Carl Palmer as a drummer?

andu wrote: there's no problem for me when someone says that some musical hero of mine lacks technique. i do agree bonzo and moon were behind bruford, collins and palmer regarding technique. but as uroboros was wisely saying on another thread, technique is something basic (and mandatory, of course), needed for being able to express something (using his words, to get a personal "style"). it's just like learning the alphabet, the grammar system, extending vocabulary etc. for being able, in the end, to write a paragraph that can express some specific emotion/concept. but in order to do that, something more than technique is needed (some call it talent, i don't like this word very much). however, it is not the most important thing to keep perfecting the technique: life is short! sometimes it's much more effective to try to get your technical inabilities to work together with the skills, to try to turn them into an advantage. many great artists did that. the most obvious case is van gogh: he was a selftaught, bellow average craftsman but man did he do something with his gift! he felt he mustn't keep making nude studies and that by putting the colours on the canvas without mixing them, something strong will emerge. and it did. (cezanne or actually all impressionists had major gaps in technique). so did jimmy page and bonzo know that being noisy and powerful they'' achieve something; they did.

Of course you're right.. but still the difference is clear (I really like Steve Hackett's music, though I wouldn't call it "technical", despite his contributions in tapping... it was more emotion than technique and it moved me... same way I rather listen to Pink Floyd than Joe Satriani, but credit where credit is due).

@Atavachron: well of course I don't have the same experience at you when it comes to guitar playing... but I know a thing or 2 about legato, arpeggios, shredding and scales... I'd practically woke up with guitar in hand for the last 5 years, and for the last 3 my focus was on improvising and re-learning classical guitar... seemingly I couldn't improvise the way Holdsworth did (considering my electric guitar lacks strings so lately I've been using classical)... I usually sit at my computer like I'm doing right now.. put online radio and listen to the music; once I learned the chord progression I started improvising... most of the time I get to play in a more Gilmour style because I haven't develop that versatility to play legato in the way Holdsworth does... sometimes I practice shredding on different scales and I still need to develop to play the way Petrucci or Di Meola does... but when it comes to occasional hammer-ons and pull-offs or slides, my guitar sounds are more alike Gilmour's..... in the end it's not technically that difficult to improvise the way he does... but I admit the guy knows what he's playing... I'm not such a technical freak, because I don't like w**kery when a player doesn't know what to say... but Sasquamo said it correct... the wider your vocabulary is, the more apt you are at writting the paragraph
     

Carl is not only a great drummer, but he is a great percusionnist. He went to a music school in London during the seventies to improve his playing.He played the timpanis, the bongos and many more...). I also heard him playing on some reaggea music on rehearsal.

He was black belt in Karate. He is also not bad on sword. He won the bronze medal in the European Championship two or three years ago in the 50 years old category in swording. He was very proud of this prize and very enthousiast when he told me that story.

A nice man indeed...    

Sasquamo wrote: A good rule is that if a player never does anything impressive, chances are he can't.  Sure, you can purposefully hold back, but I don't think anyone good can dumb themselves down enough to prevent any sign of their skill from showing.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 02 2007 at 16:15

Snow Dog wrote: Disagree entirely. I think all of his solos were excellent.

no, it's not that what he means, it's not quality he was discussing. what he says applies to me perfect - i'm not (yet) a fan and i can testify that, though i am more and more enjoying and understanding steve's work, his only solo i can remember is that certain solo. it's the only one which has had a profound impression on me and it's the only - up till now - recognizable for me.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: [QUOTE=Sasquamo] , the only thing remotely impressive he did was Firth of Fifth solo,     Iván Disagree entirely. I think all of his solos were excellent.   Of course, but during his Genesis career Steve was more a SOLID GUITARIST than a spectacular one.   He did the things he had to do in the correct and precise time, but never tried to prove how good he was or start a competition trying to prove he was the best (I believe he's the most talented performer in the band and at least as good composer as Gabriel and Banks), he knew how good he was and that was enough for him.   Iván

Well, Ivan, for me he was spectacular, and I was a Hackett fan from the very beginning. His guitar solo on The Knife..all his guitar work on the knife...used to leave me in paroxyms of delight!

