The Smiley Smile Message Board

First, I think Ringo Starr is a great drummer, one of the best in rock music. Yet he never gets any respect and I think its jealousy. He happened to luck into the most succesful rock band in history and people seem to resent it. Most bands got together by chance yet there is this fixation on how Pete Best got kicked out and Ringo got his spot. In a way Ringo did win the lottery, but he is a superior drummer and worthy of the spot. Which brings me to the Rolling Stones, considered the Beatles main rival, yet this is the band with a truly mediocre drummer and no one ever gives Charlie Watts any sh*t. I was just listening to Aftermath and noticed how bad Charlie Watts' drumming is. Not terrible but very bland. By the way I love Aftermath, great record. Bill Wyman's bass playing really is superb.

Ringo! Why wouldn't a world class band have a world class drummer......The guy grooves like a mofo on wheels......I think as far as rock drummers goes ringo is only second to hal.

Hmm I like Charlie and Ringo fairly even musically but gotta give Ringo the edge on personality. Charlie has the worst stage presence of any drummer I ever saw. Ringo is fun to watch.

There's a great clip of Charlie when he's watching Mick cavorting around singing 'Silver Train' off 'The old grey whistle test', it basically says 'What a fool!' and its priceless!
I like Charlies drumming around that early 70s time, and I like the sound of the drums also (Think 'Tumbling Dice'), but since the late 70s his drum sound has been too clean and a bit boring, and he is partly responsible for the Stones playing all their songs too fast when they play live, which gets rid of the groove which is mostly whats good about the Stones.
I like Ringos drumming, its quite idiosyncratic, but I find it irritating when other groups ape the same trademark Ringo fills again and again - eg Oasis.

Ringo. hands down. Charlie was a jazz guy and played really well. But when I hear his drumming I hear nothing that says (Wow... Now that is a Charlie Watts riff"... Ringo on the other hand had such a distinctive ringo-ness that I have to choose him. Charlie's the better technically. But Ringo was a more interesting drummer.

Gimme Ringo anyday.

It really grates on me that Ringo gets grief from thick people saying he's crap and yet Charlie gets praise because .....oh yeh he plays jazz so he must be good.

I've heard Charlie on his jazz records play great but it's as if he can't be bothered on some Stones records.  His drumming on "I'm Free" is plain out of time in places, I had to rewind the CD when I first heard it to check it didn't jump.

Like what he does on "My obsession " though.

Also gotta respect the fella for that story about him flooring Jagger. Not sure if it's true as I'm not a Stones brain. But I heard Mick said something like "where's my Drummer" and Charlie popping him one and saying "I'm not your drummer, you're my singer"    Is that a true tale or Stones legend?

Anyway back OT, I'd have Ringo in my band anyday.  Love his funny fills.

Broken record here, but Ringo. I think Charlie Watts is a good drummer, but he doesn't quite do it for me. And because I love pop music, Ringo (to me) is the best rock-pop drummer in history. Not overbearing, just right there where you need him, spot on.

There was a time when, mostly just because when you're a certain age it's fun to act superior, I would knock Ringo (having heard others do it), and say that he was just lucky to be there, etc. But a few of my drummer-friends in college--not to mention professors--put me in my place quite quickly and clearly. It was around then that I learned this little thing called TASTE, and that all musicians didn't have to play everything they know on every song... Ringo is the most tasteful pop/rock drummer.

That Silver Train clip is really funny. Watch TAMI show as Brian starts mocking Mick's chicken like head bobbing.

He was one of the best rock drummers of his time, but to most people he will always be the only Beatle that couldn't really sing or write songs. That's the downside of being in such an extremely talented band.

Do you have the link to this clip? Couldn't find it.  ;)

It's during Off The Hook. Brian smirks while doing it.

 ???

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uVRh76G5yLM

Check out Charlie around 2.46

Micks dancing is great in this!

I vote Keith Moon  :-D

Really Steven Drozd from the Flaming Lips outshines them all so its a moot point.  :P ;D

Ringo of course. He played with the best group ever and I don't mean the Beatles.  ;)

Rory Storm and the Hurricanes?  :lol

 ;D

I like em both but Ringo has the spice and taste.

I once read something, by one of the Beatles I think, where it said that Ringo varied the beat and technique for nearly every song in the catalogue.  I started listening for the variety and I found that there was indeed a lot of variety.

