12 Myths About Drumming

I don't think it's necessarily because you don't understand it. You can have a deep understanding of what is happening with a piece of music and why the musician chose to make it that way... and still think that something sucks.

But I think "getting it" is different. What is "it", that you either get or you don't? I think it's that feeling that we all get when we listen to something that really resonates with us. People may disagree about what is good and what is bad, but everyone understands what it feels like to experience music that they love. That's what "getting it" is. It's something that's really hard to intellectualize, but we all feel it.

So if someone tells you "just don't get it", it's not necessarily out of condescension (although it certainly can be). They might be just pointing out the very obvious fact that they experience the music in question in a way that you don't.
Well said Andy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Saying the drummer is responsible for most of the feel of the song is pretty egocentric/drummer-centric if you ask me. Feeling is a collective effort, it can come from anywhere/everywhere.
And it only takes one band member to completely trash it. But as the drummer is the one defining the feel, by making it explicit in no uncertain terms, I don't think what I said was drummer-centric at all - at least not in any pejorative sense. It's a team effort and the drummer has to "get it" in order for it to work properly. Ringo understood what the songs required and it wasn't blazing inverted flam-a-doodles.
 
What do you think this means. The only songs I like by the Beatles is their slow stuff.
 
It's irrelevant. Why would that affect anything? I like grapes.

Can someone please give me examples of Beatles songs where the drums are too low in the mix? I really never heard that before.
 
Wow, we see things polar opposite. Examples of songs where you can't hear the drums please? I am clueless as to what you're referring to. You admitted that Beatles songs were MAGIC. In my mind, game over. If you can't see the connection between a MAGIC song and the drum part, perhaps it would be in your best interest to ask yourself how the drums helped to make that song MAGIC.

I couldn't disagree with every single thing you said more. That doesn't mean I dislike you, not at all, just that we disagree completely on this subject. I think the drummer, more than anyone, is responsible for how the song feels, hands down, no contest.

Ummmm.......Yesterday, for one. Brilliant song. No drums. I guess you could claim that's the ultimate in leaving space.

EDIT: How about Across the Universe or Norwegian Wood. No drums. Still brilliant.
 
Wow, we see things polar opposite. Examples of songs where you can't hear the drums please? I am clueless as to what you're referring to. You admitted that Beatles songs were MAGIC. In my mind, game over. If you can't see the connection between a MAGIC song and the drum part, perhaps it would be in your best interest to ask yourself how the drums helped to make that song MAGIC.

I couldn't disagree with every single thing you said more. That doesn't mean I dislike you, not at all, just that we disagree completely on this subject. I think the drummer, more than anyone, is responsible for how the song feels, hands down, no contest.

In Blues music, the feel of the drummers shuffle and how its locked in with the player is the most important part. Yes; whole-heartedly. But not all music is like that in my opinion.

For instance. "She Loves You". Excellent pop tune. Beautiful melody, wonderful writing. I'm totally annoyed by the drum part. The syncopated flams of the and of 3 and e of 4 that have nothing to do with anything else going on are distracting and, imo, detract from the song. They aren't even in time all the time. But I still like that tune and listen to it all the time.

I really don't like the drums in Let It Be. ugh.

I do like that he rides the bell on some stuff, probably one of the first guys to do that. You have to take the good with the bad i guess.. sure was true for Jimi Hendrix's material. *shrug

Some of the old Beatles stuff has the drums are just hard to hear because the quality of some of those recording in general isn't good for picking out the drum part. It a product of the situation, probably not Ringo's drumming. That quote of mine about not hearing the drums was close minded.
 
Last edited:
He has helped many people enjoy music, and after all that is what it's all about.

Indeed (see we do agree from time to time).

Even if you are not one of those people....which is fine too BTW. As humans we're never gonna like everything. My issue isn't with what you like or don't like. I'm down with your choices. There's gonna be stuff I don't personally care for that you think is great.

