The Top Twenty Drummers Of All Time

[johnt]

I watched this Sky Arts programme recently, wondering where Bobby Elliott would appear on the list.

And the answer is ............... nowhere! 

The list is shown below and the majority appear to be Heavy Metal or Prog Rock drummers. I must admit I've never heard of some of them. I'd certainly put Bobby ahead of Ringo Starr.

A very disappointing programme, in my opinion!

Here's the list:

20. Keith Moon, 19. Clyde Stubblefield, 18. Jeff Porcaro, 17. Carlton Barrett, 16. Chris 'Daddy' Dave, 15. Cindy Blackman, 
14. Steve Gadd, 13. Ginger Baker, 12. Earl Palmer, 11. Neil Peart, 10. Ian Paice,
9. Billy Cobham, 8. Bill Ward, 7. Louie Bellson, 6. Dave Grohl, 5. Gene Krupa,
4. Ringo Starr, 3. Hal Blaine, 2. John Bonham, 1. Buddy Rich.


 

[moorlock2003]

Balderdash. All one has to do is watch The Hollies IN CONCERT from Feb. 1973 to see and hear the GREATEST rock drummer.....drum roll....Bobby Elliott!!

[gee]

Bobby Elliott, also Brian Bennett (The Shadows) and Mel Taylor (The Ventures) were by far stronger and technically superior drummers to a number on that list

Keith Moon for all his flash style wasn't that consistent - Pete Townshend found Kenney Jones to be a far more reliable drummer later (whatever some Who fans care to believe Pete did say that)

Carl Palmer of Emerson Lake and Palmer fame, Clive Bunker and Barrie Barlow of Jethro Tull, plus Danny Seraphine of Chicago and Bobby Colomby of Blood Sweat and Tears were TOP drummers easily as strong as any on that list above

ALL of these drummers I mention far exceed Ringo !!!

[stuball]

I wouldn't be too concerned about never seeing Bobby Elliott's name among the top 100, 200, 500 or whatever number, drummers. Of for that matter, Tony Hicks when it comes to top guitarists. The Hollies were always about the group performance and the song itself, and that doesn't lend itself to loud garish solos, which sadly is what today tends to get all the media attention.

Bobby was all about precision and a metronomic backing beat, enhanced by tasteful fills. Long 'Look at me!!!' show-off solos were not his, nor The Hollies, thing.

Tony was much the same. No long pretentious and boring solos for him. A short but catchy lead in the break, or the odd tasteful intro or fill, was his style.

Unfortunately a classy song, sung by a fabulous lead singer, surrounded by heavenly harmonies, and all laid over a tight instrumental base, does not attract fans of loud, pretentious, gimmicky rock. And these lists seem to be put together by just those types. Can't see it changing anytime soon, so best to ignore it.

[moorlock2003]

Yes. The Hollies have ALWAYS put songs before egos. As for the list, where is Jody Stevens (Big Star), Bryan Madey (Stories), the aforementioned Kenney Jones, Dale "Buffin" Griffin (Mott The Hoople), Mike Gibbins (Badfinger), and Mick Tucker (The Sweet)?

[JamesT]

Dave Grohl, Bill Ward and Ringo Starr in the top 10?! Hell, it's a wonder Phil Rudd isn't in there... I have seen Carl Palmer and Neil Peart several times and they can truly perform an entertaining drum solo and are formidable players, universally recognised as masters of their game.

The other night, I saw Soft Machine live. Their drummer, John Marshall, is a wonderful player, and probably about the same age, if not a little older than Bobby Elliott. Still going strong.

