I suppose Phil Collins deserves to be mentioned; despite not being the boss in Genesis he went on to be the boss everywhere else; plus, he's always been very courteous with me, so that settles it doesn't it?

Well then we can't forget all the drummer band leaders who formed their bands after achieving success with others from the seriously vintage days; Rich, Roach, Blakey, etc.,etc. up to and including Steve Smith and Vital Information, and his Jazz thing too.

Hmmm... A bit off subject, but a nap sounds really good right now...

We do have a tenuous but distinct link to my original posting regarding audience ignorance of drum quality brought about by the comment that Charlie Watts' brand of ‘no bull’ showmanship had its own appeal; ‘getting noticed’ was essentially my response. The punters will never recognise a good drum sound if they don't even know you exist. Thing is: my parents not only knew who Louis Belson was, but they could pick him out in whatever band he played in; same went for Buddy, and Gene - who even got himself featured on the silver screen. What happened? (It’s a rhetorical question really, but I would like to hear other people’s take on the issue.)

I once had a bass player notice that my kit had 2 ride cymbals, he asked, "why so many cymbals?" I explained that one was more washy and the other more dry, and played each at which point he unconvincely replied, "oh, I guess they do sound a little different."

On the other hand I went into my drum room when my in-laws were over and un-announced played a phrase from the drum solo in Sing,Sing,Sing, and my 81 year old mother in-law said "That sounded just like Gene Krupa."

Just trying to get back to the original topic. Why did she notice Gene Krupa in the first place? Would she have noticed Dave Tough, an equally talented but less flashy drummer.

Was it the drums, the talent, or the bling!!!

I think a lot of it had to do with the arrival of a novel rhythmic predominance in the midst of essentially melody based dance music (an area that I have touched on, strangely enough, in another post) and as a result, drawing attention to the drummer who had previously been virtually inconsequential. Now, of course, we are taken for granted unless we show off, which inevitably leads to fractious interludes with other band members who are not as loud as us, don't get noticed, and don't get laid as much.

Different genre, though:

Buddy, Louie, Mel Lewis , Art Blakey

Ringo's a great drummer, but the Beatles are legendary and sold millions of records. I think if your question was asked, who's the better drummer, Neil Peart or Ringo, of a large group of non-musicians, Ringo would have a great chance of leaving Neil in the dirt. The Moonie/Bonzo poll is similar to that, in that Zeppelin sold many more records than the Who did. The Who was an incredibly popular band and Moon was a huge part of their sound, and he was a real showman, provided much of the entertainment value of the Who. But Zeppelin was almost like the Beatles of the 70s. So there you are. Entertainment value? Perhaps. but look at the bottom dollar..

Gene Krupa was like the Ringo of the 40s. He was really a popular drummer. And that song, Sing, Sing Sing, everyone who is 80 knows who was the drummer! But only Benny Goodman is probably more well-known than Gene Krupa from that era. Both were labeled the King of Swing as well as Count Basie, but Benny made lots of money, and was the leading Swing band leader of the 40s.

The question of between Steve Gadd and Neil Peart--Most people have heard of Rush.. Even though Steve has drummed on more records and the records he's drummed on have sold tons more records than Neil Peart has. But Steve has been more behind the scenes, usually as a studio drummer. So if you asked a bunch of drummers who were studied, the result would be totally different.

And, if you were a drummer who played mostly large shows that were mic'd and such, the compliment is usually going to be about your playing, not how good your drums sound.

Usually if I've received a compliment it was about my drumming, not the drums or how they sound, regardless of whether they were miked or not. Again there are so many variables that haven't been addressed, but usually it has to do with what your target audience is, the popularity of the band, etc. Non-drummers and non-musicians are going to go with the popular drummer. A band like Rush will market the skills of their drummer, the showboating Neil Peart, much better than will solo artists such as James Taylor or Paul Simon or bands that utilize multiple studio drummers (Steely Dan) are going to market Steve Gadd's skills. So what are the conclusions we've arrived at so far? The title of the topic is what sounds good to you, but it asks what sounds good to people who talk to you after a gig, further limited by what was an acoustic gig? This is a nice sprawling conversation but I'm not really following any conclusions about this in the same direction as others are. Lots of drummers love Buddy Rich but most of them would realistically be able to determine that Gene Krupa would win a popularity contest, especially during their peak swing era.

And drum companies which have an aggressive artist endorsement program (DW, etc.) would certainly like you to believe there's a real difference in the sound of their drums because so-and-so play them and he sells x amount of CDs and we always hear him on the radio, BUT--

A good sound guy is always going to make the drums sound great. And the bass drum sound is usually the first thing they start out to get. The bass drum sound in a large club is going to be of a relatively consistent sound quality. Cymbals are like that too. You can play a cymbal in a practice room or record it by itself and it may sound like the bee's knees but when it is used in a band situation it may sound like horse****. The answers aren't consistent, they change depending on the situation. If they were plain and simple we wouldn't even have a discussion.

This thread is like taking a train trip accross country, the destination is important, but the journey is half the fun of it. So are we really trying to answer a question, "What sounds good to you?" or just enjoying the ride?

I think this is why I really like this forum, I like the ride.

IMHO a lot of things sound good to me, like you said, Pounder, it changes in different situations.

Maybe it's so subjective that the answer is the question, "What sounds good to you?" is what sounds good to you. Ok it's a stretch, I know.

Maybe in the end all that really matters is what sounds good to you, both as a listener and as a player.

I was a little concerned that I had strayed away from the essential issue of this forum, which, I suppose, is 'Vintage Drums', and that some readers/contributors may feel we were 'getting off the vital subject' as it were; so it is most encouraging to see that others are also simply enjoying the ride. I love to talk to drummers, as I said before, I can do it till the cows come home; and drummers seem able to sidestep the prickly issue of ego that curtails most sensible comunication between guitarists and other soloist musicians. Drummers with an interest in 'Vintage' drums seem to me to be a step further down the path of sensitivity and attention to detail that makes for a more enlightened and urbane discussion group; which, subsequently, makes for a more informed and erudite line of communication. ps. Please don't include keyboard players in the aforementioned soloist group Pounder: they, more than any of us, seem the most relaxed among their peers.