All this talk on iorr about Keith, the two Mick's, Ronnie, and Bill etc..
Not much talk on Charlie. he gets over looked sometimes.
Any drummers out there knowledgeable on the subject of Charlie Watts drums.
To a novice like me he is great. Ronnie once said Charlie is an economist with his drum kit.
He certainly is good enough to have ducked out of many interviews and promotion duties over the years.
so i put it to iorr. Is he worth it.
Personally i love him and think he is, and always has been, IRREPLACEABLE.
But as i say, i am a novice when it comes to the Drums..
would be nice to put the record straight.. any of your views please..

Quote
keefriffhards
All this talk on iorr about Keith, the two Mick's, Ronnie, and Bill etc..
Not much talk on Charlie. he gets over looked sometimes.
Any drummers out there knowledgeable on the subject of Charlie Watts drums.
To a novice like me he is great. Ronnie once said Charlie is an economist with his drum kit.
He certainly is good enough to have ducked out of many interviews and promotion duties over the years.
so i put it to iorr. Is he worth it.
Personally i love him and think he is, and always has been, IRREPLACEABLE.
But as i say, i am a novice when it comes to the Drums..
would be nice to put the record straight.. any of your views please..

I like Charlie too, he is everyone's darling, isn't he? But he's no special drummer. Just average and indeed economic. Mostly he gets his instructions from Jagger (as can be heard on the famous bootleg with the recording of Sympathy FTD, alas mine has broken during the years).

Charlie is just so popular because of his low profile personality and his immense loyalty to both Jagger and Richards. Indeed, the 'perfect' drummer for the Glimmers.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
keefriffhards
All this talk on iorr about Keith, the two Mick's, Ronnie, and Bill etc..
Not much talk on Charlie. he gets over looked sometimes.
Any drummers out there knowledgeable on the subject of Charlie Watts drums.
To a novice like me he is great. Ronnie once said Charlie is an economist with his drum kit.
He certainly is good enough to have ducked out of many interviews and promotion duties over the years.
so i put it to iorr. Is he worth it.
Personally i love him and think he is, and always has been, IRREPLACEABLE.
But as i say, i am a novice when it comes to the Drums..
would be nice to put the record straight.. any of your views please..

I like Charlie too, he is everyone's darling, isn't he? But he's no special drummer. Just average and indeed economic. Mostly he gets his instructions from Jagger (as can be heard on the famous bootleg with the recording of Sympathy FTD, alas mine has broken during the years).

Charlie is just so popular because of his low profile personality and his immense loyalty to both Jagger and Richards. Indeed, the 'perfect' drummer for the Glimmers.

Agreed. i think you just put it in a nut shell. thanks

Charlie is THE RS drummer. The one and the only.

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

No Charlie, no Rolling Stones. Simples. Charlie gave them a sophistication that dovetailed nicely with Jagger/Richards more brash exterior. And he's a great drummer......

I have a drummer friend that told me she can hear him rushing on the live Gimme Shelters from the 70's. I never noticed it or cared, apparently it bothers her.

I couldn't disagree more with Kleermaker than on his statement here. Charlie really IS the Rolling Stones. Charlie really is a very awkward drummer, with an unique drumming style that seems quite simple but is very, very difficult to replicate or copy. The thing is that with Charlie even the most simple drum pattern has that sense of push and pull, which makes the music much more dynamic and swing.

There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.

And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.

Mathijs

I'm not a drummer, but would certainly enjoy playing with Charlie - he's slowed down a bit over the years but is basically excellent, solid, professional. He's not flashy or technical, but he doesn't need to be. His jazz instincts counted for a lot during the Stones' golden era in the early 1970s, since the juxtaposition between his roots and Bill's (likewise, between Keith's guitar playing and MT's) created a lot of the rock'n'roll versus jazz-blues tension that made the Stones such compelling listening in those days. With Wyman and Taylor gone, Charlie stands out less, for me. There is also a lot of truth in what Kleermaker says about Charlie's persona and how he relates to the Glimmers.

Nothing is average about Charlie Watts, certainly not his drumming which no one I have heard have managed to sound like. Many have tried.

Charlie is Keith, only on drums

Nah, Charlie is Billy Gibbons on drums, just without the beard, guacamole and hotrods.

