DM's Beatles forums

Solo forums => Ringo Starr => Topic started by: Walrus on July 21, 2011, 05:58:52 PM

Title: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Walrus on July 21, 2011, 05:58:52 PM
Just a thought, what was Ringo's actually purpose in the band? Paul was the heart, John was the brains, and George was the... something. It seems to me that the rest of the group could have replaced Ringo like no big deal. And I'm sure they could've done without songs like Don't Pass Me By and Octopus's Garden.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 21, 2011, 06:13:54 PM
4:01

A Hard Day's Night - Part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNbTfJAmYs#)
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on July 21, 2011, 08:17:31 PM
In my opinion John was more the heart and Paul was more the brain, since I think that John was a "master of the spirit" and Paul was a "master of the form".
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Joost on July 21, 2011, 10:41:26 PM
I have absolutely nothing against Ringo, but I do think that The Beatles could've been just as big with any other competent drummer. He was not an essential part of the band.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Mr Mustard on July 21, 2011, 10:58:13 PM
Apart from the fact that Ringo is still criminally underrated as a drummer, he had that certain magical ingredient (charisma?) which put the icing on the cake... he was so steady at the back, never missed a beat and in many ways underpinned the whole down to earth charm and appeal which helped to make the group so magnetic and, even in their wilder/weirder moments - kept their feet endearingly on the ground.

Who but Ringo, nervous of spicy foreign food, would take a suitcase filled with tins of baked beans with him to a retreat in India and describe the Maharishi's ashram as "A bit like Butlins"?  ha2ha

Wasn't it John who said (in reference to the sacking of Pete Best) "Pete was a great drummer - but Ringo was a great Beatle..."

I think it was in the film "Birth Of The Beatles" when John was described as the mind of The Beatles, Paul as the heart, George as the spirit.... and Ringo as the flesh and blood.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: tkitna on July 22, 2011, 01:45:52 AM
Damn, I posted here earlier and I guess I didnt hit the post button. Regardless, I still think George was the one that could have been replaced if anybody. Ringo was the personality and glue of the group. He seemed to be able to cope with the egos and bickering better than the others (and he even left), but barring that, he had the name RINGO STARR. What a great moniker. That name alone would cause people to take notice. Besides all that hoopla, Ringo was a stud drummer that brought a style to the band. They could have done much worse.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: KelMar on July 22, 2011, 02:26:01 AM
Yep, he was a steady presence.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Bobber on July 22, 2011, 09:34:21 AM
never missed a beat

Listen to I'm Looking Through You! One complete miss and one or two on the rim. But then, maybe it's Paul drumming there. ;D
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Gary910 on July 22, 2011, 01:39:42 PM
Apart from the fact that Ringo is still criminally underrated as a drummer, he had that certain magical ingredient (charisma?) which put the icing on the cake... he was so steady at the back, never missed a beat and in many ways underpinned the whole down to earth charm and appeal which helped to make the group so magnetic and, even in their wilder/weirder moments - kept their feet endearingly on the ground.


Well Said...

Regardless, I still think George was the one that could have been replaced if anybody.

I don't think you could take any of them out. I think it was just the chemistry that they had that made it what it was. It is all speculation on our parts as to who did what. But, truth be told, the only way you would be able to tell how they felt about each other would be to be one of them. They loved each other like brothers, maybe more. They were soul mates on a level that only they could understand. I don't think that Pete Best is a bad drummer, but he didn't fit into the group like Ringo did. Would they have played much of the same songs, had the success they had without Ringo, maybe, but it would have a different feel, because it wouldn't be John, Paul, George and Ringo (or JohnPaulGeorgeRingo).
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: TomMo on June 11, 2012, 10:16:51 PM
Oh, dear. Stop thinking of the Beatles as just a band. They were a freaking phenomenon beyond the music.

But first, let's start with the music. Ringo was the only drummer the Beatles could ever have wanted. Period. Listen to their earliest records. Ringo drove the band. Besides the obvious hits like "She Loves You" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand", listen to him play on "Long Tall Sally". Who else was available in 1962? Would you have kept Pete Best? Who else? Tommy Moore? Johnny Hutchinson? Andy White? Or maybe Jimmy Nicol?

On to personalities. John has been quoted as saying, "Pete Best was a drummer; Ringo was a Beatle." Ringo fit right in with the others, Liverpool humor and all. As Sir George predicted, the Beatles would be known as much for their personalities as their music. Those of you not around in their heyday have no clue about the effect of the Beatles' personalities on their success.

Ringo was subordinate and compliant. He was a team player. He played what he was told to play. John's first instructions to Ringo upon his joining the band: Comb your hair forward, shave the beard, but you can keep the sidies (sideburns). Can't say Pete Best ever did that. Ringo had little in the way of big ego. He deferred to John and Paul without acting like a prima donna.

Then there's the movies. Ringo was the focus of both AHDN and Help. He stole the show in both cases. You have to appreciate how both films kept Beatlemania alive in '64 and '65. Who but "our poor, little Richard" could have played the hapless fellow in those movies? Pete Best? (Laughing up my sleeve - "Ho, Ho!")

At the height of Beatlemania, Ringo's fan mail outweighed the others. He was a fan favorite in a way far different from the others.

Ringo did some wonderful fills on records from their middle period. Even some of the best drummers can't quite reproduce them, including the great Hal Blaine. Imitate, yes. Reproduce, no.

You've got to understand, the Beatles' success was based on chemistry among the members, of which the music was only one ingredient. In his own way, Ringo was an equal to the others.

As always, in the words of Dr. Winston O' Boogie: "You should've been there."
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: nimrod on June 12, 2012, 12:07:01 AM
I agree with TomMo Ringo's tyle fit perfectly

I still dont like him singing though LOL
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Dcazz on June 12, 2012, 02:09:43 AM
Could you imagine all four of them competing for time and space. Somebody had to be regular! Good ole Ringo!
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on June 12, 2012, 02:16:50 AM
The Beatles had a regular drummer for two years until Ringo replaced him.  I've always felt that Pete Best contributed a lot to The Beatles' early history and without him, music history might have been different.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: nimrod on June 12, 2012, 02:30:44 AM
The Beatles had a regular drummer for two years until Ringo replaced him.  I've always felt that Pete Best contributed a lot to The Beatles' early history and without him, music history might have been different.

isnt there a film about that haha
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: TomMo on June 12, 2012, 05:43:41 AM

I still dont like him singing though LOL

Hey! Even Ringo didn't like himself singing.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: real01 on September 21, 2012, 07:11:00 PM
Apart from the fact that Ringo is still criminally underrated as a drummer, he had that certain magical ingredient (charisma?) which put the icing on the cake...