I think of songs like Come Together, She Loves You, The Night Before, Good Morning, and they all have some nuance.

Get off my cloud! ;D

Can anyone show me a more innovative drum recording than what Ringo Starr did in Strawberry Fields? Absolutely phenomenal drumming.

I agree that Ringo's drumming was outstanding on that song, but didn't Paul also play drums on SFF? I heard one of the guys from the Fab Feaux being interviewed on the radio and he said near the end of the song Paul assisted Ringo, not because Ringo wasn't doing a good job but because he only has two hands and they wanted to add an extra beat. Never read any books about the Beatles or the sessions so I don't really know.

Interesting point Heywood.

People talk about overdubs and second guitarists and layering but you seldom hear about dubbing in extra drums or a second percussion being used.

Niow that I think about it, I'll bet it happened all of the time.

 :drum Charlie Watts

Hey, aren't we forgetting our very own Dennis Wilson?

[attachment deleted by admin]

He sucks.

He more than made up for lack of technique with energy and intensity. He certainly bashed the hell out of the drums. Keith Moon certainly took some cues from Denny. 

Plus, he wrote "Forever", "Little Bird", "Cuddle Up", "Only With You", "Fallin' In Love", "A Time To Live In Dreams", POB, etc. etc.

He's a talented songwriter and a great singer. But as a drummer he is really terrible. He had charisma on the stage and energy and all of that, but that doesn't make up for bad drumming. I'm not a girl. I don't care if he's cute. Being cute doens't make up for shitty drumming.

Still not bad for a guy who never really learnt, he was just thrown the job of drummer and I think he did a fine job considering

In the early days he was quite good and around 1976, 1977. His drumming at the Long Beach show, 1981 surprised me too, but he can't compete with a Charlie Watts. But I'd rather watch Denny because he has so much energy.

I'm not a girl "who think Dennis is cute". I never said I thought he was cute. I'm more like a guy who wished he could be Dennis. Now he may not have been a "great musician", but he did pretty good for someone who was put on the drums because it was the only spot left in the group. Maybe he wasn't as "proficient" as Starr or Watts, but he was definitely a lot more entertaining. I think we could all agree he had a better singing voice than Ringo.

Plus Dennis had charisma in spades. (Ringo was VERY charasmatic, but Dennis even more so.)

I don't think anyone was forgetting about Dennis Wilson in this thread: he was just irrelevant to it because it was written in the "General Music Discussion" thread about Charlie Watts and Ringo Starr. So when one is choosing between them, D. Wilson is not an option.

But since we're discussing him, I'd say Dennis was: a great talent whose musical ability seems intuitive; a terrible technician as a singer and drummer; a charismatic rock 'n' roller and romantic; and a sexy enough man to make a bunch of otherwise nerdy or fat guys still worth watching. Hopefully that answers the Watts v. Starr question...

Ringo it is.
I've listened to the Beatles all my live and just this week I was blown away by the drum part in Here comes the Sun ( esp. the end and the cymbal tags on Sun, Sun, Sun, here it Comes...then fills until the line comes back).

But on Charlie's side is he always had such a great snare sound.  A drummer I knew once pointed out how Charlie would often raise his hi hat stick during the snare notes so that nothing would distract or muddy the snare sound.

Sorta like the punching of Mick Jagger.  No idea if its true, but it makes for a good story.

Ringo for me. I've been defending Ringo for many years now (as if he needs me to do so) and eventually I whittled my response to - "He was the Beat in the Beatles. What more do you want?"

He didn't "luck into" anything. They specifically picked him to be in the group. George says in the Anthology that he was the guy for the role but didn't enter the movie until that scene. Or something like that. If anything, Pete Best lucked into the Beatles when they needed somebody that day to go to Hamburg. Or whatever the story really is. He was just a warm body. But they really dug Ringo. And he quit Rory in a heartbeat to play with them. It was cosmic, man.

Don't get me wrong, I loves me my Charlie Watts. Never fails to get me dancing. That's a trait you want in a drummer.

To put it truthfully and simply, The Beatles wanted Ringo BEFORE Ringo wanted the Beatles.