[gee]

Also let's not forget the rather tragic figure of Jim Gordon
- who co-wrote 'Layla' with Eric Clapton

besides Derek and The Dominoes Jim was a regular feature on SO MANY top artists albums - America, and early Bread albums etc

Jim was to the USA what Clem Cattini (The Pirates, Tornados) was to the UK re top session playing for other 'name' artists - including The Hollies on 'Evolution' plus Marvin Welch and Farrar etc

[distantlight]

Don't wanna offend anybody but not recognizing Ringo Starr as one of the best drummers of all time (both for his perfect timing and his inventive drum ideas) means that you have a very limited view on drumming. Most drummers these days know and say that Ringo is one of the greatest around - a list like that is rubbish (but fun to make) anyway because what are the criteria? How technically acomplished one is? Or rather how musical and inventive and perfect for the song one plays?

There was a time in the early 70s when it was all about being technically accomplished and flashy but as good as some guys of that school were, that opinion is long gone. And actually Hollies fans agree with it - we say how Bobby and Tony fitted the songs and didn't overdo it and in the same breath you bash Ringo although he did exactly the same? Bobby was certainly technically better than Ringo and he had a great style of his own, too but that doesn't make him better. It's music - not sports. When you run faster than someone else you're better at running - this doesn't exist in music. 

So what's better - playing faster and more difficult to play rhythms or having a style of your own?

I mean A Day In The Life, Come Together and Tomorrow Never Knows alone qualify as three of the greatest and most inventive drum performances of all time. Ringo has such a distinctive way of playing that you can easily tell if it's him - same goes for Charlie Watts or Keith Moon. So never bash Ringo... it just doesn't make sense.

[gee]

I for one most certainly was NOT 'Bashing' Ringo or saying he was 'Rubbish' at all

- I said those drummers I listed all far exceed Ringo...which they do !

Ringo of course has a very distinct style BUT many drummers display alot more skill than Ringo does and to say he's no.4 ABOVE so many other top drummers is just incorrect

I would say that  Ringo is no.4 on that list chiefly because he was THE BEATLES drummer first....and his own abilities as a drummer are secondary to that 

In 1969 very few people even noticed it was Paul not Ringo playing drums on 'The Ballad of John and Yoko' !

we know that Ron Richards was unimpressed with Ringo and got in Andy White for the album version of 'Love Me Do' in 1962 - had Ron carried on as Beatles producer Ringo's spot might well have been dubious
(George in 'Help !' - 'there's a good drummer in Manchester'- was that a nod to then NME Poll Winner Bobby Elliott ?)

whatever, no question Ringo has a very individual style - and was a powerful drummer, he holds them together perfectly on the 'Live at Hollywood Bowl' album and his brief solo on 'The End' is great - Ringo put a terrific backbeat into The Beatles and like Bobby for The Hollies Ringo  kicked off a few Beatles hits in fine style - 'She Loves You', 'Come Together' 'Something'

Ringo was of course so vital to The Beatles but in truth you can't imagine him handling Stones, Who, Cream, Led Zep etc much heavier numbers or to be honest quite alot of Hollies numbers !

I just can't see Ringo playing drums for any of those classic rock bands of the sixties or seventies


compare JUST the drumming of Ringo and Bobby on the respective versions of 'If I Needed Someone'
- many deride The Hollies cover tho' chiefly I suspect due to George's derogative remarks to writer Alan Smith, but vocally and instrumentally it's no contest in my opinion

much as I love The Beatles gentler 'Byrds-ish' track The Hollies 'rocked up' version always wins out for me - Clarke, Hicks, Nash have much greater lung power and tighter harmonised vocal sound than Lennon, McCartney (both sounding on 'auto pilot' somewhat) and Harrison

while drumming wise Bobby's performance is simply in another league on the Hollies cover where he does so much more percussive work and much faster too, Ringo's playing sounds ultra basic which sure suits George's gentler version but it's totally background and nothing that notable , the mix does him few favors (how would Geoff Emerick have done it a year later ?) indeed I find myself wishing Ringo would break out more on The Beatles version (as later he does more on 'White Album' and 'Abbey Road') which to me shows ONLY George Harrison not on 'auto pilot' and having any great enthusiasm for his song

- it seems George Martin felt at the time The Beatles would likely NOT release their version of IINS hence he suggested it to Ron as suitable for The Hollies to cover...which is telling

it always makes me laugh when some Beatle buffs or writers try to say how The Hollies instrumentally were NOT as accomplished as The Beatles - utter NONSENSE !

