I'm glad a drummer (or at least a "drummer wannabe") was able to answer this. You summed it up much better than I was going to

For the record, I found a page that seems to sum up my thoughts on Bonham fairly well.

Also for the record, I'm not a speed demon. I'm not that interested in speed, et al. And I'm not a big fan of the hi-hat in general. I also don't think that Bonham was a bad drummer. I just don't think that he's the god that so many want him to be. Keith Moon was a god.

Edit: Oops -- typo.

I also don't think that Bonhma was a bad drummer.

Yes, but you did say he's not good...

I consider both Keith Moon and Bonham to be drumming gods. There's room for more than one.

Neat link, but I think the author is losing the forest in the trees. Paralyzing analysis that leaves you wondering if he's talking about art or science. Music's still an art, no matter how much you analyze it.

I do agree with his conclusion statement, though:
"John Bonham was the major contributor to the development of the drum sound of Heavy Rock and is the most influential drummer in Rock Music, at least in the ‘70’s and into the ‘80’s."

How can one possibly get an accolade like that from a *detractor* and not be considered good?

How can one possibly get an accolade like that from a *detractor* and not be considered good?

Let's replace some nouns:

Limp Bizkit was the major contributor to the development of popular rock music and is the most influential band in popular rock music, at least in the ‘90’s and into the 2000’s

I'd say that's not inaccurate, and that Limp Bizkit really, really sucks. Just because someone was influential doesn't mean that their product isn't awful.

Edit: I don't mean to equate Bonham or Led Zeppelin to Limp Bisquick in any form or fashion.

I'd say that's not inaccurate, and that Limp Bizkit really, really sucks. Just because someone was influential doesn't mean that their product isn't awful.

Wow, I expected better logic from you... Your Mad Libs exercise has a lot of logical flaws. First off, you substituted a band for an individual. Individual musicians in bands aren't as often considered influential by the amount of albums they sell. It's REALLY hard to be influential on other fellow musicians and not be considered good. If you can come up with a musician who's been as influential as Bonham, and hasn't been talented, or any good at all (your words) then I'd like to hear about this person.

Secondly, throwing in the word "popular" (twice) in the second statement really weakens it, and then you use that weak statement to try to say the first statement is weak.

All in all, I think you're trying to measure Led Zeppelin against The Who, and not measure John Bonham's work against that of other drummers.

<sigh>

All I'm saying is that the requirement for being influential is to have people copy you. People copy crap all the time (cf. Limp Bizkit, most of prime time US TV). Not that Bonham is crap -- far from it. He was a just fine rock drummer, albeit not a god (to me). It's just that influence doesn't necessarily equate to quality.

I suppose that it's feasible that he originated good things that I don't see; you've said so yourself, and I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying that those things don't seem to qualify the man for legend status.

Then again, others don't understand why Orson Welles and Jack Kirby were gods of their fields; the stuff they pioneered is now too ubiquitous and obvious to call notice to itself.

I have to say that Metallica gigs used to rank up there with the Stones and Iron Maiden for epic, stupendous, excellent music & theatre. Like everybody else I got a bit disillusioned by the more recent albums and the Napster thing, but I am an eternal optimist, so if their new one sounds anything like Master or Justice then it will be an instant purchase.

I will try before I buy, though!

In reply to:

---

They sit in the background, mostly obscured by their instrument, and are always last to get picked in the Groupie Lottery.

---

Except the last drummer I had. She trained with a pipe band, and was brilliant. Oh yeah, and she was gorgeous and would play in thigh boots and a mini skirt. So the drumkit lived at the front of the stage.

She was a bit up her own arse, though

He was a just fine rock drummer, albeit not a god (to me). It's just that influence doesn't necessarily equate to quality.

Yeah, I recognize influence doesn't equate to quality, but earlier in the thread, you said he wasn't good, and now you're saying he was "just fine." Not sure if you're hedging or not, maybe "just fine" and "good" don't quite equal each other.

I did ask for another case where a single musician was as influential as Bonham and wasn't any good... If I could get a good enough example of that, it'd probably be enough to shut me up and understand your original point more. I think that any musician who gets copied by enough people has done *something* other than sell a lot of records and cash in on popularity.

For instance, you don't hear about drummers citing Lars Ulrich as an influence. In today's rock, you'll still hear all the old names (including Bonham) and you'll occasionally hear Danny Carey (Tool) or Jimmy Chamberlain (Smashing Pumpkins) from some of the newer acts. This speaks to the fact that the musicians themselves aren't trying to imitate or learn from the drummer from the band that sold the most records, they're trying to imitate or learn from the drummer that is going to teach them the most about drumming.

Anyway, you're still holding onto this notion that the influence of a band upon other bands can be equated to the influence that a single musician has on other musicians, and that's just not how it works. The influence of Limp Bizkit on all the copycat bands has more to do with marketing, record sales, popularity, etc.