Oh. I actually wasn't there so I don't know for sure. But the story the way I understood it was that it was kinda mutual. I've heard tales told of Ringo hanging out listening to the Beatles' late night Hamburg sets, sitting in when Pete was sick or whatever, plus Ringo saying something along the lines of "I wanted to play with the Beatles because they were the best band in Liverpool". Whomever had the initial desire notwithstanding, Ringo pretty much dropped what he was doing and joined. Not much arm twisting from what I recall. But I guess the point is that they were made for each other, no?

Here's the question: Would the Beatles have been as successful if they had kept Pete Best as their drummer? Besides the fact that Ringo is a much better drummer than Pete Best, I think Ringo has much more charisma than Pete.

I've always wondered what the Beatles would have been like if Stu Sutcliffe had stayed in the group and never died.

Considering he sucked, it's safe to say worse. Unless they made him stand there and play an unplugged bass and just look good, that is. Then about the same.

No doubt. When Stu was in the group, the were weaker for it. He didn't love the music. He loved John and that is the only reason why he joined the Beatles. He would have been a dead weight on the Beatles rise to success.

As far as I'm concerned, Ringo's got way more personality in his drumming than Charlie Watts and personality goes a long way.

Ugh this thread is depressing. 

And I'm not one bit surprised Ringo gets the win here.  Ridiculously predictable.  I'm gonna throw a wrench into the mix.  Ringo or Charlie?  How about: Ringo and Charlie?  They're both class acts and they BOTH know what they're doing behind the drum kit.  Watts is the Stones' secret weapon and the magic potion (along with Richards) for why all those records worked so well.  Anyone crapping on Watts simply doesn't get it.  And probably never will. 

Hey, why not throw in Keith Moon while we're at it.

Keith and Charlie are both tremendous rock AND roll drummers essential to their groups' sounds -- the two most successful and influential bands ever.  Well two of three anyway.  Charlie has a little more swing but that is more the Stones' style too.

There is a clip of John Fogerty doing the old CCR song "Ramble Tamble" with Kenny Aranoff on drums.  Aranoff is a powerful drummer with amazing chops, but all I could think is "where the hell is Doug Clifford when you need him?"  Ringo and Charlie both served the song, sound, and band.  To me, the great rock drummers are not the best drummers.  I never liked Fusion, ya know?

This thread is looking up! But Keith Moon didn't really have the "roll" like Charlie did.

Ten points for your comments on Doug Clifford.  You totally get it dude!

Why don't we throw in Buddy Rich or Gene Krupa while we're here also?  We could add a boat load of dudes but the thread specifically focused on Ringo and Charlie so why not stick with them?

(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/380425_4048100372289_1632080614_n.jpg)

I think you're on a roll.

I wrote "Keith and Charlie" when I meant "Ringo and Charlie" (t'was late) but the point is relatively the same -- unique "personality" drummers essential to their particular bands.  Moonie was definitely not about "roll"!  There is a wonderful track off Townshend's and Ronnie Lane's "Rough Mix" -- "My Baby Gives It Away" -- on which Watts plays dums.  It is an awesome performance and is so different  than what Moon brought to the table -- something Townshend was tiring of actually.

Just for the hell of it I will mention a few of my favorite "band" drummers.  Ed Cassidy of Spirit, Albert Bouchard of Blue Oyster  Cult, and John Densmore of the Doors.  Though there are definitely some chops in there.

My personal favorite drummer is neither Ringo nor Charlie but Nick Mason.

VERY nice.

The song "LA Woman" is pure perfection.

Let's remember, neither Ringo or Charlie "lucked" into their positions in these bands.... Rather, they were THE BEST drummers in town and The Beatles/Stones got lucky when they threw in with them. The Stones used to sit around moaning that they'd be damn good if they could only get that Charlie Watts cat from Alexis Corner's band. In fact, they basically made it their mission to get him.

Ringo is my fave because he's creative. I think he even blows away Bonham in that Bonham was great, yes, but basically stuck with the same old 4x4 sh*t that got old. Albeit, he did it with amazing power and feel. But Ringo just played more creative part and was more of an innovator.

Nice to see someone giving Nick props!!!!

I could go on and on about how awesome he is, but I'll let Dave to it for me:

@ 1:30:00

http://youtu.be/MtS5TDrTK2U

Wow! There's a name you don't see mentioned often, but, you're right. Al Bouchard did some great work with BOC.

