Neil Peart - Most Overrated Drummer Ever

[AnEggplant]

AC/DC has been producing the same stale cookie cutter material that they pump out of their formula for decades. If there really is so much soul in AC/DC songs, why do they all sound the same? Why does it sound like they landed on a formula that sells, and beat it to a pulp? Why does it sound like they haven't had a new idea in decades?

AC/DC created a sound and have done what they want, despite the critics, for over 40 years.

Remind you of another band??

 

I used to detest AC/DC. And I used to dislike Rush. But many years ago I had a revelation/epithany and discovered that both bands (as different as they are) had created phenomenal timeless songs.

No, no it doesn't sound familiar. AC/DC has always produced easy to listen to marketable commercial cliche' trash. Rush has explored multiple musical styles and constantly explores and changed their sound. AC/DC stays in their shallow comfort zone, never daring to venture anywhere, whereas Rush ventures plenty despite critics. They recognize that some directions they have taken are more successful than others but the fact remains that they tried new things. They are true musical artists. AC/DC has no right to be compared with real musical creativity.

[AnEggplant]

How do you gage 'soul' in a drummer's playing? I'm so confused by this. For me, Neil consistently produces catchy drum lines that fit perfectly with the songs. How being a technical drummer is a bad thing?

Instead of flying around and beating the crap out the drums he has to 'feeeeel' the drums....like caressing a puppy right?

 

Yeah sure...drummer with soul....stupid ass post by non musicians. :eyeroll:

How do you gage 'soul' in a drummer's playing? I'm so confused by this. For me, Neil consistently produces catchy drum lines that fit perfectly with the songs. How being a technical drummer is a bad thing?

Instead of flying around and beating the crap out the drums he has to 'feeeeel' the drums....like caressing a puppy right?

 

Yeah sure...drummer with soul....stupid ass post by non musicians. :eyeroll:

Ain't you a bag of sunshine

 

Somebody crapped in the cornflakes?

 

But it's true. How do you tell if there's 'soul' in drumming? To me it sounds ridiculous. It's like when people tell me AC/DC has soul. I want to smack those people.

why?

 

it's unequivocally present on every Bon Scott album, and even a few after that

 

feel the space between the notes, how they arrive, linger and give way to the next note

 

^ this is the easiest way I've found to codify 'soul' in terms of language - it really is beyond words to describe

 

when Rush is good, that kind of soul is there (the drum & bass breakdown in Digital Man or the lengthy jam in the middle of The Weapon) - when they're not (The Big Wheel) they're as sterile as nitrile gloves

 

AC/DC has been producing the same stale cookie cutter material that they pump out of their formula for decades. If there really is so much soul in AC/DC songs, why do they all sound the same? Why does it sound like they landed on a formula that sells, and beat it to a pulp? Why does it sound like they haven't had a new idea in decades?

 

I was a teenager in the 80's - Rush and my drums were all I cared about. Well and Genesis. Yes, too. Even some XTC. I digress.

 

My older friends liked Rush too but LOVED AC/DC. Loved them. I thought AC/DC were ridiculously simple, over-rated, dull, pedestrian. Every song they tried out on me was more awful than the next. I hated them the most. Well and Creedence. And Springsteen. I digress again.

 

What was really going on? I wasn't 'ready' for 'soul'.

 

I was too involved emotionally with the technical aspects of this 'new' music I had discovered (i.e. music beyond the radio dial, which had become an instant obsession), and self-teaching myself the drum kit by playing along to Hemispheres and Close To The Edge and Nursery Cryme simply left no room for AC/DC's musical perspective.

 

Over the next 20 years I discovered jazz, alternative rock, underground DJ's, electronica, noise, ambient, folk, metal, funk, among so many others and simply through this massive exposure, I found myself unexpectedly 'ready' for AC/DC.

 

So it was, I went to a friend's house one night, and he was watching a videotape of 'Jailbreak'. I rolled my eyes but sat down. By the end of it we were both laughing, but I was also...... totally digging it at the same time.

 

He could read my reaction, so he played it again. And again. We paused and deconstructed that thing for a good hour, laughing, incredulous, mystified at the fact that something so over the top ridiculous and insane was ever considered 'THE #1 TOUGH GUY BAND' by the goons in high school, played constantly on FM radio, even championed by my older friends so long ago.