I spent much of the show in Nashville, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee watching Charlie and was particularly taken by his drumming on the last half of Rambler. Economical, elegant, jazzy in general, but the way that he perfectly punctuated Mick when he was at his dramatic best was a pure joy to watch. Definitely my darling!

I am with Mathijs, about both Charlie and Bill.

With exception of Mick Taylor there is no genius in music in the band, but all of them contribute to this unique Stones sound you can't never find otherwise. And thus that holds for Charlie Watts, too. Insofar he is a unique and singular drummer.

Quote
MartinB
I am with Mathijs, about both Charlie and Bill.

Mathijs put it perfectly.
To say he's not a special drummer and just average reflects a limited musically knowledge if there is some knowledge at all.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
MartinB
I am with Mathijs, about both Charlie and Bill.

Mathijs put it perfectly.
To say he's not a special drummer and just average reflects a limited musically knowledge if there is some knowledge at all.

It's not a matter of knowledge, dear friend. Music isn't science you know, but art.

Is Charlie as great as people claim?

No-

He is way better!

C

Quote
RobertJohnson
With exception of Mick Taylor there is no genius in music in the band, but all of them contribute to this unique Stones sound you can't never find otherwise. And thus that holds for Charlie Watts, too. Insofar he is a unique and singular drummer.

I would not call Taylor a musical genius. He simply lacked the talent to know what not to play, which live in concert resulted in him spoiling some tunes by overplaying. If there's any member of the Stones who is not a musical genius, it's Mick Taylor.
Mick J. and Keith are both genius song writers, which in my opinion makes them musical geniuses.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-03 17:09 by TheBlockbuster.

Quote
TheBlockbuster
I would not call Taylor a musical genius. He simply lacked the talent to know what not to play, which live in concert resulted in him spoiling some tunes by overplaying. If there's any member of the Stones which is not a musical genius, it's Mick Taylor

What an original observation

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
MartinB
I am with Mathijs, about both Charlie and Bill.

Mathijs put it perfectly.
To say he's not a special drummer and just average reflects a limited musically knowledge if there is some knowledge at all.

It's not a matter of knowledge, dear friend. Music isn't science you know, but art.

Whenever you're caught in your self laid traps you start your cheap rhetorics.
Why not just think about it and come back with a good explanation like " It'so damned hot in the Netherlands I mixed up some issues..."
That would be cool and more authentic than to hide behind some semantics,grammar,whatever you pick in those cases.

But it's ok.

Quote
Mathijs
I couldn't disagree more with Kleermaker than on his statement here. Charlie really IS the Rolling Stones. Charlie really is a very awkward drummer, with an unique drumming style that seems quite simple but is very, very difficult to replicate or copy. The thing is that with Charlie even the most simple drum pattern has that sense of push and pull, which makes the music much more dynamic and swing.

There simply would not have been the famous post-1969 Stones without Charlie Watts. Keith Richards would have never been able to evolve to his peak in 1975 and 1978 without Charlie Watts.

And Wyman is much the same: basically a bassist with a lack of even the most basic technical skills, but able to always find that fantastic groove and swing, and always able to add a melodic layer in what is fairly simple music.

Mathijs

First of all what peak in 1975 and 1978? Second you say Wyman can add a melodic layer and can find groove and swing. Those ARE basic technical skills wich you say he doesnt have.

Quote
TheBlockbuster

Quote
RobertJohnson
With exception of Mick Taylor there is no genius in music in the band, but all of them contribute to this unique Stones sound you can't never find otherwise. And thus that holds for Charlie Watts, too. Insofar he is a unique and singular drummer.

I would not call Taylor a musical genius. He simply lacked the talent to know what not to play, which live in concert resulted in him spoiling some tunes by overplaying. If there's any member of the Stones who is not a musical genius, it's Mick Taylor.
Mick J. and Keith are both genius song writers, which in my opinion makes them musical geniuses.

I have the same opinion as you and have expressed it before but man you can get flamed for it. That was before the Taylorites had their own dedicated thread so hopefully you might be spared.

Quote
MartinB
I am with Mathijs, about both Charlie and Bill.

the longer I am here the more I love Mathijs.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
MartinB
I am with Mathijs, about both Charlie and Bill.

Mathijs put it perfectly.
To say he's not a special drummer and just average reflects a limited musically knowledge if there is some knowledge at all.