Or Mick Avory! He was more skilled I think than either Charlie or Ringo.

I'll take both, and Bobby Elliott.

And also, Heywood Floyd is a moron.

I am a huge BOC fan and have seen them live in recent years -- it's a good band and Buck is still amazing but they so miss Albert on the tubs.  It really boils down to that "swing" thing -- as much as it seems contradictory in a hard rock band!

Yeah, I grabbed that later double live album of theirs (1981, I think) and couldn't quite figure out what was wrong until I examined the cover and found that Albert wasn't there for most of it...

I was expecting (hoping) to see more of THIS type of a response to this thread!

I'm curious why Al Bouchard - and his brother, Joe - left BOC many years ago. Were they just tired of it, or was there a disagreement?

viewed through the lens of hindsight: both

Too young 5 years ago to enjoy two conflicting styles.
My whole fragile worldview would havefallen apart! 

Not many people know that Mick was in the Stones before Charlie joined.

Albert was the first to go -- he was kicked out.  Long story, but ego and erratic behavior at the center.  Too bad too, because he contributed a LOT to those early classic LPs in terms of writing and arranging.  Joe left several years later when the ship basically had sunk in terms of current commercial appeal, though there may have been some friction.  Allen Lanier only split fairly recently, for health reasons I believe.

Not exactly -- he rehearsed with them a few times I think.  I like Avory but he doesn't seem to have a "style" the same way as Charlie and Ringo.

Yeah, right on! It's about time someone noticed Mick's playing. Think of all the different styles of songs the Davies brothers wrote, and Mick could play the perfect parts for all of them.

without reading the whole discussion, i'll say no one is close to Art Blakey. And this comes from one who's of negative opinion about jazz overall.

Tough one that, both are great drummers, but I would go Ringo, just because he was a Beatle!

Coming in pretty late on this one but I'd say Charlie. He is more versatile - though no denying Ringo has far more stage personality. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that Ringo was the first to threaten to quit the Beatles, and, it appears, decided to stay partly because he realized that it wouldn't be that hard to replace him. After all, it had happened once before (albeit momentarily and due to Ringo's tonsils acting up) with Jimmy Nicol. 

But Charlie leaving the band, either for the big Birdland in the sky or just retiring, could mean the end of the Stones.  He's just the guy who ties it all together. He's always known when to hold back and let two guitars do their thing, and when to come charging in.  He's indispensable.

I thought Ringo was a good drummer up through Revolver. After that I really didn't care for it much. Over his entire career Charlie was more consistent in his style, so he gets my vote.

Ringo. I hate Stones.

What Rolling Stones song really grinds yer gears? >:D

I'm not out to convince you that they're good or something, I m just curious. Name a few.

Even "Start me up"?

That can't be

Speaking of Start Me Up:

Charlie does this awesome, almost one handed drum fill going from the snare and around the toms near the end of the song. It's a moment that always makes me smile....

And to think, "Start Me Up" was originally written and recorded (in about 60 takes) as a reggae song....

And isn't the released version the first and only take in 4x4?

Gotta be Charlie.

Keith himself said that if something happens to Charlie, the Stones are finished.

Plus he and Bill kept the Stones rolling, they weren't called the world's greatest rhythm section for no reason!

I think it's an easy tie...... Both drummers were lucky to be in bands with such consistent material that they were able to forge their own little niches and be creative in ways that stood out.....

For example, Mick Avory, I think, smokes both guys for pure ability, but since The Kinks were so dominated by one guy (Ray) as basically a vehicle for his songwriting, he wasn't able to forge much of an identity with his playing, which was always spot on and fantastic but he never got a "Day In The Life" or a "Rain" etc etc to show off on, nor did The Kinks have so much of a unified/identifiable SOUND ala the Stones for the drums to be such an integral part of.

I like both of them but if I have to pick one.. With the kind of music I like to play live I have to go with.. Charlie Watts..

Not to mention how back in the 80's Charlie once punched Mick Jagger in the face when Mick was asking "Where's MY Drummer?" early in the morning  ;D

Mick is a fantastic drummer, and if anyone doubts his abilities, just listen to his playing on (for starters) Sunny Afternoon, Waterloo Sunset, Do You Remember Walter?, Shangri-La, or Picture Book. Absolutely perfect for the songs.