Neil Peart

Hi guys (and gals!).

Recently on DrumChannel.com, Doane Perry, Neil Peart, and Terry Bozzio sat down for a chat and jam session, and it was most interesting! I wrote about the highlights and the points I thought were most worthy of note in my latest article on my web site:

Perry, Peart, and Bozzio: Pearls of Drumming Wisdom

Some cool insight, and some really cool pictures! Check it out; I hope you enjoy it!

Dang, never in a million years would I think I'd see video of Neil Peart playing Terry Bozzio's kit!

WOW.
 
Re: Need help with YYZ

Guy's and girls - I have a gig coming up and am struggling with the first drum solo in YYZ. I just can't figure it out... it sort of sounds like triplets rolling down the toms, but with an accent just before he moves on to the next tom? It's a classic Peart lick, there's loads of it in The Weapon too. If anyone can help me I'd really appreciate it. I LOVE that fill and have a month to nail it!!! THANKS!!

PFFLYER-1.jpg

pbm!

Just wondering how the gig went. Did it happen? How was your rendition of YYZ? I hope there are some videos!
 
I don't want to come across like a salesman on a forum, but I know that most Neil Peart fans would be interested to see this kit, even if not to bid on it. My store is putting up Neil's original Rush kit for sale on ebay starting on this coming Sunday. This is the kit that was on the cover of All the World's a Stage, used to record 2112 etc.. The photos we're using are pretty awesome, and this kit is such a cool thing to see for Neil fans. If you want to bid on it, fine, but if you're a serious about Mr. Peart it's just plain cool to check out. The drums have been in our store for months and people have ben coming in and just bugging out.
 
Here is a really good chronology of Neil's equipment:

http://andrewolson.com/Neil_Peart/neil_drumkits.htm

Yeah, I found that link, too, through Google.

I like his earlier kits a lot better than his newer ones. Having all of the unusual percussion instruments as physically part of his kit, in my opinion, looks way cooler than having it all in trigger pads and electronics. The best kits are from A Farewell to Kings to Grace Under Pressure.


Awesome!
 
Not strictly drumming related, but certainly Neil related. Rush.com and Rushisaband.com are reporting the birth of Olivia Louise Peart to father Neil and mother Carrie.

Quote:
August 24, 2009
The RUSH family congratulates Neil and his wife Carrie on the birth of their healthy, beautiful daughter Olivia Louise Peart.

Congrats to the parents.
 
Didn't read the whole thread, and it may be far beyond this discussion by now, but on the issue of playing things "note for note" live, it's simply a matter of taste. Some people like to hear things played "note for note", just like the records, live, and some people do not. I'm in the "do not" category. I like Neil's playing a lot, but when I go to a concert, I want to hear something different than the records. It's not a matter of improvisation, necessarily, but at least evolution. There's not a right answer. It's just a different preference.

Also, unless I were making a TON of money doing it, I wouldn't want to be in a band that did things note-for-note live. Once I play or record something, I don't want to study it so I can recreate it. I don't mind still playing those songs, but I want to move on and keep developing them, so that years later, they're transformed into something very different. If someone wants to hear what we played or recorded years ago, they should put on the record.
 
Didn't read the whole thread, and it may be far beyond this discussion by now, but on the issue of playing things "note for note" live, it's simply a matter of taste. Some people like to hear things played "note for note", just like the records, live, and some people do not. I'm in the "do not" category. I like Neil's playing a lot, but when I go to a concert, I want to hear something different than the records. It's not a matter of improvisation, necessarily, but at least evolution. There's not a right answer. It's just a different preference.

Also, unless I were making a TON of money doing it, I wouldn't want to be in a band that did things note-for-note live. Once I play or record something, I don't want to study it so I can recreate it. I don't mind still playing those songs, but I want to move on and keep developing them, so that years later, they're transformed into something very different. If someone wants to hear what we played or recorded years ago, they should put on the record.

Hey BB!

You make a great case for the improv/evolution side. I can understand where you're coming from. It's nice to hear a song evolve and change to get a different perspective of how it was originally intended.

Though, I have to disagree when it comes to Rush. I DO wanna hear the song(s) played the same live as it/they was/were recorded. That's what makes Rush such a great band, and Neil Peart such a fantastic drummer.

