I do not hear many long complicated fills in recorded and live music

I very, very rarely play a 'complex' fill. The fills I play are dictated by the music, and the music I perform is generally song driven, or singer-songwriter. People generally don't care about complexity, they want the drummer to help tell the story of the song, move the song forward.
I usually play a bigger fill at the end of the song than the beginning - it's a journey.
The complex stuff I play is based on independence, like keeping a good grove going with my right hand (kick, snare, hi-hat) while triggering samples on a sample pad, often a pattern that is somewhat unrelated to the drum groove.
Lastly, I have played a lot of arenas and even bigger. I find simpler fills are easier to hear in big spaces, the faster the notes in the fill the more the fill gets lost in the mess of the stadium sound.
 
Chris Whitten said:
I very, very rarely play a 'complex' fill. The fills I play are dictated by the music, and the music I perform is generally song driven, or singer-songwriter. People generally don't care about complexity, they want the drummer to help tell the story of the song, move the song forward.
I usually play a bigger fill at the end of the song than the beginning - it's a journey.
The complex stuff I play is based on independence, like keeping a good grove going with my right hand (kick, snare, hi-hat) while triggering samples on a sample pad, often a pattern that is somewhat unrelated to the drum groove.
Lastly, I have played a lot of arenas and even bigger. I find simpler fills are easier to hear in big spaces, the faster the notes in the fill the more the fill gets lost in the mess of the stadium sound.
Click to expand...

church....

For me - regardless of the genre I play - I tend to write fills based around what the lyrics are saying...like the story line. I feel like the fills, which are transitional 99% of the time, are happenign when a part of the story is changing. If the story is "ramping up" or getting more tense, or crescendoing, then the fill will usually be a bit more busy. Same with the opposite, where the fill will be less busy, or more spacious.

It is just how I have always thought of fills. I have never thought of them as "my chance to show off"
 
I like the 1/4 note fills Mr. Hartman does on "China Grove" by The Doobies.
I also like the 16th note triplet flams by Lenny White with Chick.
Depends on the sitch.....sir....but you are right....the fills be simpler....now.
 
Rattlin' Bones said:
Not sure why you're so argumentative. Chill, dude.

Beethoven the musician decided there was no room for complicated drum fills in his music like his piano concertos lol.

Paul and John the musicians decided they didn't want any complicated drum fills in most of their music like when they wrote and then recorded Help and Ticket to Ride and a zillion other tunes.

Mack Gordon and Harry Warren the musicians decided they didn't want any complicated drum fills when they wrote Chattanooga Choo Choo. Another lol.

Extreme examples, but then again you're extremely argumentative over extremely thin air that doesn't really add to this discussion. Music does not exist without the musicians. Musicians decide. OK cool beans. 90% of all pop and most rock musicians decided they don't need or want complicated fills in their music. Does that make you feel validated?
Click to expand...
Because I am tired of hearing this crap. Whatever dude. 90% of pop musicians made that choice because they were not capable even if they wanted to. The rest decided to dumb it down because half the audience can't count to 5. Musicians made these choices and then the rest pointed at them and said, that must be the only way because they didn't have the brass to do something else. Call me aggressive or whatever you like. We are here at this point where the dumber and more basic it is the better because we settle for the common denominator
 
1) All fantastic (starting with the time, the rhythm), but check out the fills from 1:16 too...:

2) How about a new version of Watermelon man?:

3) Some enjoyable time playing (wait for the first tune to develop a bit):
 
Last edited:
AudioWonderland said:
Because I am tired of hearing this crap. Whatever dude. 90% of pop musicians made that choice because they were not capable even if they wanted to. The rest decided to dumb it down because half the audience can't count to 5. Musicians made these choices and then the rest pointed at them and said, that must be the only way because they didn't have the brass to do something else. Call me aggressive or whatever you like. We are here at this point where the dumber and more basic it is the better because we settle for the common denominator
Click to expand...

