No, I didn't. I answered them. YOU are ignoring MY post.

Prove it.

I'm not sure I can take these seriously anymore. Moon had feeling and style, and yes was brilliant, but he never consciously thought about what he did with the drums to the degree Bonham. And Moon's drumlines are MUCH easier to replicate, even with the same sound than Bonhams. I don't think I've heard anyone replicate Bonhams sound properly, without style and just drumlines, Moon's are very easy to replicate. Moons' drumlines can be taken apart in hours. To accurately take apart all of a Bonham drumline takes far longer. Moon's fills won't ever be exactly replicated to a degree because a lot of them are just wild rolls as fast as he can go, but you can roll just as fast and try and sound similar. The actually drumlines themselves? As I said, outside of WGFA and a handful of others, are extremely easy to replicate and pull apart. I, and many others, could replicate ICSFM quite easily and probably with the same dynamic touch. Pinball Wizard? Doable. I can see a Pollock comparison, but I would also Rembrandt, though not as daring as Pollock, had more skill with his paintings. Regardless of painting debate's, saying Bonhams style was easy and more conservative is bull. If anything many of Moon's drumlines were more conservative and derivative than Bonhams. Not all of them, Moon had some crazy, wild performances, whose only reason they are truly non conservative is he just went absolutely wild. It's obvious that Moon just knew the right way to go wild, and just when to restrain himself, but it doesn't mean that what he got out of it was less conservative than Bonham. Moon relied tons on rolls and cymbal smashes, it pretty much comes down to that for his fills. Bohnam had some extremely intricate fills, far more intricate and tactful than Moon. I don't even know how you can say this stuff. I also don't take kindly to 'get Bonham's dick out of your mouth, he's dead'. So is Kieth Moon, and I won't comment on his dick. Stop being so bias. I absolutely LOVE Moon, I know all of the who's major recorded material (all albums, I'm sure there are obscure recordings though), heard Live at Leeds, and seen live performances. I'm sure you've seen far more and know far more about them and Keith Moon. I respect a lot of your posts about the band and on this forum. But his is going far. Regardless of being conservative, he invented so much knew drum vocabulary that it really doesn't matter, Keith Moon doesn't have anything over him. I mean a criteria breakdown has Bohnam ahead of Peart anyways.

Influence: Bonham
Innovation: Bonham
Originality: Bonham (Peart made his style from lots of other styles and it's very noticeable, I mean very. Bonham built his off others as well, but was much more unique and more original with his tunings, pedaling, style, I'll say how hard he hit the drums cause that was a big deal too. His feel is unmistakably his and so is his style)
Creativity: Tie. Maybe Peart.
Skill: Peart
Stylistic Versatility: Peart

So since Influence is the bigger one, Bohnam wins since it's a tie. Moon vs. Peart

Influence: Moon
Innovation: Peart
Creativity: Peart
Originality: Moon
Skill: Peart
Stylistic Versatility: Peart

Peart wiggles between them, that's how it is. It's not a criteria flaw, if you want Moon to have creativity he's behind Bruford, but shouldn't be ahead of Bonham.

So by the criteria, as always, Bruford should be number 1 for any reasonable criteria. Why? Because he WILL take everything but Influence and Innovation against absolutely everyone and if there are more than 5 criteria he's just gonna win it. But even then it's Bruford Bohnam Peart Moon. Or Bruford Bohnam Moon Peart. Neither of those were in your listings. You are unfairly lumping Peart and Bruford, who are very different, and Moon and Bohnam who are also different.

Bohnam vs. Moon

Influence: Bohnam
Innovation: Bohnam
Originality: Moon
Creativity: Bohnam
Skill: Bohnam
Stylistic Versatility: Tie, maybe Bonham, Moon ended up using just roll after roll over and over, even if each roll is different and wild, it's still rolls. Bohnam had grooves, reggae type beats, some swing beats, and also some mad rolls.

When you have a near landslide for Bohnam, it's obvious someone's going to wedge between them.

Or maybe it's the fact that Moon had shitty technique and no discipline.
Bonham's playing was much more musical and creative, and that appeals more to drum experts than a reckless powerhouse with no restraint.



I am well familiar with all that footage you mentioned, The Who have always been one of my favorite bands ever.
Your Rembrandt/Pollock analogy is pointless here because Moon was not an artist at all.
I dont know how many times we have to keep saying it, but Moon was primitive and none of the examples you gave really prove otherwise.

