Confess Your Drum Sins Here!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can barely listen to Max Roach , the way he tightens those heads .
Carl Palmer blew everyone's minds when he first hit the scene because ,as rumour had it , he studied in university . In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king .
 
I didn't know what a resonant/batter head was until 5 or so years ago. To me they were top and bottom heads. And I never thought about buying a resonant head to replace the stock resonant head until 5 or so years ago. Probably had something to do with the Tune Bot I started using around that time.

I'm 58 and been playing/practicing 45 yrs.
 
Last edited:
One man's sin...

But I guess mine are:
- not a big fan of drum solos
- as much as I like a lot what is classified as extreme metal, I find a lot of the drumming monotonous, boring or annoying
- I like power toms, concert toms and hydraulic heads (though not exclusively)
- I wish bad things on people who cut down vintage power toms
- I have taken a drum key to a shared kit
- I'm always more impressed by a cheap kit punching above it's weight than a top of the line kit performing as it should
 
rhumbagirl said:
I didn't know what a resonant/batter head was until 5 or so years ago. To me they were top and bottom heads. And I never thought about buying a resonant head to replace the stock resonant head until 5 or so years ago. Probably had something to do with the Tune Bot I started using around that time.

I'm 58 and been playing/practicing 45 yrs.
Click to expand...
Same here! While I consider my high school and university percussion educations both top notch, actual maintenance and repair was something that never really came up. Instead it was all performance and handling care.

So somehow I went through life only using & hearing "top & bottom," until a couple of years ago when I first got into drumming Youtube videos and had to figure out what all this "reso" talk meant.
 
Diles Mavis said:
That's a pretty hubristic statement that I don't think is true, or at least, it's far more nuanced than that. Sure, people of all generations can overestimate the abilities of their favourites, especially non-musicians, and the more famous the band, the more likely the players within are to take up too much air, especially as time goes on. But generally, you do have to be good within your chosen genre as a player to get recognition and sustain it.



Putting personal taste of their stylistic approaches aside, I'm trying to think of musicians that have a wide reputation as being great within their genre, but that I would actually consider not to even meet a benchmark like being generically good...basically those actively holding their bands back through not being able to perform consistently what should be standard vocabulary, or bringing only a bare, easily replaceable, minimum to the table creatively...and there's few that come to mind.
Click to expand...

--- DISCLAIMER: I already know that I am in the minority in my thoughts on this subject, hence, my avatar.... -----

I guess I don't use "holding their bands back" as my bellwether. I use technicality as my bellwether. And it was meant to be a bit more nuanced than it comes off as being....(hard to show that via writing on a computer)

I can think of many musicians in every genre that I am familiar with who get labeled as "best of all time", who - from a playing standpoint - did nothing to push or evolve the activity forward. And for reference, I don't consider album sales, and trophies as signs of good musicianship. Sales and trophies are signs of good marketing. Get a great visual package going, a few off stage controversies or shenanigan stories going, and you all of the sudden have "great musicians"....

Off the top of my head, I think of Cliff Williams and Phil Rudd. Not great musicians, but great role players. I LOVE AC/DC. But I would never say that Phill Rudd is the best drummer of all time. Or even in the top 100 for his playing.

I also think of John Bonham in the same way. He got famous for Zeppelins off stage antics and the marketing of those, and for being a part of the whole package. He was an adequate drummer by himself. He gets accolades and awards - especially anymore - because he is a familiar name. And among his peers, he was not doing anything real different....Kieth Moon, Mitch Mitchell, Bill Ward, Mick Avery....all were doing the same thing roughly, but Zeppelin hit the marketing bullseye....

It is like when people ask me who is the best computer programmer of all time. I will say Steve Jobs because it is a name I recognize, but not being in that world, there are probably TONS of guys who are better, or have done more, but I don't know, so I go with what I see.

I can also think of many musicians who did push the art form forward in the familiar genres to me that get no recognition at all, because they are not commercially successful. Immediately, Alex Lifeson comes to mind. His work with Rush was always far beyond what other guitar players of his time were doing, but since Rush was not commercially successful, he would get overlooked. It was "uncool" to say that Lifeson was better than Page, so Alex did not get the recognition he should have...which is that he is a much better guitar player than Jimmy Page ever was. but Page had the marketing.....

