A long time ago I was compared to Gene Krupa. I can see that because I'm not fancy and I like to play musically and I'm always enthusiastic about everything I play (although, not quite as much as Krupa was - I'm a little more tame than that).
I wasn't trying to be like Krupa either. I think at that time I was trying to be like Carter Beauford (that's "bo-ferd"). Then I grew out of that and started just trying to be the best that I can be. I haven't had anyone compare me to anyone since, but everyone who sees me play compliments me enthusiastically and profusely as though I'm the best drummer they've ever seen. That's laughable, but hey - I know that feeling very well and so I don't want to take that away from them, so I just thank them very sincerely even though I wish they could know just how much I suck. lol Although, I know why they think I'm good: because I don't take chances or risks on stage. I stick to what I'm good at, which isn't much, but I guess it fools people into thinking that I'm an excellent drummer. Oh, if they only knew. If only.
Everyone compares me to Ringo, which angers me to no end.
I've also been compared to Danny Seraphine.
Being compared to Ringo is a MASSIVE compliment though. I know that Ringo was almost the opposite of guys like Buddy Rich, but you have to admit that he's
damn good at playing music. Pete Best was able to play circles around Ringo, and that's the problem: he didn't know how to just chill out and keep a good beat and play musically and tastefully. When they found Ringo, Paul basically made the decision right then and there that Ringo is their new drummer. That choice was what helped make the Beatles become what they were and still are. If they had stayed with Pete Best, then they would have just been just so-so. They most certainly would not have been what we think of when we think of "The Beatles". Hell no. It would have been pathetic in comparison. It would have been just another good band, blending in with the rest. Ringo made all the difference for their music.
So, I would say that it's a huge compliment to be compared to Ringo. Most people don't really know what we know and they don't know just how awesome some drummers are because they don't hear them the same way that we do, so that's all in the eyes and ears of the beholder. To some people, Ringo was the best drummer who ever lived because he always played musically and tastefully. He never played things that were only impressive to other drummers. Now, we know that the reason he didn't is because he really couldn't, but most people don't know that. They probably think that he could play just like Buddy Rich but just kept it under control. Yknow what I mean? I would even bet that some people think that he's just as good as Buddy because of the way they listen.
It's amazing how different the perspective is of a non-musician, or specifically someone who doesn't even know the first thing about drumming. Have you ever had someone ask you which drums make which sounds (other than the bass drum of course)? I have. That's an eye-opening question. They will also ask which cymbals make which sounds. They're not dumb or stupid, they just don't know. I was there once. I remember not knowing which drums do what and what cymbals do what and what sound each one produces. It was before I had any interest in being a drummer, or even any interest in the drums for that matter. I was so far removed from the world of drums that everything was completely foreign to me. I didn't know what I was looking at when I was looking at a drumset. To me, it was just "the drums". Like, you know, all drum kits are the same. So, I also didn't know how to judge any drummer, and that's where most people are at. They've never heard the drummers we've heard, and if they have, then they don't hear them the same way we do. So to some people, Ringo was just about the best drummer ever. I know that it's laughable in some ways, but that's how it is. They don't judge drummers the way we do because they can't. They judge them in a very different way.