Do you ever overplay the bass pedal?

I'm sure I've been guilty of it at one point or another. In fact, I'm sure I've been guilty of most things at one point or another.

But as I always harp on about, I try to keep it in context:
If I was playing a cover of Billie Jean, 1 and 3 it is.
If I was told to play it by a songwriter of an originally composed piece because he has a certain idea in his head of how he wants the song to feel, 1 and 3 it is.
If I'm collaborating on an original piece....or given free reign to come up with my own parts, then honestly it'll depend on the piece.

I'm an avid believer is less is more.....but only if more is not required. As a blanket statement for every situation, it just doesn't cut it, for me. If less was always more, then everything would be played 1 and 3. The fact that it's not tells me there's plenty of room to move.
 
I'm sure I've been guilty of it at one point or another. In fact, I'm sure I've been guilty of most things at one point or another.

But as I always harp on about, I try to keep it in context:
If I was playing a cover of Billie Jean, 1 and 3 it is.
If I was told to play it by a songwriter of an originally composed piece because he has a certain idea in his head of how he wants the song to feel, 1 and 3 it is.
If I'm collaborating on an original piece....or given free reign to come up with my own parts, then honestly it'll depend on the piece.

I'm an avid believer is less is more.....but only if more is not required. As a blanket statement for every situation, it just doesn't cut it, for me. If less was always more, then everything would be played 1 and 3. The fact that it's not tells me there's plenty of room to move.

That's probably the most true point made here. Drummers often get all snobby after they've played for 10 years and say less is more but, it isn't always.
Knowing when and when not to turn it on is the skill we should all strive to perfect instead of having an either or attitude.
Not many people reach that level of taste though and anyone can blag taste by underplaying but the ones whi do both and nail it all the time are the true masters!

My taste seems better on different days. Usually the day AFTER I've recorded my parts, haha!
 
I'm sure I've been guilty of it at one point or another. In fact, I'm sure I've been guilty of most things at one point or another.

But as I always harp on about, I try to keep it in context:
If I was playing a cover of Billie Jean, 1 and 3 it is.
If I was told to play it by a songwriter of an originally composed piece because he has a certain idea in his head of how he wants the song to feel, 1 and 3 it is.
If I'm collaborating on an original piece....or given free reign to come up with my own parts, then honestly it'll depend on the piece.

I'm an avid believer is less is more.....but only if more is not required. As a blanket statement for every situation, it just doesn't cut it, for me. If less was always more, then everything would be played 1 and 3. The fact that it's not tells me there's plenty of room to move.

the older I get, the less notes I play, the more I work

says something I think

I love to shed when alone

I love to make the song feel amazing when collaborating

gotta play what the engine room is begging for
 
I sometimes find myself getting bored on straight forward songs, and overplaying the bass pedal. For instance, if the song calls for a straight beat with bass on 1 and 3 (think beginning of Billie Jean), I'll start adding short bass hits in between just for the effect and to make it more interesting. I know if you overhit the bass it can detract from the song and the groove, so I try to limit it. But the tendency seems to always be there to want to whack the bass more.

Ya' gotta lay back and play the part right. Know your role in the song. Adding a bunch of extra notes does not endear you to the band or the audience. As was posted, play less notes, get more work. In fact, a joke I take seriously is my note-to-dollar ratio. I want the dollar side higher than the notes I play ;)
 
the older I get, the less notes I play, the more I work

says something I think

So using that logic, Meg White or Phil Rudd should be the most active and sort after drummers around, no? Yet, for some reason I still see plenty of room for Vinnie, Weckl, Freese, Carey, Harrison, Phillips and several hundred thousand others to continue cashing their pay cheques.

Look, there is a big difference between adding some colour and over-playing. I know many here don't seem to like to make the distinction, but that doesn't change what I see with my own two eyes. I've never been a "one size fits all" kinda guy, and none more so than when were talking about music.

I see more and more of the "a drummer should do this" or " a drummer should be that" mantra floating around and I disagree with it as an absolute, is all. In my book, what a drummer "should" be isn't nearly as narrowly defined, but it sure as hell includes these two things. Adaptability and musicality. Cover those two angles and you'll seldom go wrong.

