If chops matter then, why are Ringo and Lars

Last edited:
If drumming skills were directly proportional to wealth, we'd see a vastly different landscape of rich and poor drummers in this world.

This may not be a popular opinion, but I think Ringo and Lars' financial success has way more to do with the massive bands they are in. Yes, their skills played a role in the success of those bands, but it was their songwriting skills that played a much bigger role imo.
 
Is there a restaurant you know of, maybe locally, which makes absolutely incredible food? Would you rather eat there, or go to the most popular, highest money making fast food chain?
 
Last edited:
Is there a restaurant you know of, maybe locally, which makes absolutely incredible food? Would you rather eat there, or go to the most popular, highest money making fast food chain?
I don’t have a problem with either one as long as I like what they serve. And that’s the major problem with threads like this…who says you have to pick one or the other?
 
That's usually the implication when the word is uttered.

Chops really has a broader definition of course.
Oh I get it - just don't agree with the over use of its "way too often used" usual implication.... particularly wen it comes to describing a Simon Phillips track (any Simon Phillips track) as devoid of chops. Personally the thought "devoid of chops" is something I can't imagine ever thinking when hearing Simon play. For me - every note he plays just drips of chops... control, placement, appropriateness, musicality, facility, competence.

Again - I get it is a semantical distinction.... but I also feel this big line our community seems to draw being few notes and many notes is overblown.... its importance a falsehood. When effectiveness in the music being played is all that's really important. By evidence of the many "simple players" that have recorded moments that are down right note laden and the more "complex" players that occasionally demonstrate the ultimate in restraint. For example - the Ringo tracks that few of us could play half as effectively because they are that technically demanding - and for the other hand, I'm always drawn to sessions that Vinnie Colaiuta did for Burt Bacharach (the Ron Isley/Burt Bacharach album for instance)....so understated.

Anyway - that's why I chimed in...
 
Any drummer that has been a long time, full member of a popular band is probably going to be very wealthy.
People like Larry Mullen jr (U2), Mick Fleetwood (Mac) and Don Henley (Eagles).
Technical ability is just about having the language skills to communicate effectively. Not sure why these two things are separate.
 
to say Ringo didn't have chops is kinda dumb innit? He invented a way to play- had to- to accompany who he was accompanying.
his situation, tea towels..Pretty inventive..He discovered a way. he didn't sit back there and play a two four always something special some trademark twist err "naturally". His fills are legend.
Thank you, Joe! If you think Ringo didn't/doesn't have "chops" i.e. technique, then you're not paying attention.

And people too often conflate chops with technique and flashy playing with lots of notes.

Ringo's "chops" are his rock solid time, unmatchable feel and uncanny instinct to always create the perfect drum part for every song. And then on top of that, he had great technique then tends to go unnoticed or is just lost on people who don't give his playing a critical listen.
 
Chops are fine, but parts and feel are what make mainstream songs work. Sometimes the songs involve technical chops, but usually not.

Again: mainstream. Meaning, what most people listen to and pay to hear.

Also, Ringo's been at this a lot longer and to a larger degree than most of the working drummers out there, and he's had some great album sales at a time when albums were still selling.

For those who like 'chops' drummers, there are some great ones out there. Buy their songs... they probably need the money. 😮

That's a great post, Bermuda....buy their songs they probably need the money!!!

In our blues band they want me to just carve out a simple routine pocket and stay there. Anytime I try and add something they call "jazzy", they are quick to tell me to knock it off. We're getting lots of gigs and festival work. I don't have to demonstrate any fast chops or complicated polyrhythms or much limb independence, of which mine are limited anyway. In fact I kinda search out bands and projects where I don't need much of that, as my blues mates say, "jazzy stuff" lol. :cool:
 
As a drummer either you have a curiosity or maybe one doesn't... Those with a curiosity may look at complex beats and music and absorb them but doesn't diminish their appreciation for (and playing ) the most simplest of beats...

