Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX
Local Boob
that song is DEFINITELY not noise!!!
Without Ringo On Ed Sullivan 60 Years Ago Today, How Would Your Drumming Life Be Different?
- Thread starter Son of Vistalite Black
- Start date
that song is DEFINITELY not noise!!!
doggyd69b
Gold Member
Yes but that is how it is perceived by a lot of non metal fans before they even listen to it.
I could say the same about a few bands from the 60's and early 70's. Just because I don't like them doesn't make it true.
2 hit wonder
Junior Member
I like metal, but that isn't my type of metal. Once it goes to what appears to be the chorus , I'm out. To me, it's overprocessed noise at that point.
I didn't care for waiting 40 seconds for something to happen either.
I've tried twice this week.
I didn't care for waiting 40 seconds for something to happen either.
I've tried twice this week.
jda
Diamond Member
Physically challenging. A cursory listen thru of that reveals sixteenth-notes at +/- 160 bpm in entirety
-that's an exercise if slowed down- to 70 bpm would be in a 4th graders snare drum exercise lesson..
Call at that speed it, Physically challenging
technically -except repetition- very little to nothing there
Not technically challenging -> Physically challenging
slow it down to 0.75 and resembles a Uriah Heep or Deep Purple track from the early 70s
they might have left off an album; less there than there was then..
Last edited:
2 hit wonder
Junior Member
The double stroke kicking is an excellent example to work to, though.
Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX
Local Boob
I have read that he chooses to do that b/c it is easier for him than alternated....
2 hit wonder
Junior Member
I have read that he chooses to do that b/c it is easier for him than alternated....
I'd jump on it if I was doing that style of metal.
He's got the technique down clean, so I'm sure it's physically less demanding.
doggyd69b
Gold Member
You can break it down all you want and call it simple, it may be that it is simple, but to execute it at that speed is not. The same can be said for a lot of classical music or for that matter of any music. if you break it down and slow it down pretty much anybody can execute most music. The challenge is executing it like they did in that video.
Again just because somebody doesn't like metal it doesn't mean its simple or just noise
Check David here at the 14 second mark doing really fast singles with the right foot (sounds like he is using both feet but he is not), then check him doing a very fast roll and hitting the splashes to accent at the 2:20 mark, a little after that he goes into a syncopated pattern while doing double bass, maybe not super complex but to me the most complex part is to play it so cleanly. I am pretty sure that in order to get to that level of precision he has to practice a lot so no, not easy.
Last edited:
Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX
Local Boob
I tried it for a minute - not that fast - and it was more of a coordination thing for me....felt real awkward to do the double foot patterns under the groove on top for me. Something new to work on though....
Rattlin' Bones
Gold Member
But what about the question of thread? It's not do you like love hate Ringo - it's a very specific question:
Without Ringo On Ed Sullivan 60 Years Ago Today, How Would Your Drumming Life Be Different?
My answer is I didn't pay any attention to the drummer in The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show 60 years ago. I didn't pay much attention to him after that, either. No influence on me at all.
I'm surprised so many people answer in the affirmative. He was the least important of the members of the band.
I didn't pay attention to him and neither did any of my drum buddies as we grew up.
GretschedHive
Gold Member
If Ringo had never joined the Beatles, the majority of us would never have heard of them. His importance in the band becoming who and what they were and are cannot be overstated, as the other three themselves often said.
Rattlin' Bones
Gold Member
Question posed by OP was about Beatles appearance on Ed Sullivan 60 years ago: if Ringo wasn't part of that show would your drumming life be different. My answer is for me no because on that show he was just part of the band. On that show the least important part. Question isn't about his chops or his legacy. The many affirmative responses to that specific question surprises me. Heck how many people answering in the affirmative here were even alive to watch that show. And if they were born in, say, 1980, did they really see some old video when they were 10 years old maybe (1990?) and their drumming life was suddenly changed? I'm just not buying it. Sorry. They may have great respect for Ringo and appreciate what he brought to the Beatles, but in regards to a life-changing life-altering cosmic shift in the universe watching that show either live or 30 years after show ended - no just no.
