Palmer vs Peart

BaldFriede wrote: Yawn. Another drum poll where none of my canditates gets the vote. Moerlen would have drummed circles around them, wrapped them up in aluminium foil, put them on the ends of his drumsticks and thus have given them a close experience what drumming is really about.

You mean he'd have played some Jack DeJohnette to them?

Carl Palmer because he was a pioneer of progdrumming, and one of the first drummers who used gongs, timps, bells and electronic percussion all in one.

MattiR wrote: Jeremy Bender wrote: Carl Palmer because he was a pioneer of progdrumming, and one of the first drummers who used gongs, timps, bells and electronic percussion all in one.   Peart specialized progdrumming, but without Palmer no Peart. Peart is more steady and maybe he has a better technique but is too clinical for my ears and not so diverse as Palmer.   In short Peart is maybe a better 'drummer' (certainly a better teamplayer, and better songplayer) but was never so creative as Palmer. Oh, and Palmer is certainly a better soloist imo. So CP all the way.....   For people who doubt CP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn9fkAGwJcM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZrvES90m2c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBav0J_Fs1A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izVBmnrO5Ak http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thhnwqyFjEg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvhjgQvvK18   But who inspired who?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slh3qS0Jp88       That's right! California Jam 1974 is a good example

Sorry Jeremy, you must be on a bender. Without Gene Krupa, no Neil Peart. Check out Peart's Anatomy of a Drum Solo. He mentions Krupa, Baker, Mitch Mitchell, but no Palmer. And as far as judging a drummer's talent as somehow measured by the more percussion instruments used, the better the drummer, well ... give me Joe Morello (Dave Brubeck Quartet among others) with the usual basic kit of his day over Palmer any day. Or if that's your main criteria - check out John Weathers playing Glockenspiel.
Peart does enjoy godhead status among the rock drummer elite, & deservedly so; but even he doesn't claim to be the best ever. And finally, just to ensure this is not taken as an attack on Palmer, I think most of the drummers such as Peart, Palmer et al, would say they still stand in awe of the "old time" jazz drummers.

See you and raise with this little Peart Improv:

Palmer.

Jeremy Bender wrote: pantacruelgruel wrote: MattiR wrote: Jeremy Bender wrote: Carl Palmer because he was a pioneer of progdrumming, and one of the first drummers who used gongs, timps, bells and electronic percussion all in one.   Peart specialized progdrumming, but without Palmer no Peart. Peart is more steady and maybe he has a better technique but is too clinical for my ears and not so diverse as Palmer.   In short Peart is maybe a better 'drummer' (certainly a better teamplayer, and better songplayer) but was never so creative as Palmer. Oh, and Palmer is certainly a better soloist imo. So CP all the way.....   For people who doubt CP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn9fkAGwJcM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZrvES90m2c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBav0J_Fs1A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izVBmnrO5Ak http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thhnwqyFjEg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvhjgQvvK18   But who inspired who?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slh3qS0Jp88       That's right! California Jam 1974 is a good example Sorry Jeremy, you must be on a bender. Without Gene Krupa, no Neil Peart. Check out Peart's Anatomy of a Drum Solo. He mentions Krupa, Baker, Mitch Mitchell, but no Palmer. And as far as judging a drummer's talent as somehow measured by the more percussion instruments used, the better the drummer, well ... give me Joe Morello (Dave Brubeck Quartet among others) with the usual basic kit of his day over Palmer any day. Or if that's your main criteria - check out John Weathers playing Glockenspiel. Peart does enjoy godhead status among the rock drummer elite, & deservedly so; but even he doesn't claim to be the best ever. And finally, just to ensure this is not taken as an attack on Palmer, I think most of the drummers such as Peart, Palmer et al, would say they still stand in awe of the "old time" jazz drummers.   What I mean with without Palmer no Peart is that Palmer made the way clear for progdrumming in a powertrio (as Rush). I'm sure Peart was influenced by him. I don't judge drummers becuase of the size of their drumkit (i myself like more the basic kits of bruford and bonham) I say that Palmer set a standard of progdrumming including megakits with all the various percussion instruments and because of that he influenced Peart (who on his part influenced Portnoy also a 'super' progdrummer with a megakit).

For progdrumming, I would probably suggest Ginger Baker. Jazz training, plus the original power trio, plus self-indulgence (before the dam broke, and musicians totally forgot about the audience). Blues, Pop, some blues & jazz, & some would hint hint at psych & prog - ex. White Room, not extravagant or complex melody-wise, but lyrical content showed a progression beyond the standard of the day. I do agree with you, though, on the number of pieces in a kit. Some drummers, as the two you mention, are better drummers than some "mega-kit" kiddies of today. They've looked at Peart & Palmer & fallen in the trap of thinking that's where P & P's talents reside. In case there some huge Triumph fans out there, let me say that this is ust an opinion & not one that I would kill for, so here goes - Gil Levine had a big kit for a hard rock drummer, but any review of Triumph's rhythm section described them as "leaden", bar band competent, & from my listening overdrummed.

DallasBryan wrote:     BTW, I dont hate Rush, I just dont think they are that great. in the day, they were a second tier or backup band to the big boys.

2nd tier?  In their day they were not backing up anyone.

You may not hate them but you usually don't miss a chance to slam them either.

DallasBryan wrote:     BTW, I dont hate Rush, I just dont think they are that great. in the day, they were a second tier or backup band to the big boys.

Edited by Tony R - February 04 2007 at 18:35

Well, in the circles I moved in Rush were regarded as a hard rock band and definitely not as a prog band. So maybe they were big, but among proggers they were rated as 2nd class, at least here in Germany. And don't tell me it wasn't so, Tony; I experienced it first hand. Maybe they did sell big, but NOT as a prog act.

Edited by BaldFriede - February 04 2007 at 18:59

BaldFriede wrote: Well, in the circles I moved in Rush were regarded as a hard rock band and definitely not as a prog band. So maybe they were big, but among proggers they were rated as 2nd class, at least here in Germany. And don't tell me it wasn't so, Tony; I experienced it first hand. Maybe they did sell big, but NOT as a prog act.