I'll come over to your side on this one, if we limit the time frame of the discussion to the 'heady' year of 1968 and the formation of the original 'prog' bands...still a little skeptical about the Charterhouse boys, but okay, maybe they did live on Vegemite for a little while...but somebody paid for all of Keith Emerson's childhood piano lessons.
By the early seventies, the bar had been set so high equipment-wise that a musician of modest means found it very difficult to keep up with the banks of gear required. How many poor kid keyboard players does anyone remember from those times? I can only think of one: the guy I played with. He was a brilliant player, but his circumstances were so abject I don't want to speak about them. Conversely, most of the guys I knew in other touring 'prog' cover bands were from 'up on the hill'...and you can say that money doesn't make you a jerk, but an amazing percentage of those guys were, well...jerks.
Musicians, like everyone else and regardless of their income or fame, need to find a happy medium between 'perfectly amicable' and 'insufferably assh*lish'.
Yes and Peter Banks
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
Wow, I came to this thread extremely late too, but it's provided a very interesting read. Just backtracking a bit:
Quote: "Both of them are great drummers I'd hate to play with, for a number of reasons...primarily because of (dare I say it?): over-playing. To Buddy's credit, however, he never featured himself a lyricist..."
Personality aside, if I could play with any drummer who ever lived, it would be Rich. He, along with John McLaughlin, is my all-time favourite musician (no drummer jokes please
). Loved him from the age of about 3 onwards (my dad was a big band leader at that time). Having seen both Buddy and Neil live on a couple of occasions, Neil is about as far away from matching Buddy as I am from matching John McLaughlin on the guitar (which is a LONG way). I love Rush, and I think Neil's performances on record are excellent, but live I've always been disappointed. Buddy Rich was in a different league entirely. IMHO, if you're a drummer, it's your job to drive the band. Nobody drove a band like Rich.
Regarding both Yes and Genesis, from all the stuff I've read about them (including Armando Gallo's stuff and "Close to the Edge") it would appear that although they came from middle class backgrounds, once the bands started they had very little money; I think it was Squire who said something to the effect that one of his girlfriends basically kept him alive and fed during the early period.
Going back even further to the mention of Rick Wakeman's King Arthur on Ice, I'm constantly amazed by the number of people who really don't understand Rick's sense of humour. Is it just the English sense of irony? He did that because he thought it was hilarious! He wanted to do something that would outrage all his critics (he is something of a wind-up merchant) and thought that a hysterical way of doing it; of course none of them saw the joke, which was kind of the point....
Quote: "Both of them are great drummers I'd hate to play with, for a number of reasons...primarily because of (dare I say it?): over-playing. To Buddy's credit, however, he never featured himself a lyricist..."
Personality aside, if I could play with any drummer who ever lived, it would be Rich. He, along with John McLaughlin, is my all-time favourite musician (no drummer jokes please
). Loved him from the age of about 3 onwards (my dad was a big band leader at that time). Having seen both Buddy and Neil live on a couple of occasions, Neil is about as far away from matching Buddy as I am from matching John McLaughlin on the guitar (which is a LONG way). I love Rush, and I think Neil's performances on record are excellent, but live I've always been disappointed. Buddy Rich was in a different league entirely. IMHO, if you're a drummer, it's your job to drive the band. Nobody drove a band like Rich. Regarding both Yes and Genesis, from all the stuff I've read about them (including Armando Gallo's stuff and "Close to the Edge") it would appear that although they came from middle class backgrounds, once the bands started they had very little money; I think it was Squire who said something to the effect that one of his girlfriends basically kept him alive and fed during the early period.
Going back even further to the mention of Rick Wakeman's King Arthur on Ice, I'm constantly amazed by the number of people who really don't understand Rick's sense of humour. Is it just the English sense of irony? He did that because he thought it was hilarious! He wanted to do something that would outrage all his critics (he is something of a wind-up merchant) and thought that a hysterical way of doing it; of course none of them saw the joke, which was kind of the point....