I cant' make educated comments about country, blues, pop, Afro-Cuban, Ska, Reggae...and many others because I am not deeply studied in those genres, but I will bet there are people who think that Bob Marley was the worst representation of Reggae, and that there are performers in that genre that blew him away....yet, he had the best marketing....

and I also realize, again, that much of this is resting in subjectivity, but I still feel like album sales and trophies misrepresent quality A LOT OF TIMES ....there is NO WAY that Cardi B deserves a trophy for being a great musician....a great visual artist? maybe...a great sales woman? definitely...but not musican.

I feel the same way about the Rolling Stones. If it wasn't for the Hells Angels thing at Wooodstock, no one would know who they are. I know I will get flamed for this, and have been for 40 years, but I firmly believe it.
 
Diles Mavis said:
That's a pretty hubristic statement that I don't think is true, or at least, it's far more nuanced than that. Sure, people of all generations can overestimate the abilities of their favourites, especially non-musicians, and the more famous the band, the more likely the players within are to take up too much air, especially as time goes on. But generally, you do have to be good within your chosen genre as a player to get recognition and sustain it.



Putting personal taste of their stylistic approaches aside, I'm trying to think of musicians that have a wide reputation as being great within their genre, but that I would actually consider not to even meet a benchmark like being generically good...basically those actively holding their bands back through not being able to perform consistently what should be standard vocabulary, or bringing only a bare, easily replaceable, minimum to the table creatively...and there's few that come to mind.
Click to expand...

--- DISCLAIMER: I already know that I am in the minority in my thoughts on this subject, hence, my avatar.... -----

I guess I don't use "holding their bands back" as my bellwether. I use technicality as my bellwether. And it was meant to be a bit more nuanced than it comes off as being....(hard to show that via writing on a computer)

I can think of many musicians in every genre that I am familiar with who get labeled as "best of all time", who - from a playing standpoint - did nothing to push or evolve the activity forward. And for reference, I don't consider album sales, and trophies as signs of good musicianship. Sales and trophies are signs of good marketing. Get a great visual package going, a few off stage controversies or shenanigan stories going, and you all of the sudden have "great musicians"....

Off the top of my head, I think of Cliff Williams and Phil Rudd. Not great musicians, but great role players. I LOVE AC/DC. But I would never say that Phill Rudd is the best drummer of all time. Or even in the top 100 for his playing.

I also think of John Bonham in the same way. He got famous for Zeppelins off stage antics and the marketing of those, and for being a part of the whole package. He was an adequate drummer by himself. He gets accolades and awards - especially anymore - because he is a familiar name. And among his peers, he was not doing anything real different....Kieth Moon, Mitch Mitchell, Bill Ward, Mick Avery....all were doing the same thing roughly, but Zeppelin hit the marketing bullseye....

It is like when people ask me who is the best computer programmer of all time. I will say Steve Jobs because it is a name I recognize, but not being in that world, there are probably TONS of guys who are better, or have done more, but I don't know, so I go with what I see.

I can also think of many musicians who did push the art form forward in the familiar genres to me that get no recognition at all, because they are not commercially successful. Immediately, Alex Lifeson comes to mind. His work with Rush was always far beyond what other guitar players of his time were doing, but since Rush was not commercially successful, he would get overlooked. It was "uncool" to say that Lifeson was better than Page, so Alex did not get the recognition he should have...which is that he is a much better guitar player than Jimmy Page ever was. but Page had the marketing.....

I cant' make educated comments about country, blues, pop, Afro-Cuban, Ska, Reggae...and many others because I am not deeply studied in those genres, but I will bet there are people who think that Bob Marley was the worst representation of Reggae, and that there are performers in that genre that blew him away....yet, he had the best marketing....

and I also realize, again, that much of this is resting in subjectivity, but I still feel like album sales and trophies misrepresent quality A LOT OF TIMES ....there is NO WAY that Cardi B deserves a trophy for being a great musician....a great visual artist? maybe...a great sales woman? definitely...but not musican.

