[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[2]: Drummers
On Wed, 3 Jan 1996, MISS AMIRA E BOCTOR wrote:
> I think John Sutter is right. There isn't another human being in
> this world who can drum like Keith Moon, so the only way to continue
> the band would have been to hire two to replace him. BTW, that would
> have made a great blurb, John, if you'd sent in for that Entwistle
> book.
It would?
Anyway, I'm sick of this replace Keith Moon stuff. Musicians are not
sportsmen, you can't trade Daltrey for Paul Rodgers, Simon Kirke, and a
session drummer to be named later, and then pull Mark Brzezicki out from
AAA and go on with three drummers (if you count the DTBNL).
Gang,
I think Lev has made some very good points about having
multiple drummers replace Keith Moon. I have felt that
having multiple drummers is not necessarily a good idea. You
can get the drummers dragging the band into a drum-based
groove (which is not what the Who were ever about) and you
make it more difficult to be spontaneous onstage. In rock
music, more players onstage make it more difficult to go off
on to tangents, which the Who did do rather frequently.
One time multiple drummers did work was when Yes did their
8-man reunion tour several years ago. Alan White became the
main timekeeper on his Ludwigs and Bill Bruford played
additional percussion and electronic drums. They did a super
two-man solo intro to CHANGES. The reason it worked is
because Alan is a solid timekeeper who has musical training
beyond rock (Kenney Jones was basically a rock and roll
timekeeper). And Bruford easily adopted Jody Linscott's
role, if you will.
It's easy for Daltrey to say that the Who needed 3 drummers
to replace Moon, but Roger's approach to drumming is too
simplistic. I do not consider Daltrey a credible source
when it comes to drumming.
Lev is also right when he says that the Who became a new
band (a phrase used by Townshend all the time in '79).
--Jim