The 10 most overrated drummers of all time

[JKL2000]

I hate lists like that, but I guess the writer's gotta pretend to be a success somehow.

[markowitz]

This guy his hardly in a position to criticize any drummer's lack of originality, given that he caged the above quote (without attribution).

I don't know four of those listed, but I do agree that Max Weinberg just may be the worst drummer of his generation.

Baker and Moon?! Baker requires no defense; no one was playing like that in '66.

Moon was perfect for the Who in so far as they were essentially a song oriented pop-based group, rather than blues-based, and therefore didn't really require a pocket drummer. He was a lead player in a three-piece outfit, charged with filling out the texture and creating musical interest, not so much in rhythmic terms but in terms of lines and momentum. Townshend was the rhythm player.

Great description of Moon's insanity/instability which somehow meshed so well with Entwistle's greatness

[spellbound]

I don't get it. Are there people who rate drummers and have a problem with the ones on this list? There is no drummer on the list that I would say is incompetent. Three of them: Ginger Baker, Charlie Watts, and Keith Moon, would be on my list of top ten drummers of all time.

[ronmac]

And I'm not interested here in discussing his legacy or 'much more than his playing'.

Then don't discuss it. Nobody's forcing you to.

And which surprises me, because I figured if you don't like his playing, you simply would not like The Who.

I don't like his playing, but consider it vital to the makeup of The Who.

I'm open-minded enough to acknowledge that, and respect Pete Townsend's genius while still hating The Who.

[Baribrotzer]

Especially Questlove...I just don't get the adoration.

The point is that he's a sort of human drum loop. Which is considered ideal for hip-hop. He made his rep by being able to imitate anybody, not just in sound and feel but in recording quality. Ask for Bonham, and he'd go into the back room, get the five biggest drums there, set up two mics over the resulting kit and one in the kick, and not just play like Bonham but sound like a Led Zeppelin recording of him. Ask for Clyde Stubblefield, and he'd do the same sort of thing according to Clyde's equipment, micing, and feel. Ask for Ringo, ask for Gregg Errico, ask for Earl Palmer..... You get the picture.

So anyway, a year or two back, he and the rest of the Roots did an album with Elvis Costello. And he said that it was the first time he had made a record and sounded like himself. He's something like 43, and has been playing professionally for about 20 years. But this apparently was the first time he didn't have an artist or producer telling him, "Sound like [this guy], or [that guy]." The first time he had someone just dealing with him as if he were Jim Keltner or any other first-call session drummer, and saying: "Play something good. If I like it, I'll tell you, and if I think it isn't quite right for that song, I'll tell you that, and you'll play something else good."

[Steve F.]

Then don't discuss it. Nobody's forcing you to.

Calm down there, buddy!

I don't like his playing, but consider it vital to the makeup of The Who.

I'm open-minded enough to acknowledge that, and respect Pete Townsend's genius while still hating The Who.

As I said, I was speaking about fans of the Who. You're not a fan.

[Baribrotzer]

Just in the abstract, you could love Pete's songs and Roger's voice enough to love The Who, but have trouble with their atomic rhythm section. And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people who love tasteful, understated music feel that way. There's certainly a lot of tasteful, understated music out there - probably more of it than the wildly creative type - and it must be selling to somebody.

With that said, I've always loved The Who's unique upside-down approach.

[Mister Triscuits]

while still hating The Who.

Wait a minute--are you the Grinch???

[JKL2000]

I'm open-minded enough to acknowledge that, and respect Pete Townsend's genius while still hating The Who.

If you HATE The Who, why would you think Pete Townshend is a genius or possesses genius? The band was incapable of creating songs you don't hate!

[Roth-Handle Studios]

I read the whole thing as a joke...

// Mattias

[Baribrotzer]

Those bands were CHEMISTRY bands...... A band cannot be better than it's drummer.

You could say that the Beatles were. Ringo was dead-solid, absolutely reliable, and great at playing for the song, but so were any number of first-call session drummers. By 1964, the Beatles could have afforded to hire anybody, and had him on salary at their disposal.

With that said, what Ringo added to them was his chemistry, far more than his drumming - an unflappable, easy-going, people-smart personality that could calm quarrels, turn aside insults, and keep John and Paul from killing each other.

[miamiscot]

Carl Palmer should be on this list.

[ronmac]

Calm down there, buddy!




As I said, I was speaking about fans of the Who. You're not a fan.

good to know. Since you quoted me, I merely assumed you were talking to me.

If you HATE The Who, why would you think Pete Townshend is a genius or possesses genius? The band was incapable of creating songs you don't hate!

You're serious? You cannot distinguish between the two?

Where did I state they were incapable of creating songs I don't hate? That's simply untrue. I can't stand Daltrey, though.

[JJ88]

Just in the abstract, you could love Pete's songs and Roger's voice enough to love The Who, but have trouble with their atomic rhythm section. And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people who love tasteful, understated music feel that way. There's certainly a lot of tasteful, understated music out there - probably more of it than the wildly creative type - and it must be selling to somebody.

