Bullshit. You don't know that. You can't know that.
No I can't, but anyone who knows drums would tell you it seems obvious, even Moon claimed that he just went with what he felt and didn't think to much about it. Maybe he did know exactly what he was doing everytime, note for note, live performances and basic knowledge of drums tells otherwise. Not saying he bullshited the drums, but when learning linear beats you'll find out there's a difference between playing a basic rock beat and going with a random fill that works based on the bread and butter of drumming, and then knowing where to place each note and why. All of Moon's fills went back to the bread and butters of rock drum fills, rolls and flams over 8th bass placements.
Also bullshit. Even Billy Cobham couldn't figure out what Moon was doing. No drummer says that about Bonham. Bonham is much easier to replicate.
address this in my next post as well. Moon is impossible to replicate in style, in sound and actually notes he's definitely easier than Bohnam. I don't know a single drummer who will disagree that his drum lines are more simple to replicate.
That's due to Jimmy Page's production, not John Bonham's style.
You can explain to me why that is, because I don't totally get that. I was sure it was due to him using big band style tuned drums with hard rock tunings (since you can tune the head and back differently), giving him a wholly unique sound that if you don't know that would be impossible to replicate properly
Everything you just typed is bullshit. No drummer agrees with you.
I'm saying that because many drummers do agree with me. Cobham praises someone with a statement that people heavily misinterpret and now he's impossible to play at everything. Great drummers constantly rant about how they can't figure out what ringo does in A Day in the Life. Does that mean Ringo's hard to replicate? Ringo's known to be one of the easiest drummers to replicate for MOST of his drumlines, and then he has some like A Day in the Life which will never be replicated and probably not properly figured out. A Day in the Life's fills are far more complex to decipher than anything in any of Moon's drumming. Regardless, because Moon has a few things people can't figure out all of a sudden he's impossible to replicate his drumlines? The majority of his drumlines derive from rock beats with LOTS of rolls placed around the set. WGFA I'll agree is nearly impossible to replicate. Lots of his other stuff? A joke. His fills? Can be taken apart in minutes. I'd say most of the people who can't figure it out are people who never worked on transcribing or taking apart drumlines by ear, Moon's end up being very simple when examined. I haven't ever heard a drum say they don't know what Moon was drumming, I've heard them say they don't know what he's doing with the set, but his drumlines are generally basic. Drummers agree with me, that's why I'm saying this. If they don't, either a. I don't know what drummer you're talking about or b. they're all idiots who have no clue about the sounds of a kit or haven't listened to others drum thoroughly, which is important in developing your ability.
Keith Moon wrote:
So? The point is that they're both brilliant fucking artists.
k I have no problem saying that
It's easier to replicate than Moon's and more conservative than Moon's. The #1 thing that Keith Moon threw away was repetitive drum parts. The bulk of Bonham's recorded work is repetitive drums parts.
Moon used the same motifs for almost all his drumlines. He also used the basic rock beat in his work more than Bonham. Moon covers it up by placing rolls and sporadic pedaling whenever it begins to follow a pattern to break out of it. But he never changes that, and his rolls are easy as shit to play most of the time and easy to decipher. Playing it with the same feel and sound? Maybe that's harder. Then again I see tons of people play bohnam's drumlines and I never hear them with the same groove or sound as Bohnam.
If anything many of Moon's drumlines were more conservative and derivative than Bonhams.
Moon's palate consisted of rolls, 8th pedals, the basic rock drum beat (hi hat 8ths, snare on 2 and 4, bass pedal in between), and cymbal crashes or the 16th hi hat beat. That's it, that's all he ever used. Bonham's palate consisted of so much I don't really want to list it all, but other than rudiments, triplets, single pedal double strokes, tons of different grooves from half time shuffle to cowbell, some reggae style beats, swing beats, fills based on ratimacue's, linear drum fills, etc. Bohnam extended and combined in tons of different ways, Moon stuck to using only the absolute most basic of rock techniques to make his drum lines.
You think he's just going wild, but that's not it at all. A drummer "just going wild" would sound like shit. Just as a painter just dripping splotches on a canvas willy nilly will produce shit.
I said he went wild, not random. Random drummers sound like shit, wild drummers can still sound good if they know how to go crazy. There's a difference. Moon sounded good because he knew to stick to the most tried and true and basic of drumlines and beats, and just push them to the next level and in other directions. Even if you're playing wildly, as long as you stick to even rolls it'll sound acceptable. Moon knew what do stick to.
And Jackson Pollock just knew the right way to drip paint willy nilly, right?
Just explained it above, as long as you know what bounds to stick to, you can be as wild as you want within those bounds. You stick to rolls and 8th pedals, or basic rock beats, be as wild as you want, if it's even it'll work as long as you don't do anything complex. Moon did NOTHING truly complex. Bonham had some complex beats that if you tried to extend out of the bounds unless you were a really good drummer you would fuck up.
Name one. And what the fuck is tactful? What makes Moon's fills less tactful?
Left foot lead ratamacue fill.
What "new drum vocabulary" did John Bonham invent?
Bonham triplets, Bonham rock grooves (lots to list, half time shuffle, cowbell, downbeat swing, etc.), bonham single pedal 16ths, left foot lead ratamacue fill, bonham linear fills, etc. etc. They are actually named after him most of the time.
That's fine by me if that's the approach to the criteria that you want to take, but that necessitates Neil Peart at #2 and Bonham/Moon coming next at 3 and 4.
No it doesn't. As I showed, if Bruford's 1 Bonham is still 2.
No, I'm not. Peart/Bruford have more in common with each other than they do with either Moon or Bonham, and Moon/Bonham have more in common with each other than with either Bruford or Peart.
Having stuff in common has nothing to do with placement. Ward, Copeland and Porcaro have little in common, what's that have to do with their placement?
You just misspelled Bonham 6 of 7 times in that breakdown. What did Bonham innovate? What makes him more creative than Moon? I think Moon takes both of those categories.
Tell me what Moon had innovated, please. I have now given coherent and reasonable arguments for all of this. I'm not changing it and it seems you just misunderstand drums, but maybe you don't and are just a raging Moon fan, which is fine. But there is no way this list is changing. The only question is does Peart get 3 or Moon, and it comes down to who gets creativity. For now I've settled on Peart. That's the ONLY thing worth debating.