If chops matter then, why are Ringo and Lars

Sometimes the internet looks like:
I, I, I, me, I, I, me.
We?

Lol. I realize that I am not that important and that my experiences are as relevant to the rest of the world as my accomplishments in drumming.
 
Sometimes the internet looks like:
I, I, I, me, I, I, me.
We?

Lol. I realize that I am not that important and that my experiences are as relevant to the rest of the world as my accomplishments in drumming.
Sometimes people talk about others as if they know them personally (and by knowing them personally I mean they spend significant time with that person not just met them once in a drum clinic). It is kind of silly to talk about what other people would do or not do or like or not like, we don't know them, so talking about yourself makes more sense.
Your drumming experiences (or for that matter anybody's) are not important to me at all, they are just a source of information or entertainment.

Why some people choose to follow the negative take of this?
 
To each their own...

Myself I'd rather listen to Andy Newmark, Russ Kunkel or Mel Lewis apply their musical chops than a testosterone fueled metal or gospel chops display.

Some people prefer other things...
 
Sometimes people talk about others as if they know them personally (and by knowing them personally I mean they spend significant time with that person not just met them once in a drum clinic). It is kind of silly to talk about what other people would do or not do or like or not like, we don't know them, so talking about yourself makes more sense.
Your drumming experiences (or for that matter anybody's) are not important to me at all, they are just a source of information or entertainment.

Why some people choose to follow the negative take of this?

I believe every word you're saying, man.
 
Sometimes the internet looks like:
I, I, I, me, I, I, me.
We?
It's just a lack of writing style. We're not thinking of a chat room as a literary exercise.

Good point, though. I've mentioned to a few songwriters how often those words come up in their lyrics, and they've taken the comment to heart, done a bit of rewriting, and moved some of their lyrics to a third person voice. It just never occurred to them how much they were using the first person voice, and how that can get annoying. The Beatles were great for singing about other people, or to other people, and avoiding a lot of "Me, I, me, mine.."

And yet, I do the same thing when I'm posting. Yes, I do, me, myself.

In business writing, the main word I try to avoid is "You". That's almost as good as "No" for making people's heads explode.
 
To each their own...

Myself I'd rather listen to Andy Newmark, Russ Kunkel or Mel Lewis apply their musical chops than a testosterone fueled metal or gospel chops display.

Some people prefer other things...

Same. I want to hear musical ideas, and some space between the notes so I have time to absorb the ideas. So do the great majority of audience members.

The thing I remember most about truly great musical performances is what happens BETWEEN the notes and BEFORE the notes. Not the notes themselves.
 
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.
He did.
 
and his muffling was pretty inventive a unique sound idea
people muffled bass drums prior to that right? but toms? hmm... May have been the first
 
Same. I want to hear musical ideas, and some space between the notes so I have time to absorb the ideas. So do the great majority of audience members.

The thing I remember most about truly great musical performances is what happens BETWEEN the notes and BEFORE the notes. Not the notes themselves.
This. Frenetic music causes my brain to shut down and I can't think or hear it.
 
Why are we equating "chops" with "lots of notes"???
Sadly, because that's how most "gospel chops" players think that's what you do.
Blast away with as many lightning fast fills as you can do & have the crowd go nuts.

Meanwhile, those of us who know better roll our eyes & go get a drink.
 
Put the fellow behind a four piece drum set. No Guitars. No Organs. No Singers. No Mics. Let's see what he can do in front of a live audience.

Where did I learn this? I remember I was watching one of Rick Dior's educational clips a while back. He recalled a memory when he went to a drum workshop with one of the Jazz greats (forgot the name of the drummer). He said, the workshop organizers were careless and they had a very bad sounding beat up drum set for the workshop session. Then the great Jazz drummer started playing a solo on this crappy beat up old drum set. He still wowed people with his skill and speed.
 
Last edited:
This. Frenetic music causes my brain to shut down and I can't think or hear it.

As a student of drums, I am never allowed to play an exercise below the BPM threshold stated in the book. The speed is written right there on top of the page in bold letters. If I play at 60, I need to practice again and again until I get to 120 BPM. So, speed is stressed in teaching drums all the time.
 
Sadly, because that's how most "gospel chops" players think that's what you do.
Blast away with as many lightning fast fills as you can do & have the crowd go nuts.
But is that how they think? I've never had much in the way of conversation with any "gospel chops" players.

Though it is hard for me to believe that's all there is to it. As it just seems so musically purposeful. Borrowing vocabulary from fusion music - so often a complex and busy music - and applying it to more straight forward funk/r'n'b music. Keeping the solid danceable framework while embellishing for the sake of energy, excitement and/or intensity. Again I just can't imagine the primary motivation for it is born of immaturity - not when - at least, to my ears, it can serve such an effective musical purpose.

Of course, this is referring to folks doing it well and in a way that makes sense for the music around them. Which I get isn't always the case - but honestly no more offensive to me than the "I just keep it simple and play for the tune" guy that then just sort of blows straight through all the breaks, stops, accents and transitions. Just as offensive to my ears.

Which just brings me back to it not ever being about the amount of notes - but rather how well the notes played serves the music at hand. Which is the furthest thing from "one size fits all" IMO.

Meanwhile, those of us who know better roll our eyes & go get a drink.
 
One final note, the Beatles only played live 1,325 times, and eight of those were with Jimmy Nichol.

I'm curious where this number came from and how it was calculated.

Is it factoring in the 8-hour days in Hamburg, for over a year? The Cavern Club?

Author Joe Goodden (also creator of beatlesbible.com) claims to have documented 1,325 live shows between 1957 and 1966, though "there were almost certainly more." According to Wikipedia, "Their last commercial performance was at San Francisco's Candlestick Park on 29 August [1966]. It marked the end of a four-year period dominated by almost nonstop touring that included over 1,400 concert appearances internationally.
 
Author Joe Goodden (also creator of beatlesbible.com) claims to have documented 1,325 live shows between 1957 and 1966, though "there were almost certainly more." According to Wikipedia, "Their last commercial performance was at San Francisco's Candlestick Park on 29 August [1966]. It marked the end of a four-year period dominated by almost nonstop touring that included over 1,400 concert appearances internationally.

Touring is miserable. That sucks
 
Back
Top