 

THIS was THAT band?

 

Yes. We watched it again.

 

I was smitten. This couldn't be. I instantly realized that most people were likely missing the hilarious balls out pomp and circumstance, the 'soul' if you will, and I immediately felt like an insider.

 

OMG I know what the 'real' AC/DC is! And it's assinine! Even the BAND know it! This is f**kïng great!

 

At the same time, now that I was open to AC/DC, a deeper respect for those deceptively simple (I mean it, try and play these songs, see if they sound like the records, they won't, not simple) riffs and songs. I started to genuinely like these tunes while still grinning from ear to ear with the silliness.

 

I would say there are a dozen 'essential' AC/DC songs for me, maybe a few more (and only two or three would be Brian Johnson-era songs).

 

For me, AC/DC (Bon Scott, vocals) is where they start and stop. 1974-1979.

 

They may not ever resonate with you. That's fine (I mean I don't really care about Sabbath or ELP. Even early King Crimson.)

 

Digress the third.

 

:)

 

 

 

 

We watched it again.

 

I respect your opinion, but AC/DC has no soul. All they have is marketable cookie cutter material. It makes fine party music, but it shouldn't even be compared to real artists. And yes, I have played their riffs. They are often ridiculously simple power chords.

[Geddy's Soul Patch]

AC/DC has been producing the same stale cookie cutter material that they pump out of their formula for decades. If there really is so much soul in AC/DC songs, why do they all sound the same? Why does it sound like they landed on a formula that sells, and beat it to a pulp? Why does it sound like they haven't had a new idea in decades?

AC/DC created a sound and have done what they want, despite the critics, for over 40 years.

Remind you of another band??

 

I used to detest AC/DC. And I used to dislike Rush. But many years ago I had a revelation/epithany and discovered that both bands (as different as they are) had created phenomenal timeless songs.

No, no it doesn't sound familiar. AC/DC has always produced easy to listen to marketable commercial cliche' trash. Rush has explored multiple musical styles and constantly explores and changed their sound. AC/DC stays in their shallow comfort zone, never daring to venture anywhere, whereas Rush ventures plenty despite critics. They recognize that some directions they have taken are more successful than others but the fact remains that they tried new things. They are true musical artists. AC/DC has no right to be compared with real musical creativity.

All things you said about Rush are true, but come on! Get off the pretentious high horse! AC/DC have written some great rock songs! You don't have to play a million different styles and have every other time signature be 7/4 to be a "true musical artist" :smoke: Edited October 9, 2015 by Geddy's Soul Patch

[AnEggplant]

AC/DC has been producing the same stale cookie cutter material that they pump out of their formula for decades. If there really is so much soul in AC/DC songs, why do they all sound the same? Why does it sound like they landed on a formula that sells, and beat it to a pulp? Why does it sound like they haven't had a new idea in decades?

AC/DC created a sound and have done what they want, despite the critics, for over 40 years.

Remind you of another band??

 

I used to detest AC/DC. And I used to dislike Rush. But many years ago I had a revelation/epithany and discovered that both bands (as different as they are) had created phenomenal timeless songs.

No, no it doesn't sound familiar. AC/DC has always produced easy to listen to marketable commercial cliche' trash. Rush has explored multiple musical styles and constantly explores and changed their sound. AC/DC stays in their shallow comfort zone, never daring to venture anywhere, whereas Rush ventures plenty despite critics. They recognize that some directions they have taken are more successful than others but the fact remains that they tried new things. They are true musical artists. AC/DC has no right to be compared with real musical creativity.

All things you said about Rush are true, but come on! Get off the pretentious high horse! AC/DC have written some great rock songs! You don't have to play a million different styles and have every other time signature be 7/4 to be a "true musical artist" :smoke:

 

AC/DC just spits out the same generic song because it sells. It's more like a brand name that mass produces the same product than musicians producing creative material. I don't see the artistry in it. To me, it's about as interesting as Coca Cola or McDonalds.

Edited October 9, 2015 by AnEggplant

[Segue Myles]

AC/DC has been producing the same stale cookie cutter material that they pump out of their formula for decades. If there really is so much soul in AC/DC songs, why do they all sound the same? Why does it sound like they landed on a formula that sells, and beat it to a pulp? Why does it sound like they haven't had a new idea in decades?

