"Rushing" to judgement; Ain't I cool in real life?; Getting a buzz

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

>I really don't think so. Let's throw an example: one
>might say that Marillion was an early-Genesis rip-off.

Lucas:

I think later Genesis is an early Genesis rip off. I think South Park got it
right in regard to Phil Collins.

>that made albuns similar to, say, Hemispheres. I don't
>think it's fair to say that rush is merely "by the
>book".

But that's not what I was talking about; we were discussing Keith and Neil.
Keith is easily the most original drummer I've heard, and I've heard a lot
of drummers. He was inspired, and basically made it up seconds before he had
to play it. Peart, on the other hand, had it all planned out in advance,
every beat. As someone has already said, this is pretty much the other end
of the spectrum. Rush jamming on a song...I can't imagine it, can you?

> If one is better or not, that's
>just a matter of taste. I still think that their
>styles, and even the individual members styles just
>can't be compared.

My comparison is based on what I wrote above; a drummer who has the natural
genius only Keith Moon possessed (as far as I know) is a better drummer than
any who plays it the same every time..."by the book." Which is one reason I
resist when people put John Bonham on Keith's level; he just wasn't! His
drums were mixed higher than usual and he played hard, that's all. He was
fairly standard and not too original.

>I just love Keith Moon, Bill Bruford and Neil Peart's
>drumming. But it's impossible to say that one's better
>than the others.

Not for me. I mean, it's like bass playing...Stanley Jordan is incredible
(for instance), but Entwistle can outplay him every time. John does three
times as much in a single song. That I have to call better.
We all have our standards and ways of measuring things. Mine, as I've stated
here before, have more to do with originality and influence than anything
else. After somone else has set the pace, it's not hard for a skillful
musician to learn it. That's called a "cover band." I've heard cover bands
which play songs better than the original band, but what's that worth,
really?

>BTW, watch for Mickey Dolenz to stand up from the audience during Shankar's
>set and walk away.

Keets:

Actually he stands up at the end of Shankar's set and claps like a
madman...as if to prove he had more depth than the character he played on
TV. "See, I AM cool!"

>played with technical expertise. I seem to be fairly alone in this in
>Who-land, but I really love electric blues players who play with raw

Toby:

I don't know that is true; I'm a big fan of electric Blues, most notably
British Blues. Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac makes the other incarnations of
the band look pathetic. Humble Pie has some great stuff in this area, and
then there's The Animals (not so raw, true, but pretty damned incredible
until Burdon discovered LSD)...then again, the only other Blues I like is
the original stuff, like Muddy Waters (my favorite), Howling Wolf, JL
Hooker.

>Does anyone else have favorites that give them a Who-like buzz?

No one does for me, although The Kinks, XTC, Widespread Panic, and Pearl Jam
(to name a few) do get me going from time to time.


"I'm surrounding myself with very competent people,
                           so you needn't worry, I won't really be running
things."
                             Buzz "Duh-Bya" Lightyear

             Cheers                              ML