At the Larry King Show (with Paul and Ringo), Larry said: So, Ringo, before you came to the band, the Beatles were...
Ringo: They were nothing.
(Both Paul and Ringo laugh.)
So, without Ringo, the other three probably would never become The Band. Maybe they would be little known trio.
Quote
Phil Collins, the drummer for Genesis, who was himself influenced by Starr, said:
Starr is vastly underrated. The drum fills on the song "A Day in the Life" are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' He wouldn't know what to do.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringo_Starr[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringo_Starr[/url])

I would just add that I adore Ringo's drum fills on George's song Long, Long, Long from The White Album.
It just adds something to the song!

Quote
When he arrived at EMI Studios for the second time on 11 September, Starr was surprised to find session drummer Andy White there, having been commissioned by producer George Martin. Using sessions drummers familiar with studio techniques was a regular procedure for studio recordings in those days. Starr's view at the time was that Andy White was brought in because he thought George Martin viewed him as crazy. Of the 4 September rehearsal session, Starr stated, "He [George Martin] thought I was crazy and couldn't play. Because when we were doing 'Please Please Me', I was actually playing the kit and in one hand I had a tambourine and a maracas in the other, because I was trying to play the percussion and the drums at the same time, because we were just a four piece band". Starr also stated, "I thought, 'That's the end, they're doing a Pete Best on me.'"
(from the same source)


Notice the expression 'doing a Pete Best on me'. I think that the expression 'doing a Pete Best on somebody' should enter slang dictionary meaning 'leaving someone who spent certain time with you because you found someone better.'

Ringo about his drumming:
Quote
Whenever I hear another drummer I know I'm no good. I'm no good on the technical things [...] I'm your basic offbeat drummer with funny fills. The fills were funny because I'm really left-handed playing a right-handed kit. I can't roll around the drums because of that.
(same source)
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: nimrod on September 21, 2012, 11:14:58 PM
Quote
At the Larry King Show (with Paul and Ringo), Larry said: So, Ringo, before you came to the band, the Beatles were...
Ringo: They were nothing.
(Both Paul and Ringo laugh.)

On that interview Paul also says something like
'we saw Ringo in Rory Storm and we thought he was great, the best drummer we'd seen, so we wanted him in the band'

Petes days were numbered obviously, theyd already decided he wasnt good enough.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: real01 on September 22, 2012, 06:35:57 PM
I have absolutely nothing against Ringo, but I do think that The Beatles could've been just as big with any other competent drummer. He was not an essential part of the band.
Well, when Ringo came, they stopped changing or searching for drummers, right?
It's like saying: Oh, well, they could be equally successful with another producer or manager than George Martin or Brian.
I remember that someone on Anthology said: Well, when the Brian died, then the problems came.
Did they found better manager than him? No, they didn't because he was the one of the kind, their best manager.
Better to say this:
Yep, he was a steady presence.
I think that we can trust George when he said: Well, when Ringo came to our group, everything melted together perfectly!

A Hard Day's Night is not Ringo's song, but he came up with the title.
Tomorrow Never Knows is also Ringo's title.

John said that Ringo came with a lot of malapropisms of that sort - but John didn't reject that expressions or tried to correct Ringo - he used
Ringo's expressions.

Of course, Paul or somebody was joking about that Ringo isn't even the best drummer in the Beatles (because Paul was drummer on some of the songs on White album).
Also, during that sessions, when Ringo left the bend for a while, he received telegram from John: You're the best rock drummer, please come back home!
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: real01 on September 22, 2012, 06:46:01 PM
In my opinion John was more the heart and Paul was more the brain, since I think that John was a "master of the spirit" and Paul was a "master of the form".
G. Martin said that J&P were always competing: Paul could more easily came out with a melody - and John could easier come up with lyrics.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Yeshelloitsmehereagain on September 22, 2012, 09:16:59 PM
You can have exeptional eveything else but if the drummer is sh*t the band is sh*t.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: nimrod on September 22, 2012, 10:44:41 PM
Oh, dear. Stop thinking of the Beatles as just a band. They were a freaking phenomenon beyond the music.

But first, let's start with the music. Ringo was the only drummer the Beatles could ever have wanted. Period. Listen to their earliest records. Ringo drove the band. Besides the obvious hits like "She Loves You" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand", listen to him play on "Long Tall Sally". Who else was available in 1962? Would you have kept Pete Best? Who else? Tommy Moore? Johnny Hutchinson? Andy White? Or maybe Jimmy Nicol?

On to personalities. John has been quoted as saying, "Pete Best was a drummer; Ringo was a Beatle." Ringo fit right in with the others, Liverpool humor and all. As Sir George predicted, the Beatles would be known as much for their personalities as their music. Those of you not around in their heyday have no clue about the effect of the Beatles' personalities on their success.

Ringo was subordinate and compliant. He was a team player. He played what he was told to play. John's first instructions to Ringo upon his joining the band: Comb your hair forward, shave the beard, but you can keep the sidies (sideburns). Can't say Pete Best ever did that. Ringo had little in the way of big ego. He deferred to John and Paul without acting like a prima donna.

Then there's the movies. Ringo was the focus of both AHDN and Help. He stole the show in both cases. You have to appreciate how both films kept Beatlemania alive in '64 and '65. Who but "our poor, little Richard" could have played the hapless fellow in those movies? Pete Best? (Laughing up my sleeve - "Ho, Ho!")

At the height of Beatlemania, Ringo's fan mail outweighed the others. He was a fan favorite in a way far different from the others.

Ringo did some wonderful fills on records from their middle period. Even some of the best drummers can't quite reproduce them, including the great Hal Blaine. Imitate, yes. Reproduce, no.

You've got to understand, the Beatles' success was based on chemistry among the members, of which the music was only one ingredient. In his own way, Ringo was an equal to the others.

