The Grand Master Buddy Rich

Not really related to the question about the greatest drummer, but it does get me thinking about something I've been contemplating lately.

There aren't many physical feats that aren't surpassed over time. Athletes get faster and stronger. One of the few things in drumming that I feel has not really been done better would be Buddy's single-stroke roll. Another is Tony's ride cymbal playing, those crazy five-note groupings at blazing tempos. I guess it's not so shocking when you think about the relatively low demand for those particular skills in modern music. But still, they have stood the test of time.

For Buddy, the specific thing I'm amazed by is that single-stroke roll thing he did, where he starts slow and builds it up, moves it to the rim of the snare and then back, from pianissimo to forte. I don't think anyone has the technique to do that like him, even today. Play faster? Sure. But the power, control and speed combined needed to pull that off so cleanly across tempos and dynamics is what sets Buddy apart. I've watched Mangini, Jojo and others try it and I don't think they come all that close. The speed is there, but the gradual build-up, the power to go from a whisper to a roar, their techniques don't seem to quite work the same way. There are players who can play more notes in a minute, but the complete command of it is something I don't think has been done better in all the decades since.

Again, nothing to do with the topic of who the greatest drummer is. Just saying.
 
BR was hungry to the end, he always played in the red, and no matter what he played everyone knew he owned it, in a suit and tie most of the time.

It's this hunger that many of today are lacking. Sure, they go through the motions well and have more chops than a butcher shop, but if that hunger and absolute joy of playing isn't shown on stage, then you've still got work to do.
This IMO is what sets Buddy apart from many. He inspires others to be not only a good player, but a showman too.
 
This argument has already been settled. Buddy Rich is the 15th best drummer of all time.
Source: Rolling Stone 100 Greatest Drummers of All Time, May 2016.
 
Dave Weckl wouldn't agree with you..

I was giving a slight nod to the op about the youngin’s moving faster. Buddy’s facility is mind bending to me. When I look st the context of the music, you didn’t need to be “faster” than that. I’ve noticed in the metal drumming world, as the drums got faster, the music tempo gets slower, so they can fit in more notes. In jazz, the whole band plays faster.
 
Very interesting 8mile, good points. Dont know why but reading this thread a quote came to mind, 'if you cant do it better, do it faster." I dont subscribe to "greatests" but Buddy would sure be at the top of my list of greats.
 
I think he (and Gene Krupa) were the best drummers of their time.

In their time, most everything revolved around hand work.

Today, there's much more balance between hand and foot work.

But yes - as others have alluded to - without specific objective parameters
and specifications, there is no 'best'.
 
It's art, and it's subjective. There is no way to prove, even if he was still living, if Buddy was better than (insert drummer) is or was. His body of work is amazing, but if you grew up having never seen/heard him play (live or recorded) then what frame of reference are you drawing from? This is a ridiculous argument, and one that can't be proven wrong or right...not even in a Rolling Stone article.
 
"Greatest" or "Top 5, 10, 25 etc" are absolutely ridiculous and impossible to measure. Change it to "favorite" and you have a discussion.

Sure, Peart can't swing the Buddy Rich Big Band - big deal. Rich absolutely wouldn't have been able to sit in on Tom Sawyer. Who cares??

There's just no point to these types of comparisons. Rich, Williams, Ringo, Bonham influenced hundreds of young kids to play. Now there are dozens of players influencing the next generation. Maybe not with the same impact, but it's not the same world it was.

Recognize and respect who the good players were and leave it at that. And by "good" I mean who contributed as a drummer to the band(s) they are/were in and left an impression on anyone.
 
Meg white puts all these idiots to shame, anyway.
 
Buddy Rich didn't need to play in two different time signatures across four limbs, he needed to be the engine of the music. He needed people to dance, to feel something. His musicianship reached people all around the world- not just other drummers- and he made his chops, his ooh-and-aw moments, fit into that musicianship. He didn't need people to decode his playing because it was an extension of the music. It was that simple, but it took immense talent. He was one of very few drummers in history who made mainstream music unique because of the drummer, and he did it in every group he played with.

Drumming doesn't exist in a vacuum. Deciding that today's musical gymnastics surpass what people did fifty years ago is a disservice to what people of that day accomplished. Today's top-level technical players are still influenced by Buddy, even if their playing doesn't reflect it, but just because they're pushing the boundaries in areas that weren't yet thought of during Buddy's time doesn't mean they've surpassed him. Not in the slightest.
 
It's art, and it's subjective. There is no way to prove, even if he was still living, if Buddy was better than (insert drummer) is or was. His body of work is amazing, but if you grew up having never seen/heard him play (live or recorded) then what frame of reference are you drawing from? This is a ridiculous argument, and one that can't be proven wrong or right...not even in a Rolling Stone article.

...and does it really matter??? Actually he was the 2nd best drummer. They are still looking for the best!!!!
 
Buddy Rich didn't need to play in two different time signatures across four limbs, he needed to be the engine of the music. He needed people to dance, to feel something. His musicianship reached people all around the world- not just other drummers- and he made his chops, his ooh-and-aw moments, fit into that musicianship. He didn't need people to decode his playing because it was an extension of the music. It was that simple, but it took immense talent. He was one of very few drummers in history who made mainstream music unique because of the drummer, and he did it in every group he played with.

Drumming doesn't exist in a vacuum. Deciding that today's musical gymnastics surpass what people did fifty years ago is a disservice to what people of that day accomplished. Today's top-level technical players are still influenced by Buddy, even if their playing doesn't reflect it, but just because they're pushing the boundaries in areas that weren't yet thought of during Buddy's time doesn't mean they've surpassed him. Not in the slightest.

Hear, hear! As others have said, I am not a fan of trying to label/identify who is "best", but.........I agree with your assessment of his talents, dedication and influence 100%!
 
Let's just put all of this Who's the Greatest Drummer of All Time stuff to bed right now.

Buddy Rich is the second greatest... I am the greatest of all time.

Behave, and don't question me!
 
"the greatest drummer of all time"
I don't think such a thing exists. Buddy is a great drummer no doubt, and I love to watch his eye-popping skills, but from that generation, I'm more inspired by Krupa.
 
Greatest?

All that says is magnitude...but what is the scale?

One of the larger laments of college admissions folks is the lack of understanding of the need for a logical label on a scalar measure.

In the end, we are talking about art...and 'greatest' is foolish in that light.

If we decide to alter our scalar label, to something like 'fastest double stroke roll', then we might be able to actually say something rational...but then, who cares who is fastest...I sure don't.

In the end, art is NOT a competition...a competition is a competition.
 
It's art, and it's subjective. There is no way to prove, even if he was still living, if Buddy was better than (insert drummer) is or was. His body of work is amazing, but if you grew up having never seen/heard him play (live or recorded) then what frame of reference are you drawing from? This is a ridiculous argument, and one that can't be proven wrong or right...not even in a Rolling Stone article.

This was my reaction as well, saved some typing.
 
I must ask the question though, misleading from what?

I was alluding to the fact that there really is no way to have a greatest anything of all time. There's just no objective way to do that, since by its very nature a GOAT is very subjective.

This is really just a bit of hero-worship, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's like politics, or religion, you either accept it or don't. But if you don't think so, and somebody else does, are you saying one of them is wrong? In instances like this, we can all be right, because it certainly doesn't change anything by believing one way or the other.

I don't think anyone is wrong, since it's all so subjective. Unless of course anyone actually thinks Jeff Indyke is the best ;)
 
Back
Top