Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
A guitarists dream bass player
- Thread starter JasonTheRed
- Start date
I understand why they wanted Peart, and I don't think Rutsey would have been around forever. As an example, I think Rutsey's drumming suited the song What You're Doing a lot better than Peart's (using ATWAS as the reference). I think his drumming suited what they did just fine. If I had any complaint, it would be his tempo control was sometimes an issue (see the Laura Secord 1974 footage for this, especially Working Man).
I dunno, in the live footage I've seen and heard it's more than a tempo problem.
IMO it seems like he had some fairly amateur coordination issues. Like he hasn't quite practiced fundamentals enough to actually play all parts he wants to play, in time.
Iirc they paid their dues with Rutsey, so he had a lot of hours behind the kit to improve. Based on what I've heard live, he really never grew much as a musician.
I agree that a Bonham style drummer suited them on some material. That's how I originally perceived him myself after hearing the first recorded album.
After hearing JR on bootlegs though, I really think any true sonic resemblance he had to Bonham was crafted in the studio by their engineer.
He sounds terribly garage-y in everything I've heard and IMO that's one sound/feel that doesn't work well with Geddy and Alex. They're too refined/polished sounding for that to make sense.
If we are going to talk sonic resemblance, then I agree. I don't think Rutsey's playing was bad in the least. It seems even those around the band said he wasn't dropped on account of his drumming. For what Rush was doing at that time, he was excellent for it.
There does come a point where drummers can be too busy, and I think Neil Peart's playing on some of that stuff (at least in the 1970s and even into 1980 on the PeW tour) shows. John Rutsey wasn't so busy, and it let some of that first album music breathe.
I never thought his playing was an issue until I watched the Rush bio. His playing in the footage on there is pretty garage-y and when they discuss his dismissal at least one guy (their manager iirc) has to seemingly search for an answer.
The one he comes up with (quoting verbatim here "sugar diabetes" and he was drinking) is amazingly weak. BB King has toured as an older diabetic since the mid 80s and he is just now starting to get too frail to tour, in his 70s or 80s.
His playing on that first album, their lack of any other good reason to punt him, his playing on bootlegs and his lack of a career after Rush seem to outline a clear answer to me as to why they actually let him go.
IMO He was less skilled and dedicated than they were but, most likely, wanted an equal say. It'd be rude to say they fired him due to that so they found an excuse.
YMMV, and I agree in principle though, a good solid guy roots would make some of their material sound very interesting. I think though, like Brian or Jay Lane with Primus it would add to some things, but would make other material almost unplayable as Neil's agility is fundamental to anything Rush has done since Rutsey was sacked.
I don't doubt the diabetes, and I think it was Vic Wilson (if I have his name right) that said it has nothing to do with his playing. Although I believe Geddy said that they tried to work out Anthem with him and it seemed to be not happening with him. I think what the others wanted to do would have required someone to be a bit more adventurous, but I won't discount Rutsey in favor of Peart. The latter is far from the most exciting drummer. As for Rutsey not being in a band afterwards, who knows what happened there. Perhaps he just didn't have the heart for it anymore. Only he could say, and he's been gone for a few years now. There was that "interview" someone claimed to have done with him. I don't know if it was true, but if it was he may have said the real reason for his departure in it.
Agreed, any speculation on my part is just that, speculation ;-).
Ultimately I do respect the man, and his work, as he was essential in starting that band off. Honestly I questioned that choice for some time myself as I often prefer a more Bonham-y approach and always thought his work on the first album sounded great.
I don't think any of us would bet against that at this point. A majority of guitarists simply don't understand bass as well as they think they do. Hand 'em a bass and a click track and they'll likely fall apart or play root 8ths at best.
I've been playing a lot of guitar these days and I'm glad I had spent a lot of time on bass. Understanding both instruments from both perspectives is pretty cool.
I don't know if I'd put it in quite those terms, but at least I'm reminded of the principle that the customer isn't always right.
I don't know if I'd put it in quite those terms, but at least I'm reminded of the principle that the customer isn't always right.
I would. I can't match the level of of immaturity that the OP presents to the sensibility that a seasoned musician brings to the table.
P.S. - oops, just saw who I am disagreeing with. Still rocking the HPF-3, thanks.
That's the pleasure of TB. We can have substantive discussions, disagree respectfully, yet still enjoy our shared love of the bass!I would. I can't match the level of of immaturity that the OP presents to the sensibility that a seasoned musician brings to the table.
P.S. - oops, just saw who I am disagreeing with. Still rocking the HPF-3, thanks.
