never missed a beat
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.
Regardless, I still think George was the one that could have been replaced if anybody.
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.
I still dont like him singing though LOL
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...
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])
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)
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)
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.)
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?
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!
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.
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."
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Still bitter to this day. ha2ha
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
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.
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!
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.
.
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?
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
In the army perhaps.
.....I've never seen 'Star Wars'
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.
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.
Any other 'I've never done that.....s'?
- the perfect album imo. lyrically and musically :)
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'.
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
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?
...but not vocally Kev,
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.
Ringo is a funny guy with buckets of charm.
Don't Pass Me By would probably be my favourite from him. Just sublime.
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
OMG - what would the story line have been in Help had Pete Best been the drummer? ;D