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
Shaun, I agree with the Wakeman humour assumption. He is a wag, and has a strong sense of typical English humour which is often misinterpreted here in the States. The ability to take the **** out of one's self and the "delicious" irony is rarely subject matter for laughs here.
I remember seeing a programme on him years ago. The band roll up to the gig in the limo and they all get out except Rick.
A minute later a battered old Morris Minor pulls in...and out steps Wakeman....
I was young at the time, but found it hilarious...
I remember seeing a programme on him years ago. The band roll up to the gig in the limo and they all get out except Rick.
A minute later a battered old Morris Minor pulls in...and out steps Wakeman....
I was young at the time, but found it hilarious...
Heyyyy...wait a dang minute; I can 'take the **** out of myself' as well as the next clown....
I'm sure Wakeman's a funny guy...I've read about him and Squire doing old 'Pete and Dud' routines backstage. But come on...that King Arthur thing was a 'load'. If he wants to start a comedy troupe, that's one thing...but he's gonna have some stiff competition, and guys skating around wearing fake horse bodies is something Monty Python would have have had the good sense to limit to about three minutes' duration.
My advice to Rick? Start working on a John Tesh imitation...that'd be some real comedy.
For the record, I went with my dad as a teenager to see Buddy Rich and his band...they were fantastic, and Rich did things behind the drums that I'm quite sure we will never see or hear equalled. But again, he did overplay a lot, as does Peart and a lot of other drummers. And talk about a terrible bandleader...one only needs to hear the stories his former employees have to tell. I loved the guy when I was younger...his appearances on the Tonight Show were hilarious. He was obviously a brilliant and hilarious guy, but that doesn't excuse his miserable attitude and behavior towards his fellow players. The more I learned about this stuff, the harder I found it to respect him. Give me Max Roach any day...
One more contentious point: Bruford and Squire did not 'get what they did completely on their own'...nobody does in this world, except maybe for whatever hunter/gatherer hermits may still exist...
I'm sure Wakeman's a funny guy...I've read about him and Squire doing old 'Pete and Dud' routines backstage. But come on...that King Arthur thing was a 'load'. If he wants to start a comedy troupe, that's one thing...but he's gonna have some stiff competition, and guys skating around wearing fake horse bodies is something Monty Python would have have had the good sense to limit to about three minutes' duration.
My advice to Rick? Start working on a John Tesh imitation...that'd be some real comedy.
For the record, I went with my dad as a teenager to see Buddy Rich and his band...they were fantastic, and Rich did things behind the drums that I'm quite sure we will never see or hear equalled. But again, he did overplay a lot, as does Peart and a lot of other drummers. And talk about a terrible bandleader...one only needs to hear the stories his former employees have to tell. I loved the guy when I was younger...his appearances on the Tonight Show were hilarious. He was obviously a brilliant and hilarious guy, but that doesn't excuse his miserable attitude and behavior towards his fellow players. The more I learned about this stuff, the harder I found it to respect him. Give me Max Roach any day...
One more contentious point: Bruford and Squire did not 'get what they did completely on their own'...nobody does in this world, except maybe for whatever hunter/gatherer hermits may still exist...
I didn't get where I am today by being on time...
Dane, maybe the king Arthur thing was a "load", but the point is, if Rick wants to indulge his sense of the ridiculous, surely that's up to him? I think you underestimate where a sense of humour and the ability to indulge yourself will take you, particularly when you're English. Monty Python being a case in point. Wakeman is indeed a wag. If you'd seen many of his appearances on English tv where he quite happily sends himself up then you'd maybe understand him better. I'm sure he wasn't too bothered about whether anyone else found it funny. That wasn't the point; he was indeed indulging his own sense of humour (Monty Python again), with the specific aim of winding his critics up, and having some fun in the process, and why not? Is there a law against it? Far too many musicians take themselves far too seriously. We're not Ghandi, for crying out loud!