Sure you've gotta know how to lay back, I don't dispute it.....only an idiot would. But you've also gotta know when to throw it down too. "Always simplifying" is no more adaptable or musical than "always overplaying" is. Yet it never seems to be addressed. It's always this one dimensional line of "less is more" or "the simpler you play the more you work"....well to my way of thinking, not always.....and certainly not without some musical context. 1 and 3 ain't getting me far in a Slayer cover band. Gadd's ratamcues would be completely out of place in Billie Jean.....again, context.

Just think of the great music that never would have been created if everyone thought that way. Bonham, Paice, Baker and Moon are all out for starters. Buddy, Gene, Joe and Louie can take a hike too. Carey, Copeland and Carlock....nup, too busy men...bugger off. And it would render Vinnie and Weckl completely unemployable. I'm sorry guys, but to my way of thinking the notion as a blanket statement without any reference to the context of the music being played is just absurd.

The best players know the difference and they adapt to the musical context all the time. No idea why we wouldn't want to emulate their approach, to be honest. When every piece of music I hear is stripped back and simplified to just 1 and 3, I'll follow suit.....until then, I'm not buyin' it because it simply leaves no room for the approach that so, so many great drummers have forged entire careers following.....all while creating some of the greatest music we've heard.

Here endeth the rant. ;-)
 
So using that logic, Meg White or Phil Rudd should be the most active and sort after drummers around, no? Yet, for some reason I still see plenty of room for Vinnie, Weckl, Freese, Carey, Harrison, Phillips and several hundred thousand others to continue cashing their pay cheques.

Look, there is a big difference between adding some colour and over-playing. I know many here don't seem to like to make the distinction, but that doesn't change what I see with my own two eyes. I've never been a "one size fits all" kinda guy, and none more so than when were talking about music.

I see more and more of the "a drummer should do this" or " a drummer should be that" mantra floating around and I disagree with it as an absolute, is all. In my book, what a drummer "should" be isn't nearly as narrowly defined, but it sure as hell includes these two things. Adaptability and musicality. Cover those two angles and you'll seldom go wrong.

Sure you've gotta know how to lay back, I don't dispute it.....only an idiot would. But you've also gotta know when to throw it down too. "Always simplifying" is no more adaptable or musical than "always overplaying" is. Yet it never seems to be addressed. It's always this one dimensional line of "less is more" or "the simpler you play the more you work"....well to my way of thinking, not always.....and certainly not without some musical context. 1 and 3 ain't getting me far in a Slayer cover band. Gadd's ratamcues would be completely out of place in Billie Jean.....again, context.

Just think of the great music that never would have been created if everyone thought that way. Bonham, Paice, Baker and Moon are all out for starters. Buddy, Gene, Joe and Louie can take a hike too. Carey, Copeland and Carlock....nup, too busy men...bugger off. And it would render Vinnie and Weckl completely unemployable. I'm sorry guys, but to my way of thinking the notion as a blanket statement without any reference to the context of the music being played is just absurd.

The best players know the difference and they adapt to the musical context all the time. No idea why we wouldn't want to emulate their approach, to be honest. When every piece of music I hear is stripped back and simplified to just 1 and 3, I'll follow suit.....until then, I'm not buyin' it because it simply leaves no room for the approach that so, so many great drummers have forged entire careers following.....all while creating some of the greatest music we've heard.

Here endeth the rant. ;-)

I dont dispute one word you said

actually agree whole heartedly

was simply speaking from my experiences

Ill play what they pay me to play and 9 times out of 10 they want stupid simple with great feel

Ive also played on progressive rock and fusion gigs and records where I was given a bit more free reign ..which was fun

but most gigs im hired for these days want a solid groove that feels great

I cant tell you how many drummers I have replaced because they "over played" ... and Im glad I knew the reason why they lost the gig when I stepped in because I very well may have overplayed as well...its actually amazing what Ive seen considered over playing by producers

I would sit there listening back to the track thinking...what the hell do they want me to play if this is over playing ?

I absolutely love and just about worship guys like Aaron Spears, Eric Moore, John Blackwell, Thomas Pridgen, Chris Coleman......these guys are the kings of "over playing"...and I love every second of it

but they also kick back on records and sound like friggin Ringo or Purdie ....with a nice good feeling groove

well minus Pridgen :)
 
Ill play what they pay me to play and 9 times out of 10 they want stupid simple with great feel

Oh, for sure mate. Truth is, the best paying gigs I ever did were with cover bands wanting that approach too.