Hicks and Harrison were pretty much equal as guitarists I'd say, Lennon a better rhythm guitarist than Nash who strummed often unplugged, but over 1963-66 Haydock was a better bass player and much faster than McCartney who got ALOT stronger as he went on of course plus became a multi instrumentalist too

Drummer wise it really was NO contest tho' - something I think John Lennon knew hence his at least public 'dislike' of The Hollies

also it makes me smile when Beatle buffs crow about how Ringo's drums were brought up to the fore so impressively from 'Revolver' in 1966 onwards ! - well both Tony Meehan and Brian Bennett (Shadows), Mel Taylor (Ventures) and Bobby Elliott had their drums right up to the fore well before 'Revolver' - as did Bobby Sullivan on The Dave Clark Five hits !

this is NOT to belittle Ringo at all, but he was never really what you would call a great Rock drummer - he was and presumably still is terrific at what he does well...and always kept within that scope and range, he's a top pop / rock & roll drummer for sure with a distinctive style BUT then remember his style is so well known thanks to the quality  songs Lennon, McCartney and Harrison wrote that are all known so well

Bobby Elliott notably on 'Distant Light' album and in his solo on 'Survival of The Fittest' could easily and effortlessly have stepped into ANY major Rock band at all...and powered them up well !

hence Bruce Springsteen telling his E Street Band drummer
- 'play it like that guy in The Hollies'

[distantlight]

They exceed him in what, though? Technical ability, fast playing? As I said - for me and a lot of people technical ability is not the main measurement for music. It's all totally personal anyway so the only thing one can do is make a list of his own favourites.

I mean - when you just count the technical side, Bobby Elliott wouldn't even be in the top 1000 drummers of all times. Even in my 180,000 people hometown there are a couple of really skilled drummers who probably play technically better/faster than Bobby... does that make them better drummers? Hell no!

You don't say a painter is better because he paints more realistic or uses more flashy colours. The same applies (at least for me) to music - there's no thing as "incorrect" in music. It's no math, it's no sports - it is an artform and you just can't argue about such a list saying something is "incorrect". 

Don't get me wrong - I see your point but I just disagree with your evaluation - which is fine, too because it's music and everyone has a different opinion. It's all based on taste and personal opinions, though and not on facts. Unless it simply is about "how many notes can a guitarist play in a 10 seconds" or "how fast can the drummer play" etc pp - then it is measurable.

[stuball]

One thing I'm sure of: if Ringo had been The Hollies drummer and Bobby was The Beatles stick-man, Elliott would be riding high in this list while Starkey's name would be absent. Among the many faults in compiling an 'All-Time Top 100' such as this, is the fact that 'who you played for' becomes paramount over 'how you played'. And that's why lists like this have to be taken with a grain of salt. At best, they're amusing, 'good for a laugh', but nothing more.

[gee]

Stuball has got it spot on

Also I think a key point is that you NOTICE Bobby's drumming is really adding alot to many Hollies tracks - indeed those 'Evolution' tracks on which three fine drummers deputised are notable as  the drumming does NOT stand out as being particularly noticeable but simply competent

Besides the tracks we mentioned where Ringo's drumming stands out the fact is on many Beatles songs Ringo's drumming is never a particularly stand out feature at all - indeed when Ringo was not there such as the second 'Love Me Do' or 'Ballad of John and Yoko' etc few if any noticed...!

the switch from Don Rathbone to Bobby Elliott on 'Stay' really does stand out both re power and skill of Bobby's drumming

MANY Beatles fans in Liverpool were horrified when Pete Best was edged out - 'Pete Forever Ringo Never' was the cry...and George even got his eye blacked by one irate fan ! so it seems it was as much that Ringo fitted in on a personality level as opposed to him being a far greater drummer at first

I DON'T want to sound all Anti Ringo as his style and reliability as a drummer was so important to The Beatles plus his being a modest guy who 'acted naturally' was so important as a balance re the personalities in the band - Ringo held them together alot both as a guy as well as 'as a drummer' - he wasn't the most flash or inspired of drummers BUT the Beatles didn't require that instead Ringo was the RIGHT drummer for them

Equally say Mick Avory was not a flash drummer for The Kinks - he WAS a loud drummer but he kept it straightforward which suited them spot on

but drummers like that would not have worked in bands such as The Who or Cream etc would they ?