With regards to Rich, sure I know what he was like personally, but why should that affect my judgement about his drumming (I wasn't discussing his qualities as a bandleader)? Should I think less of Jaco's playing because of his mental problems? Or Vincent Van Gogh? If someone was operating on me I'd want the best surgeon, not the nicest guy (although obviously if they were both that would be a plus..) Obviously you're perfectly entitled to the opinion that he overplayed, but that's a subjective issue. What he did, certainly in a jazz context, is what I want to hear from a drummer. And I don't think Peart overplays in Rush either. Or Copeland in the Police, or Paice in Purple. I want to hear a drummer DO something, be creative and inventive, unless I'm listening to certain types of dance stuff, pop or reggae. And who hopefully, as I said before, drives the band. Who cares how many fills someone plays as long as they're driving the band? I'd far sooner hear someone like that who DOES drive the band than someone who plays nothing and STILL doesn't drive it. But that's just my preference. If the music is complex, give me complex drumming. That's why I'll always take Bruford over White, because I think he drove Yes much better, his sense of time was much more what I wish to hear. Ultimately though, it's just a matter of taste.
I have to agree about the Bruford and Squire thing, but I don't actually understand why it's an issue with anybody; who cares what sort of background they came from or whether they were "lucky"? All I care about is that they're great musicians who have made great music.
With regards to Rich, sure I know what he was like personally, but why should that affect my judgement about his drumming (I wasn't discussing his qualities as a bandleader)? Should I think less of Jaco's playing because of his mental problems? Or Vincent Van Gogh? If someone was operating on me I'd want the best surgeon, not the nicest guy (although obviously if they were both that would be a plus..) Obviously you're perfectly entitled to the opinion that he overplayed, but that's a subjective issue. What he did, certainly in a jazz context, is what I want to hear from a drummer. And I don't think Peart overplays in Rush either. Or Copeland in the Police, or Paice in Purple. I want to hear a drummer DO something, be creative and inventive, unless I'm listening to certain types of dance stuff, pop or reggae. And who hopefully, as I said before, drives the band. Who cares how many fills someone plays as long as they're driving the band? I'd far sooner hear someone like that who DOES drive the band than someone who plays nothing and STILL doesn't drive it. But that's just my preference. If the music is complex, give me complex drumming. That's why I'll always take Bruford over White, because I think he drove Yes much better, his sense of time was much more what I wish to hear. Ultimately though, it's just a matter of taste.
I have to agree about the Bruford and Squire thing, but I don't actually understand why it's an issue with anybody; who cares what sort of background they came from or whether they were "lucky"? All I care about is that they're great musicians who have made great music.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
Good observations, and well put, Shaun...even where we disagree, your logic is sound. You're right, a lot of this is subjective...and a concept like 'overplaying' is one which will vary between listeners or, for some, not apply at all. I do love great playing, and in some contexts, I'm more than willing to overlook what seems to me be to be playing too much for the chance to experience amazing musical gymnastics...like when I saw Billy Cobham leading his band. WAAAY too much drumming to be considered appropriate musically, but tons of fun nonetheless. I'll stick with my original point, though, that as much fun as a wild-*** overplaying drummer might be to watch or listen to, it's not that enjoyable to compete with one for some space on the aural canvas. When you combine a nasty disposition like Rich's or Peart's into the mix, it adds up to a scenario I'd sooner avoid as a player. Life's too short, y'know?
As for Wakeman, it's certainly his right to indulge himself, just as it's my right to call him self-indulgent. My initial crack at him had to do with my opinion that he's on 'thin ice' if he wants to make fun of or put down anything Jon Anderson's ever done.
I threw a little '33 1/3' birthday party for my wife a couple years ago, and rather than supply a cake, decided to destroy a piece of vinyl from my collection to mount candles on. My choice? Without a moment's hesitation: Rick Wakeman's Criminal Record. It was my way of saying "I'm sorry I ever bought this piece o' cheez"...
As for Wakeman, it's certainly his right to indulge himself, just as it's my right to call him self-indulgent. My initial crack at him had to do with my opinion that he's on 'thin ice' if he wants to make fun of or put down anything Jon Anderson's ever done.