As always, in the words of Dr. Winston O' Boogie: "You should've been there."

I just re-read this tomMo, its a great post mate, I agree with you on what you say......Ringo was a team player, whenever I watch Let It Be, Ringo just sits at his drums waiting for the others to start playing something (listening to the bullsh*t bickering) and then doing his best to join in, he mustve had the patience of a saint......and we all know how many days he sat around during Pepper ......Months !!
can you imagine John or Paul putting up with that day in day out :D
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on October 12, 2014, 02:23:07 AM
Ringo Wants to Sing More (Music Video) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMGbrTruXsE#ws)




;)
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: oldbrownshoe on October 12, 2014, 06:58:30 AM
Chemistry among the members is, of course, vital, but I'm pretty sure Beatlemania would have happened with Pete as the drummer.

The far more vital ingredient was timing.

No 1960s = no Beatles.
For me it's 99% of the equation.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Kevin on October 12, 2014, 05:49:35 PM
Chemistry among the members is, of course, vital, but I'm pretty sure Beatlemania would have happened with Pete as the drummer.

The far more vital ingredient was timing.

No 1960s = no Beatles.
For me it's 99% of the equation.

Agree with this, and the proof is in the pudding. Replace him with Jimmy Nichol and the Bandwagon rolled on, screaming concerts and laughing interviews included. No one really seemed to notice or care. The world just wanted its cheeky grinning singing Moptops.
I like Beatle Ringo, he as IMO genuinely the funniest and his down to earthiness was very endearing. He and George were definitely dispensable
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: tkitna on October 13, 2014, 04:41:39 AM
Agree with this, and the proof is in the pudding. Replace him with Jimmy Nichol and the Bandwagon rolled on, screaming concerts and laughing interviews included. No one really seemed to notice or care. The world just wanted its cheeky grinning singing Moptops.
I like Beatle Ringo, he as IMO genuinely the funniest and his down to earthiness was very endearing. He and George were definitely dispensable

I think this is an unfair comparison.  The band was already established at this point and the biggest thing in the world.  Those people would have gone no matter which Beatle was absent.  Beatlemania would have still happened to some extent because the band had Paul and John.  Those two were going to make it no matter who you put with them.  Ringo played his part though as the warmest, most accessible member and he was flat out a better drummer than Pete period.  How would Pete's inferior skill and brooding demeanor work?  Not sure.

I hear the 60's thing all the time too.  Why didn't any of the other bands like the Kinks, Who, and Stones reach the height of the Beatles?  Had to be more to it then just the era.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: oldbrownshoe on October 13, 2014, 11:28:10 AM
The three groups you mention weren't exactly slouches, but whoever one might regard as the biggest pop group, let's say it's The Beatles, HAD to come from the 60s because that was when pop music and youth culture reached it's pinnacle.

Ten years later and any of the 4 groups mentioned, including the Beatles, would have been also-rans, someone like Steve Harley or 10cc or Dexy's. Not intrinsically bad, just not the biggest group of all time.....the time had gone for that.

Similarly, the greatest guitarist (Jimi Hendrix) and the greatest singer-songwriter (Bob Dylan) also had to come from the 60s and, whad'ya know, they both did!
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: tkitna on October 13, 2014, 04:33:27 PM
So in order to make a name for yourself or be labeled something, you had to have done it in the 60's.  Got it.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Kevin on October 13, 2014, 05:43:47 PM
The three groups you mention weren't exactly slouches, but whoever one might regard as the biggest pop group, let's say it's The Beatles, HAD to come from the 60s because that was when pop music and youth culture reached it's pinnacle.

Ten years later and any of the 4 groups mentioned, including the Beatles, would have been also-rans, someone like Steve Harley or 10cc or Dexy's. Not intrinsically bad, just not the biggest group of all time.....the time had gone for that.

Similarly, the greatest guitarist (Jimi Hendrix) and the greatest singer-songwriter (Bob Dylan) also had to come from the 60s and, whad'ya know, they both did!

I have to agree with the basic sentiment here. By the 70's rock had fractured - too many people listening to too many things. The chance for one band to dominate had gone.
I'm going to guess that most people buying pop music were of roughly the same demographic (maybe some older siblings still listening to Elvis) but by the 70's kids who were buying the latest teen sensation were competing in the market with an older probably more conservative generation.
Maybe the perfect storm of The Beatles could only happen once in a unique set of circumstances.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Moogmodule on October 13, 2014, 09:08:23 PM
I tend to think that John and Paul together would have been very successful. John and Paul with George Martin as producer would have been 70 to 80 per cent what we know as the Beatles.

But I do think Ringo was the best drummer for them and the ideal personality for a band that initially was feted for it's charisma as much as it's music.

George similarly. His love of different chord shapes helped deepen the Beatle sound early on. Throwing in 6ths, diminished etc. gave another layer to the sound that I think is why you can listen to a Beatle track over and over while similar poppy songs wear on you quickly.

John and Paul never hesitated ditching people they didn't think were up to it. They were quite ruthless like that. George and Ringo were there because John and Paul wanted them.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: tkitna on October 13, 2014, 11:58:55 PM
John and Paul never hesitated ditching people they didn't think were up to it. They were quite ruthless like that. George and Ringo were there because John and Paul wanted them.

What are you talking about?  They kept Stu in the band and he couldn't even play a note.  They cowered when Martin convinced them to sack Pete and never did talk to him again.  Ruthless my ass.

John Lennon later said of the dismissal, "We were cowards. We got Epstein to do the dirty work for us."
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: nimrod on October 13, 2014, 11:59:53 PM
I think this is an unfair comparison.  The band was already established at this point and the biggest thing in the world.  Those people would have gone no matter which Beatle was absent.  Beatlemania would have still happened to some extent because the band had Paul and John.  Those two were going to make it no matter who you put with them.  Ringo played his part though as the warmest, most accessible member and he was flat out a better drummer than Pete period.  How would Pete's inferior skill and brooding demeanor work?  Not sure.

I hear the 60's thing all the time too.  Why didn't any of the other bands like the Kinks, Who, and Stones reach the height of the Beatles?  Had to be more to it then just the era.

