2. music
  3. 1242408822

Overshadowed by bandmates

I was listening to "Real Time" a live CD by Richard LLoyd, the "other" guitarist to Tom Verlaine in Television. It occurred to me that, while I like Verlaine's style, I ultimately prefer Lloyd's playing. I just didn't really appreciate it till he left the band and crawled out from Verlaine's shadow. This got me thinking. Until he left to start World Party, Karl Wallinger was obscured by Mike Scott while they were bandmates in The Waterboys. Now, I'll take Wallinger over Scott.

Some would say George Harrison suffered this fate, too. I think he was overshadowed by Lennon/Macca for many fans until "All Things Must Pass" and "Bangladesh". Any others come to mind?
martykl
lindisfarne
511 posts
 
Audiofeil-Watts and Starr are not "impressive" drummers BUT they swing like mad and don't miss a beat. You are dead wrong on this one. However, I really did like your picks earlier in this thread.
gawdbless's avatar
gawdbless
1,235 posts
 
Audifeil-
Music is all about time and timing (amongst other things), If a band does not have a a metronomic drummer regardless of good or badly they do all the show off paradiddlypoms triply rollies and flashy off-beats blah etc blah then you might as well have a drum beat machine.
Then again I can keep a beat, and even on time, occasionally, I wonder if The Rolling and a Stones would be as good If I were their drummer?The money would be nice.
I agree with Lindisfarne.
The fork is in your posterior,lol........
audiofeil
4,011 posts
 
Sorry I am not wrong.

The quote was "A band is only as good as its drummer".

I'm not diminishing the role of a drummer but it's quite clear both the Stones and Beatles would have done just fine without Watts and Starr respectively. The Stones would not have been as good with Gawdbless as their drummer as he says but then again he's probably not a professional musician. Or understands music for that matter but there were plenty of competent drummers in England at that time. Some bands like the Who and Zeppelin were more dependent on their drummer. Not the case for the Stones and Beatles. I hope you understand better now.

Some posters don't have a forking clue.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,283 posts
 
U2 and Radiohead are major bands that I think are exceptions to bands requiring a stellar rhythm section. They are solid, but no better. You could also put Pink Floyd into that group.

Charlie Watts is tremendous. Don't underestimate the man.
audiofeil
4,011 posts
 
>>Charlie Watts is tremendous. Don't underestimate the man<<

I agree but perhaps you too missed my point. That is, he is not the most talented or most creative or most important member of the Stones. Ditto Ringo Starr.

IMO that is indisputable.

Keep in mind this mini-discussion concerns the assertion "A band is only as good as its drummer". If that were the case the Beatles would only be as good as Ringo and the Stones as good as Watts.

We know that's not the case.
More to discover