See what Chris Whitten had to say in posts here.

I have no idea where you're coming from.

When did the majority of music recorded and played ever feature complicated fills? Never.

I don't often count to 5 playing. Another lol.
 
AudioWonderland said:
Because I am tired of hearing this crap. Whatever dude. 90% of pop musicians made that choice because they were not capable even if they wanted to. The rest decided to dumb it down because half the audience can't count to 5. Musicians made these choices and then the rest pointed at them and said, that must be the only way because they didn't have the brass to do something else. Call me aggressive or whatever you like. We are here at this point where the dumber and more basic it is the better because we settle for the common denominator
Click to expand...
Listen to some Steely Dan. Nothing but world class musicians on every single song. Very few complicated fills. What ended up on the records were takes which were pleasing to the composers and the producers of the music.

Now, as a segway from Steely Dan, take a look at and listen to Steve Gadd's discography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gadd_discography. A lot of pop stuff with simple grooving. Then there's the Chick Corea stuff, the busy fusion stuff, the jazz stuff. He definitely had the chops to play whatever he wanted, but he would not have been able to play on so many hit records if he always bust out his fusion chops with no regard to the music being played.

Ultimately, you decide what you want to listen to. It's your choice to listen to modern Top 100 pop hits if you want to be angry at the supposed decline of musicianship. Seems a bit silly to me, given that there's an abundance of great music and musicians to be heard if you just turn off the radio.
 
Chris Whitten said:
Music always comes first. I am NOT more important than a great song. A great song always exists, but I can be replaced.
Click to expand...
Chris, Perhaps our definition of great varies considerably. If the music came first, you would not need to be concerned about being replaced. Your statement makes it clear the artist (or whomever hired you) comes first. What they like is what's "great". As sideman, that is entirely valid. We all need to make a living. But, that is a different question and discussion entirely. You are not the artist in that scenario

Wavelength said:
Listen to some Steely Dan. Nothing but world class musicians on every single song. Very few complicated fills. What ended up on the records were takes which were pleasing to the composers and the producers of the music.
Click to expand...
Boring as hell.... If you didn't read the liner notes you would never know there were different drummers. Props to the guys for making the artist happy though. Again, they were not the artists, they were the sidemen hired for the project

Wavelength said:
Now, as a segway from Steely Dan, take a look at and listen to Steve Gadd's discography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gadd_discography. A lot of pop stuff with simple grooving. Then there's the Chick Corea stuff, the busy fusion stuff, the jazz stuff. He definitely had the chops to play whatever he wanted, but he would not have been able to play on so many hit records if he always bust out his fusion chops with no regard to the music being played.
Click to expand...
Hits? Your confusing popular with good. No regard to the music being played? Someone, somewhere decided that you can't possibly play anything but 2/4 on a pop tune and the sheep have accepted that trope as gospel ever since. Just because Gadd placated the people paying him doesn't mean he didn't have a better idea. It just means his employer lacked the vision and/or the brass to see it through

Wavelength said:
Ultimately, you decide what you want to listen to. It's your choice to listen to modern Top 100 pop hits if you want to be angry at the supposed decline of musicianship. Seems a bit silly to me, given that there's an abundance of great music and musicians to be heard if you just turn off the radio.
Click to expand...

I don't listen to that crap. But I unfortunately cannot avoid the constant drone about "playing for the song". People love to pat themselves on the back for that little virtue signal. They just blindly accept the notion that "playing for the song" means playing the most dirt simple part they can imagine. That is simply false. In some cases, it may true. I don't deny that but it should not be dogma. The reality is its driven by fear that the punters might not like it. The concern is units sold, not is it as good as it could be. That is an entirely different thing than making great music.

Case in point. Can you imagine Rush tracked in Nashville? How about Van Halen playing it safe not using tapping or speed picking? Yes or any of the progressive bands of the 70's keeping it simple? Later on bands like Dream Theater?

