together, long before the show, through long, deep, drawn-out thought. There is no human element because they do nothing in the moment. Therefore, each member of the band is ultimately concerned about their part--NOT what they're a part OF. Like I said, that seems to take away from what Prog is all about, and is, of course, ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE when applied to Jazz-- part of the reason Neil can't swing.

I like listening to Rush, and I like listening to Peart's drumming on their songs. It all sounds good. What I object to is much of the IDEA of Peart, the application of his talent, and his attitude. Before you insist that I'm "slamming" him, a reminder that he has great recorded work out there, and is clearly a talented rock drummer. But the greatest ever? Not close.

I don't even know where to begin rebutting this...

You like listening to Rush in spite of that diatribe of things you DON'T like? Rings a little hollow to me. Why would anyone listen to something they take such great umbrage over?

 

[Hewitt2]

I think the point here is that Peart gets substantially more scrutiny of his playing than the more popular drumming legends, not whether begrudging credit is given for this or that. John Bonham outside of Led Zeppelin would be a very different thing to see. The difference is he never did that.

But the breadth of Led Zeppelin's musical repertoire far exceeded that of Rush. True, Bonham never played in a country, blues, swing, etc. band, but part of what made him and Zep so great was that they convincingly borrowed from so varied a palate and made it theirs. Bonham had the tools to excel in a variety of genres and musical situations. Not so much Neil.

Peart had the balls to go do a style of music that he had little experience with and is the polar opposite of his strengths. What other name drummer has gone that far outside their comfort zone, particularly now that we have the internet where everything you have ever done will be out there forever to be endlessly scrutinized. No, he didn't light the world on fire but it was competent. No train wrecks. No wildly varying tempos. Frankly, it was better than the vast majority or rock drummers could have done.

Come, come, AudioWonderland, you disappoint me. Let's keep this in perspective. Sure he deserved an A+ for effort, but the results were decidely sub-par. Whether its his playing on the Buddy Rich scholarship project, the burning for buddy cd, or the recent sets with the Buddy Rich band, he doesn't deserve to be on the same stage with the other drummers.

This idea that "swing" defines drumming excellence is nonsense. Prior to the 1920's that concept didn't really even exist. Its one aspect. Its one style. The idea that it transcends genres and is the crucible of all drumming that defines greatness is just ridiculous.

Well, prior to the 1920s the concept of the drumset didn't really exist either, so I don't see your point. In fact, drums and swing music were pretty inseparable for the first 35-odd years and even into the early years of rock. Swing as a style is ingrained in many different styles of music. It is not unique to jazz by way of hard comping. Playing a shuffle or even a triplet feel is very much swing and is in every conceivable type of music.

You have been very clear in dismissing the opinions of others and asserting everyone is wrong who suggests that Neil's playing is anything less than great. Likewise, you have reiterated multiple times that the importance of being able to swing as a criterion of greatness is ridiculous.

So what's your barometer?

 

[Brian]

I seriously doubt much analysis of anything was done...

Most of us have been listening to Neil Peart and Rush for decades. Then we've all seen him in footage on VHS/DVD's, youtube, etc. And many have seen him live. I'm pretty sure that a fair analysis can be made via the ridiculous amount of content available.

 

[davidbehrens3.14]

I don't even know where to begin rebutting this...

You like listening to Rush in spite of that diatribe of things you DON'T like? Rings a little hollow to me. Why would anyone listen to something they take such great umbrage over?

Anything I listen to, I do so because it sounds good. As I said, I think some Rush stuff sounds really good. I'd like to see them live because it would sound good, though the lack of variability would make the experience a bit less interesting. I don't have much against Neil PERSONALLY, I'm just trying to put in my two cents about his playing and why I perceive it the way I do.

But please, if you've only just begun rebutting what I have to say, I'd love to hear some interesting, new, thoughtful perspectives so as to arrive at a more well-reasoned resolution.