On the other hand, a drummer is not going to copy another drummer (substitute guitarist, singer, kazoo player as necessary) or cite them as an influence because it makes their sound more radio-friendly or sells more albums. Musicians copy other musicians because of innovation in technique, style, etc. They see another guy doing something new, getting a new sound out of the instrument, playing a certain way, and they want to add that to their bag of tricks. Being able to do fast triplets with a single bass drum foot isn't going to directly help you sell more records, but it adds to your overall musicianship.

I'm just saying that those things don't seem to qualify the man for legend status.

If you're going to make a statement like that, then I'd hope you'd be prepared to cite what it takes to qualify a drummer for legendary status. While you're at it, maybe introduce me to what Keith Moon brought to the craft, because quite frankly, while I think he was a superb drummer, I don't think he innovated as much as Bonham did, which is maybe why he's not cited quite as often as a "drumming god."

And, incidentally, Moon is often slammed for his lousy timekeeping; it's pretty much understood that Entwistle kept the band in time. That doesn't automatically eliminate him from being an innovator or "drumming god" but it sure does show he neglected one of the things a drummer is supposed to do for a band.

Except the last drummer I had. She trained with a pipe band, and was brilliant. Oh yeah, and she was gorgeous and would play in thigh boots and a mini skirt. So the drumkit lived at the front of the stage.

Nice gimmick... But still, didn't the kit get in the way of what everyone came to see? Seems to me the bass drum would obscure the view of her lower body, and the tom-toms would generally obscure her... uh.. ta-tas. If you've got a hot chick in your band, shouldn't she be singing or playing an instrument that doesn't cover her up?

Ah, well that would assume she had talents in other areas...erm, musically, I mean. She really couldn't sing or play anything else, but was technically superb on the drums. Anyway, the biggest gig we ever did was to about 3000 people, and in venues that small, everyone is pretty close so the view was great. I would imagine, ahem. The rest of us were all wirelessly connected so we just used to wander/run/jump around everywhere.

You know, I don't really feel at all like fighting this battle, but in for a penny....

you said he wasn't good, and now you're saying he was "just fine."

You don't have a complete understanding of my personal semantics. By ``good'' I mean something I'm impressed with. ``Just fine'' means ``certainly not bad, but nothing to write home about''. This probably comes from too many years of grading comics and its influence on graduating my comparatives.

stuff about innovation and being good,etc.

Okay, I'm not saying that he didn't come up with some stuff. (I've given you that point about four times now.) But being innovative in one area doesn't mean that you're all-around good. I'll admit that a lot of my prejudice, if you will, against his legend status is based on the fact that he's generally acknowledged to be one, but when asked, few can come up with a reason. You've at least given a cohesive reason. I have a problem with things being taken for granted, and when they are, I usually question them, maybe too far. Maybe I take the ignorance of the ``public'' too far and assume they've been sold a bill of sale when they're simply ignorant.

Moon

The reason I think that Moon is a legend is because he did something innovative with the drums. He brought them to the forefront in a much more lead-instrument manner than anyone before or after him did. (And in the process kinda lost the rhythm-keeping role that a drummer is supposed to have, but the band was okay with that, as they had Entwistle.) That wasn't at all influential, though, as no one else was manic enough to do it.

(I'm not trying to compare Zep and The Who, though, as you infer. They're both great bands, though both of them have songs that are popular that are amongst their worst, which bothers me to some extent.)

You give good reasons why Moon should be considered a god, and on a couple drumer forums I frequent, he is cited by many as one of the best. Almost always in the top 5 or top 10 of all time. But when it comes to technical ability and innovation to the actual art of playing, Bonham is cited more often. I don't think it's as much the "mindless sheep" factor as you do, though, because I've read peoples' reasoning, and they make sense to me. (Though, admittedly, I haven't sat down with my drum teacher and spent entire lessons on Bonham's stuff, just 5 minute blocks here and there.)

Anyway, if you're not having fun with the debate, then I won't needlessly continue it. We're probably approaching this question from two slightly different angles. We can agree to disagree.

it's pretty much understood that Entwistle kept the band in time

Usually, that's the bassist's job. Especially in jazz, but often in rock music, too.

Usually, that's the bassist's job. Especially in jazz, but often in rock music, too.

Hmm.. I'll agree that with jazz music, it's appropriate to let the bass player hold the line, and let the drummer loose a little bit. But the rule of thumb I've noticed is that the more "drum driven" the music is, the more you want the drummer to keep the band in time. In rock music, there needs to be a really tight interplay between the drummer and bassist, and they sort of form a foundation on top of which the guitars, keyboards, vocals, etc. can do their thing. If the drummer and bassist drift away from each other, the bassist should follow the drummer, unless he's in some ridiculous fill, and has clearly lost the beat. In this case, after finishing the song, he should be forced to play warm-up exercises with a metronome for several days straight until he's been reprogrammed.

Of course, all members of the band have to be able to *keep* time... We're really debating which of the instruments has final veto power if things drift. And most rock is much more drum-driven than bass-driven.

got this in the mail, just thought I'd share...

LOL

I use that one all the time when a thread turns into a shouting match... It's a Classic!