That aspect was not what I was taking issue with. It's the throw away language like "average band" etc. It's just not possible for a group that was so majorly influential to be "average".....it defies the very definition of the word. If you said, I don't personally care for them, they don't move me in the way ____ does etc etc, you wouldn't have heard a peep outta me. I think the above quote at least provides some balance now.
 
This 'low in the mix' thing makes me think of all those Chicago blues tunes from the 50s; often barely audible drums, but really interesting grooves going on, definitely a massive part of the feel of the tunes, and certainly groovin'

My 2p worth - I don't like the Beatles. I'm steeped in the blues and soul side of music and their music doesn't work for me. Having said that, I do recognise they were important and seem to have pioneered a load of stuff.
 
Ummmm.......Yesterday, for one. Brilliant song. No drums. I guess you could claim that's the ultimate in leaving space.

EDIT: How about Across the Universe or Norwegian Wood. No drums. Still brilliant.

I was referring to songs with drums that are too low in the mix, as was wsabol, i think.
 
And it only takes one band member to completely trash it. But as the drummer is the one defining the feel, by making it explicit in no uncertain terms, I don't think what I said was drummer-centric at all - at least not in any pejorative sense. It's a team effort and the drummer has to "get it" in order for it to work properly. Ringo understood what the songs required and it wasn't blazing inverted flam-a-doodles.

No offense Mike, but I can define a feel all day long. That doesn't mean its right, and it doesn't mean that the rest of the band follows me. Anyone can trash the feel, subbing Ziggaboo for John Bonham, or subbing Paco de Lucia for Dave Grohl, subbing Marcus Miller for John Entwistle. Any of these substitutions would kill the feel of the original. Its not all about the drummer.

edit: not sure where I was going with this. haha

double edit.. this discussion is exhausting.
 
Last edited:
Oh OK, got it. Agreed. They were/are all excellent musicians and great songwriters. OK IMO Ringo wasn't a great songwriter.
 
This 'low in the mix' thing makes me think of all those Chicago blues tunes from the 50s; often barely audible drums, but really interesting grooves going on, definitely a massive part of the feel of the tunes, and certainly groovin'

My 2p worth - I don't like the Beatles. I'm steeped in the blues and soul side of music and their music doesn't work for me. Having said that, I do recognise they were important and seem to have pioneered a load of stuff.

I'm with you, I have a large record collection and many of the tunes from the 70's British bands have the drums just a wee bit buried and of course that 70's muffle; think of The Moody Blues up to and including Seventh Sojurn, it was just enought volume to fill out and carry the song, when I saw them live way back then Graham Edge actually played a differnet approach because on the albums he was very busy and live it would have wrecked the songs. That is just one of many examples and of course the blues as you mentioned.
 
Oh OK, got it. Agreed. They were/are all excellent musicians and great songwriters. OK IMO Ringo wasn't a great songwriter.

For the record (pun intended), Ringo is credited in full or in part on the following Beatles tunes:

Don't Pass Me By
Octopus' Garden

AND, here's the trivia question part: which other Beatles song, which is the only Beatles song credited to all 4 band members??
 
I keep my poster of Larry Mullen Jr next to my posters of Neil Peart and Mike Porntoy.

What Larry lacked in actual skill he more than made for it in creativity, at least on the first 4 to 5 albums.

Fun fact: Larry Mullen Jr started U2 when he was 14. Bono and the Edge had to go to Larry's parents house to audition to join Larry's band.

I think my favorite drummer is Mitch Mitchell.

Followed by an array of others.

But Larry Mullen is damned good. Not REALLY a fan of U2, could take or leave it, but he is definately got charater. Severely underated.

His simplicity is awesome. Just enough to showcase the band and he does have chops and did some/does some things that show pure discipline.

He may be self taught, but to me he is an influence to serve the song, do fills when needed, and don't get all crazy spazzy ALL the time.

Good drummer.
 
