TheJargonKing

DeRank ™: 16,68 • DeAge™ : 6427 days

Love
  • Contact
  • Here since 15 october 2007
Worst artist of all time
Questa bella classifica vuole elencare in ordine un po' così, artisti che rispetto a modeste qualità tecniche hanno avuto, di contro, un grande successo. aspetto anche suggerimenti ...
Your comment on the chart
Comments on this chart
  • nickfarrjones
    nickfarrjones
    19 jun 10
    The beginning is great, go for it!
     
  • teenagelobotomy
    teenagelobotomy
    19 jun 10
    Poor Charlie... after all, he’s an honest drummer... :D But Nick, come on... :(
     
  • nickfarrjones
    nickfarrjones
    19 jun 10
    I also see a sadistic pleasure in looking for the weak point of certain bands and publicly exposing it. Like: "Hey you! What are you doing in there? Out!". The fact is that little remains of the ragtag E Street Band! In my opinion, this isn't the end.....
     
  • nickfarrjones
    nickfarrjones
    19 jun 10
    sneer at it
     
  • TheJargonKing
    TheJargonKing
    19 jun 10
    Don't get me wrong. I love Pink, Nick included, a great professional, but certainly not a technical monster.
    Yes, some tough names still have to come...
     
  • j&r
    j&r
    10 jul 10
    ..I really don't know if Jargon has ever listened to the Stones' records before spouting nonsense..I just hope you're not one of those people who knows Angie, Satisfaction, and Ruby Tuesday and thinks they know the Stones...how can you say that Watts isn't a good drummer after listening to and absorbing Ventilator Blues...but try playing it yourself, genius!!...I'm not saying he's even among the top twenty drummers, but considering him a dud is a huge mistake, trust me...listen to Can't You Hear Me Knocking as well...and anyway, Watts is a good jazz drummer and even has his own jazz band..have you ever listened to one of his albums??
     
  • j&r
    j&r
    10 jul 10
    ..do you want a tip.. take it off the list, or you’ll come across as an ignorant incompetent..
     
  • TheJargonKing
    TheJargonKing
    10 jul 10
    I'm responding to J&R: yes, I know the Stones, definitely not as deeply as you do, but I have more or less heard everything they've done. After all, I started listening to music in the early '70s; how could I avoid the Stones? Regarding Watts, do you have any idea what "independence" means? For a drummer, it's an essential quality.
     
  • TheJargonKing
    TheJargonKing
    10 jul 10
    Sometimes you acquire it through a lot of experience and practice, but it’s essential to have a predisposed mind. Watts never managed to do it, and even today when he hits the snare, he has to interrupt the sequence on the hi-hat—just watch any footage to realize it. This makes him an absolutely mediocre drummer. And don’t come telling me it’s a “technical quirk”: I have studied and played the drums for years, and I can immediately read a drummer's technique.
     
  • TheJargonKing
    TheJargonKing
    10 jul 10
    That he possesses other qualities, such as a very strong and precise sense of rhythm, is another matter. Moreover, if you look closely, the purpose of this ranking is to identify artists who have achieved great success because they were propelled by universally recognized bands, but whose technical skills are often questionable. Unfortunately, we can't name the classics as we prefer and I left the title as is, as proposed by default. On the other hand, you would agree that Watts, if he hadn't joined the Stones, would be an eminent nobody. Then he cited Ventilator Blues as an example; what is special about the drumming on that track? The shifted beat of a quaver at the beginning, or the doubling of the fourth, is that little thing supposed to demonstrate great technique? Or Can't You Hear Me Knockin, a rock blues in 4/4 where the only variation is the doubling of the accent on the fourth quaver.
     
  • TheJargonKing
    TheJargonKing
    10 jul 10
    So, are the technical aspects of the grooves in Start Me Up, or the shifted accents in Waiting on a Friend, or certain passages in Soul Survivor more complex? It's already a good thing that, for example, he hasn't brought the rhythmic infantilism of All Down the Line or Fingerprint File. Overall, he remains a drummer with a lot of luck, and his "honest" technique still seems disproportionate to his success. The fact remains that, as the vast majority of drummers have always said when talking about him, "He is simply perfect for what is asked of him and for the Rolling Stones." I agree on this point: as far as timekeeping goes, he is perfect. It’s just that I expect much more from a drummer, and I want much more.
     