Bobby was a strong backbone and a 'feature' player in The Hollies - look how he stands out even on a ballad like 'He Ain't Heavy' which is very much a vocalists song where the instrumentation is largely purely supportive, even Elton John's piano is pure support...yet Bobby makes the drumming a notable feature and he did that so often from 'Stay' to 'Just One Look' to 'Here I Go Again' to 'I'm Alive' to 'Look Through Any Window' to 'If I Needed Someone' and later on 'He Ain't Heavy', and 'Long Cool Woman' and 'The Baby' - indeed the LACK of a decent mix re Bobby's drumming on 'Gasoline Alley Bred' really stands out !

I would say that you only find yourself really noticing Ringo's drumming standing out on certain Beatles songs, partly due to the earlier mixes up to 1965 and thereafter again on certain songs like say 'A Day in The Life', 'Come Together', 'Something' etc...

whilst he's reliable, and clearly doing his job, they don't require a brilliant innovative drummer in much of The Beatles music as overall the main innovation is in the writing, singing, and other instrumentation - I recall reading in Hunter Davies book that John and Paul were working in the studio on Sgt Pepper without Ringo even being there !

Bobby and Tony were very much THE musicians in The Hollies set up and you can't imagine them by choice not involving the pair in putting their songs together musically which probably more than anything emphasises their importance to their band

[distantlight]

Of course Stuball is right that these lists are a lot about the bands those people played in - that doesn't say anything about Ringo's abilities, though. 

It is exceptional how much Bobby stood out on a slow song like Heavy (same with Ringo on A Day In The Life, though) and he is without a doubt one of the best drummers ever. One of my favourite performances of him is "The Baby" btw. The fact that he's not in that list is only due to the fact that the people who compiled the list, didn't know (enough) about him. 

Still... calling someone like Ringo who came up with so many great, totally unusal and never heard of before drum ideas "not the most inspired drummer" because he chose to play what's right for the song and added stuff only when needed and didn't when not needed, is highly unfair and belittles him. If his work with the Beatles is "not totally inspired" I really don't know what is.

Even the one drum solo he did in "The End" is totally spot on, 100 % tight and catchy - something that almost no drum solo is. Ringo evolved with the exact band he played with. It doesn't matter at all if he would have fitted the Who or Cream - neither of their drummers would have fitted the Beatles if they would have played in their style. Ringo started playing Rock'n'Roll, did a great job playing Beat, mastered their mid 60s period, played absolutely great stuff on their psychedelic songs (Strawberry Fields etc), did a whole lot of different drumming in different musical styles on the White Album (even really heavy stuff like Helter Skelter) and Abbey Road. 

This "Ringo wasn't great thing" is an absolute myth created by people who thought that the technical side of music is what makes something good. Those are the same people who belittle the Hollies or who say how much better today's big productions sound compared to the 60s. That of all people Hollies fans fall for those myth and out of that list filled with drummers who are the opposite of what we like in the Hollies music of all things pick Ringo to say that the list is rubbish just doesn't make sense to me at all. 