Have to agree with Todd here

I think its eminently possible for a band/act to become as big as the Beatles, they just have to be good enough and have that x factor (good songs helps too)
ABBA nearly did it in the 70's with great songs, a new sound and humongous success world wide, they just couldnt change with the times (The fabs did) and got stuck in a groove, then decline and acrimonious split .
Michael Jackson, also in the 70's wasnt to far away in terms of record sales either.

The 3 bands mentioned had huge success, 2 of them still do but in the end they didnt have the talent of John & Paul when it came to commercial writing and therefore appeal.......maybe if Ray Davies had been in the same band as Pete Townsend, who knows  ;)

I think its the case (my opinion) that talent like J & P only comes along very very rarely , other bands were great, but those 2 were phenomenal.

As for decades obviously when you grew up has the main bearing, I know plenty of younger than me music fans who would say The Smiths/Morrisey & The Stone Roses were miles ahead of The Beatles..........were all slaves to what was the music scene when we were 18

Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Moogmodule on October 14, 2014, 02:01:49 AM
What are you talking about?  They kept Stu in the band and he couldn't even play a note.  They cowered when Martin convinced them to sack Pete and never did talk to him again.  Ruthless my ass.

John Lennon later said of the dismissal, "We were cowards. We got Epstein to do the dirty work for us."

I don't think they're necessarily contradictory. They were good at getting someone else to do the work. But when they wanted someone gone they'd find a way.  Maybe ruthless was too strong a word. But reading about their early days  (Lewisohn I think has a few examples) seems to underline that they were serious about making it and if they thought someone was going to hold them back they'd be history. 

It's hard to know when the sentiment against Pete really developed. It suggests that they were ok with his drumming most of the time. It was his personality that was his main drawback. Of course as they got closer to fame his limitations as a drummer became clearer and he was gone. Martin didn't tell them to axe Pete. Only that he'd use someone else in the studio. 

Stu is the exception true. Perhaps he had special status being Johns close friend.  Paul would have axed him in a second. Seems george also became close to stu so shored up a faction in his favour.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: nimrod on October 14, 2014, 02:55:26 AM
I don't think they're necessarily contradictory. They were good at getting someone else to do the work. But when they wanted someone gone they'd find a way.  Maybe ruthless was too strong a word. But reading about their early days  (Lewisohn I think has a few examples) seems to underline that they were serious about making it and if they thought someone was going to hold them back they'd be history. 

It's hard to know when the sentiment against Pete really developed. It suggests that they were ok with his drumming most of the time. It was his personality that was his main drawback. Of course as they got closer to fame his limitations as a drummer became clearer and he was gone. Martin didn't tell them to axe Pete. Only that he'd use someone else in the studio. 

Stu is the exception true. Perhaps he had special status being Johns close friend.  Paul would have axed him in a second. Seems george also became close to stu so shored up a faction in his favour.

Reading 'Tune In' it seems Pete NEVER socialised with the others either in Liverpool or Hamburg, he was painfully quiet, he was like the odd man out. So in some ways its his own fault he got the boot.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: tkitna on October 14, 2014, 04:43:11 AM
I don't think they're necessarily contradictory. They were good at getting someone else to do the work. But when they wanted someone gone they'd find a way.  Maybe ruthless was too strong a word. But reading about their early days  (Lewisohn I think has a few examples) seems to underline that they were serious about making it and if they thought someone was going to hold them back they'd be history.

I often wonder why they kept George to be honest.  He blew more guitar solo's then should have been allowed in my opinion.  What do I know though, hell Martin put a bunch of them on the albums even. 

Quote
It's hard to know when the sentiment against Pete really developed. It suggests that they were ok with his drumming most of the time. It was his personality that was his main drawback. Of course as they got closer to fame his limitations as a drummer became clearer and he was gone. Martin didn't tell them to axe Pete. Only that he'd use someone else in the studio.

This is true.  I should have chosen my words more carefully.  Martin mentioned he wasn't fond of Pete's drumming and Epstein and the boys took that as he needed to go. 

Quote
Stu is the exception true. Perhaps he had special status being Johns close friend.  Paul would have axed him in a second. Seems george also became close to stu so shored up a faction in his favour.

Yeah, hard to tell with that one.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: tkitna on October 14, 2014, 04:44:48 AM
Reading 'Tune In' it seems Pete NEVER socialised with the others either in Liverpool or Hamburg, he was painfully quiet, he was like the odd man out. So in some ways its his own fault he got the boot.

Still bitter to this day.   ha2ha
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Moogmodule on October 14, 2014, 05:52:41 AM
   

This is true.  I should have chosen my words more carefully.  Martin mentioned he wasn't fond of Pete's drumming and Epstein and the boys took that as he needed to go. 


I guess he was one I was thinking of as an example of how they'd ditch people. They put up with him despite personality differences, but when the big time beckoned and they had professional advice he wasn't up to it then boom, down came the axe.

But no doubt it's more complicated then that. Always is.

Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Moogmodule on October 14, 2014, 05:54:05 AM
Still bitter to this day.   ha2ha

While life is about acceptance, part of me can't blame him.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: oldbrownshoe on October 14, 2014, 06:26:13 AM
Take your point Kangaroo Kev but, man alive, I wouldn't want to meet the guy who thought the stone roses were miles ahead of The Beatles in a dark alley. Nor would I be comfortable if he was given the vote.

Some things are just plain wrong.....and that is 'just plain wrong'!
I suspect even the group themselves would be embarrassed, the poor darlings have barely recorded 30 songs in 30 years.....it must be really tiring.....a bit like being a Premier League footballer!
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: nimrod on October 14, 2014, 09:22:21 AM
Take your point Kangaroo Kev but, man alive, I wouldn't want to meet the guy who thought the stone roses were miles ahead of The Beatles in a dark alley. Nor would I be comfortable if he was given the vote.

Some things are just plain wrong.....and that is 'just plain wrong'!
I suspect even the group themselves would be embarrassed, the poor darlings have barely recorded 30 songs in 30 years.....it must be really tiring.....a bit like being a Premier League footballer!

