Neil Peart

As much as I admire, respect and love Neil Peart's drumming....and I do....I will also admit I've never been a fan of his or any drum solo spot....leak, smoke, another beer; hopefully back to seat before next song.

I enjoy his drumming in the context of the songs....even as a teen when I never imagined playing drums I would be listening to ATWAS and air drumming. The power and ferocity. Great stuff man.


Interestingly, on the last tour Neil ditched the longer solo and did three shorter pieces. I much preferred that format, myself. I haven't really been a fan of drum solos more than a few bars long since I was in junior high school, lol.
 
I think of many other drummers as "top 3 all-around" before Neil, but I really do like some of Rush's music.

Agreed. as far as "all-around" drummers, I think we need to look at more drummers that are not tied to one band, ie..Steve Gadd, Keith Carlock, Dennis Chambers....etc..
 
After owning (and watching a couple times) his video called Taking Center Stage, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the guy. Not that I didn't before, but seeing him in that video helped me to better understand where his music comes from and how he developed his style and arrangements.
 
Neil's known for being a heavy hitter, as mentioned many times here. And wouldn't you know it, when I'm playing rush covers I play his songs the same way; harder and with more snap than most other music.

His drumming is just somehow written that way, lol. It just feels like snap! pow! If I intentionally hold back it feels wrong, I'm no longer in there, I'm just playing to the song, not playing the song.
 
I've been studying Neil since I first saw Rush in 2007 on Snakes and Arrows. I endured a similar tragedy not long after seeing them and found strength in his book Ghost Rider and his playing. guy loses everything, considers retirement, comes back, 62 years old and he can make a 9ft wide kit shake on its mounting hardware for 3 hours straight.

wish I had found them a little earlier, they were on fire on R30. the R30 black sparkle kit was no joke either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJfId5C-DWQ

his technical playing aside, one of my favorite things Neil does is just driving 4/4 quarter notes on the kick. Subdivisions 7/4 to 4/4 transition gets me every time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0dpJmBHtDs

that floor tom sound!
 
Neil Peart has lots of talent. If you watch him solo or play with Rush, you can tell that he's got a good musical mind, nice chops and some impressive abilities altogether.
There are three things about NP that throw him off the mark for me:

1.) He cannot swing... from a TREE. I defy you to find a video of NP "Jazz" drumming (which is mostly at Buddy Rich Memorials) that we can agree is remotely acceptable to the language of swing. Neil plays prog, and should stick to it.

2.) He's big. Let's face it... many of us once thought NP was "the very best" before we discovered Buddy, Vinnie, Gadd, Weckl, Cobham, etc. He is pretty obviously behind those folks and many more. It doesn't have to annoy everyone, but I sometimes get a bit irked when guys like him, Tre Cool, Travis Barker, etc. are being over-recognized like that. He seems to have absorbed it a bit as well, as you can see in the way he talks about music and playing. Eh.

3.) He's a machine. Many people don't know this, but NP orchestrates EVERYTHING. He writes out parts, and plays everything, note-for-note, according to a plan, every show, every recording -- including grooves, fills, and entire solos. This works really well in Rush, but at the same time, defies a lot of what prog is all about. I don't really like Dream Theater or Adrenaline Mob, but I can really appreciate what Mike Portnoy does with HIS prog playing, because there's more intensity, emotion, and voice... which is a big part of prog. My most ideal example is Genesis. Phil Collins (and Chester Thompson, for live shows) had something raw in the sound that made it more progressive, because it was more real. So enough of this, "here's how to play THIS song" stuff.

As a side note, Neil has a couple embarrassing moments as a lyricist (Though 'The Trees' and a few others make up for it). But in general, there are a few reasons I 'grew out of' my N.P. phase at about 14, and it started with better exposure to all different kinds of jazz and other genres, and the bigger world of real, really good drummers.


P.S. -- For those wondering, it IS, in fact, pronounced 'Pee - rt' (Rhymes with 'Fear') as opposed to the commonly mistaken 'Purt' (Rhymes with 'Hurt').
 
I'm not a real big Rush fan - when the songs come on the radio I don't change the station, but I don't have any Rush albums in my collection. (There may be a cassette of 'Moving Pictures' around here somewhere, but that's about it.) Further, I basically evolved from a punk ethos, so the slickness and popularity of Rush and its members were instinctively anathema; I could appreciate it, but never truly accept it.

However, whenever I hear Neil Peart playing, I pause for a minute, and always wind up telling myself the same thing: 'I really need to up my drumming game.'

I don't want to play like Peart, but the precision and composition of his playing are inspiring; I feel like I should be getting more out of my instrument when I hear his drumming.

