I don't know nearly as much as you do about drums. The two points I got from the video was 1) try to keep your drums from being boring/repetitive, and 2) the kick drum has more room/freedom to experiment than some of the other drums in the kit.selig wrote: ↑05 Jul 2022Not sure I totally get it, they give the first example as if it is universally understood to be inferior to the final version. But what I hear is a simple approach (which I have been asked to do many times) vs a busy approach (which I've been asked not to do just as many times!).
I didn't think the final example was any better or worse than the original, just busier. And I'm not sure there are folks out there 'accidentally' creating a simple beat when they intended to create a busy one, so maybe that's why I don't totally get it I guess because that seems to be the intended audience, no?
Bottom line, a simple repetitive beat is just as valid as a more complex beat, it comes down to personal taste and intended audience/genre IMO.
And was I imagining it but the bass line also changed with the final version of the drum beat, indicating you can't just change one and expect the other to also work without change.
I found their explanation of the different drum kit elements interesting, and I never thought of it like that before. Snare = energy; Toms = variety; Cymbals = pulse; Kick = groove. What are you thoughts on that, Giles?
Obviously, we talent like Peart and Bohnam is very rare, so I agree that less is usually more and keeping it simple (less busy) will most likely going to serve the music much better than thinking you need to put a busy drum fill at the end of every bar, or have a way busier kick than needed; Charlie Watts is an excellent example of keeping it simple and staying out of the way, while still holding down an excellent beat. I agree that the kick in the second example was busy as hell and not necessarily "better" than the kick in the first example.