I feel like the Comprehension Police, or my high school English teacher asking me "Didn't you even read the question?" lol.
Last edited:
timmdrum
Gold Member
Directly- none, being that it predated my birth by nearly 7 years. Indirectly- nearly none. Although I appreciate the Beatles, I've never been a big fan and though I'm familiar with Ringo's inventiveness (some from necessity), I've never been super jazzed and sent to the woodshed by anything I've hears of his/theirs. I did spend about 10 minutes researching and learning how to play Come Together correctly for a cover band.
GretschedHive
Gold Member
That's so funny, 'cuz that's exactly how I felt when I read your response to my answer!
(Although I guess in this case, it's more like "Didn't you even read the answer?" lol )
So let's try it again. If Ringo had never joined the band, the band would never have broken in America the way it did, meaning most -- not all! -- of us would never have heard of the Beatles, meaning that he cannot be the least important member of the band. (lol)
Rattlin' Bones
Gold Member
OK Now I can sorta see a connection - without Ringo they never would have played on Ed Sullivan therefore Ringo would have never influenced your life therefore your drumming today would be different? So I take it Ringo made your drumming life a lot different. So different that you call yourself LudwigedHive. Wait, no, your GretschedHive lol. Having fun with you, dude.That's so funny, 'cuz that's exactly how I felt when I read your response to my answer!
(Although I guess in this case, it's more like "Didn't you even read the answer?" lol )
So let's try it again. If Ringo had never joined the band, the band would never have broken in America the way it did, meaning most -- not all! -- of us would never have heard of the Beatles, meaning that he cannot be the least important member of the band. (lol)
Yeah that's kinda sorta related to question. Maybe I guess. But your premise I don't agree with at all: with another short not-too-good looking drummer that can play in the pocket and be inventive in his style without over-playing they never would have become a famous band? Or without a tall good looking drummer that can play in the pocket and be inventive in his style without over-playing they never would have become a famous band? Never made it in America? Never played Ed Sullivan? I don't much agree with that at all. That's just...................................
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
Interesting documentary on tv last night. How The Beatles Changed The World.
When they stopped touring in 1966, all the band apart from Paul moved out to the country suburbs. Paul immersed himself in the counter culture in London. It was tiny, had no money and very few people knew it existed.
By 1967, McCartney had been experimenting with avant-garde poetry, electronic music and tape loops. George Martin encouraged him to bring those ideas into The Beatles sessions - hence Revolver, then Sgt Peppers.
A lot of that stuff people had never done before, people had never heard before.
Ringo fitted right in, crafting some unique drum parts to popular music that had never been made before.
When The Beatles were invited to perform a song live to launch global satellite tv (with 500 million people tuning in), they decided not to promote a song from their latest album (Sgt Pepper), but instead performed 'All You Need Is Love'. A mainstream pop song that alternated 7/4 and 4/4 sections.
That's why Ringo was a big part in influencing music, and influenced a lot of fellow drummers from 67/68 onwards.
When they stopped touring in 1966, all the band apart from Paul moved out to the country suburbs. Paul immersed himself in the counter culture in London. It was tiny, had no money and very few people knew it existed.
By 1967, McCartney had been experimenting with avant-garde poetry, electronic music and tape loops. George Martin encouraged him to bring those ideas into The Beatles sessions - hence Revolver, then Sgt Peppers.
A lot of that stuff people had never done before, people had never heard before.
Ringo fitted right in, crafting some unique drum parts to popular music that had never been made before.
When The Beatles were invited to perform a song live to launch global satellite tv (with 500 million people tuning in), they decided not to promote a song from their latest album (Sgt Pepper), but instead performed 'All You Need Is Love'. A mainstream pop song that alternated 7/4 and 4/4 sections.
That's why Ringo was a big part in influencing music, and influenced a lot of fellow drummers from 67/68 onwards.
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
Isn't every drummer the foundation of a good band? How is a drummer ever the least important part of a band?