So even if I'm not a fan - especially since I'm not a fan - it takes a pretty awesome drummer to inspire me like that.
 
1.) He cannot swing... from a TREE. I defy you to find a video of NP "Jazz" drumming (which is mostly at Buddy Rich Memorials) that we can agree is remotely acceptable to the language of swing. Neil plays prog, and should stick to it.

I agree he shouldn't even try. his robotic precision style doesn't lend itself well to swing. I love Rush but sometimes his playing is almost too precise, not going to go so far as to say it lacks feel but it's just too perfect sometimes. the sheer energy he expends makes up for any lack of feel live in concert.

watch the videos from Toronto Rocks in 2003. they weren't on tour at the time. Geddy and Alex made some mistakes, Neil was like a machine. you don't realize how good he is until you hear the rest of the band playing below 100%
 
Not sure if you were being serious, but Buddy definitely can lay it down and funk it up if needed.

Ehh.. kind of. Buddy plays a good amount of funk, especially on his later records. But it's not great funk. For instance, the opening track on 'Very Live at Buddy's Place' is the saddest, whitest version of Chameleon you will ever hear. He's mostly a big band drummer. He can't really do Bebop either...
 
Ehh.. kind of. Buddy plays a good amount of funk, especially on his later records. But it's not great funk. For instance, the opening track on 'Very Live at Buddy's Place' is the saddest, whitest version of Chameleon you will ever hear. He's mostly a big band drummer. He can't really do Bebop either...

Buddy couldn't (or didn't) play country, metal, raggae, or countless other styles either. Not sure what your point is? Are you saying he was less of a drummer because as a jazz musician he didn't play bop?

By your logic, would Louis Armstrong be less of a musician or trumpet player because he similarly avoided bop music?

In any event, while Buddy truly made a name for himself in the big band setting, there are quite a few recordings of him playing with brushes and in a smaller ensemble setting where he plays quite tastefully. While not "bop," he is certainly more multi-faceted than perhaps you give him credit for.
 
People seem to be on both sides of the fence with the fact that he plays everything note for note.

The way I see it, a song is constantly evolving. What you lay down in the studio is the song in its infancy and what you come out with after touring it (many times) is the evolution of the song.

When you play everything note for note, show after show, tour after tour, year after year... you are ignoring an important part of a live performance and that particular song.

Its not Brittney Spears "Oops I did it again" meant to be played as a track exactly the same every time. Its a musical composition that was created with pride and should be continued to be worked on and improved each time you play it.

I am completely not into a band that plays like a cd. To me, its lazy. You are too lazy to creatively expand to what you originally laid down.

And people that say it is too hard to improvise on Rush stuff... Thats just not true. Peart's stuff does not evolve. It is what it is and thats all it will ever be.
 
People seem to be on both sides of the fence with the fact that he plays everything note for note.

The way I see it, a song is constantly evolving. What you lay down in the studio is the song in its infancy and what you come out with after touring it (many times) is the evolution of the song.

When you play everything note for note, show after show, tour after tour, year after year... you are ignoring an important part of a live performance and that particular song.

Its not Brittney Spears "Oops I did it again" meant to be played as a track exactly the same every time. Its a musical composition that was created with pride and should be continued to be worked on and improved each time you play it.

I am completely not into a band that plays like a cd. To me, its lazy. You are too lazy to creatively expand to what you originally laid down.

And people that say it is too hard to improvise on Rush stuff... Thats just not true. Peart's stuff does not evolve. It is what it is and thats all it will ever be.
Artists have been waxing philosophical on this for ages: when does a painter know when to stop, put the brush down, and call it good? The sooner you can do that, the sooner you can move on to the next thing. How good is good enough?

True, music isn't static like a painting, but from a compositional pov, it's the same thing. NP was known for his compositions and obviously enjoyed that. And why not? Everyone else already varies the drum parts from performance to performance, so front-loading the creative effort and casting it in stone seems like a pretty good idea, actually. If nothing else, it was novel.

You could also turn around and say that anyone not taking the time to dial it in and nail it down before hitting the record button is just lazy. I wouldn't make that argument personally, but I will admit that what I lay down in the studio usually is what I do from then on out, at least for the bits that I felt worked particularly well.

Also, instead of pointing out everything he is not (or anyone for that matter), acknowledge what he is, or has brought to the table, and allow yourself to either be impressed by that, or not.

I was never impressed with Buddy's funk or Neil's jazz, but hats off to them for stepping outside of their comfort zones. Their respective "shortcomings" in those areas does absolutely nothing to minimize or negate what they were great at.
 
People seem to be on both sides of the fence with the fact that he plays everything note for note.