  • j&r
    j&r
    10 jul 10
    ..Watts in the Stones never gave his all..he was always bored to death because his great love was jazz (his own words)..listen to his jazz albums..trust me, he's got some technique...and anyway, I reiterate that I also don't think he's an exceptional drummer..it seems excessive to consider him the biggest flop of all time compared to the illiterate dogs that swarm in many current bands...and anyway, you could have spared yourself from listening to all the Stones albums..from Goats Head Soup to today, they suck!!!!
     
  • TheJargonKing
    TheJargonKing
    10 jul 10
    There's nothing to hold back. In life, I've heard it all and clearly some real farces, much worse. I've been scammed on a grand scale, but I don't spare a single listen just for prevention.
     
  • magnum p.i.
    magnum p.i.
    1 jun 11
    A great rock song doesn't necessarily require great technical depth. What really matters are feeling, courage, attitude, groove, sound, instinct, soul... all characteristics that are somewhat intangible and hard to analyze scientifically like you did with those technical details. That's why you don't understand why Watts, despite being technically modest, is a great of his instrument, because as a typical prog nerd you can only grasp the technique; you don't go beyond that. What a shame.
     
  • TheJargonKing
    TheJargonKing
    3 jun 11
    Well, honestly, I don't really consider myself an average prog fan. If I had to be labeled, I’d lean more towards the evolved prog fan. Labels aside, I’m not a fan of Watts not only for a technical issue, and I think I've explained that pretty well already. Essentially, I say that for what Watts brings to the instrument, he is enormously overrated, but it works for the band. And believe me, I’m not just saying this as a prog fan, but as someone who has been playing drums and piano for over 40 years, so, if you allow me, with a certain experience and a judgment that goes well beyond mere technical analysis. Among my favorite drummers is Guy Evans, who, technical skills aside, plays with a creativity and a heart that few possess. Watts has zero creativity and very modest technique, and maybe a lot of heart, a lot of feeling, a lot of groove (though I have my doubts about that). Is that enough? Yes, but only for the Stones.
     
  • magnum p.i.
    magnum p.i.
    9 jun 11
    "Well, honestly I don't really feel like an average prog guy." Sure, but then you come out with "but from someone who has been playing drums and piano for over 40 years," which is the typical phrase of a prog guy. It was missing that you said you have two thousand classical records and three thousand jazz ones at home, and you wouldn't have just been an average prog guy, but the very embodiment of average prog guys.
     
  • magnum p.i.
    magnum p.i.
    9 jun 11
    "Is it enough? Yes, but only for the Stones." And indeed it seems to me that Watts is the drummer of the Stones, not of Tool. And I don't see how one can label as the worst ever someone who is perfect for the genre they play. At this point, your disdain is not directed at Watts, but at rock'n'roll as a whole.
     
  • magnum p.i.
    magnum p.i.
    9 jun 11
    With Bill Wyman, Watts formed one of the most important and fundamental rhythm sections in the history of rock. Fundamental, but precise, damn funky, never a hit more, never one less. The drummers who came after may have expanded the range of possibilities, they have embellished. But Watts is one of those who wrote the basic text, the basic grammar upon which even the more technical drummers who came afterward had to rely.
     
  • magnum p.i.
    magnum p.i.
    9 jun 11
    And if you really hate the Stones, you've picked the wrong member to take it out on, since Watts is the one who, as a solo artist, has done the best work (the worst albums were made by Jagger). Watts made jazz-oriented records with really interesting forays into world music.
     
  • TheJargonKing
    TheJargonKing
    9 jun 11
    Whatever you want, who cares. My comment about the average prog fan was a joke, but maybe you can't even get there. Besides, getting worked up doesn't help: I didn't insult your sister; I just said that for me Watts was more successful than he deserved... for me.
    P.S. I have many more classical and jazz records since my mother was a soprano and my father a jazz drummer. But, I repeat... who cares.
     
  • magnum p.i.
    magnum p.i.
    19 jun 11
    "Moreover, warming up is pointless" excuse me, can you tell me where I would have warmed up??? "I didn't offend your sister" neither did I, it seems. whatever
     
  • March Horses
    March Horses
    13 sep 11
    Seeing Ringo Starr fills me with joy, and maybe a little bit of justice has been done.... :) And the so-called BOSS should really stop messing with us. Well, not with me for sure...
     