It's when it becomes a one or the other it turns into an argument as relevant as Trad or Matched when most drummers know they can utilize (there's no law) both..

Drummers in the early mid 70s started this trend of playing both rock and jazz ; the abilities crossed- all lines-

You had rock -born Rock gen (boomers year 45 on up) drummers who were schooled and curious and eager about other and all forms.
I don't want to exercise my brain too much but take a Gadd (b 45) who disco'd but also Lenore'd

that became a baseline- could swing and could rock- for many many many most boomers
At least that's how I saw see and live it..

those early 70s were a major cross over mingling
to this day

by now - some 50 years later-
we're all, thru this practice well-equipped

It's something - this wide view- that I hope isn't lost on all later and future generations
of drummers
 
Last edited:
Great topic. This is why Son of Vistalite Black advocates for a system that classes drumming specialties in the same way Olympic disciplines are defined.

When the Olympics come on (Paris '24?), there's no arguments about whether the 100-meter dash champion could beat the marathon winner in the 400-meter hurdles.

Obviously, the double-bass drumming style of Lars Ulrich is as different from Ringo as the backstroke is to the butterfly.

The answer is to class the various drum disciplines in the same way ... double bass, single bass ... country, rock, punk, polka, metal, speed metal, etc.

One final note, the Beatles only played live 1,325 times, and eight of those were with Jimmy Nichol.
 
JimmyM says “ONLY???” In what’s basically a 5 year period, 1325 shows is a whole lot of shows.

A "show" was 45 minutes to 1 hour, and, again, Ringo didn't missed eight of them. This is the Washington DC Coliseum setlist from Feb. 11, 1964 (two days after Ed Sullivan).

1. Roll Over Beethoven (cover)
2. From Me to You
3. I Saw Her Standing There
4. This Boy
5. All My Loving
6. I Wanna Be Your Man
7. Please Please Me
8. Till There Was You (cover)
9. She Loves You
10. Twist and Shout (cover)
11. Long Tall Sally (cover)

 
A "show" was 45 minutes to 1 hour, and, again, Ringo didn't missed eight of them. This is the Washington DC Coliseum setlist from Feb. 11, 1964 (two days after Ed Sullivan).

1. Roll Over Beethoven (cover)
2. From Me to You
3. I Saw Her Standing There
4. This Boy
5. All My Loving
6. I Wanna Be Your Man
7. Please Please Me
8. Till There Was You (cover)
9. She Loves You
10. Twist and Shout (cover)
11. Long Tall Sally (cover)

The show length is immaterial. The travel is the tiring and tedious part.
 
majority in club in Germany and England right?
 
The highest paid drummers are probably those who wrote or co-wrote songs (assuming they still have a piece of the performance / publishing rights). Neil Peart, Phil Collins, Ian Paice (co-writer on almost every DP song), certainly Lars. Here's a recent DW thread:

 
Last edited:
The other thing I've said about Ringo dozens of times in these threads:

John, Paul, and George picked Ringo because he gave them what they wanted.

It doesn't matter if someone else thinks a Buddy Rich-style drummer would have been a more talented option, the other 3 didn't want a big band drummer trying to play rock. They didn't want a jazz drummer trying to play rock. They wanted someone who had the same musical influences and approach to music they did.

At the time, there weren't a lot of rock drummers around who were not jazz drummers at heart. Hal Blaine, Earl Palmer, and the like were jazz guys who learned to play rock.

Ringo, on the other hand, never played in a traditional jazz band, never played big band, never played be-bop. He was into skiffle like John, Paul and George were. Which is why they liked him, he was one of them.

If Ringo came into the Beatles and tried to play like Buddy Rich or Max Roach, the other 3 would have said "next!" and moved on.

Similar to Lars. James wasn't looking for what everyone else was doing. James was looking for someone who was different. If James wanted what was cool at the time, he would have gone down to the sunset strip and joined the next Motley Crue/Ratt/etc that was coming up at the time.
 
Back
Top