The way I see it, a song is constantly evolving. What you lay down in the studio is the song in its infancy and what you come out with after touring it (many times) is the evolution of the song.

When you play everything note for note, show after show, tour after tour, year after year... you are ignoring an important part of a live performance and that particular song.

Its not Brittney Spears "Oops I did it again" meant to be played as a track exactly the same every time. Its a musical composition that was created with pride and should be continued to be worked on and improved each time you play it.

I am completely not into a band that plays like a cd. To me, its lazy. You are too lazy to creatively expand to what you originally laid down.

And people that say it is too hard to improvise on Rush stuff... Thats just not true. Peart's stuff does not evolve. It is what it is and thats all it will ever be.

But part of the challenge is that many of Peart's parts are foundational to the songs themselves. Got to a concert and look into the crowd and you will see people air drumming note-to-note (or as best they can) to many of the songs.

If Peart started to improvise more, I'm not sure how the crowd would react. Rightly or wrongly, many would feel like Peart was messing with their memories and the authenticity of the recordings.
 
2.) He's big. Let's face it... many of us once thought NP was "the very best" before we discovered Buddy, Vinnie, Gadd, Weckl, Cobham, etc. He is pretty obviously behind those folks and many more. It doesn't have to annoy everyone, but I sometimes get a bit irked when guys like him, Tre Cool, Travis Barker, etc. are being over-recognized like that. He seems to have absorbed it a bit as well, as you can see in the way he talks about music and playing. Eh.

Why be irked in people's success, or for being recognized by masses? It seems an unjust bias to lay on clearly talented people. The irony is of course Neil Peart is too shy and modest a fellow to have wanted or at least invited any of the world's attention to his drumming.
 
2.) He's big. Let's face it... many of us once thought NP was "the very best" before we discovered Buddy, Vinnie, Gadd, Weckl, Cobham, etc. He is pretty obviously behind those folks and many more.

Yes and no.

In pure drumming terms, perhaps.

But Neil has something those guys don't have: Being an equal partner and song writer in a successful band.

Vinnie, Gadd, Weckl, among others, make most of their living as a drummer for hire, playing other people's music, getting told what to do, and when to do it.

Outside of other drummers, not a whole lot of people know who those guys are.

We have drummers like Ringo and Charlie Watts, Joey Kramer and others who are well known for being in a well known bands, and I'm not knocking their playing, because they all have their thing. Although none of them are particularly known for their song writing (and yes, I know Ringo has written some songs).

And then there are the guys Vinnie Gadd, Weckl who are well known among drummers for their drumming acrobatics.

Not many guys have a foot in both camps.

No, he may not sell any where near the records Joey Krammer has, and he may not have the chops Vinnie has, but you'd be hard pressed to name anyone who's accomplished everything Neil has.
 
Buddy couldn't (or didn't) play country, metal, raggae, or countless other styles either. Not sure what your point is? Are you saying he was less of a drummer because as a jazz musician he didn't play bop?

By your logic, would Louis Armstrong be less of a musician or trumpet player because he similarly avoided bop music?

In any event, while Buddy truly made a name for himself in the big band setting, there are quite a few recordings of him playing with brushes and in a smaller ensemble setting where he plays quite tastefully. While not "bop," he is certainly more multi-faceted than perhaps you give him credit for.

I think the point here is that bagging on Peart because he isn't great at all styles is unfair considering so many of the greats had pretty big holes in their vocabulary as well
 
People seem to be on both sides of the fence with the fact that he plays everything note for note.

The way I see it, a song is constantly evolving. What you lay down in the studio is the song in its infancy and what you come out with after touring it (many times) is the evolution of the song.

When you play everything note for note, show after show, tour after tour, year after year... you are ignoring an important part of a live performance and that particular song.

Its not Brittney Spears "Oops I did it again" meant to be played as a track exactly the same every time. Its a musical composition that was created with pride and should be continued to be worked on and improved each time you play it.

I am completely not into a band that plays like a cd. To me, its lazy. You are too lazy to creatively expand to what you originally laid down.

And people that say it is too hard to improvise on Rush stuff... Thats just not true. Peart's stuff does not evolve. It is what it is and thats all it will ever be.

If we accept premise that Peart never changes anything than you might have an argument. I think the premise is flawed. He does alter parts. They are not drastic and he does them so solidly most people probably don't even realize it is different. Changing things for the sake of changing them doesn't make you musical.
 
I think the point here is that bagging on Peart because he isn't great at all styles is unfair considering so many of the greats had pretty big holes in their vocabulary as well

It's more of critiquing Peart because he can't swing, which is not unique to any one style and is in fact the hallmark of many a good drummer.
 
Back
Top