Top 100 Drummers

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

and not a moment too soon!

 

Ringo Starr was also in the best movie ever, and played rocks and bones like drums better than any other drummer has ever done in any other movie, therefore he's worthy of mention.

 

Tonda feh! ATOUK!

[cabbageboy 0]

I assume this is just of rock music, hence no Rich, etc.? Am I the only one who thinks Grohl should be higher? I think he's better than say Matt Cameron of Soundgarden.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Dude, top 100 drummers without my favorite drummer of all time, Jaki Liezbiet of Can? That's it, Rolling Stone sucks. Well, that's a given, so....Top 100 lists suck...wait, thats also a given... (though I mostly enjoyed Pitchforks best 100 albums of the 70s, even though I normally hate Pitchfork media)

I actually think their lists have gotten steadily worse, with the 70s incarnation being the worst and, among a combination of things, stopped me from taking their site seriously.

[Ravenbomb 0]

where's that one-armed bloke from Def Leppard?

Or the drummer from Iron Butterfly?

[Sonic Reducer 0]

I assume this is just of rock music, hence no Rich, etc.? Am I the only one who thinks Grohl should be higher? I think he's better than say Matt Cameron of Soundgarden.

He's more powerful, for sure.

 

However Matt's got him on technical skills.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

Dude, top 100 drummers without my favorite drummer of all time, Jaki Liezbiet of Can? That's it, Rolling Stone sucks. Well, that's a given, so....Top 100 lists suck...wait, thats also a given... (though I mostly enjoyed Pitchforks best 100 albums of the 70s, even though I normally hate Pitchfork media)

I actually think their lists have gotten steadily worse, with the 70s incarnation being the worst and, among a combination of things, stopped me from taking their site seriously.

That 70s list was the best one they've done.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Dude, top 100 drummers without my favorite drummer of all time, Jaki Liezbiet of Can? That's it, Rolling Stone sucks. Well, that's a given, so....Top 100 lists suck...wait, thats also a given... (though I mostly enjoyed Pitchforks best 100 albums of the 70s, even though I normally hate Pitchfork media)

I actually think their lists have gotten steadily worse, with the 70s incarnation being the worst and, among a combination of things, stopped me from taking their site seriously.

That 70s list was the best one they've done.

Too much Led Zeppelin, there was a Van Halen album somewhere in there, and I didn't like the fact that Bowie's Low was Number One either. I haven't seen it in awhile, but I remember not liking it. Whatever, I don't really go to the site much anymore anyway.

 

EDIT: There were other things I didn't like, but I didn't really put much thought into it since it's so insignificant, I just didn't want to make it sound like those were the ONLY reasons I was turned off by it.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

I don't care what they put for number one, nor do I care about presence of Zepplin nor Van Halen. The 70s list was the only one that displayed variety, most likely due to indie rock not existing in that decade.

 

Anyway, what's wrong with those two bands being on the there? Just because you don't like them? It's a fucking list, ya know? Of course there's gonna be bands you don't like. Since the ranking of the albums is largely irrelevant, the only quibble I have with Pfork's 70s list is their basically saying Miles Davis was the only jazz musician to do anything of note in that decade.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I don't care what they put for number one, nor do I care about presence of Zepplin nor Van Halen. The 70s list was the only one that displayed variety, most likely due to indie rock not existing in that decade.

 

Anyway, what's wrong with those two bands being on the there? Just because you don't like them? It's a fucking list, ya know? Of course there's gonna be bands you don't like. Since the ranking of the albums is largely irrelevant, the only quibble I have with Pfork's 70s list is their basically saying Miles Davis was the only jazz musician to do anything of note in that decade.

Actually, the problem I have with the 80s and the 70s lists are that most of what's on there is just the best of what they've heard, which is all you could ask for really, but considering most of them aren't old enough to remember anything important about the decade, I don't really trust their judgement. It's almost like they just picked landmark albums, most of what's on there is really popular, as opposed to the 90s list. The reason being they have much more knowledge of the music in the 90s, so they could dig a little deeper. I don' want to get into that popularity debate, since it's not an automatic negative or anything, but in a case like this, it's hard to discount the fact that odds are if you've only heard what's really popular, you're missing out on a lot. They weren't around for the decade to listen to the music that most others couldn't, so they don't really have an accurate view of things.

 

The ranking is irrelevant, perhaps I just took it too seriously.

 

As an aside. they don't do much well outside of reviewing general "rock" music, so it's kind of embarrassing when they try. I don't really go to them for hip hop reviews, just like I wouldn't go to, oh I don't know, Realestniggas.com for obscure indie rock. I wouldn't go there for hip hop reviews either, but that's a different story.

 

You disliking that they left out something is the same as me disliking that they put in something. The difference is that since they put in more of what I dislike, I happen to not favour the list. That's it really.

[Ravenbomb 0]

Top 100 lists suck