I don't mean to assert that 2 and 4 playing is boring, nor that it doesn't have it's place. And my post certainly wasn't trying to single you out either....your post merely gave me a springboard from which to try and address a wider mentality that is being increasingly bandied around the forum. And whilst, I think that metality is for the most part correct, I also think it only partially covers a much broader picture and is often in danger of lacking that all too important, context. I just think the "rest" of that picture is worth discussing too......and it seldom seems to be, is all.
 
I agree, there's quite alot of that 'only one way' to do things attitude on here.
At the end of the day the drums is just as much a lead insrument as guitar or vocals. Do guitars solo all through every song? No, most of the time they are holding back playing rhythm, for the song.
Everyone gets that monent to get creative at some point and when the oppertunity comes up then your drums suddenly become the lead insrument and contrary to what alot of people are saying on here there's nothing wrong with it.

Music, drums, guitar, vocals, it's all just noise at the ens of the day and if you can say what needs to be said in a song by using anything, instrument or not then you'll do it. and quite often it's the drums.
It's not a crime and you can say things on drums that you can't on guitar so it IS called for at times.
It's just knowing when it's called for that seperates the overplayers from the tastefull players.
No difference in chops, just difference in application and that is the ultimate technique to learn.

Far too easy to sit on our high horses and say 'I play 2 and 4, I play for the song' like it makes you better and that anyone who ever dares use a polymeter or flashy fill is somehow inferior.

I do agree that none of the flashy stuff must detract from the song in any way.

Ever noticed all the drummers in rhythm magazine that say 'I play for the song' are the crap ones that couldn't play the flash stuff if they wantes to?
 
...........well minus Pridgen :)

LOL, that was funny! : )

I think PFG's point is a valid one. There is no disputing that to be a working drummer you've got to play the part, pull back and keep it simple and groovy. Dont unpack your chops, and just play what the man wants... WELL.

And thats what any drummer worth his salt will tell you. And he would be correct.

But there is a sub text under that notion that is also saying " dont innovate, dont bring your personality to the gig, theres only one kind of music that sells, and just do what they tell you because they are paying you" which isnt right, or at least should'nt be.

It tends to build instinctive self loathing in a drummer to think you are doing the wrong thing by going for anything more than the money beat not to speak of killing the creative spirit , if it gets ingrained in our psyche. After all Gadd did bring a few more notes to the table when he took over the sessions throne from Kelter and became the 'workingest' drummer in town.

I would imagine the great drummers you mentioned first got noticed by the 'big boys' when they unleashed their gospel chops on the world at large ( ...which you happen to have in abundance too , btw Gvda.... ; ) And those chops are perhaps the most creative expression possible on a drum set. That, besides good reccos is also what gets you on the call list.

This notion also assumes incorrectly that all drummers want to be working studio drummers. I think thats a very small percentage of drummers on this planet ( and getting smaller by the day ).

There's got to be an argument for creativity here, because anything that doesnt stimulate creatively and joy, is something to be suspicious about, IMO. I buy the "putting food on the table" argument, but to ignore or belittle the other is selling ourselves short as drummers.

This is music were talking about, folks.

My 2 cents...



...
 
Last edited:
LOL, that was funny! : )

I think PFG's point is a valid one. There is no disputing that to be a working drummer you've got to play the part, pull back and keep it simple and groovy. Dont unpack your chops, and just play what the man wants... WELL.

And thats what any drummer worth his salt will tell you. And he would be correct.

But there is a sub text under that notion that is also saying " dont innovate, dont bring your personality to the gig, theres only one kind of music that sells, and just do what they tell you because they are paying you" which isnt right, or at least should'nt be.

It tends to build instinctive self loathing in a drummer to think you are going the wrong thing by going for anything more than the money beat not to speak of killing the creative spirit , if it gets ingrained in our psyche. After all Gadd did bring a few more notes to the table when he took over the sessions throne from Kelter and became the 'workingest' drummer in town.

I would imagine the great drummers you mentioned first got noticed by the 'big boys' when they unleashed their gospel chops on the world at large ( ...which you happen to have in abundance too , btw Gvda.... ; ) And those chops are perhaps the most creative expression possible on a drum set. That, besides good reccos is also what gets you on the call list.