AC/DC created a sound and have done what they want, despite the critics, for over 40 years.

Remind you of another band??

 

I used to detest AC/DC. And I used to dislike Rush. But many years ago I had a revelation/epithany and discovered that both bands (as different as they are) had created phenomenal timeless songs.

No, no it doesn't sound familiar. AC/DC has always produced easy to listen to marketable commercial cliche' trash. Rush has explored multiple musical styles and constantly explores and changed their sound. AC/DC stays in their shallow comfort zone, never daring to venture anywhere, whereas Rush ventures plenty despite critics. They recognize that some directions they have taken are more successful than others but the fact remains that they tried new things. They are true musical artists. AC/DC has no right to be compared with real musical creativity.

All things you said about Rush are true, but come on! Get off the pretentious high horse! AC/DC have written some great rock songs! You don't have to play a million different styles and have every other time signature be 7/4 to be a "true musical artist" :smoke:

 

AC/DC just spits out the same generic song because it sells. It's more like a brand name that mass produces the same product than musicians producing creative material. I don't see the artistry in it. To me, it's about as interesting as Coca Cola or McDonalds.

 

You and me both.

[goose]

epithany

epiphany

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(this is post pithy)

[EagleMoon]

AC/DC has been producing the same stale cookie cutter material that they pump out of their formula for decades. If there really is so much soul in AC/DC songs, why do they all sound the same? Why does it sound like they landed on a formula that sells, and beat it to a pulp? Why does it sound like they haven't had a new idea in decades?

AC/DC created a sound and have done what they want, despite the critics, for over 40 years.

Remind you of another band??

 

I used to detest AC/DC. And I used to dislike Rush. But many years ago I had a revelation/epithany and discovered that both bands (as different as they are) had created phenomenal timeless songs.

No, no it doesn't sound familiar. AC/DC has always produced easy to listen to marketable commercial cliche' trash. Rush has explored multiple musical styles and constantly explores and changed their sound. AC/DC stays in their shallow comfort zone, never daring to venture anywhere, whereas Rush ventures plenty despite critics. They recognize that some directions they have taken are more successful than others but the fact remains that they tried new things. They are true musical artists. AC/DC has no right to be compared with real musical creativity.

All things you said about Rush are true, but come on! Get off the pretentious high horse! AC/DC have written some great rock songs! You don't have to play a million different styles and have every other time signature be 7/4 to be a "true musical artist" :smoke:

 

AC/DC just spits out the same generic song because it sells. It's more like a brand name that mass produces the same product than musicians producing creative material. I don't see the artistry in it. To me, it's about as interesting as Coca Cola or McDonalds.

 

You and me both.

 

Me three. I bought Highway to Hell and then Back in Black both when they came out and listened to them for a while but they were so simplistic that I very soon got bored. Nowadays they remind me of trashy bar crowd music.

[thirteen]

God damn I spelt Epiphany wrong lol. Edited October 9, 2015 by thirteen

[JohnnyBlaze]

God damn I spelt Epiphany wrong lol.

And you did again too. Lower case. ;)

[HemiBeers]

AC/DC has been producing the same stale cookie cutter material that they pump out of their formula for decades. If there really is so much soul in AC/DC songs, why do they all sound the same? Why does it sound like they landed on a formula that sells, and beat it to a pulp? Why does it sound like they haven't had a new idea in decades?

AC/DC created a sound and have done what they want, despite the critics, for over 40 years.

Remind you of another band??

 

I used to detest AC/DC. And I used to dislike Rush. But many years ago I had a revelation/epithany and discovered that both bands (as different as they are) had created phenomenal timeless songs.

No, no it doesn't sound familiar. AC/DC has always produced easy to listen to marketable commercial cliche' trash. Rush has explored multiple musical styles and constantly explores and changed their sound. AC/DC stays in their shallow comfort zone, never daring to venture anywhere, whereas Rush ventures plenty despite critics. They recognize that some directions they have taken are more successful than others but the fact remains that they tried new things. They are true musical artists. AC/DC has no right to be compared with real musical creativity.

