MIKE MANGINI TALKS ABOUT UPCOMING ALBUM

[erwinrafael]

Comments from Mike:

"Comments are unbelievable. Imagine that- you can hear everything I'm doing while we were all equally involved in songwriting - and look at the results as far as how people feel. I cannot wait until the whole album is heard. I promise you.... the songwriting quality, melodies, grooves and difficult-to-play sections are as good as we can do. But from Day 1, I mentioned not going into someone's home and opening their refrigerator. Sometimes, things take time. Like a rotisserie chicken, or a piece of coal making a diamond."

"thank you. Know they sound NO different in the raw from all my other DT albums. Production changes everything massively. It' still Pearl Drums, same cymbals etc. etc. Set up difference doesn't affect crap... that would be BS. I hit the same way. I'm happy that this album was done in the best way from the team."

Looks like he is now fully integrated into the songwriting process which he implies contributed to why he is now better heard in the record.

[Kotowboy]

Maybe it's because I'm not a bassist, but I don't even know who Cliff Burton is.

He was the 24 yr old Metallica bassist who died.

[Stadler]

It's not a contest.  There are no scores.  There are no win-loss records.  I think it comes down to "does it move you or not?"

You're kind of also skipping over the other intangibles; Buddy Rich - good, bad or indifferent - inspired generations of people to play drums.   Neal Peart didn't do "Burning For Buddy" because he was a one-note, one-trick pony.    As good as Lang is (I guess; I'm not wildly familiar with his work), when there's a "Longing For Lang" tribute set, we can start to compare apples to apples.

[hefdaddy42]

It's not a contest.  There are no scores.  There are no win-loss records.  I think it comes down to "does it move you or not?"

You're kind of also skipping over the other intangibles; Buddy Rich - good, bad or indifferent - inspired generations of people to play drums.   Neal Peart didn't do "Burning For Buddy" because he was a one-note, one-trick pony.    As good as Lang is (I guess; I'm not wildly familiar with his work), when there's a "Longing For Lang" tribute set, we can start to compare apples to apples.

That's kind of the way I look at it, as well.

[Enigmachine]

I get where that idea comes from. However, I think this is coming from the perspective of if you're a musician and want to maximise your creative potential. You're likely going to limit yourself if you only practice by the standards of famed musicians from decades ago that are renouned for their innovations. Essentially, while the likes of Buddy Rich may have made bigger leaps and been more unique in their day, their respective craft has been developed significantly, albeit in mostly smaller steps, in the decades since them. The people who start from their standard and devevelop it just a bit further are probably going to be less renowned than those who start from a much lower technical standard, but revolutionised their craft with what they had in their era.

[Dedalus]

It's not a contest.  There are no scores.  There are no win-loss records.  I think it comes down to "does it move you or not?"

You're kind of also skipping over the other intangibles; Buddy Rich - good, bad or indifferent - inspired generations of people to play drums.   Neal Peart didn't do "Burning For Buddy" because he was a one-note, one-trick pony.    As good as Lang is (I guess; I'm not wildly familiar with his work), when there's a "Longing For Lang" tribute set, we can start to compare apples to apples.

That's it. Absolutely.

But at the same time a lot of discussions about music, everywhere, make it sound like it is. Maybe it's human nature.

[BeatriceNB]

It's not a contest.  There are no scores.  There are no win-loss records.  I think it comes down to "does it move you or not?"

You're kind of also skipping over the other intangibles; Buddy Rich - good, bad or indifferent - inspired generations of people to play drums.   Neal Peart didn't do "Burning For Buddy" because he was a one-note, one-trick pony.    As good as Lang is (I guess; I'm not wildly familiar with his work), when there's a "Longing For Lang" tribute set, we can start to compare apples to apples.

No one is denying his importance, but Lang is playing a different game. If he was around in the '60s, he would for sure have a tribute show. Old, established names get repeated a lot, and newer musicians won't ever reach that amount of popularity and, dare I say, circlejerking.
Sure, Rich paved the road, but nowadays most if not all Jazz drummers have nothing to do with him in style and approach. Music, technically and socioculturally, changes. Taking the "what would Buddy Rich think" comment seriously, well, I don't find any relevance in what a Big Band/Jazz drummer from the '60s thinks about Mangini's transcription.

[hefdaddy42]

Yes, but a large part of Rich's popularity wasn't just his talent, but his charisma and magnetism.  He had more of those things than any drummer ever.  (He was also, of course, a notorious asshole.)

He also played a genre of music that was popular amongst the general public.

That's why there will never be another Buddy Rich, regardless of how technically talented modern drummers are.  Talent and technique are important, but they are only half the game, at best.

[Stadler]

It's not a contest.  There are no scores.  There are no win-loss records.  I think it comes down to "does it move you or not?"

You're kind of also skipping over the other intangibles; Buddy Rich - good, bad or indifferent - inspired generations of people to play drums.   Neal Peart didn't do "Burning For Buddy" because he was a one-note, one-trick pony.    As good as Lang is (I guess; I'm not wildly familiar with his work), when there's a "Longing For Lang" tribute set, we can start to compare apples to apples.

No one is denying his importance, but Lang is playing a different game. If he was around in the '60s, he would for sure have a tribute show. Old, established names get repeated a lot, and newer musicians won't ever reach that amount of popularity and, dare I say, circlejerking.
Sure, Rich paved the road, but nowadays most if not all Jazz drummers have nothing to do with him in style and approach. Music, technically and socioculturally, changes. Taking the "what would Buddy Rich think" comment seriously, well, I don't find any relevance in what a Big Band/Jazz drummer from the '60s thinks about Mangini's transcription.

Neil Peart has reached that level, most assuredly.  He appeared on David Letterman simply to play his drum solo spot. 

And for the record, nothing I'm saying has anything to do with Mike Mangini.   He is an accomplished technical drummer by any standard.   I'm only commenting on the notion that this is some measurable or objective thing.   If I think Thomas Lang is "better" than Buddy Rich, I'm right.  If you think Buddy Rich is "better" than Thomas Lang, you're right.  (Absent some discrete measurable replicable standard that we both agree on).  That's the beauty of music, right there.

[Kotowboy]

Actually - Loads of drummers appeared on letterman to play a solo. They had a segment in the show for it.


Also - more people need to realise the difference between opinion and fact.

There is no such thing as a wrong opinion but there is such thing as a wrong fact.

Cliff Burton was Metallica's best bassist - opinion.

Cliff Burton played bass in Metallica - Fact.

[Dream Team]

Wow I guess poor Cliff has faded into obscurity. WTH.

[Kotowboy]

Wow I guess poor Cliff has faded into obscurity. WTH.

Opinion.


For my money - Jason and Rob were both better.

[BeatriceNB]

Yes, but a large part of Rich's popularity wasn't just his talent, but his charisma and magnetism.  He had more of those things than any drummer ever.  (He was also, of course, a notorious asshole.)

He also played a genre of music that was popular amongst the general public.

That's why there will never be another Buddy Rich, regardless of how technically talented modern drummers are.  Talent and technique are important, but they are only half the game, at best.

Indeed, and that's why certain mediocre drummers win Prog magazines awards yearly, despite being musically stagnant and relevant only by name, but I digress. I understand that having charisma is important, but there's amazing musicians with a super low profile. If you mean musically (as in, they transmit energy/passion when playing with them), then yeah, I agree that it's important. But by the looks of it, it seems that Mangini fits that bill.

[Dream Team]

Wow I guess poor Cliff has faded into obscurity. WTH.

Opinion.


For my money - Jason and Rob were both better.

I was referring to The Letter M not knowing who he was.