What's so great about Charlie Watts, after all?

As the 70's wore on into the 80's, the Stones live did tend to sacrifice groove for speed, no argument there.

Listen to Jumpin' Jack Flash from Rock and Roll Circus in comparison to Jumpin' Jack Flash from Love You Live and that right there is what I think your issue is.

R and R Circus



Love You Live

Jumpin' Jack Flash (Live / Remastered 2009)

 

Bingo! It might also have to do with the second drummer (Ollie Brown?), but the difference is staggering. He sounds great on Rn'R Circus

 

I'll go one further and question just how good any 70s live Stones performance could be? I'm not sure I've heard any show that wasn't sped to the gills and chemical-enhanced. I guess to some degree, that adds to the "danger" of the Stones, but it also makes for a poor yardstick to measure a drummer by.

 

Obviously the OP cares. What’s wrong with that?

The OP is not berating him. He’s questioning the ability of Charlie Watts. Just because he is part of the Stones doesn’t automatically mean he’s a great drummer.

 

Charlie Watts was an incredible drummer when the rest of The Stones were technically proficient enough to be considered highly versatile and skilled in their respective instruments. I mean, hell, in the late-seventies, they were all funky and strange. You can’t put that on Watts alone. I’m surprised Keith and the others held as well as they did. That’s a testament to how skilled they were. You listen to those early shows in the sixties, with a thousand fans roaring like a riot squad that could be framed with the incentive to disrupt the performance of those musicians; Charlie held down that beat like a steamship-net on the prowl for a hoodwinker sunfish. The Madison Square Garden shows are the prime document of the Stones at the height of, heck, not even their musicality, but their cultural upheaval and relevance in a society marred by The Mansons and Altamont; and Charlie finesses the dead air and friction between Wyman and Richards’ rhythmic pull with his ghost-trills and bass-drum hits that lock the groove as it’s on the run. Even the University of Leeds performance of ‘71 and a bunch of shows from the early years of that momentous decade show a highly competent, talented and skilled drummer that couldn’t have been better serviced for the music the group was putting out. That guy knew rhythm and the pocket as good as any damned professional drummer.

 

You don’t need to explain yourself.

 

Keith Richards pointed out in his Life autobiography, Charlie took umbrage with the singer when it was discovered he had used the bargaining power of The Stones to negotiate his own solo deal.

“Mick and I got back to the hotel at about five in the morning, and he called up Charlie. ‘Where’s my drummer?’ No answer. He puts the phone down. We were still sitting there getting pissed when about 20 minutes later there was a knock on the door. It was Charlie — Saville Row suit, perfectly dressed. Tie. Shaved. The whole bit. I could smell the cologne. He walked straight past me, got ahold of Mick and said, ‘Never call me your drummer again.’ He held him up and gave him a right hook.

“Twelve hours later he was saying "f**k it, I’m going to go down and do it again". It takes a lot to wind that man up.”

 

https://drummagazine.com/19-reasons-to-love-charlie-watts-2/

 

Phil Rudd is a tight drummer with dexterity. Charlie is very loose and as a drummer i can see him struggling to coordinate his foot with his hands very often. He’s my least favorite part of the Stones and he does bring down many of their songs. It’s a testament to the other members talents that they wrote so many memorable songs with him playing behind them

 

Brings down many of their songs? Umm, nooo

 

'She's A Rainbow' proved to me Charlie had the goods.

 

I don't know what to tell you. He keeps it simple but he has the musician's touch. My lifelong favorite drummers are flashier players from Elvin Jones to Rat Scabies. But at a Stones show, when CW hits that perfectly timed first snare shot on Honky Tonk Woman (to name just one of countless memorable moments), you realize how key he is to the whole sound (or you don't).

 

I am surprised that Mick did not replace him a long, long time ago.

 

Back when I used to play and no one knew what to play, we'd always play Stones songs, because they were basically the same three chords played different ways and all you had to do was call out the chords and there you were. But the drummer (whoever it would be) could never play like Charlie--no one could then, no one can now. Why? He never plays the same fill twice, ever. Every song is different. It's quite astonishing. That and he plays slightly behind Keith, but still makes the band swing. How? No one knows!

 

The Stones have a unique chemistry. Keith isn't the most technical player, Charlie isn't the most technical player, Mick not the most technical singer. Taken separately they're not very interesting. Put them together and they're a powerhouse.

That's why they're The Stones and nobody else is.

Charlie's style isn't for everyone, it depends on what you like. I have always felt that Keith Moon was too busy and brought down some of The Who's songs.

 

A non-frills drummer that shines ? That's him. I don't care much about the Stones, except for a bunch of songs, but I've always marveled at his simplistic, almost militaristic drumming style; it works like a charm !

 

One example of him struggling to coordinate his foot with his hands please?

 

His drumming just feels right.
Dandelion
Jumping Jack Flash
Honky Toni Woman
All of Beggars Banquet

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion but keep listening. You might change your mind.

 

He's absolutely killer at finding the right groove and his Snare work is outstanding.
Read what serious Drummers think about Charlie and you'll hear nothing but accolades.

 

I think you are confusing an idiosyncratic style that you personally find less impressive with a lack of talent. Yes, Jimmy Miller played some drums. But Mick Jagger played some guitar when Keith wasn't around. The Rolling Stones are one of the most popular, critically-acclaimed, enduring, and influential music groups of the modern era. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, along with their bandmates, producers, and management, had no conceivable reason to keep an "amateur" drummer who is "desperately attempting to keep up." He delivered what they wanted, and obviously it worked.

Keith has long discussed that in the rock & roll equation it's the roll in which the Stones really distinguish themselves. It's the roll that he's really after. Charlie rolls. That isn't about "hype," as you say. It's about people who really like their rock to roll.

I appreciate all your effort to convince your forum mates that this isn't a troll post or a threadcrap, but it's still a thread whose basic premise is that you want us to debate you on why you think Charlie Watts is a crappy drummer. What's the point?

 

Get Off of My Cloud.

Majestically economic, for one...

 

he just fits perfectly...I like his drumming...why bother to wonder why or be underwhelmed...obviously they liked him for the 5 or more decades of The Stones...

 

The psychology here, and many threads similar to this one, is that a member dislikes a certain musician so they post a thread because "they really want to like them and appreciate them" when in truth they're just looking for people who agree with them to bash on that particular musician. Notice the posters who did agree are who received the 'likes'.