Any AC/DC song is one reasonably competent guitar solo away from being Nickleback.

[Mr. Not]

How is this thread still alive?

 

Gee, I wonder.

 

It's almost as if this is a controversial thread to start on a Rush forum.

[Mr. Not]

This thread can be as satirical as it'd like to be, but Neil Peart is indeed overrated.

 

Not drastically, but certainly to an extent.

 

[Segue Myles]

This thread can be as satirical as it'd like to be, but Neil Peart is indeed overrated.

 

Not drastically, but certainly to an extent.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETUYJ-5nFmI

 

Yup!

[ghostworks]

AC/DC has been producing the same stale cookie cutter material that they pump out of their formula for decades. If there really is so much soul in AC/DC songs, why do they all sound the same? Why does it sound like they landed on a formula that sells, and beat it to a pulp? Why does it sound like they haven't had a new idea in decades?

AC/DC created a sound and have done what they want, despite the critics, for over 40 years.

Remind you of another band??

 

I used to detest AC/DC. And I used to dislike Rush. But many years ago I had a revelation/epithany and discovered that both bands (as different as they are) had created phenomenal timeless songs.

No, no it doesn't sound familiar. AC/DC has always produced easy to listen to marketable commercial cliche' trash. Rush has explored multiple musical styles and constantly explores and changed their sound. AC/DC stays in their shallow comfort zone, never daring to venture anywhere, whereas Rush ventures plenty despite critics. They recognize that some directions they have taken are more successful than others but the fact remains that they tried new things. They are true musical artists. AC/DC has no right to be compared with real musical creativity.

All things you said about Rush are true, but come on! Get off the pretentious high horse! AC/DC have written some great rock songs! You don't have to play a million different styles and have every other time signature be 7/4 to be a "true musical artist" :smoke:

 

AC/DC just spits out the same generic song because it sells. It's more like a brand name that mass produces the same product than musicians producing creative material. I don't see the artistry in it. To me, it's about as interesting as Coca Cola or McDonalds.

 

You and me both.

this is akin to judging Rush as a band using only Moving Pictures and Roll The Bones

 

I was close-minded about what I perceived as 'simple' and 'generic' and 'formula' music when I was in my 20's

 

^ and yes, AC/DC has produced PLENTY of that - I have no use for it

 

but they didn't start out that way, and the entirety of their 70's output is worth passing by your ears at least once

 

there are dozens of songs that never made the airwaves, that never could - they rock, they're hilarious, they're creative, usually all at the same time

 

if you judge a band solely on their 'Back In Black' or 'Highway To Hell', well, of course you are welcome to do so

 

^ IMO that's too 'simple' and 'generic' an assessment

Edited October 14, 2015 by ghostworks

[AnEggplant]

To be honest, I know this is weird, but I almost always prefer technical music to "soul" music. I really appreciate complexity and intricacy in music. Maybe that's why I don't find Neil overrated.

[Lorraine]

If anyone here is a drummer, tell me - how do you concentrate? Do you zone out? How do you stop yourself from being distracted from what the other musicians are doing?

[Narps]

AC/DC has been producing the same stale cookie cutter material that they pump out of their formula for decades. If there really is so much soul in AC/DC songs, why do they all sound the same? Why does it sound like they landed on a formula that sells, and beat it to a pulp? Why does it sound like they haven't had a new idea in decades?

AC/DC created a sound and have done what they want, despite the critics, for over 40 years.

Remind you of another band??

 

I used to detest AC/DC. And I used to dislike Rush. But many years ago I had a revelation/epithany and discovered that both bands (as different as they are) had created phenomenal timeless songs.

No, no it doesn't sound familiar. AC/DC has always produced easy to listen to marketable commercial cliche' trash. Rush has explored multiple musical styles and constantly explores and changed their sound. AC/DC stays in their shallow comfort zone, never daring to venture anywhere, whereas Rush ventures plenty despite critics. They recognize that some directions they have taken are more successful than others but the fact remains that they tried new things. They are true musical artists. AC/DC has no right to be compared with real musical creativity.

Any AC/DC song is one reasonably competent guitar solo away from being Nickleback.