This notion also assumes incorrectly that all drummers want to be working studio drummers. I think thats a very small percentage of drummers on this planet ( and getting smaller by the day ).

There's got to be an argument for creativity here, because anything that doesnt stimulate creatively and joy, is something to be suspicious about, IMO. I buy the "putting food on the table" argument, but to ignore or belittle the other is selling ourselves short as drummers.

This is music were talking about, folks.

My 2 cents...



...

i am the biggest advocate of artistic expression ... believe me

but I also need to feed my family and pay my bills :)

I got to fill in for my good friend Seth Rheam and tour with East Of The Wall last year and get all my yayas out and rip out every chop I ever wanted to every night......came home broke but it sure was fun

I want to express my emotions every time I sit behind the kit

but unfortunately the dead presidents demand otherwise most of the time

I need to get more jazz gigs :)
 
This is music were talking about, folks.

Indeed Abe.

And to "serve" it doesn't always mean bringing it bread and water, anymore than it means always bringing it French champagne and the fatted calf.

Knowing the difference is what being a musician is all about. That, truely is being a servant to the music IMHO.
 
...

You know, I get this sneaky feeling that the guys who can play their asses off - and Gvada is one of them- are also the guys who can lay it down simple & dripping with groove juice.

Is that a coincidence? I dont think so. It is probably synonimous with the wisdom of the ages. It is only when you have traversed the entire world do you appreciate that home is where you really want to be.

PS- PFG.. Spain still beckons
 
I now incorporate into my practice routine - just playing simple "boring" beats why?

Because my tendency is to get "bored" and try to sqeeze in too much...which after recording several drum tracks and listening back I learned actually detracts from the song.

I found my efforts to "spice it up" to actually be a weakness and I actively
seek to be a better drummer by playing simpler...

I'm with you there man. If you haven't listened back to your own playing, you cannot speak intelligently about how you are coming off, because you just don't know. If you think you are spicing things up, I would like to see that same person listen back to their "spiciness" and be there to watch their expression. (if it worked or not) The recorder is the source of most of my musical opinions. I know what works and what doesn't...for my situation. The recorder is responsible for that. That's why I'm a groove Nazi. Which is not to say that I don't embellish the song and add fills when needed...I do. My parts aren't dumbed down, they are distilled and actually complex considering the dynamics and shading. I do play all the necessary fills and absolutely no unnecessary ones. I've come to the conclusion that the beat sounds better than an unnecessary fill. The fills have to groove too, they can't be some drummy thing that I wanted to squeeze in, it has to work with and set up a part of the song.
 
...

You know, I get this sneaky feeling that the guys who can play their asses off - and Gvada is one of them- are also the guys who can lay it down simple & dripping with groove juice.

Is that a coincidence? I dont think so. It is probably synonimous with the wisdom of the ages. It is only when you have traversed the entire world do you appreciate that home is where you really want to be.

PS- PFG.. Spain still beckons

it is an absolute art form to lay down a juicy groove using few notes and takes years to develop the patience and appreciation

I believe those who find it boring and easy aren't doing it correctly and probably arent giving the average listener that seamless transparent flow their soul desires

ya know... those amazing grooves that no one but a drummer notices

Josie by Steely Dan comes to mind

Keltner KILLED!!!! that track, but someones mom who loves the song isnt asking who the drummer is

Im sure we could sit here and name a million and one of those songs
 
There seems to be some backlash against the people that are advocating the "less is more" attitude. The original post said the part for the song was a basic beat, and the extra notes were thrown in out of boredom. That's why the "less is more" advice is getting thrown out there. For myself, it's not out of being an older cranky guy with an attitude, it's simply because I've been around to understand context. More notes are fine, but there's got to be a reason for it. Extra notes because you're bored, or because you want to bring more attention to yourself to impress people are not the right reasons. Some music requires more notes, and if that's what you want to do, then play a prog or fusion gig and have a great time. If you're playing a country gig, or a blues gig, then you need to have the discipline to keep it simple. Unless we are playing a solo drum gig or are fronting our own band, our instrument is in a supporting role. If you are playing non-instumental music with songs and lyrics, you are supporting the song and the story and message in the lyrics. Sometimes that means just driving the band and not stepping on anybody's toes, and making it feel as good as possible.