I threw a little '33 1/3' birthday party for my wife a couple years ago, and rather than supply a cake, decided to destroy a piece of vinyl from my collection to mount candles on. My choice? Without a moment's hesitation: Rick Wakeman's Criminal Record. It was my way of saying "I'm sorry I ever bought this piece o' cheez"...
I didn't get where I am today by being on time...
I had to go back through the whole thread to find out why I had started going off on the prog bands being either rich to begin with or becoming fantastically rich along the way...now I remember that I was responding to Robert's complaint about 'prog-hating'...I just want to be clear that much of that music remains among my favorites to this day. I still think, however, that Prog's raising the financial requirements to be a rock musician (and blatant disregard for the fact that kids like to dance) helped lead directly to Punk's 'psychotic reaction'...as well as (how I shudder to mention this): Disco...
I didn't get where I am today by being on time...
Dane, I completely respect your opinion and your right to air it, and even though we do disagree over some of the issues it makes for an interesting discussion! (or at least I hope so!). Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I wouldn't have wanted to be in Rich's band, for more than a night at least (as if! He'd have fired me in a second!), but I sure do love his drumming. Although having had it "drummed" into me (sorry, couldn't resist it...) from the age of 3, it's pretty obvious that I would either love it or hate it. I find the assessment of Peart strange though, if only because what he does is, to me, so much an integral part of Rush. I would've thought that Rush without Peart (yes I know it has already existed) would be like Zeppelin without Bonham, like him or loathe him. Or Rainbow without Ritchie Blackmore (now there's another discussion...) ...for me, it's partly the interplay between Lee and Peart that I find so interesting. And I personally like competing with the drummer, in the way that Entwistle always said he did..still, that's just me, and I'm sure others feel differently.
Thin ice...LOL! It's maybe lucky he wasn't on thin ice at the time...with regards to John and Rick (and anyone else who's been in the band) I guess they all have a pop at each other from time to time. I know our band does...all in the best possible taste of course. I guess being a long term Yesser must be like being in a marriage..only somewhat more bizarre! And with capes.....
Thin ice...LOL! It's maybe lucky he wasn't on thin ice at the time...with regards to John and Rick (and anyone else who's been in the band) I guess they all have a pop at each other from time to time. I know our band does...all in the best possible taste of course. I guess being a long term Yesser must be like being in a marriage..only somewhat more bizarre! And with capes
....."Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
Yeah, it's completely normal for you to like punk and prog. Unlike back in the 70s, they don't look so mutually exclusive. In fact, the Mars Volta (the most brilliant band of the last five years) pretty much make prog-punk-jazz-salsa fusion. The lead singer and the guitarist come from punk/pre-screamo band At the Drive-In, whereas the bassist is formerly of speed metal band Racer X, and the keyboardist and drummer are both dub/salsa/jazz players . . . you end up with the best of all worlds, unless you hate opaque lyrics and a lot of effects manipulation.
I think, whether Peart overplays or not (which, like people said before, is completely a matter of subjectivity and taste), it works in Rush because he doesn't compete with the other bandmembers; there are only three of them total, and they all do have very different musical roles in the band, so there's actually a lot of space for Peart to fill.
And if we're going to continue the "virtuoso jerks" discussion, I believe someone mentioned Ritchie Blackmore . . .
I think, whether Peart overplays or not (which, like people said before, is completely a matter of subjectivity and taste), it works in Rush because he doesn't compete with the other bandmembers; there are only three of them total, and they all do have very different musical roles in the band, so there's actually a lot of space for Peart to fill.
And if we're going to continue the "virtuoso jerks" discussion, I believe someone mentioned Ritchie Blackmore . . .
That would be a fascinating thread...setting aside those already mentioned, and without even trying hard, I come up with: Jeff Berlin, Chick Corea, Ted Nugent, Benny Goodman, and Carl Palmer...then there are the "non-virtuoso jerks" of the music biz, but I really can't spend all day at this...
I didn't get where I am today by being on time...