Yeah but you know what its like

The music you parents dug was rubbish

You like what you grew up with and if that was The Smiths/Morrisey or The Jam or Oasis those guys to you are the bee's knee's

My kids are into Hip Hop, R & B, if I made them sit down and listen to Tommy they'd probably throw up  ha2ha
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Moogmodule on October 14, 2014, 09:42:33 AM
Yeah but you know what its like

The music you parents dug was rubbish

You like what you grew up with and if that was The Smiths/Morrisey or The Jam or Oasis those guys to you are the bee's knee's

My kids are into Hip Hop, R & B, if I made them sit down and listen to Tommy they'd probably throw up  ha2ha

And it's the way it should be. It'd be pretty moribund if the music repertoire got stuck on a few artists. In a way it's what's happened to opera. A set standard repertoire being endlessly repeated and " reinterpreted".  While there are new operas they're pretty niche overall.

I'm happy for the new stuff. Never displaced the stuff I grew up with completely. But gives a lot more variety.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: oldbrownshoe on October 14, 2014, 04:46:52 PM
That's fine Moogmodule, and I agree to it to some extent, but let's not fool ourselves that 2014 is a patch on 1964!
It would be a dis-service to 'the kids' themselves.

David Hepworth (respected music journalist) on his blog this week said this.....

'Amazing how often when you've got a choice between the old thing that you know will be great and the flashy new thing which you know will disappoint you choose the latter and end up wasting your time and money. Henceforth I shall try not to do that.'

He was talking about film but, frankly, he could have been talking about anything.

I agree with him.
Today I bought the reissue of 'The Cry of Love' by Jimi Hendrix and it is great, how could it not be?
Why on earth scratch around scraps now when the past was (and is) far more fertile?
No offence kids!
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: tkitna on October 14, 2014, 07:08:54 PM
That's fine Moogmodule, and I agree to it to some extent, but let's not fool ourselves that 2014 is a patch on 1964!
It would be a dis-service to 'the kids' themselves.

David Hepworth (respected music journalist) on his blog this week said this.....

'Amazing how often when you've got a choice between the old thing that you know will be great and the flashy new thing which you know will disappoint you choose the latter and end up wasting your time and money. Henceforth I shall try not to do that.'

He was talking about film but, frankly, he could have been talking about anything.


I feel he was awfully nearsighted here.  How do you know the new stuff disappoint if you never even try it?  I'll never understand that.

So in his mind, one should never try to find new music and instead always plop down Abbey Road to listen to because you know you already like that.  Doesnt make any sense.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Moogmodule on October 15, 2014, 09:19:35 AM
That's fine Moogmodule, and I agree to it to some extent, but let's not fool ourselves that 2014 is a patch on 1964!
It would be a dis-service to 'the kids' themselves.

David Hepworth (respected music journalist) on his blog this week said this.....

'Amazing how often when you've got a choice between the old thing that you know will be great and the flashy new thing which you know will disappoint you choose the latter and end up wasting your time and money. Henceforth I shall try not to do that.'

He was talking about film but, frankly, he could have been talking about anything.

I agree with him.
Today I bought the reissue of 'The Cry of Love' by Jimi Hendrix and it is great, how could it not be?
Why on earth scratch around scraps now when the past was (and is) far more fertile?
No offence kids!

I don't think each era is necessarily equal in throwing up enduring, accomplished artists. And the sixties does seem to have produced an above average number of acts who maintain the interest of music lovers to this day. 

And I do think the Beatles were objectively unusual in their impact and quality of their product. The fact they hold so much interest decades after they were active suggests this.   I don't think it's just nostalgia. We can't attribute regard for Mozart on the fact that there's still people around who grew up when he was around.  ;)

But that doesn't mean there aren't good worthy acts from all eras. Just because Mozart is still revered doesn't mean Britten's and Strauss' operas are worthless.

And I don't expect the youth of today to favour the Beatles or Dylan over acts they discover. What I've found generally is that ones who have an interest in music beyond having a soundtrack to their youth tend to discover the classic acts for themselves.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: oldbrownshoe on October 15, 2014, 03:39:37 PM
What a 19 year old does in 2014 is entirely up to him or her.

One thing, though, is that I don't buy the (oft said) idea that they're particularly adept at picking up on the older stuff. They're far more likely to be listening to dross like Michael Jackson than Captain Beefheart in my experience. It's more famous, and it's far more likely to be sold to them.

From my own point of view (and David Hepworth presumably has some sympathy with me here) I haven't heard all the Blue Note records of the 50s and 60s, and Fopp in London regularly has back catalogue items in stock for as little as £3!!

As a matter of course I'll get a Blue Note release at that price from 1958 or 1963 or 1968 without ever having heard it as I KNOW it is going to be quality.

There's another angle in all this for me, and that is that the 60s is a far more interesting era than now (space race, politics, cinema) and that ties up with the music of the time. It's also far more aesthetically pleasing in terms of design and fashion.
Check out those Blue Note album covers from the 50s and 60s, they've never been surpassed.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Moogmodule on October 15, 2014, 09:37:53 PM


One thing, though, is that I don't buy the (oft said) idea that they're particularly adept at picking up on the older stuff. They're far more likely to be listening to dross like Michael Jackson than Captain Beefheart in my experience. It's more famous, and it's far more likely to be sold to them.



That's probably right but in the Beatles and a few others case fame and quality went hand in hand. Admittedly only the true young music aficionado today would get into the deep cuts
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Moogmodule on October 15, 2014, 09:40:52 PM
.

There's another angle in all this for me, and that is that the 60s is a far more interesting era than now (space race....

Don't get me started on the space race!  Was there ever a better time to be a young kid then when you had astronauts as the heros of the day? 
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Kevin on October 16, 2014, 07:10:29 AM
Don't get me started on the space race!  Was there ever a better time to be a young kid then when you had astronauts as the heros of the day?

Oh please let's get started. I was born in 58, so the space race was a huge part of my childhood. I'm a sputnik kid.  Not just the excitement of men being hurled into space, but with the added frision of the Cold War and the spectre of Russian rockets on the moon! It really really mattered.

Amazing amazing times. I am so pleased to have grown up in the sixties - a life not dominated by television (didn't come on until the evening), you trusted all adults, you were encouraged to play in the street, nothing more exciting than the riot that was saturday morning at the movies. Glory days indeed
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Moogmodule on October 16, 2014, 07:27:18 AM
Oh please let's get started. I was born in 58, so the space race was a huge part of my childhood. I'm a sputnik kid.  Not just the excitement of men being hurled into space, but with the added frision of the Cold War and the spectre of Russian rockets on the moon! It really really mattered.