If you look at a drummer like Vinnie, he's played with everybody from Zappa to Faith Hill. His drumming with Faith was true to the music, had no "Vinnie-isms", and served the songs about as perfectly as possible. He had a great interview in MD a few years ago and he talked about playing for the song. The key thing he said was not only do you have to play for the song, but you have to WANT to play for the song. That last bit is what gets missed a lot these days.
 
Tastes change over time, and the idea of how to "play for the song" itself changes drastically over time. Look at what a typical drum track for a typical pop song sounded like in the early 1970s and compare it with today. Drum parts to popular songs were a lot busier on average back then, and there wasn't such an emphasis on perfect, metronomic timekeeping before click tracks.

But those busy drum parts and signature fills became part of those songs. In that sense, I think the whole concept of "playing for the song" is kind of bullsh**, because it's so subjective. Great pop and rock songs feature hero fills that are inextricably linked to the appeal of those songs. I don't think we'd improve those songs if we took out the showy drum parts. On the contrary, it would degrade the appeal of the music.

Just some food for thought. This is coming from someone who has a real appreciation for the straight, money beat approach to songs. I just think the industry drives so much of what we think is right "for the music" and the art ultimately is shaped by that, whether we like it or not and whether it's ultimately good (very subjective) or not.
 
Tastes change over time, and the idea of how to "play for the song" itself changes drastically over time. Look at what a typical drum track for a typical pop song sounded like in the early 1970s and compare it with today. Drum parts to popular songs were a lot busier on average back then, and there wasn't such an emphasis on perfect, metronomic timekeeping before click tracks.

But those busy drum parts and signature fills became part of those songs. In that sense, I think the whole concept of "playing for the song" is kind of bullsh**, because it's so subjective. Great pop and rock songs feature hero fills that are inextricably linked to the appeal of those songs. I don't think we'd improve those songs if we took out the showy drum parts. On the contrary, it would degrade the appeal of the music.

Just some food for thought. This is coming from someone who has a real appreciation for the straight, money beat approach to songs. I just think the industry drives so much of what we think is right "for the music" and the art ultimately is shaped by that, whether we like it or not and whether it's ultimately good (very subjective) or not.

agreed

if its my song..Im playing for the song the way I would...my style using my discretion

if Im being payed to play on someone elses song...Im playing what they want and trying to sneak some of ME on the track tastefully so they dont even notice..or hoping they do notice and love it

which sometimes they do and sometimes they dont

its all subjective and relative

but we all have to be drummers as well as chameleons if we want to make a living playing more than one genre of music
 
Another clarification...Just because a drummer "plays for the song" doesn't mean he has to leave out any of the required hero fills, or any required set up for that matter. Hero fills serve the song too. Playing for the song can translate into very busy playing indeed, if the song needs it. And when people say keep it simple, it really isn't simple. Between keeping a juicy beat, setting up different sections of a song, building a solo, then dropping back down for the verse, band hits and figures, ornamentation, required fills...there is plenty to keep yourself occupied without being "creative". I quote that word because most people, when they are being "creative", are really just sucking lol. Usually because they are not giving enough attention to the afore-mentioned things, they are busy trying to find places to get "creative" lol.
 
tastes do change over time, I used to really love fast intense guitar solo's, now I think they are annoying...

I used to love to hear really fast double bass...but now it gets old pretty quick...

Bottom line is making music isn't about getting to pull out your chops,
it's about making music and if the musical arrangement you're in
allows you to showcase - then by all means do it - if you've got the chops
bring 'em on! Dream theater, math rock genre etc...pshycodelic a'la hendrix stuff
would not be the same without those busy drum parts - jazz - swing, big band...
yeah baby - smokin drums is part of the recipe...

Contemporary music not so much and yes there is truth to producers and bands
interest in drummers that can 'play for the song' but it's not about simpler is better, or
complex is better - it's about what sounds good in the context...

"if it sounds good play it" - Edward Van Halen

Listening back is huge - you quickly learn where to edit your performance
in order to make the whole sound stronger. Maybe it's adding more notes maybe it's subtracting...but I'll be ther first to say my tendency as a drummer is
to overplay...so it is a discipline for me to edit my parts...but a good one that
developes me ear.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top