 

[DrumEatDrum]

That's because it goes further than that with Neil. I think lots of us have noticed that Neil is often widely touted as the "Greatest Drummer Ever." Moreover, he seems to be investing in that hype himself. I've seen a lot in this discussion saying Neil is humble and all about the music, but I've noticed otherwise. Just watch "Taking Center Stage" (his biographical documentary), or any instructional or promotional stuff you can find floating around the internet, and tell me he's really that humble. He comes off as pretentious and conceited to me.
.

So you don't like someone because you perceive them to be pretentious and conceited, and yet you gush about other well known drummers who are well known for having big egos.

Weckl = Huge Ego problems (and he even admitted to it in a recent interview in Drumhead magazine)
Vinnie = big Ego.
Steve Smith= Had a huge ego (although I hear he's mellowed over time)

Lots of well know musicians have egos.

I mean, if you can go on and on about Neil for being pretentious and conceited, then should you have a whole dissertation about Buddy Rich?

You need to check your facts. Records and albums are two different categories. The Stones and Aerosmith have not sold more albums than the Beatles.

Of course they haven't.

Beatles sales are roughly 178 million in the USA, and 600 million world wide. Which are way, way more than the numbers I stated for Aerosmith and the Stones.

If you've read Neil Peart's books, and then read Joey Krammer's book, you realize Joey spends more money than Neil has ever made.

 

[davidbehrens3.14]

So you don't like someone because you perceive them to be pretentious and conceited, and yet you gush about other well known drummers who are well known for having big egos.

Weckl = Huge Ego problems (and he even admitted to it in a recent interview in Drumhead magazine)
Vinnie = big Ego.
Steve Smith= Had a huge ego (although I hear he's mellowed over time)

Lots of well know musicians have egos.

I mean, if you can go on and on about Neil for being pretentious and conceited, then should you have a whole dissertation about Buddy Rich?

I'm considering it. Buddy was a total jerk with a huge ego, and also an iconic yet slightly overrated drummer. No doubt. His personality was violently mean, and he treated his fellow musicians like trash. That said, he was a groundbreaking drummer whose recorded playing has transcended multiple generations and is still a benchmark for current players.

I had heard that Vinnie was an egotistical, anti-social dude (though I'd heard from others that he's nice), but he's clearly the most versatile player ever, has incredible chops, groove, feel, finesse, and anything else, and therefore is also a much more relevant figure for actual drummers.

Weckl and Smith -- Interesting that you'd insist that they're so egomaniacal. Weckl does come off that way in Back to Basics, but has since matured quite a bit. Both drummers are currently on clinic tours to teach technical and musical aspects of the art to aspiring players. There are multiple posts on Drummerworld about going to a Weckl clinic. Specifically, one user cites his ego-less approach. The fact that Weckl keeps evolving as a player the way he has is the result of his obvious dedication to music and the humility it takes to work so hard to get better for 40 straight years.

I'm not saying any of those drummers don't have egos, in some way, shape, or form. But if anything, Rich, Colaiuta, Weckl and Smith can at least justify their superiority complex in the drumming world because they are, in fact, the best drummers ever. We can point you to Bernhard's rankings if you like, or anywhere in the world of drumming opinion. But it's obvious that Neil, through his playing alone (or what we've all seen, anyway), has not come close to earning the kind of respect that those other drummers have worked for. Yet he commands it in his pompous, holier-than-thou tone.

I'm not justifying other drummers being jerks. I'm not justifying Buddy yelling at his band. Heck, Vinnie is the only one I can think of who can make himself look like a jerk at a Drummers For Jesus convention. But that's more than the ego stepping in. Though he is clearly a decent person, Neil Peart has simply absorbed a bit of the massive hype surrounding his playing.

 

[opentune]

But it's obvious that Neil, through his playing alone (or what we've all seen, anyway), has not come close to earning the kind of respect that those other drummers have worked for. Yet he commands it in his pompous, holier-than-thou tone.
Though he is clearly a decent person, Neil Peart has simply absorbed a bit of the massive hype surrounding his playing.

What ridiculous, judgmental, and deluded statements.
What evidence do you have to be an authority of his character? Met him? Played with him? Shared a beer? And how do you judge somebody to be 'pompous and holier-than-thou' yet at the same time 'decent'.