Their recordings are so pristine, you HAVE to admire that they can pull off the songs live, and appreciate their commitment to the music. Sort of like a masterpiece painting in a museum. You wouldn't want to have someone redo it and change it to look differently, would you?

To hear and see the song "Natural Science" live now, the way it was recorded back in 1979/1980 is an amazing feat, if you ask me.

That's what impresses me about NP. His commitment to the "masterpiece"
 
Last edited:
Sort of like a masterpiece painting in a museum. You wouldn't want to have someone redo it and change it to look differently, would you?

Personally, yes. A masterpiece is a masterpiece, but a re-interpretation of a masterpiece creates potential for another one.
 
Didn't read the whole thread, and it may be far beyond this discussion by now, but on the issue of playing things "note for note" live, it's simply a matter of taste. Some people like to hear things played "note for note", just like the records, live, and some people do not. I'm in the "do not" category. I like Neil's playing a lot, but when I go to a concert, I want to hear something different than the records. It's not a matter of improvisation, necessarily, but at least evolution. There's not a right answer. It's just a different preference.

I would agree but there is something about Rush for me that is the exception.

Its like Neil's signature fills are so recognizable as part of the songs that changing them would be like changing a chord/key/lyrics live. Like the intro to Sprit of the Radio, Tom Sawyer breakdown, the end of Limelight and so on.

Maybe it would be nice to see Neil play a more open improvisational drum solo tho.
 
Personally, yes. A masterpiece is a masterpiece, but a re-interpretation of a masterpiece creates potential for another one.

Nah. Have to disagree. No one would want to change a Picasso, a van Gogh, a Renior, or a DaVinci. That would be ridiculous.

"Works of art" are that for what they are. Changing them doesn't increase the beauty of them.

They don't need a "re-interpretation".
 
I would agree but there is something about Rush for me that is the exception.

Its like Neil's signature fills are so recognizable as part of the songs that changing them would be like changing a chord/key/lyrics live. Like the intro to Sprit of the Radio, Tom Sawyer breakdown, the end of Limelight and so on.

Maybe it would be nice to see Neil play a more open improvisational drum solo tho.

Oh yes, LD. Neil talks quite often about "not" wanting to play the same solo exactly the same in each show. He's quite adamant about how he doesn't want to be too repetitious with his solos. He does "improv" his concert solos as much as he can.
 
Nah. Have to disagree. No one would want to change a Picasso, a van Gogh, a Renior, or a DaVinci. That would be ridiculous.

"Works of art" are that for what they are. Changing them doesn't increase the beauty of them.

They don't need a "re-interpretation".

Picasso re-defined works he'd done in a career as a more realistic painter to create the masterpieces. Ergo, re-interpretation. The same is true of Renoir, DaVinci and Van Gogh. These are all re-interpretations of other works. Music isn't a static art either, unlike painting. Would you ask Van Gogh to re-paint the same picture every night for thirty years? Of course not.
 
Picasso re-defined works he'd done in a career as a more realistic painter to create the masterpieces. Ergo, re-interpretation. The same is true of Renoir, DaVinci and Van Gogh. These are all re-interpretations of other works. Music isn't a static art either, unlike painting. Would you ask Van Gogh to re-paint the same picture every night for thirty years? Of course not.

Yes. But the "finished" work is what makes the piece. And what Neil Peart records on a particular Rush song, is the "finished" work. To hear him play his master"piece" live, is the genius of his playing.

Like going to see a great artists' painting in a museum. You don't want to see a different "interpretation" of his/her specific painting each time you see it. It's a work-of-art for it's "finished" artistry. At the risk of repeating myself, of course.
 
Music is never finished. That's why I said it's not a static art. Records are static, but that does not mean that the work is finished. If you heard Thom Yorke playing his 'Eraser' material live, they are complete re-works of the album tracks - just to name one example. Records are often derided by non-musical artists as being a horribly static form of something that is ultimately fluid.
 
Music is never finished. That's why I said it's not a static art. Records are static, but that does not mean that the work is finished. If you heard Thom Yorke playing his 'Eraser' material live, they are complete re-works of the album tracks - just to name one example. Records are often derided by non-musical artists as being a horribly static form of something that is ultimately fluid.

Well, it's just like everything else. It's all "opinion". I'm a huge Rush fan. You're probably not. So we will have different takes on this. But I'm not a fan of "re-working" songs/albums that don't need it.

And Rush has a ton of these.
 
Back
Top