Amazing amazing times. I am so pleased to have grown up in the sixties - a life not dominated by television (didn't come on until the evening), you trusted all adults, you were encouraged to play in the street, nothing more exciting than the riot that was saturday morning at the movies. Glory days indeed

I was a bit younger. I was in my first year of school in 69. But what a time. I remember my scrap book full of Apollo mission stuff. Every second magazine featured astronauts. "Commander Strongarm" hosted the kids show on channel 10 here in Oz. Magic for a kid. I wish my kids had that reach for the stars environment to grow up in. Even if it's more fantasy than reality.

I don't think I've quite given up on growing up to be an astronaut. Even at 50  :laugh:
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: tkitna on October 16, 2014, 11:01:21 AM
You guys are old.   ha2ha  The only space race that mattered to me was Han Solo getting away from the tie fighters in Star Wars while I was growing up.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: oldbrownshoe on October 16, 2014, 07:29:12 PM
It's almost a common phrase and has spawned a BBC 4 radio programme but.....erm.....I've never seen 'Star Wars', indeed I don't think I've seen a Hollywood blockbuster since 'The Godfather Part 2' (if that is a Hollywood blockbuster).
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Bobber on October 17, 2014, 10:18:40 AM
In the army perhaps.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Dcazz on October 17, 2014, 11:50:45 PM
My Dad worked on Apollo and Minuteman heat shielding re entry material in the 60's!
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on October 19, 2014, 03:26:29 AM
In the army perhaps.

Perhaps, but National Service had ended in Great Britain.  Here's what Paul said about that in Uncut March 2012:


Paul McCartney on The Beatles’ early days

What was the turning point for you?

"The end of National Service. Not just for me. For anyone of a certain age. Without that, there could have been no Beatles. To me, that was like God opening the Red Sea for Moses and the Israelites to come pouring through. It was like God decreed there would be no National Service. Well, that was extremely handy. Nice one, mate. That certainly changes things. It meant that we were the first generation for so many years that didn’t have that we’ll-make-a-man-of-you threat hanging over them. We weren’t going to be threaded through the system like so many before us. You have to remember that we’d watched all that happen to Elvis. Because, y’know, the army had kind of ruined Elvis. He’d been this ultimate rebel figure who we’d all worshipped. Then they made him cut his hair and he had to call everyone 'sir', and he was never really the same again. You can imagine that going into the army would have done it for us, too. Before we knew what was happening, we were like errant schoolkids off the leash. As The Beatles, we went off to Hamburg, which was still a bit black and white. But it was getting a little brighter. Then we came back to England and we were a proper working band. So we’d avoided this dreadful thing of having to get a job. Now we’d had a little practice and we were getting, well, quite good. And the colour began to fill into the whole thing. By that time, we were beginning to make a bit of a splash. We knew that we had a chance of making it."


And about Ringo:


You (and John) were like two sides of the same person?

"Well said. But the sides would switch. On the surface, I was very easy-going, always accommodating. That came easy to me. That’s how I’d been brought up. But, at certain times, I would very much be the hard man of the duo. At certain moments, I could bite. But that would be when no one outside the group was watching. John would allow me to take that role because it enabled him to drop his guard and be vulnerable. On the surface, he was this hard, witty guy, always on hand with a cutting witticism. He appeared caustic, even cruel at times. But really he was very soft. John was very insecure. He carried a lot of that from his upbringing, what with his father leaving when he was five. Then, of course, we’d both lost our mothers so we had that in common. Ultimately, we were equals. All The Beatles were equals. If things got too deep, Ringo would crack a one-liner and that kept us on a level. If things were getting too sentimental, John would harden it up. If John was getting too hostile, I’d soften it down. Then George was always on hand with his own kind of unique wisdom."

Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on October 19, 2014, 03:44:18 AM
.....I've never seen 'Star Wars'

Missed so much, you have my young padawan.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: oldbrownshoe on October 19, 2014, 07:57:26 AM
Perhaps we should do a thread.....'things I've never done':

1. Watched a 'Star Wars' or 'Star Trek' film or any 'Superman'/'Spiderman'/'Wonder Woman'-type film.

2. Played a video game.

3. Gone to America.

4. Gone ski-ing.

5. Listened to 'Dark Side of the Moon'.

6. Seen Wayne Rooney - (a) have a good game for England while a Man. U. player, and (b) score a one-on-one with a goalkeeper (never happens, the commentator always says, '.....and Rooney must score', he never, ever does. Then the commentator goes, '.....we all would have put our house on Rooney scoring that'.....I wouldn't).
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: tkitna on October 19, 2014, 10:25:01 AM
5. Listened to 'Dark Side of the Moon'.

Its one of the most famous albums ever.  Have you never been intrigued?  I'm not saying its awesome and you must, but if a record receives that much praise, I usually have to at least check it out.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: nimrod on October 19, 2014, 10:58:20 AM
Its one of the most famous albums ever.  Have you never been intrigued?  I'm not saying its awesome and you must, but if a record receives that much praise, I usually have to at least check it out.


I always thought 'Us & Them' one of the greatest songs ever written

simple but just superb



Pink Floyd - Us and Them (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDbeqj-1XOo#)
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: oldbrownshoe on October 19, 2014, 03:30:58 PM
I take the opposite view, if a record is so successful/revered, indeed if anything is so successful/revered, it almost has to be NOT worth checking out. Exception which proves the rule.....The Beatles.

'Thriller' sold truckloads and, because they were releasing 45s off that for years, I KNOW that it's garbage.
I heard the thing by default!

In the case of 'Dark Side of the Moon' I just presume it is going to be rather dull and no explanation of it has ever piqued my interest. I prefer having an intimate knowledge of the stuff people ignore or don't know.....the 45s, 'A Saucerful of Secrets', 'More'.

Any other 'I've never done that.....s'?

I've never watched an HBO series/box set or seen live a 20/20 cricket match.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Mr Mustard on October 19, 2014, 09:33:05 PM
I take the opposite view, if a record is so successful/revered, indeed if anything is so successful/revered, it almost has to be NOT worth checking out. Exception which proves the rule.....The Beatles.