I feel the same way about the Rolling Stones. If it wasn't for the Hells Angels thing at Wooodstock, no one would know who they are. I know I will get flamed for this, and have been for 40 years, but I firmly believe it.
 
When I was a teenager in the late 70s I once Spray painted a pristine Ludwig JazzFest Snare drum in red sparkle, gloss black. I know stupid, stupid. Fortunately that is about the only stupid/sinful thing I have done drum wise...
 
A few "sins" although mostly just temporary stupidity:

I have been playing for a long time and have played hundreds upon hundreds of gigs, owned many kits and taken apart and cleaned/refurbished/tuned hundreds of kits. I admit to:

1. After all this time, I STILL occasionally put the snare side hoop on incorrectly when I am changing heads (the slots in the hoop don't line up with the throw/butt). Of course I never figure this out until the snare side head is assembled and tensioned! I've changed literally hundreds of snare side heads over the years..............I can't believe I STILL do this!

2. This one happened just this week: I had purchased a pair of Vic Firth Steve Gadd Brushes a while back, but hadn't used them yet. For those who may not know, the Gadd brushes have the ends of the wires angled to avoid having them "snag" on coated drum heads.

I took them to a rehearsal and got them out to use on some ballads. As I was using them, I thought, "Man, these aren't very effective at their intended purpose; they are snagging on this coated head all over the place!". As a personal preference/habit (maybe just a tad OCD), I like to have the logos facing up on the brushes when I am playing (I play matched grip). I looked down at the Gadd brushes and saw they logos weren't facing upwards, so I flipped them over. Guess what? No snagging on the coated head and they were gliding along like a stick of butter in a hot frying pan. I was using the brushes wrong initially because I had the angled wires facing DOWNWARDS (towards the head). They are supposed to be facing UPWARDS (away from the head). I felt like a total idiot once I figured it out. How could I not know this after so much drumming experience? All I could do was just audibly laugh at myself and enjoy my new knowledge (and the new pleasant glide of the brushes)!
 
Last edited:
Benthedrummer said:
Confession box time eh?

I once chose my drumming and drums over an old girlfriend....best thing I ever did.

I once saw a turquoise lacquered Premier Genista for sale at my local Cash Converters pawn store.....10, 12, 14, 16 toms, 22x16 BD and a steel snare for $500 AUD. Never bought it......worst thing I ever did.

I dreamt once I was sitting on the beach at sunset with my arm around my Remo Acousticon 16" floor tom.

I once called the keyboard player useless at a rehearsal once.......got kicked out pretty much straight away.

I don't like Dennis Chambers' drumming at all.
Click to expand...
All your positive talk of Remo Acousticon makes me want try one.
 
Benthedrummer said:
Confession box time eh?

I once chose my drumming and drums over an old girlfriend....best thing I ever did.

I once saw a turquoise lacquered Premier Genista for sale at my local Cash Converters pawn store.....10, 12, 14, 16 toms, 22x16 BD and a steel snare for $500 AUD. Never bought it......worst thing I ever did.

I dreamt once I was sitting on the beach at sunset with my arm around my Remo Acousticon 16" floor tom.

I once called the keyboard player useless at a rehearsal once.......got kicked out pretty much straight away.

I don't like Dennis Chambers' drumming at all.
Click to expand...
All your positive talk of Remo Acousticon makes me want try one.
 
John B said:
All your positive talk of Remo Acousticon makes me want try one.
Click to expand...

They are a truly unique kit. Dunno, there's just something about them. They are very punchy, deeeep, project like nothing else, but heavy and quite poor hardware.
 
John B said:
All your positive talk of Remo Acousticon makes me want try one.
Click to expand...

They are a truly unique kit. Dunno, there's just something about them. They are very punchy, deeeep, project like nothing else, but heavy and quite poor hardware.
 
Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
--- DISCLAIMER: I already know that I am in the minority in my thoughts on this subject, hence, my avatar.... -----

I guess I don't use "holding their bands back" as my bellwether. I use technicality as my bellwether. And it was meant to be a bit more nuanced than it comes off as being....(hard to show that via writing on a computer)
Click to expand...
I wouldn't normally think to dissect someone's list of "drumming faults" like this - but seeing how you took that liberty earlier, I figured, why not?

Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
I can think of many musicians in every genre that I am familiar with who get labeled as "best of all time", who - from a playing standpoint - did nothing to push or evolve the activity forward. And for reference, I don't consider album sales, and trophies as signs of good musicianship. Sales and trophies are signs of good marketing. Get a great visual package going, a few off stage controversies or shenanigan stories going, and you all of the sudden have "great musicians"....
Click to expand...
I think I would disagree, but you give no actual examples - so hard to say.


Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
Off the top of my head, I think of Cliff Williams and Phil Rudd. Not great musicians, but great role players. I LOVE AC/DC. But I would never say that Phill Rudd is the best drummer of all time. Or even in the top 100 for his playing.

I also think of John Bonham in the same way. He got famous for Zeppelins off stage antics and the marketing of those, and for being a part of the whole package. He was an adequate drummer by himself. He gets accolades and awards - especially anymore - because he is a familiar name. And among his peers, he was not doing anything real different....Kieth Moon, Mitch Mitchell, Bill Ward, Mick Avery....all were doing the same thing roughly, but Zeppelin hit the marketing bullseye....
Click to expand...
I personally don't worship at the alter of Bonham as a major influence, but really??? Bonham, Keith Moon, Mitch Mitchell and Bill Ward (sorry I had to actually look up Mick Avery to know who he was) - they weren't doing "anything real different" from each other? After having listened to their recordings, I find that statement astounding. Plus you have to remember, the world in 1970 was not such an up-to-the-minute, tabloid type environment. Stories of off stage antics didn't appear to the masses until way into the band's notoriety. And frankly marketing didn't drive the musical popularity bus the way it does now. The press was slow on this stuff.

Thus - for me, I discovered Bonham's playing from a vague knowledge of the band's existence, followed by a curious button press, at the donut shop I used to walk by after school. And to my 14 year old ears - that could already easily distinguish Mitchell's playing from Moon's - my first listenings of Bonham's playing had a decidedly WTF aspect to them.

I don't know how old you are - but I get more of looking back "presuming how it was" more than a looking back "having lived through it" vibe. As the establishment of Zeppelin's musical influence and notoriety certainly pre-dated the mainstream publicizing of their later year excesses. Not dissimilar to the way some can't see Elvis Presley except through the lens of old, fat, Vegas Elvis.


Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
It is like when people ask me who is the best computer programmer of all time. I will say Steve Jobs because it is a name I recognize, but not being in that world, there are probably TONS of guys who are better, or have done more, but I don't know, so I go with what I see.
Click to expand...

Steve Jobs was never on any day ever a computer programmer - so huh?
Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
I can also think of many musicians who did push the art form forward in the familiar genres to me that get no recognition at all, because they are not commercially successful. Immediately, Alex Lifeson comes to mind. His work with Rush was always far beyond what other guitar players of his time were doing, but since Rush was not commercially successful, he would get overlooked. It was "uncool" to say that Lifeson was better than Page, so Alex did not get the recognition he should have...which is that he is a much better guitar player than Jimmy Page ever was. but Page had the marketing.....
Click to expand...
Again - maybe check your dates..... Rush did not rise above the fringe until 2112 in 1976 - a full year after the release of Physical Graffiti. Rush was just getting started, where Zeppelin was coming to the end. So in nutshell, Page has received his accolades before Lifeson had hardly arrived on the scene. Also remember, Jimmy Page was a very successful studio musician in Britain (playing on dozens (or more) recordings before being a member of the very influential Yardbirds, before forming Zeppelin. The man's musical career comes with all of the receipts - the work, recordings and success at multiple levels. None of which is to discount Lifeson's work and what he accomplished with Rush. Just pointing out how Apples and Oranges the comparison is - virtually a musical generation off. With Rush being what followed Zeppelin - and was clearly influenced by it as well. Again, just check the dates.... and of course listen to the recordings.

