Some Music theory 101 noob questions.

[Xdrummer]

I hate to drag up a thread that had already died - but the most recent Guitar Player mag has an article about the Rolling Stones that may be relevent to this thread.

The Stones have been referenced as an example of the drums playing "behind the beat" or having a loose pocket.

Bill Wyman (bass player) pointed out (in the Guitar Player article) that unlike most bands (in which the band follows the drummer) - the Stones follow Keef's Guitar - including Charlie (the drummer). Anyone who has followed the Stones knows Keef has a tendancy to play loose and even turn the beat around on occasion - and pretty much expects the rest of the band to adapt.

So - Charlie may be a hair behind the guitar as he watches Keef for visual cues or simply because Charlie if trying follow Keef's less than precise playing. This by default places Charlie in a position of laying back - a little - which contributes to the Stones oft times loose pocket.

For what it's worth

 

[grimtraveller]

And yet, if you really listen to the Stones, however loose their feel {which is not in itself unusual}, there is a definite drum framework that would remain whether Keef was there or not.

 

[Xdrummer]

Grimm,

I agree - in fact in the same Guitar Player article, Keef suggests that he would not be the player he is nor would the Stones be the band they are without the solid anchor that Charlie brings to the drum throne.

I guess it could be suggested that while Keef provides the fuel to move the train, Charlie keeps it on the tracks.

When I was younger many other English drummers impressed me more with their energy and chops (Keith Moon, Mitch Mitchell, etc. - but over the years I gained a better appreciation for the relatively basic but solid anchor Charlie lays down!

 

[RAMI]

over the years I gained a better appreciation for the relatively basic but solid anchor Charlie lays down!

I agree. As time goes on, every time I hear an old Stones tune or play an old album, I hear not only how solid he was, but also he came with some really interesting parts. He oftan does quirky stuff like not put a crash where you'd expect one, or not putting a snare on the "2 and" instead of the 2 once in a while, etc..... Some of his fills are pretty interesting too.

 

[mixsit]

I still get a kick out of the way he drops the hat making room for his snare swing. I don't know maybe it's just a 'for show thing, but fun to watch.

 

[RAMI]

I still get a kick out of the way he drops the hat making room for his snare swing. I don't know maybe it's just a 'for show thing, but fun to watch.

I remember noticing that probably before I even started playing drums, and thinking it looked cool. I wonder if he does it to some how make the snare stand out more, even if it's just in his mind.

 

[grimtraveller]

in the same Guitar Player article, Keef suggests that he would not be the player he is nor would the Stones be the band they are without the solid anchor that Charlie brings to the drum throne.

Yesterday I was watching an episode of an old TV series called "All you need is love" in which they showed a clip of the Stones playing at Hyde Park a couple of days after Brian Jones died. I payed particular attention to the matter of who laid the foundational beat. It was Charlie. In some parts, Keef wasn't even playing or was playing little lead licks with Mick Taylor.

I guess it could be suggested that while Keef provides the fuel to move the train, Charlie keeps it on the tracks.

]Nice quote. I'd go along with that. In a way, that could well describe the juxtaposition between the rhythm guitar and drums in many an outfit.

When I was younger many other English drummers impressed me more with their energy and chops (Keith Moon, Mitch Mitchell, etc. )- but over the years I gained a better appreciation for the relatively basic but solid anchor Charlie lays down!

When I found out that Charlie's real love was jazz and that he basically saw himself as a jazz drummer, I wasn't surprized. I dug alot of Charlie's drumming {"Dandelion", "Get off of my cloud", "We love you", "Ruby Tuesday", "2000 light years from home", "She's a rainbow", "Street fighting man", "Sympathy for the devil", "Let's spend the night together"} from very early on. Whether basic or with more frills, he always came up with just the right feel and patterns.

I agree. As time goes on, every time I hear an old Stones tune or play an old album, I hear not only how solid he was, but also he came with some really interesting parts.

Just before he died, John Lennon said that he always objected to the fact that because Charlie drew cartoons and played jazz, that he was somehow a better drummer than Ringo. But it's easy to see why many commentators felt that.
That said, for me it was never a matter of which was better. They were part of those girls' "Stones vs Beatles" 60s arguments as far as I was concerned. They were both excellent and inventive drummers that framed their respective bands music and helped make their songs continually accessible.

 

[Brandon Joswick]

Stones or Beatles, that would make for an interesting thread.

 

[grimtraveller]

From 'Crossfire Hurricane Bill Wyman explains the Rolling Stones "wobble"

"Something happens when we play together. It's impossible to copy. Every band follows the drummer. We don't follow Charlie. Charlie follows Keith. So the drums are very slightly behind Keith. It's only fractional. Seconds. Minuscule. And I tend to play ahead. It's got a sort of wobble. It's dangerous because it can fall apart at any minute."

I remembered the 'Charlie follows Kieth' thing but totally forgot him saying he played ahead of it

I think Bill was waxing lyrical here because again, if you listen to the Stones what he's saying makes little musical sense. Charlie follows Keith. Bill is ahead of Charlie but evidently also behind Keith. Yet Charlie is only fractionally behind Keith. So where exactly is Bill in relation to Keith ? Saying it's dangerous because it could fall apart any minute is rather fanciful because the description itself is falling apart !
As a side note, "Crossfire hurricane" was a superb documentary. Better than "5X5" that came out in the late 80s.

I've olayed a lot of R & B, funk & "soft jazz" and I manipulate the groove all the time -

Olé !

A lot of musicians mistake tempo for time. Tempo is the speed of the beat, time is the amount of space between beats. But only the drummer is in control of the tempos and the time.

You're the drummer. You set the tempo.

Interestingly, in Pete Townshend's autobiography, he says that Keith Moon always followed him and John Entwistle and that they set the tempo as they had rock solid timing. I also saw a documentary last year on the making of "Quadrophenia" in which Townshend said he had to maintain some solid sense of time because Moon was all over the place {he also said he never thought Moon was a very good drummer}. Both he and Roger Daltrey acknowledged that Moon was a superb listener as a drummer and as Townshend and Entwistle set the tempos, Moon played the kind of way he did because of his ability to listen and respond.

Stones or Beatles, that would make for an interesting thread.

Naw, that's been done to death on HR.com, all over the internet and long before there was an internet, internationally, since 1964........Even John Lennon got embroiled in it, saying the Stones always copied the Beatles {sitars, orchestras, self composed albums, big colour sleeve on the 1967 psychedelic album, model wives and girlfriends, plain white album cover on the 1968 album, films etc, etc,} and indeed, in 2 Beatle songs and an album title, there are swipes at the Stones whom I've always found to be respectful about the Beatles.