[distantlight]

p.s. that Lennon quote saying Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles seems to be an urban myth. E.g.:

[gee]

you can big up Ringo as much as you like but the fact is other drummers were every bit as inspired as Ringo was - certainly Bobby, Brian Bennett, Mel Taylor were every bit as creative as were other drummers of that era each adapting their style to changing musical styles accordingly

in Bobby's case his jazz and big band admiration was very apparent in his playing, be it Rock & Roll, Beat music, Psychedelia, folk style, rock etc

No one is falling for any 'myth' at all, just not sharing your opinion that Ringo was such an all time great drummer - he was a distinctive drummer who suited his band as I've said

as for whatever John Lennon said or didn't say - this seems to change over time I rather get the impression alot of what Lennon said is claimed to be an urban myth !

was his inaccurate insults aimed at The Hollies a myth ?

we DO know Ringo briefly left the White Album sessions it seems feeling unloved and under valued (why would that be ?) and they quickly wanted him back realising they had upset him

[Stranger]

Nov 11, 2018 18:44:51 GMT gee said:

as for whatever John Lennon said or didn't say - this seems to change over time I rather get the impression alot of what Lennon said is claimed to be an urban myth !

I think the point on this one is that there is absolutely no record of Lennon actually having said it. It seems to be well rebutted at this stage though it is good line, "print the l egend".

[gee]

I believe the comment actually came from a 1981 BBC Radio Comedy show called 'Radio Active' !

Ringo himself admits he can't do a drum roll, and is no good at technical things - however as I pointed out above he was perfect for The Beatles re his own style

it was Paul McCartney who was particularly critical of Ringo's drumming during a session for the White Album that caused Ringo to actually quit the band for two weeks and go off to Sardinia

anyway here is Mel Taylor playing with The Ventures on 'Wipe Out' in 1966

[gee]

interesting link here for Drum icons

mikedolbear.com/british-drum-icons/

[distantlight]

I never argued that other drummers weren't creative or as creative as Ringo... I just said that you belittle Ringo and you're wrong doing that. You're obviously no drummer yourself (which you don't have to be to decide what you like and what not) but the way you try to present your "facts" about who is good and who's not is just wrong. 

There are endless quotes by famous drummers, musicians and producers who praise Ringo for his inventiveness, for his feel and for his tightness. And he was able to play quite a few things that are actually pretty hard to play. So I'm not some loner "bigging up" his favourite drummer that noone cares about - pretty much everybody who actually knows about drumming praises him in one way or the other - Max Weinberg, Phil Collins, Al Kooper, Don Was to name a few (here are just some quotes: www.beatles2020.net/quotes-about-ringo.html). If you don't wanna believe me (which is fair enough because you don't know me) you might at least believe some other extremely successful musicians who might know a bit more about playing the drums than you do. 

[gee]

Don't take such a high handed attitude thank you !

I never claimed to BE a drummer and I am well aware of what other drummers have said, I will state my opinion regardless of whatever 'musicians who might know a bit more than I do' think or say - so hard luck !!

I have had a complete Beatles collection of official releases for years and I'm still not convinced that Ringo was that great a drummer compared to many others and you are not going to change my view re that !

as I've repeatedly stated Ringo had a distinctive style which suited The Beatles but in truth none of them were THAT great as musicians

and bear in mind 'famous musicians' opinions are just that - no one seems to be able to say anything 'less than' re The Beatles these days it seems which is absurd

Lennon claimed 'no one in Europe could touch us' - which was nonsense !

[eric]

Like gee, I have every official Beatles recording. I declare that I am a huge fan of the Fab Four and, as with The Hollies, I have followed them for almost a lifetime. Lennon’s assertion above is probably fair with regard to their song writing, musical development and quality of LP content for the period 1963 to 1969. However, this is where his statement ends as there were other artists that rivalled and exceeded The Beatles at times with exceptional songs and live performances.

There are a number of UK artists that produced brilliant and influential recordings that were as exciting and dynamic as recordings of The Beatles. For example: “It’s All Over Now” (Stones) – “I’m Alive” (Hollies) – “You Really Got Me” (Kinks) – “Glad All Over” (Dave Clark Five) – “House Of The Rising Sun” (Animals) – “Heart Full Of Soul” (Yardbirds) – “My Generation” (Who) – “All or Nothing” (Small Faces) – “Sunshine Superman” (Donovan, recorded December 1965). From an Aussie perspective I must include “Friday On My Mind” (Easybeats).