With that said, I've always loved The Who's unique upside-down approach.

I think Daltrey recently said the difference between The 'Stones and The Who was that the former were a 'rock n roll' group whereas The Who were 'rock'. And yes, there is still that sense of swing in The 'Stones, The Who had a different approach altogether, where the whole band made a big noise!

You could say that the Beatles were. Ringo was dead-solid, absolutely reliable, and great at playing for the song...

Anyone who believes that Pete Best was somehow cheated would do well to listen again to the recordings he did with them (and there are actually quite a few- the Tony Sheridan ones, some of which may have been overdubbed for release, but also the entire Decca audition and a few BBC sessions). The drumming has precisely none of Ringo's flair or imagination or dynamism; Best basically plays the same pattern over and over. George Martin identified the problem straight away...it was because of this that session player Andy White was brought in for recording on their first session.

[Zappathustra]

I don't get it. Are there people who rate drummers and have a problem with the ones on this list? There is no drummer on the list that I would say is incompetent. Three of them: Ginger Baker, Charlie Watts, and Keith Moon, would be on my list of top ten drummers of all time.

He doesn't say they're incompetent, he says they're overrated. Imo if Watts wasn't a Stone he would just be considered an ordinary good drummer. As for Keith Moon he's probably the most unique genius who ever sat on the kit. His style is simply inimitable. But of course "objectively speaking" his technique can be easily criticized from a more formal viewpoint. Which says nothing of how vital his playing was for Who's sound.

[Zeuhlmate]

Pete Townshend was the timekeeper and he knew when to just follow, because it was magic music.

I postulate that no one who loves the Who 1965-190 thinks re Keith Moon, "It’s a pity, because so much of The Who’s music could have benefited from a steadier groove. But he was ultimately a detriment to the band."

anyone? Anyone here love the Who and really thinks that?

I mean, him and the Ox is mainly what I'm listening for, except when I'm listening for Pete or Roger.....

[Zeuhlmate]

He doesn't say they're incompetent, he says they're overrated. Imo if Watts wasn't a Stone he would just be considered an ordinary good drummer. As for Keith Moon he's probably the most unique genius who ever sat on the kit. His style is simply inimitable. But of course "objectively speaking" his technique can be easily criticized from a more formal viewpoint. Which says nothing of how vital his playing was for Who's sound.

[ronmac]

Anyone who believes that Pete Best was somehow cheated would do well to listen again to the recordings he did with them (and there are actually quite a few- the Tony Sheridan ones, some of which may have been overdubbed for release, but also the entire Decca audition and a few BBC sessions). The drumming has precisely none of Ringo's flair or imagination or dynamism; Best basically plays the same pattern over and over. George Martin identified the problem straight away...it was because of this that session player Andy White was brought in for recording on their first session.

Yes, and no. You got it all right up until:

George Martin identified the problem straight away...it was because of this that session player Andy White was brought in for recording on their first session.

Ringo was in the band at that time and, luckily, George later confessed his wrongdoing an apologized.

[Jerjo]

I am not a drummer and I don't pay attention to the quality of fills but I've heard from more than one source than Charlie Watts had a wide numbers of various beats and fills, not to mention the ability to hold a careening band together. I saw Steve Gadd a couple times when he played behind James Taylor (my wife is constantly dragging me to his shows) and it was a pleasure to sit back and listen to him. Baker, despite being an unbearable asshole and an all-around arrogant fuck, was way ahead of the curve with Cream. And Moon wasn't a time-keeper but who the fuck cares. His place was to be part of the attack. The entire raison d'etre of the Who was three instrumentalists playing at full strength with full intensity, especially in the 60s.

So yeah, fuck this guy.

[Mister Triscuits]

Ringo was in the band at that time and, luckily, George later confessed his wrongdoing an apologized.

But George Martin hadn't even heard Ringo yet, had he? As I understand it, both he and the Beatles showed up for the session with their respective replacements for Pete Best, and as the producer, Martin pulled rank.

[jake]

I think compiling such a list is basically a mean-spirited exercise. I'd much rather hear about 10 drummers who are underrated - and I'll start you out with one - Mick Avory of the Kinks.

[Steve F.]

Moon wasn't a time-keeper but who the fuck cares. His place was to be part of the attack. The entire raison d'etre of the Who was three instrumentalists playing at full strength with full intensity, especially in the 60s.

Well said. Ta!

[Gizmotron]

I think compiling such a list is basically a mean-spirited exercise. I'd much rather hear about 10 drummers who are underrated - and I'll start you out with one - Mick Avory of the Kinks.

Excellent post, man.

[mozo-pg]

Excellent post, man.

[2steves]

That Watts and Wyman rhythm section was superb. Listen to the original studio 'Under My Thumb', they sound joined at the hip!

yes I agree---I was saying I don't think he or Gadd should be on this list.