Fortunately there are still bands that will play their asses off unapologetically these days. I never hear them worried about playing for the song. They just go kick ass.
 
Has there really been too many top 40 hits that have long complicated fills? I mean, there are note-worthy fills, and maybe the word “complicated” is relative, but still. I mean there’s “In the Air Tonight.”

Am I just not thinking well this morning?
 
Wavelength said:
Listen to some Steely Dan. Nothing but world class musicians on every single song. Very few complicated fills. What ended up on the records were takes which were pleasing to the composers and the producers of the music.

Now, as a segway from Steely Dan, take a look at and listen to Steve Gadd's discography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gadd_discography. A lot of pop stuff with simple grooving. Then there's the Chick Corea stuff, the busy fusion stuff, the jazz stuff. He definitely had the chops to play whatever he wanted, but he would not have been able to play on so many hit records if he always bust out his fusion chops with no regard to the music being played.

Ultimately, you decide what you want to listen to. It's your choice to listen to modern Top 100 pop hits if you want to be angry at the supposed decline of musicianship. Seems a bit silly to me, given that there's an abundance of great music and musicians to be heard if you just turn off the radio.
Click to expand...
An abundance of great musicians for sure. And always have been. They're just not all on the radio or most popular streaming tracks. I can stream Smalls or Mezzrows from NYC any evening and hear great musicians. Jazz. Yeah.
 
AudioWonderland said:
Chris, Perhaps our definition of great varies considerably. If the music came first, you would not need to be concerned about being replaced. Your statement makes it clear the artist (or whomever hired you) comes first. What they like is what's "great". As sideman, that is entirely valid. We all need to make a living. But, that is a different question and discussion entirely. You are not the artist in that scenario


Boring as hell.... If you didn't read the liner notes you would never know there were different drummers. Props to the guys for making the artist happy though. Again, they were not the artists, they were the sidemen hired for the project


Hits? Your confusing popular with good. No regard to the music being played? Someone, somewhere decided that you can't possibly play anything but 2/4 on a pop tune and the sheep have accepted that trope as gospel ever since. Just because Gadd placated the people paying him doesn't mean he didn't have a better idea. It just means his employer lacked the vision and/or the brass to see it through



I don't listen to that crap. But I unfortunately cannot avoid the constant drone about "playing for the song". People love to pat themselves on the back for that little virtue signal. They just blindly accept the notion that "playing for the song" means playing the most dirt simple part they can imagine. That is simply false. In some cases, it may true. I don't deny that but it should not be dogma. The reality is its driven by fear that the punters might not like it. The concern is units sold, not is it as good as it could be. That is an entirely different thing than making great music.

Case in point. Can you imagine Rush tracked in Nashville? How about Van Halen playing it safe not using tapping or speed picking? Yes or any of the progressive bands of the 70's keeping it simple? Later on bands like Dream Theater?

Fortunately there are still bands that will play their asses off unapologetically these days. I never hear them worried about playing for the song. They just go kick ass.
Click to expand...

They call it THE MONEY BEAT for a reason. Laughing all the way to the bank.
 
AudioWonderland said:
Chris, Perhaps our definition of great varies considerably.


Boring as hell....


Hits? Your confusing popular with good.



I don't listen to that crap. But I unfortunately cannot avoid the constant drone about "playing for the song". People love to pat themselves on the back for that little virtue signal. They just blindly accept the notion that "playing for the song" means playing the most dirt simple part they can imagine. That is simply false. In some cases, it may true. I don't deny that but it should not be dogma. The reality is its driven by fear that the punters might not like it. The concern is units sold, not is it as good as it could be. That is an entirely different thing than making great music.

Case in point. Can you imagine Rush tracked in Nashville? How about Van Halen playing it safe not using tapping or speed picking? Yes or any of the progressive bands of the 70's keeping it simple? Later on bands like Dream Theater?