With regard to live performances, I saw The Beatles in 1964 (with Jimmy Nicol, not Ringo) and later on, The Who and The Small Faces on the same bill in January 1968. The Who and the Small Faces concert remains one of the most exciting concerts I have seen. Could others touch The Beatles? Absolutely!

[Stranger]

We all know now it was really Bernard Purdie anyway!

[cameron]

The Beatles were a pretty rubbish live band by 1965/6. They were out of practice due to their punishing schedule and at concerts couldn't actually hear themselves play due to all the screaming. It took them many takes to nail a song in the studio, often leaving a long trail of poor work-throughs until George Martin was satisfied with their performance. It was only once they left live performances behind them did they get their mojo back. They were as tight as ever by 1969, which is why 'Abbey Road' is considered to be such a landmark for them because they're all equally on top form consistently.

In contrast, there were a lot of 1960s bands who were even better live than in the studio. Though the Who caused quite a spectacle on stage, Keith's drums were often quite out of time and their vocal harmonies not very refined. It wasn't until Keith toned it down in the later part of the 1960s in the studio that their albums improved. Shel Talmy famously put percussion on their early LPs just to keep Keith in time! The Stones were extremely sloppy live, largely thanks to Charlie Watts' very out of time drumming that's become a trademark of the Stones. The Kinks were quite bad too, out of tune, vocals all over the place and Dave Davies so keen to do a guitar solo that he forgets the tempo of the song!

The real top notch live band of the 1960s was probably the Move. They had the stage presence of the Who (including smashing things up and setting fire to things!) but had harmonies as tight as the Hollies, with an impressive instrumental backing. Bev Bevan was a real power-house on drums and Roy Wood a very underrated lead guitarist. Listen to their killer set in 1968 at the Marquee to hear just how impressive they were.

Surprisingly, I'd place the Tremeloes in the top five. They were a very tight band. Impressive instrumental backing, with Alan Blakley alternating between rhythm guitar and piano. Ricky Westwood was right up there with Tony Hicks of the Hollies when it came to lead guitar. He could play anything and always played to suit the song. Couple this with a note perfect four way vocal spread, and you have a killer live band. They did one live LP in 1969, cringingly called "The Tremeloes Live In Cabaret" but it is stunning from start to finish, and completely live with no overdubs.

Amen Corner were very hot towards the latter end of the 1960s, perhaps helped by being a seven piece band, but a very talented one. And many of them went on to be session players in the 1970s, which is hardly surprising when you hear how slick their live recordings were.

The Small Faces are certainly up there with the best - Steve Marriott's stage presence the clear winner here. But not overshadowing the enormously technically talented Kenney Jones on drums, who was in such a tight groove with Ronnie Lane on bass. Ian McLagen contributed a lot with his keyboards too. They had a very full live sound. It's a shame that we never got a proper live album out of them in their 1960s heyday.

Another surprise is the Moody Blues. They really came to life on stage. A lot of their songs much edgier live. Justin Hayward cranked his guitar right up, and Mike Pinder was so incredibly adept at bringing their complex arrangements into a live setting armed only with his mellotron. Search out their set live at the Isle of Wight festival in 1970 and you'll see just how good they were.

Of course, our favourites the Hollies were pretty much at the top. Even other bands recognised this. I needn't go on about how good they were live as we all know, but they were among the very best. A much tighter live act than the Beatles and Bobby Elliott bought showmanship to the table that Ringo Starr could only dream of! Again, massively toned down in the studio, which was a shame. I'm aching to see some of their concert recordings released officially. The recording of them in Australia in 1971 to me is as hot as they ever sounded, it HAS to be released officially one day! The Hollies were embarrassed by their performance at Lewisham Odeon in 1968, and listen how great that sounds! But a blistering rendition of the opening 'Stop! Stop! Stop!' from Japan a few months earlier reveals why the Hollies were disappointed by the Lewisham tapes.