Wow, this thread is crazy, man. There's a place for everyone in the durmming world. Bottom line is, you can't be bad and be in The Beatles, therefore, Ringo was good if not very good. There's a reason Pete Best got the boot. Ditto for guys like Larry Mullen ... U2 would not sound the same with someone else. When Bill Berry retired from R.E.M. in 1997, they never sounded the same, as they lost their quick beat. You can't record 10 or more albums with a world famous band and not be good. To anyone who requires "technical mastery" and "proficiency in several styles" to consider someone great, honestly ... I'm tired of all that. Please wake up, smell the coffee, and most of all ... grow up !!
 
just wanted to bump this up because it got buried and I really wanted Bad Tempered Clavier to read it

No doubt their creative output is deserving of the attention it has received: interesting? Yes. Imaginitive? Yes. Innovative? Well . . . to a point. I'm not saying that they didn't have a hand in pushing things forward culturally or technologically - but I think in essence their music - i.e. notes/scales/modes - though lovely and all that, was in no way ground-breaking. By that I mean something that completely changes the way we use and think about tones, melody, harmony, rhythm and so on.

The evolution and development of counterpoint is an example of a radical change in music. Octopus's Garden is not.

I would whole heartedly disagree

not many pop rock bands were using the chords and chord structures the Beatles were using in the 1960s


it may sound like the Beatles play this juvenile type of music to your ears because they are absolute song crafters

but the use of odd diminished and augmented chords, and they way they are compiled in Beatles songs would not support your theory, their songs are quite complex actually. not in structure or time signature....but definitely in chord patterns and the way they would stack vocals on top to complete these chords

sure you could pick up a guitar and get away with playing a Beatles song with some G C D stuff.....but if you were to play the actual chords on the records you would find that its quite challenging and they they were indeed "players"

I challenge you to tell me what the chord is that opens "Hard Days Night"

a quick example using of one of their more simple poppy tunes

Consider the song She Loves You.
This song ends very famously on a sixth chord. It's an exciting, distinctive sound and an essential part of the hit song.
Yet on the recording no-one actually PLAYS the G6 chord. The all-important note 'E' occurs only in the vocal as sung by Paul.
Thus, when charting this piece under the guise of 'complete harmony' the chord would be written as it SOUNDS, that is G6.

In the same song there is the line:

Cm D7 G
With a love like that you know you should be glad

The non-diatonic Cm chord is distinctive in itself but the vocals provide even further colour producing a sound quite exotic for a 1963 pop song. John's lower vocal adds the note 'A' to the Cm chord and the bluesy 'Bb' to the D7 chord.
Since this part is so distinctive it would be written in a 'complete harmony' chart as follows.

Cm6 D7aug D7 G
With a love like that you know you should be glad

This gives a clearer indication of why the music SOUNDS like it does.

not a whole lot of that happening in 1960s pop music

so yes indeed the Beatles radically changed the very face of rock/pop songwriting as we know it by doing what I just described
 
Gvdadrummasum and Bad Tempered Clavier, I think you guys are just arguing semantics. You have two different definitions of a "radical change in music". In the scope of non-classical Western music in the 20th century, the Beatles were ground breaking, and definitely influenced the direction of all electrified music to come.

In terms of music as a whole, or even the trajectory of just Western music as a whole, the Beatles are a blip. We're are talking about giants like Bach and Mozart here. Only in the context of Western pop music in the 20th century is it appropriate to compare those two to Paul and John.
 
Gvdadrummasum and Bad Tempered Clavier, I think you guys are just arguing semantics. You have two different definitions of a "radical change in music". In the scope of non-classical Western music in the 20th century, the Beatles were ground breaking, and definitely influenced the direction of all electrified music to come.

In terms of music as a whole, or even the trajectory of just Western music as a whole, the Beatles are a blip. We're are talking about giants like Bach and Mozart here. Only in the context of Western pop music in the 20th century is it appropriate to compare those two to Paul and John.

Bach and Mozart have no business in this discussion

we are talking about pop music of the 60s
 
Back
Top