No point arguing though, we all have our own opinions.


Edited by Snow Dog - January 01 2007 at 15:14

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Well, Ivan, for me he was spectacular, and I was a Hackett fan from the very beginning. His guitar solo on The Knife..all his guitar work on the knife...used to leave me in paroxyms of delight!   Well, the guitar solo in The Knife was Anthony Phillips,  Genesis LIve mate.....I know what I'm talking about! No point arguing though, we all have our own opinions.   Of course not, but I bet that if you had asked 100 Prog fans of Genesis and Yes about the best guitar player during the early/mid 70's, 90 would have mentioned Steve Howe and only a few Steve Hackett.   Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: LMAO I knew that only bugging, the Knife version in Live is much better than the one in Trespass.   Iván

You bad man!

Snow Dog wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: LMAO I knew that only bugging, the Knife version in Live is much better than the one in Trespass.   Iván You bad man!

1. John Entwistle: Roger Daltrey was the frontman, Pete was a dynamo on stage and Keith Moon was from another galaxy but the true strenght of the rhythm sectiomn was in hands of John, he was always calmed at the right side of the scenario (Audience perspective) and cleaning all the timing messes Keith made (Keith was strong and fast but very clumsy sometimes). Entwistle barely tuched the strings with a unique and absolutely clean style, always accurate, always perfect but hardly worried about proving how good he was.
2. Gary Thain: Never saw a better bass player than him, again he had a strong drummer as Lee Kerslake but hardly technicall, while David Byron made his own show and Mick Box made his famous runs, Lee hardly moved with the cigarette in his lips but was so incredibly good that not even John Wetton (Who is a great bass player) could fill the space left by Gary.
3. Phil Ehart: IMO at least in the same level of Bill Bruford, Kansas drumming is extremely complex, the guy is a human metronome and one of the most talented drummers ever but you hardly notice him, the guy never looks at his drums he only looks the rest of the band and the audience to know when to add something extra, at the end of the concerts he salutes the audience with a small towell in the neck and lo0oks as if he almost hadn't swept he makes drumming easy.

So not necesarilly those who make longer and most complex solos are the best musicians, the real virtuoso knows when to do everything.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 01 2007 at 17:01

Sasquamo wrote: Chus is right, technique is totally separate from emotion.  You can't say Gilmour was a technically skilled guitarist because he played emotionally.  The correct thing to say would be "He didn't have much physical ability, but he could play very emotionally."  And by the way, Satriani could play Gilmour's stuff perfectly, and could also play very emotional stuff, I'll bet.  The thing is, though, most musicians like to play to the extent of their ability, because it's more fun for them.   And one more thing.  Can you imagine how much more emotional Gilmour's playing could be if he had more ability but still approached his playing the same way?  Referring to andu's writing example, the more vocabulary you have command of, the better you can make the paragraph.

I say Gilmour was a technically skilled guitarist because he *is*, it's just not a skill you value. Satriani could not play Gilmour's stuff perfectly, though it might be quite cool to hear his version of Dave's playing. I love Joe and welcome any good new stuff from him. But he's no Dave Gilmour in terms of the full width of possibilities on the guitar. Satriani is a master of modern rock guitar playing, but Dave is a master, period. Same with Jeff Beck, easily one of the top five living electric axe men. Seen him live several times-- no one better. Does it mean he lacks technical skill because he plays more like Miles Davis than he does John McLaughlin? No, Jeff Beck can rip as well as any player of his generation including Hendrix. And what *about* Jimi, hmm? You going to tell me Hendrix lacked technical skill? I double-dare you. He was *past* all the glitter and flash that seems so important but had the skills if he needed them. Same with Miles.


    

Edited by Atavachron - January 02 2007 at 01:34

The difference between Miles Davis and David Gilmour is that Miles Davis was and Improviser and an Innovator.