OBS you're straying dangerously close to the kind of closed mindset which leads some blinkered observers to presume that your exception to the rule - The Beatles - "were overrated" or "can't have been all that good" etc... poor fools are missing out, we know that, but if they'd drop their preconceptions and listen there's every chance they'd be pleasantly surprised....

Plenty of things which have garnered unstinting praise really are "that good". Pele and George Best really were great. So were Muhammad Ali and Elvis. Laurel & Hardy remain the world's favourite comedy double act - with good reason. There are many such exceptions besides The Beatles which prove the rule!

OK, I'd say these things have become scarcer in recent times, but whilst I agree with your dismissal of certain things which are held in too much reverence, you have a tendency to write off entire decades and surely you can appreciate there will be some stuff you are therefore overlooking? It's as if you are slightly frightened of discovering that something post-1969 might be impressive, and worried that this revelation would shatter your rigid world view.

There was some good stuff around in the 1970s (and - dare I say this - even the 1980s) and, great as the decade was, there was some crap around in the 1960s. To argue that the quality of everything from music to films to theatre etc all plunged off a cliff on January 1st 1970 is crazy!

All that said I'd have to say that "Dark Side Of The Moon" is for me vastly overrated. I've never understood its popularity - perhaps because others can appreciate things that pass me by? Maybe I'm missing out.


Any other 'I've never done that.....s'?

Brilliant idea for its own separate thread!! Can't you launch it in one of the general discussion sub forums? Could prove fascinating!
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: nimrod on October 19, 2014, 10:52:20 PM
DSOTM overrated ?

Come on Mr M, get a grip

They were a cult band before this masterpiece

Yes its a concept album, but its not only packed with great songs like Breathe, Us & Them, Money etc but its a whole 'experience' a way of transcending yourself for 40 minutes - the perfect album imo. lyrically and musically :)

It was when the band worked together, Ricks keyboards/piano was just as important as Rogers lyrics and Daves guitar/singing
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Mr Mustard on October 19, 2014, 11:13:00 PM
- the perfect album imo. lyrically and musically :)

...but not vocally Kev, and therein (for me) lies the problem. Too introspective and pretentious for me I'm afraid.

I keep reminding everyone I'm not a musician - for me the instrumentation is the background which nicely "colours in" a song - which is centred around the lead vocal and the harmonies. The Beatles would have been fine a capella - Pink Floyd would have been dreadful.

It's why I've never rated musically gifted but vocally challenged groups like The Yardbirds.

Take themselves too seriously (Ringo never allowed The Beatles to do that. Which brings us back to the point of this thread).
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: tkitna on October 20, 2014, 12:07:49 AM
I take the opposite view, if a record is so successful/revered, indeed if anything is so successful/revered, it almost has to be NOT worth checking out. Exception which proves the rule.....The Beatles.

I don't understand your thinking here, but its already been touched upon by Mr.M.

Quote
'Thriller' sold truckloads and, because they were releasing 45s off that for years, I KNOW that it's garbage.
I heard the thing by default!

Hmm.  I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson or Pop music, but even I can see the brilliance in this album.  The production and song structures are pretty amazing and it pains me to say that.  I couldn't call this album garbage if I wanted to, because its just not true.  If you don't like it, fine, but there's a reason why this record reached the heights that it did.

Quote
In the case of 'Dark Side of the Moon' I just presume it is going to be rather dull and no explanation of it has ever piqued my interest. I prefer having an intimate knowledge of the stuff people ignore or don't know.....the 45s, 'A Saucerful of Secrets', 'More'.

So you pride yourself in the obscure.  That's fine, because I do it myself to some extent, but its also good to know the mainstream too.  Its cool to dazzle folks with your knowledge of albums and bands they have never heard of, but whats the point if they can just as easily bring up something like 'Dark Side Of The Moon' and you have no idea as to what they are talking about, which in most cases, is common knowledge?

That's too heavy.  I guess I'm just still baffled that you sometimes refuse to discover things based on the praise they receive.  Strange to me.

Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: tkitna on October 20, 2014, 12:12:58 AM
DSOTM overrated ?

Come on Mr M, get a grip

They were a cult band before this masterpiece

Yes its a concept album, but its not only packed with great songs like Breathe, Us & Them, Money etc but its a whole 'experience' a way of transcending yourself for 40 minutes - the perfect album imo. lyrically and musically :)

It was when the band worked together, Ricks keyboards/piano was just as important as Rogers lyrics and Daves guitar/singing

It is a great record and of course I have it, but,,,,,,,,,its been so overplayed that I find it to boring to deal with anymore.  I seriously doubt I will ever listen to that album ever again.  That's just me though and I'm pretty much like that with any Pink Floyd at this stage of my life.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: nimrod on October 20, 2014, 02:35:56 AM
I don't understand your thinking here, but its already been touched upon by Mr.M.

Hmm.  I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson or Pop music, but even I can see the brilliance in this album.  The production and song structures are pretty amazing and it pains me to say that.  I couldn't call this album garbage if I wanted to, because its just not true.  If you don't like it, fine, but there's a reason why this record reached the heights that it did.

So you pride yourself in the obscure.  That's fine, because I do it myself to some extent, but its also good to know the mainstream too.  Its cool to dazzle folks with your knowledge of albums and bands they have never heard of, but whats the point if they can just as easily bring up something like 'Dark Side Of The Moon' and you have no idea as to what they are talking about, which in most cases, is common knowledge?



Hang on Todd
 early Floyd records are not obscure records, theyre mainstream prog LP's
Obscure 60/70's would be Sebastian Hardy, England, Spring, Eloy, Taurus, Pheonix, Sepsis, Space farm, Starcastle,PFM etc etc

I get the point you are making though
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: nimrod on October 20, 2014, 03:00:57 AM
...but not vocally Kev,

remained in the charts for 741 weeks from 1973 to 1988. With an estimated 50 million copies sold, it is Pink Floyd's most commercially successful album and the second best-selling album worldwide.