If you are good at splashing around paint that has tons of emotion and passion behind it, and know just the right place for all your paint to land, good for you. Anyone can splash paint, you need a unique, in born and natural gift that god gives you to somehow have all the wildness work out. Moon had that. That's why everyone knows Moon is a damn special drummer. I'm saying Bohnam is far more of an artist. Moon drummed. I've seen interviews after interviews where sometimes, he's trying to be a little serious and talks about his drumming. My uncle knew him well and talked with him a lot, my mother knew Bonham. She'd help him out of concerts when he was too drunk to leave. My uncle thought Moon was the better drummer, since he did stuff he's never seen anyone do that no one else can do. True, no one can play like Moon, but they can create the same drumlines. After asking Moon how he does it, Moon just says he hears the music, and then throws himself at the kit, and whatever he gets always works out, because it's always how he wants it. Bohnam would consciously try to discern what's the right tone, fell, time, dynamic, etc. You can tell by listening to his music vs. Moon's. If you can't then I don't know how much you drum. By taking up the instrument I understand far more about intricacy and planning from hearing a well thought out fill to a mad roll. I can accept Kieth Moon could be called an artist because of how he plays, but I can't accept he's near as talented at the idea as Bonham.




Sorry Neg, Moon is way more original than Bonham. Neil Peart is probably the biggest Moon inspired drummer. Easily. Another reason he's not wholy original, you can hear him try to sound like Moon while be technical often, his intros to songs like The Trees are clearly Moon inspired. Moon is easily the second most influential drummer in rock. He did change rock drumming before Bohnam came. What does that have to do with what I"m saying? Ringo came out before Bohnam, changed drumming, and was extremely influential. Peart is a huge Ringo fan and so is Phil Collins, you can hear them rave about Ringo's fill placements? What's that got to do with anything? What DID Moon innovate? What does every drummer try and take from him to add to themselves? Generally two things, his feel and his wild abandon. But that's all i style and not actual writing.

Honestly, Neg too, I don't even consider peart a scientific mastermind, or even real technician. His skill is very overrated, and for genius of drumming, his really just a superb drummer in a genre that has few real superb drummers so he blows people's minds. There are more masterminds in the genre IMO, I respect Gavin Harrison's playing far more than Peart's. Bruford and Bozzio are in a while other league. Once I got into Jazz, it was hard to view Peart as anything more than special for rock, since the scientific genius so to speak of all the innovative jazz drummer is so wild, so out there, and so perfectly planned that outside of Bruford, few in rock compare. So in all things considered I only consider Bruford and Bozzio to be true scientific geniuses/technical beasts in rock. As good as Carey is I wouldn't take him that far. But this is all IMO.

He had no technique, but he had a degree of discipline, he knew when to stop. Drum experts love Moon and acknowledge, him because feel is a major part of drumming and it's interesting to see someone come out and play just what they want without any thought for anything else and still make it sound good. Many experts said, I forget who this jazz drummer was, but stuff like 'I don't know what you're doing, or why you're doing it, but just keep on doing it'. No one knew why Moon chose to play drums that way but it worked. However experts don't go studying it, there's not much to study, but he is admired, if maybe no as appealing. Maybe equally. Bohnam's stuff is far more technical and difficult to take apart, and drum experts to prefer to look at thoughtful playing and figure it out. There's real no point in trying to take apart things created with no real thought behind them. Figuring out how and why a drummer came up with a drumline or fill, what was going through their minds when they played it and why they chose to place it there and play it that way is something they love to do. You can't do that with Moon's, it's nearly impossible. That doesn't make him any better before you jump on me ClashWho saying I'm proving he's too good for them. He's not solid enough to decipher.