It's not a matter of knowledge, dear friend. Music isn't science you know, but art.

You claimed otherwise about Mozart. Know when to take a loss...

Quote
Ket

Quote
TheBlockbuster

Quote
RobertJohnson
With exception of Mick Taylor there is no genius in music in the band, but all of them contribute to this unique Stones sound you can't never find otherwise. And thus that holds for Charlie Watts, too. Insofar he is a unique and singular drummer.

I would not call Taylor a musical genius. He simply lacked the talent to know what not to play, which live in concert resulted in him spoiling some tunes by overplaying. If there's any member of the Stones who is not a musical genius, it's Mick Taylor.
Mick J. and Keith are both genius song writers, which in my opinion makes them musical geniuses.

I have the same opinion as you and have expressed it before but man you can get flamed for it. That was before the Taylorites had their own dedicated thread so hopefully you might be spared.

I don't like that categorizing in Taylorites, Woodists or whatever. Genius or not, I think that MT would enrich the sound of the band by his virtuosity, especially in that tracks which he had deeply influenced in his 5 years. Though, I think the peak of the band the tour 75/76, never they played such a balanced guitar setting. And: Besides the great vault-releases in the last years from the sixties, seventies and eigthies the most impressive act of the last years in the Stones area was the joint venture of MT and RW in honor of Jimmy Reed. What am I? A Taylorwoodist?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-03 17:54 by RobertJohnson.

It's hard to really say what makes Charlie such a special drummer, imo. Solid, dependable, economical, unique, singular, awkward, perfect for the Stones yeah all those descriptions fit, but why he is so damn effective with the Stones is more difficult to nail down.

Creates push and pull? Maybe, but I think that happens more with the other instruments while Charlie is pretty much pushing the whole time. I think his experience and intuition around playing with the other Stones has a lot to do with it. He just knows what Keith and the other guys need, he is the rock that gives the others the freedom to swing and wobble and dance and weave.

Jim Keltner, one of the best drummers on the planet, can't even nail Charlie down, when he was asked about Charlie's drumming and here's what he said:

"DRUM!: What would you say is unique about Charlie’s playing?
Keltner: Listening back to some of these tracks I was floored because it was so amazing how Charlie can rush like mad and still make it feel great. But that’s what he’s always done with the Stones. That’s his style. With anybody else it would be like, “Oh, oh, he’s rushing.” But with him there’s such commitment or something – I don’t know exactly what it is. He can’t explain it and I don’t necessarily like going into too much detail with him about it. I just marvel at it. The essence of his playing is as a jazz player even when he’s playing rock, in that he starts a thing and he commits like jazz players do, with emotion."

It's hard to say how the Stones would sound with another drummer, one who sits back in the groove a bit more. The others would probably be lost since they are so used to Charlie driving the whole thing. Yeah Charlie is as great as people claim.

Charlie's not the most flashy drummer, not a showman.
He doensn't need 15 toms and 20 cymbals, he doesn't need drumsolo's.

Charlie's drumming is all about making music together,
his little fills are often briliant. His "looping bassdrum"... woww...
He makes the drive and swing in the band, but I do miss the combination Charlie/Bill a bit.


Nobody can replace Charlie!

Erwin (drummer...)

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
MartinB
I am with Mathijs, about both Charlie and Bill.

Mathijs put it perfectly.
To say he's not a special drummer and just average reflects a limited musically knowledge if there is some knowledge at all.

It's not a matter of knowledge, dear friend. Music isn't science you know, but art.

music should be *appreciated* as art by a listener, no question about it.

but when judging the abilities of a specific performer it is as much science as art, for we are talking about a discipline that requires significant technical skill to make the art.

Yes is he great as people claim, a very important part of the Stones engine room.

My appreciation of what Charlie does and means to this band grew years ago when we were studying what he actually does, how he plays, it is very CharlieWattsish.

He is the greatest Drummer of all time ---Cymbals make this easy to answer ... To dig, He is an outstanding articulate person, which makes me happy to have walk the same earth

It easy to know how Stones would sound without Charlie. Just listen to the Mick Jagger's solo tours in the eighties when he played some Stones songs like JJF and Brown Sugar - it was lame. Stones without Charlie sounds like a karaoke backing track.