Vocals cant have been that bad   ha2ha

IT REMAINED IN CHARTS ALL THROUGH THE LOUSY PUNK/NEW WAVE ERA................ 10/10 FOR PINK FLOYD - GOD BLESS EM, SOME REAL MUSIC IN ALL THAT DROSS


Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Mr Mustard on October 20, 2014, 10:18:46 AM
The point I'm trying to make Kev is that most people who bought into Floyd weren't there for the vocals. I think it's the quality of musicianship/arrangements/production/concept/lyrical maturity etc which helped sell copies by the shedload. Millions of buyers can't be "wrong" of course, but all those things are of secondary importance to me personally. Plus I'm a sucker for melodies and I don't recall many from DSOTM.  I wasn't a fan of punk/new wave, so citing that as the then current "competition" earns them no points from me.

I'm not embarrassed to say I'd prefer to listen to Wings or Abba over Pink Floyd (melodies and vocals, remember) even if it's not "cool". There is a place for more proggy stuff on my sound system if I'm in the mood but that's when I'd turn to Jethro Tull. But most of that stuff (ELP, Yes, Caravan, Gentle Giant etc) is nowadays too much like hard work for me: have it but barely ever play it.

Maybe I'm just getting old.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: nimrod on October 20, 2014, 11:12:19 AM
The point I'm trying to make Kev is that most people who bought into Floyd weren't there for the vocals. I think it's the quality of musicianship/arrangements/production/concept/lyrical maturity etc which helped sell copies by the shedload. Millions of buyers can't be "wrong" of course, but all those things are of secondary importance to me personally. Plus I'm a sucker for melodies and I don't recall many from DSOTM.  I wasn't a fan of punk/new wave, so citing that as the then current "competition" earns them no points from me.

I'm not embarrassed to say I'd prefer to listen to Wings or Abba over Pink Floyd (melodies and vocals, remember) even if it's not "cool". There is a place for more proggy stuff on my sound system if I'm in the mood but that's when I'd turn to Jethro Tull. But most of that stuff (ELP, Yes, Caravan, Gentle Giant etc) is nowadays too much like hard work for me: have it but barely ever play it.

Maybe I'm just getting old.

I really dont understand you here Mr M, imo DSPTM is full of great melodies (take Us & Them) and the singing is top notch

We'll just have to agree to disagree  ;)
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Maggie0819 on May 01, 2016, 11:47:36 PM
I always thought Ringo added a sort of charm and softness to the group that I can't quite put a finger on. Obviously we all know that The Beatles wouldn't be The Beatles without each member of the group contributing what they did. Each member, meaning John, Paul, and George, all had their obvious talents and they were all brilliant, but then there's Ringo. I've never heard quite as much praise for his solo albums, but that doesn't make them any less enjoyable or "charming". For me, Ringo is and always will be the charm and heart of The Beatles, no matter how many drummers there were before him or how many drummers temporarily took his place. Of course, this is just my own personal opinion and I've never claimed to know much about The Beatles apart from their music and the information I've learned from the Anthology series, books and other little things. I just always thought that Ringo is what made The Beatles so likeable and, in a way, approachable. If Ringo ever reads this he'll probably think I'm being incredibly demeaning by calling him "charming" and "likeable", but I think, personally, that that's one of the things that you should strive for as a person. Again, I don't know as much as any of you, but it's fun to learn what other people have to say and what they think. And I've probably gone on too long about the emotional aspects of it all...oh, well, I'm learning.  icon_good
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: BeatleFan on July 15, 2016, 10:51:50 AM
Ringo is a funny guy with buckets of charm. He literally put the beat into the Beatles with his drumming. Without Ringo the band wouldn't have been the complete package. Don't Pass Me By would probably be my favourite from him. Just sublime.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: blmeanie on July 15, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
fun reading years of comments when someone resurrects a post from long ago.

One word: BALANCE

Without balance most endeavors in life become something less than they could have been.  Ringo was part of the balance that was the four of them.  Amazing ying and yangs within their internal and external relationships with the public.  I think -meant to be, when I think of Ringo with the Beatles.  Love his style and balance he helped create.

BTW - DSOTM - enjoyed this immensely at a point in life when mind altering substances were common, amazing to listen to and get lost for a while.  Still enjoy a track here and there but haven't listened to the album in close to 30 years.
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: KelMar on July 17, 2016, 09:16:51 PM
Ringo is a funny guy with buckets of charm.


Well put! That's exactly the feeling I went away with when I saw him in concert this past June. I didn't want to miss anything he said up there so I wasn't too pleased when the loud, inebriated first-generation fans across the aisle made me do just that. It stopped soon after so I think they were told to settle down. Good thing too because I was about ready to yell what John said during the Ed Sullivan rehearsal in Miami:

http://youtu.be/AGFDZg74DL8 (http://youtu.be/AGFDZg74DL8)

 ;)

Quote
Don't Pass Me By would probably be my favourite from him. Just sublime.


That was in the show!
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Kagome on November 07, 2016, 02:40:16 AM
I would think they would be at the same Place with Pete Best to bad they got rid of him He was a very popular with The Beatles fans They was upset they got rid of him 
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: blmeanie on November 07, 2016, 11:32:57 AM
I would think they would be at the same Place with Pete Best to bad they got rid of him He was a very popular with The Beatles fans They was upset they got rid of him

OMG - what would the story line have been in Help had Pete Best been the drummer?   ;D
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: KelMar on November 07, 2016, 05:19:20 PM
OMG - what would the story line have been in Help had Pete Best been the drummer?   ;D

LOL Yeah, it just wouldn't have made sense!
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on November 07, 2016, 06:04:05 PM
OMG - what would the story line have been in Help had Pete Best been the drummer?   ;D


Or A Hard Day's Night...


(http://manilovefilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/A-hard-Days-Night-2.png)




Or Magical Mystery Tour...


(http://rarefilm.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Magical-Mystery-Tour-1967-1.jpg)




Or Yellow Submarine...


(http://beatles.coolcherrycream.com/assets/images/yellow-submarine/w/08-ringo.jpg)




 ;)
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on February 20, 2017, 02:31:19 AM
Ringo always thought progressively...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cz45bcPrSc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cz45bcPrSc#)



:)
Title: Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
Post by: Bobber on September 20, 2017, 10:02:12 AM
A great answer: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/sep/19/ringo-starr-great-drummer-the-beatles-genius?CMP=fb_gu (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/sep/19/ringo-starr-great-drummer-the-beatles-genius?CMP=fb_gu)