You can say Moon's a Pollock only if you assume Pollock had absolutely no clue, intention, or thought behind what he did. I'm sure Pollock had some intention behind his paintings, we own some of them and my Mom as a major art connoisseur, and someone who also met Pollock, talked to me about why he made paintings the way he did, since I always thought that was a weird one. he had reasoning, Moon didn't, but Moon had passion. In that way, primitive is a good word to describe Moon's playing, very passionate but without much thought. The fact that it worked so brilliantly just solidifies how truly special Moon was, no one is denying his gift. But that isn't enough to make him number 1 or put him next to Bohnam

Go to youtube, any drum instructor/lessons site that has a rock drumming category and just search 'john bohnam'. You search Moon you get videos of Moon playing or people covering his material, you search Bohnam you get tons of instructional videos on tons of different fills, beats, grooves, and techniques that people take apart and explain so that new rock drummers can learn these staples of the genre. Just search it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzveeuFz ... re=related

In the full video, Steve Smith will proceed to teach you all of these grooves that are now rock staples for developing complex drum lines, many rock drummers when trying to get to a more technical and complex level of beat creation start can start with a john bohnam groove. Why are John Bohnam grooves such a huge deal? Because as he said they have a 'swing' feel, they are jazzy grooves that Bohnam made undeniably rock. This transformation is huge, these are HARD ROCK drum lines that allow people to groove with and build off of, these weren't in rock before and a huge deal. HUGE. When you start learning how to build off and out of drumlines, a groove is generally the most important place to start, adapting a swing groove to hard rock opened lots of doors for drummers who never thought to approach rock like that. Moon was a pure rock drummer, Bohnam pushed the boundaries of the instrument. His single pedal drumming did similar things, working on double kicks became important to smooth out some intricate drum parts that before, were not considered.


there's tons of these, from real professional drummers as well on their sites, they can spend half an hour on his triplets alone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gAeuuF3Abg

There are hundreds of people on youtube who do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y3j_HDW ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w1q8rdRA4U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcp_XSTc ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJbYKP7Yi98

after Bohnam learned about proper tuning, he worked with professionals to get the sound he wanted, people love asking this guy about all of Bohnam's tuning, cause it's fascinating. Bohnam used tunings like in the Big Band era, something no one in rock did at the time as well.

You'll find some of this stuff for Peart as well, but not to the same degree as Bohnam. Moon? Good luck finding anything on people taking apart his drumlines. They are generally very simple.

Bullshit. You don't know that. You can't know that.



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.



That's due to Jimmy Page's production, not John Bonham's style.



Everything you just typed is bullshit. No drummer agrees with you.



So? The point is that they're both brilliant fucking artists.



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.



Ridiculous.



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.



And Jackson Pollock just knew the right way to drip paint willy nilly, right?



Name one. And what the fuck is tactful? What makes Moon's fills less tactful?



What "new drum vocabulary" did John Bonham invent?



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, 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.



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.

That's because Bonham can be explained. Keith Moon can't. Even Billy Cobham couldn't figure him out.

that was a famous statement that The Jew addressed a while back. I don't know any drummer who CAN'T figure out Moon's drumlines. Cobham couldn't figure out how he was doing what he was doing. If Cobham sat down for 30 minutes and listened to any of Moon's drum pieces with enough attention I have no doubt he could figure them out. Moon's drumlines are widely considered easy to replicate note wise, impossible to replicate style wise. Bonham's are much easier to replicate style wise, but the intricacies of his beats go far deeper.

No actual drummer thinks either of those things are true.



Reckless? What's reckless about "Baba O'Riley" or "Pinball Wizard"?



That's utter horseshit.

I don't believe you.



The man said otherwise. He watched Keith Moon play for more than 30 minutes. There's another drummer, I wish I could remember which one, who thought he could figure Keith Moon out. He asked if he could sit behind Keith Moon during a concert, and was granted permission. He said he left more confused than before.



That makes no sense.



No, they don't. Like what? What beat of Bonham's is so freaking intricate?

You just said that CRJ couldn't possibly know what was in Moon's head when he played.
By the same token, how can YOU possibly know what every other drummer thinks? Did you take a worldwide survey?
It is not an opinion, but a FACT that he was primitive and careless. Technique was not his main concern, that's just how he was. Doesn't mean I love his playing any less.



Those are still typical Moon drum lines, loud and bombastic.
He had a very poor sense of dynamics, as a drummer.



You like Sarah Silverman.



Proof?



Yes it does.
Ability and delivery are two different things. Moon did far more for the drummer than the drums themselves.
Yes his playing itself was awesome, but it was more about his APPROACH to drumming, and being a showman behind the kit.

Bonham had that same physical intensity, but he was, simply, a player of much higher caliber.

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.



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.



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



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.



k I have no problem saying that



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.



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.



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.




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.



Left foot lead ratamacue fill.



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.


No it doesn't. As I showed, if Bruford's 1 Bonham is still 2.



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?




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.