Drummers
Drummers
In a typical four-piece band you have two guitarists, a bassist, and a drummer; the lead vocalist usually has one or two back-up singers. It isn’t easy to manage with one guitarist; you need a dedicated rhythm guitarist. There are never two bassists and very rarely two drummers. There is certainly no need for two bassists, but a case can be made for two drummers. Why? For the same reason you need two guitarists: one to provide a steady full rhythm sound (chords, continuous strumming) and one to provide a melody line on single strings for solos. Lead and rhythm guitar complement each other (rather like lead and backing vocals). So, why not have one drummer handling the steady rhythm part and another playing the fancy fills and accents? This would really fill out the percussion section, giving it greater prominence. The fact is that the solitary drummer has a lot to deal with and is being asked to perform two jobs at once: you physically can’t play a roll while also keeping up the beat on the snare; you can’t do anything imaginative while being fully occupied with the backbeat. It’s bad enough that you have to play with all four limbs in complicated percussive movements! Things would be a lot easier, and musically richer, if you could break the percussion section into two parts. I would also like to see and hear drum solo duets and complex two-person rhythms (especially on the bass drum). The solitary drummer has too much on his plate to engage in genuine artistry. Imagine a band with Ringo Starr on rhythm drums and Keith Moon on lead drums. This could transform popular music.
Audiences would flock to this like a moth to a flam.
Other than accelerate the rest of the band’s impending deafness, it would certainly make for a more intricate percussion experience. However I get the feeling that at least one of those guitars would have to go, as both drummers would gravitate towards filling up every available space (it can be bad enough with one).
I’m sure I have seen Ringo play with another drummer on stage at some point.
I disagree (though only a little) with the two guitars concept, in my experience the best bands I have worked with have been three pieces or one guitared. As a musician myself, I have been guilty of too many layers (especially guitars) that end up having to get chopped out of a mix because they were just stodge. Recently I have been experimenting with 4 track cassette. Even with my current 16 track tape machine, I have to really think about economy and making a single guitar part far more interesting – so it can do more heavy lifting.
I also think you could have two basses, one doing the actual grunt work, driving the song along and hitting those vital fundamental notes, while the top bass waffles endlessly. Not my cup of tea, but it takes all sorts
It’s nice to have such an expert comment. I quite agree about too much stuff going on. If one guitarist is good enough at both rhythm and lead, that can suffice (as with Pete T.), but the sound can get a bit thin. Ringo definitely plays with two drummers when not in the Beatles, perhaps because of the singing. I’ve never heard of a band with two bassists, might be worth a try. Drummers need to focus more on groove than volume and busy-ness.
I just remembered a very nice classic example to two basses (albeit double basses) . The late great Herbie Flowers did two bass layers on Walk on the wild side, the 2nd to harmonise with the first, but mainly just to increase his session musician fee.
Orchestras double up all the time.