Fortunately there are still bands that will play their asses off unapologetically these days. I never hear them worried about playing for the song. They just go kick ass.
Click to expand...
Yes everyone thinks that what they like is great and everything else is "Boring as hell" I say that agreeing that I don't like Steely Dan's music.
Confusing popular with good... well for example Taylor Swift is very popular, that doesn't make her a good singer or musician. I remember in the 80's people used to bash Madonna and Cindy Lauper because they couldn't sing like Whitney Houston! ( A very high bar) but be that as it may they can sing.... at least IMO they can sing better than Taylor Swift yet, TS is way more popular that any of them ever were.
Tom Araya (Slayer) said in one of his lyrics "Thousands of people cannot be wrong" well guess what? Yes they can, hence why some people today are popular when they shouldn't be (Kardashians and the likes).

Now about playing for the song... well I don't believe that your playing needs to be subdued to serve the music.
One example comes to mind, in the song below, the music is relatively slow and nobody (but the drummer) is playing anything too complex yet, his busy (and constant) fills do serve the music. Imagine how boring this song would be if he just stuck to a simple "Money Beat" pattern?


Drumming starts at the 1:24 mark.
 
AudioWonderland said:
Chris, Perhaps our definition of great varies considerably. If the music came first, you would not need to be concerned about being replaced. Your statement makes it clear the artist (or whomever hired you) comes first. What they like is what's "great". As sideman, that is entirely valid. We all need to make a living. But, that is a different question and discussion entirely. You are not the artist in that scenario


Boring as hell.... If you didn't read the liner notes you would never know there were different drummers. Props to the guys for making the artist happy though. Again, they were not the artists, they were the sidemen hired for the project


Hits? Your confusing popular with good. No regard to the music being played? Someone, somewhere decided that you can't possibly play anything but 2/4 on a pop tune and the sheep have accepted that trope as gospel ever since. Just because Gadd placated the people paying him doesn't mean he didn't have a better idea. It just means his employer lacked the vision and/or the brass to see it through



I don't listen to that crap. But I unfortunately cannot avoid the constant drone about "playing for the song". People love to pat themselves on the back for that little virtue signal. They just blindly accept the notion that "playing for the song" means playing the most dirt simple part they can imagine. That is simply false. In some cases, it may true. I don't deny that but it should not be dogma. The reality is its driven by fear that the punters might not like it. The concern is units sold, not is it as good as it could be. That is an entirely different thing than making great music.

Case in point. Can you imagine Rush tracked in Nashville? How about Van Halen playing it safe not using tapping or speed picking? Yes or any of the progressive bands of the 70's keeping it simple? Later on bands like Dream Theater?

Fortunately there are still bands that will play their asses off unapologetically these days. I never hear them worried about playing for the song. They just go kick ass.
Click to expand...
Then you should find those types of projects and then pursue them. Nothing wrong with that. I often think drummers could be busier and not ruin the song. But with the industry taken up with solo acts as to avoid band drama, they usually want the focus square on them and only rarely taken over by solos. Just don't take gigs like that. It's fine.
 
I don't think Ringo for example wanted to be the best slave possible. I have to think<- well that's not too hard-
he wanted to contribute and made many of his own decisions.
Can you imagine someone - from the control booth- or elsewhere- telling Ringo "cut that part back" in Come Together
or "we're going to leave that out" the iconic beginning of "Something"

there's a fine line but a drummer can be trusted at times..
drums
off the leash can be beautiful.
 
Last edited:
There's a flaw in the question: what is 'music nowadays'?
Does popular music (especially bands) really exist as anything but a vestige of its former self?
Sure there are sub-cultures - but can they be described as popular? Do even teenagers care what's happening nowadays as anything more than background music?
I subconsciously take it as given that anyone discussing 'mainstream' rock is looking back on the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s ...
 
Released today - here you go:
 

crazy, man,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top