Re: Travis Barker
as a rolling stone article read in this month's issue, "blink182, either you love them or you hate them, is one of the defining bands of the last decade" let's be real here, blink182, as much as some of you must hate them, has really paved the way for every emo, pop-punk, punk, post hardcore, and scene band out there today. sure travis barker isn't the greatest drummer out there, but he has talent. i saw blink a couple nights ago in Mansfield, MA and travis's solo was really awesome. sure it was pretty simple (nothing but cool hiphop beats and 32nd notes) but it was entertaining if anything. i've been listening to blink since i was about 4 years old, dude ranch being my first cd, and i've always been nothing but entertained by them. some of the stuff is a little impressive but never anything jaw-dropping. but i dont think a band has to play in 19 different time signatures, change tempos every 4 measures, have sweeping guitar solos, and a monster drum set, to be impressive. it's the same thing with a lot of drummers. my friend told me "you're not that good cause you only play in 4/4 and don't do poly rhythms." and it's just like, why do i have to do that? i'm good at what i do, i can keep a beat, have a flashy fill once and a while, and stay on tempo. personally i hate drummers like mike portnoy, thomas hakke, and all those progressive players. not cause they're not good, but because i think it's just simply over playing. i'd rather listen to a simple bass on 1 and 3, snare of 2 and 4 song with a dirty guitar and root note bass line than a crazy poly rhythm, confusing guitar part, and almost robotic bass part. as paul mcartney once said "music shouldn't be confusing, it should be magically simple." so just because travis barker is flashy and not technical doesn't make him terrible. if you want to talk about amazing drummers, lets talk meg white...