  • trouble
    trouble
    9 feb 12
    Perfect, but you should have put the boss first.
     
  • matteodi.leonar
    matteodi.leonar
    9 feb 12
    @Jargon, let it go. We know that Watts as a drummer is worth nothing, and the one talking is neither a "mediocre progghettaro" nor an "evolved progghettaro." I really appreciate the Stones, but saying that Watts is a drummer with groove is slightly off the mark. And saying he is the Stone who has done the best solo work is even more misplaced (please listen to Ron Wood's albums).
     
  • j&r
    j&r
    9 feb 12
    ...he he you know it!...what can you do?!
     
  • j&r
    j&r
    9 feb 12
    However, "success" in art is not an event to be repudiated, avoided, or considered shameful; on the contrary...
     
  • j&r
    j&r
    9 feb 12
    Succeeding, as an artist, is not a fault.
     
  • Patatrac
    Patatrac
    9 feb 12
    In music, do well what you know how to do; the material is a bonus.
     
  • dejan77
    dejan77
    9 feb 12
    flawless!
     
  • TheJargonKing
    TheJargonKing
    9 feb 12
    Thanks to those who appreciated it, but also to those who constructively dissent. So, in this light, I want to say that my ranking is just my own, it's nothing major, just a little thought jotted down in a lined notebook from third grade. I don’t repudiate anyone's success; I just wanted to provide a point of reflection on those who have received more than they might have in other circumstances, solely thanks to their abilities. That's all, without any burdens on my back and without hatred, without anger, and perhaps just with a bit of envy.
     
  • matteodi.leonar
    matteodi.leonar
    9 feb 12
    @j&r. Absolutely not, I do not renounce an artist based on success; no one holds that against anyone, I assure you. It seems to me you’ve made this observation elsewhere, but since I'm here, I'll respond here. For me, the whole Beatles-Stones debate is nonsense, both because I appreciate them both as pieces of history, and because - in part - it’s something invented by certain music press. Springsteen, for me, achieved the (well-deserved) success with "Born To Run," but he has never, ever repeated that level. Then there are the fans of "Darkness" who say that’s the true S., more sincere, more pessimistic, but I never quite digested that album, just like "Nebraska," like "Born in the USA," and... well, let's not go into the '90s, which is like shooting fish in a barrel. Only "The River" has always held a place in my heart, because it reminds me of graduation. That’s where I stand. This is my position regarding the Boss.
     
  • matteodi.leonar
    matteodi.leonar
    9 feb 12
    But the real gem of this ranking, if I may say so, is the presence of Little Steven, who would already have deserved jail time for that horrifying look.
     
  • March Horses
    March Horses
    9 feb 12
    I fully agree with Jargon!! PS: what do you think about Queen?? I believe they deserve a special place in your ranking.
     
  • j&r
    j&r
    10 feb 12
    @matteodi.leonar. I agree with you. Springsteen, success or no success, billionaire or not, envy or no envy, has written two amazing albums: "Born To Run & The River"; then I also like Darkness, exactly for the reasons you mentioned, and The Wild The Innocent. Then Born in The USA and all the albums that followed make me sick and honestly get on my nerves.
     
  • j&r
    j&r
    10 feb 12
    The same goes for the Stones. Great from their debut up to Exile. Then the absolute worst, until Bigger Bang, atrocious.
     
  • matteodi.leonar
    matteodi.leonar
    10 feb 12
    I, believe it or not, would go even further for the Stones... even though commercial interests have dominated in the years to come. There's no point in denying it.
     
Similar users
DaveJonGilmour

DeRank™: 1,09

cofras

DeRank™: 12,76

killgod

DeRank™: 0,05

CoolOras

DeRank™: 2,91

Bisius

DeRank™: 2,26

JpLoyRow

DeRank™: 2,10

TelespallaBob77

DeAge 6599

Kenny.Club

DeRank™: 0,00

NickGhostDrake

DeRank™: 4,46

alessioIRIDE

DeRank™: 3,14

Tags 4/4
# #01 #2 #che
Groups
Proggarolo Comindeb
Rewards
week 37 - 2011
week 48 - 2011
week 11 - 2017
Gran Visir -la recensione