As for Lifeson's "work with Rush was always far beyond what other guitar players of his time were doing" just reads like the testimony of a tried and true Rush fan, that just possibly hasn't listened to enough different music of that period of time.

Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
I cant' make educated comments about country, blues, pop, Afro-Cuban, Ska, Reggae...and many others because I am not deeply studied in those genres, but I will bet there are people who think that Bob Marley was the worst representation of Reggae, and that there are performers in that genre that blew him away....yet, he had the best marketing....
Click to expand...
Personally I can't so easily equate success to simply the result of marketing - not when the music is right there too. To listen to.... to evaluate. To ponder.... what is it about this, that so many people year after year after year continue to choose to listen to it. Do you assume - over all that time - the news story, the marketing campaign - is all that resonates with them??

Also there's the question of - what is the goal with this making music thing? Is it the same for every musician? Should always be to make "the best" that genre can produce.... the music that, in this case, is the best, most pure, Reggae possible? Or could some artists look to spread the joy of Reggae to as many people as possible? Even to those that would've never heard of reggae other wise? This is a discussion - as a jazz musician at heart - I'm well familiar with. I've witnessed the jazz community tear itself to shreds over this quandary. And why? When both approaches are - or should be IMO - completely valid.


Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
and I also realize, again, that much of this is resting in subjectivity, but I still feel like album sales and trophies misrepresent quality A LOT OF TIMES ....there is NO WAY that Cardi B deserves a trophy for being a great musician....a great visual artist? maybe...a great sales woman? definitely...but not musican.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that Cardi B had won any awards specifically for being a great musician.... she's received awards a musical artist for making records. And yes, of course, it is all subjective. But also - as musicians, why should we care at all about these mainstream music awards? They've always been about the record business.... not directly the business, the art of being a musician. I get there is a huge cross connection - but this how it has always been. Remember Hendrix won no Grammies.... The Beatles won ONE (for Sgt. Peppers's album art). IMO it is a windmill seriously not with tilting at.
Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
I feel the same way about the Rolling Stones. If it wasn't for the Hells Angels thing at Wooodstock, no one would know who they are. I know I will get flamed for this, and have been for 40 years, but I firmly believe it.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing with beliefs.... I can believe some music is bad... that would be an opinion (subjective). I can believe an artist is the greatest of all time... again opinion (subjective). But to say "If it wasn't for the Hells Angels thing at Woodstock, no one would know who they (the Rolling Stones) are"... that is just objectively wrong. The whole world already knew who the Rolling Stones were.... their place in history was 100% secure long before that unfortunate event happened in 1969 (and at the Altamont Festival, not Woodstock). Again.... dates matter.

From their first record in '64 and by the time they first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show the Rolling Stones were largely considered the 2nd most significant rock band in the world. Before Altamont, they had released many albums - each highly anticipated by the public and music world alike. Which included a string of classic rock hits - including Satisfaction, Time Is On My Side, Get Off Of My Cloud, Paint It Black, Let's Spend The Night Together, Ruby Tuesday, Jumping Jack Flash, Sympathy for The Devil, Honky Tonk Woman. All released - and all well known - before the Altamont festival. Saying no one would know who the Stones are (were) without this one news story is likely saying no one would know who Martin Luther King was if he hadn't have been assassinated. It's not about belief - it is just factual wrong.

And sorry - but my whole point is I think the music - the actual music - has a far greater influence on all of this than you give it credit for. And then second, if you're going to surmise things about the past (particularly the fairly recent past) - maybe do just a bit more research and, of course, check the dates... :)
 
As a teenager, I would take apart and clean my bass drum pedal over and over again, under the illusion that if I kept it clean, my technique would somehow improve. I probably should have just practiced more! lol

And the pedal eventually fell apart because I had undone the screws so many times.

Ok, I've seen Weckl in clinic many times. I've seen Vinnie in Clinic. I'd cut off my small toe to have 1/4 of their technique. But musically, they both bore me.

I much prefer watching Gene Krupa and Louie Bellson to Buddy Rich.

I count Greg Bissonette as a huge influence, as I've seen in clinic several times, and live numerous times, and I had his VHS drum instruction video. But I've never bought an album he's played on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top