Any of you guys even heard AC/DC pre Bon Scott's death? I defy you to listen to their earliest stuff (LTBR) in particular and come to that conclusion. Some of the best, soulful rock ever recorded in my view. B in B and beyond you would be correct as far as I can tell. I gave up on them at that moment. Bon and Angus together brought the soul and blues in spades. Just my opinion of course. LTBR is a top 10 at least rock album all time for me and is going to the island with me if I ever go... :codger:

[EagleMoon]

If anyone here is a drummer, tell me - how do you concentrate? Do you zone out? How do you stop yourself from being distracted from what the other musicians are doing?

 

Why only drummers? That question could be asked of any musician that is playing with other people. My answer would be it just takes practice.

[Lorraine]

If anyone here is a drummer, tell me - how do you concentrate? Do you zone out? How do you stop yourself from being distracted from what the other musicians are doing?

 

Why only drummers? That question could be asked of any musician that is playing with other people. My answer would be it just takes practice.

 

Because it appears harder to me to be a drummer. That's why. don't take it personally.

[EagleMoon]

If anyone here is a drummer, tell me - how do you concentrate? Do you zone out? How do you stop yourself from being distracted from what the other musicians are doing?

 

Why only drummers? That question could be asked of any musician that is playing with other people. My answer would be it just takes practice.

 

Because it appears harder to me to be a drummer. That's why. don't take it personally.

 

I wasn't taking anything personally. I was just curious.

[Lorraine]

If anyone here is a drummer, tell me - how do you concentrate? Do you zone out? How do you stop yourself from being distracted from what the other musicians are doing?

 

Why only drummers? That question could be asked of any musician that is playing with other people. My answer would be it just takes practice.

 

Because it appears harder to me to be a drummer. That's why. don't take it personally.

 

I wasn't taking anything personally. I was just curious.

 

It looks to me often by watching the three of them that Neil is doing most of the time something completely different than Alex and Geddy. And I wondered how it is possible to keep his beat going when it is so easy to be distracted by the other two who are playing something beat-wise seemingly different than him.

 

I can't give you a better explanation than that. It looks like it would be quite easy to lose his concentration and lose his beat.

[EagleMoon]

If anyone here is a drummer, tell me - how do you concentrate? Do you zone out? How do you stop yourself from being distracted from what the other musicians are doing?

 

Why only drummers? That question could be asked of any musician that is playing with other people. My answer would be it just takes practice.

 

Because it appears harder to me to be a drummer. That's why. don't take it personally.

 

I wasn't taking anything personally. I was just curious.

 

It looks to me often by watching the three of them that Neil is doing most of the time something completely different than Alex and Geddy. And I wondered how it is possible to keep his beat going when it is so easy to be distracted by the other two who are playing something beat-wise seemingly different than him.

 

I can't give you a better explanation than that. It looks like it would be quite easy to lose his concentration and lose his beat.

 

In this band all three of them are the rhythm players at different times. Sometimes Alex will be playing a rhythm part while Geddy plays a busy part on top, then Neil will doing a off beat drum part to fill in the spaces the other two leave open in the music. All three switch back-and-forth between all three roles in different songs or even different parts of ther same song. All three are timekeepers at different times in the songs or another words, they keep the basic rhythm going in the song but it switches off between them.

[Lorraine]

I'm still curious to know if it is hard for a drummer to do that because the others just have their guitar, but a drummer has different types of drums in front of him.

[EagleMoon]

I'm still curious to know if it is hard for a drummer to do that because the others just have their guitar, but a drummer has different types of drums in front of him.

 

The hardest parts for a drummer to learn are coordinating his arms and legs to play different things. I think what you're talking about is playing off the beat.

[Lorraine]

I'm still curious to know if it is hard for a drummer to do that because the others just have their guitar, but a drummer has different types of drums in front of him.

 

The hardest parts for a drummer to learn are coordinating his arms and legs to play different things. I think what you're talking about is playing off the beat.

 

Yes, but I thought that the drummer is the one who keeps the beat?

 

In another thread in the Feedback section, someone brought up Digital Man. Listening to it, i didn't notice, but watching it, I could see what I couldn't hear with Neil and his drums. If that makes sense. The Weapon is to me a classic example of what I am talking about - three men each going their own music way - that is what it sounds and looks like to me.