Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bobber]

I have always wondered if Ringo was the key to their success when he became a Beatle in August 1962. Could The Beatles have been successfull with Pete Best as their drummer, or was Ringo an important part in their success? What are your thoughts?

[Kevin]

For me, no.
Two things are always linked to Ringo re The Beatles success - his personality and drumming.
As my first witness I call Jimmy Nicol. Whren he replaced Ringo the Beatles bandwagon rolled on regardless. The press interviews were just as witty and sharp, the band just as photogenic, the public just as charmed. The other three had personality aplenty to allow one of themto sit there and smile. Slightly different dynamics yes, but not career threatening. And the sound doesn't seem to have suffered. I've said it before, but had Ringo died on that operating table (God forbid) the band could have carried on full steam ahead. Still would have had Revolver, Pepper etc.
As for his drumming, while I know the drumheads will point out his unique backward fills and special way of banging his cymbals, the fact is that for the vaste vaste majority of people in this world it's just drumming. If we didn't have people like Lewison to tell us noone would know that's not Ringo on Love Me Do, Back in the USSR or Ballad of John and Yoko.
So while Ringo's absence might have meant their interviews were a little less funny, or their sound slightly different - vital? I say no.
 We attach great sentimental value to the lads, Ringo especially, and to imagine The Beatles without Ringo is like imagining Hitler without his mostache. Things would have looked different, but at the end of the day history would have been much the same without them. The Beatles were IMO Lennon McCartnney, and the one vital dynamic was McCartney-Lennon-Martin.
Second witness - Keith Moon, with what I see as a force of character and unique drumming sound greater than Ringo's, and his absence didn't dranmaticly change things.
They're just bloody drummers.

[GreenApple]

Not vital. But in retrospect Ringo's drumming was important because of the way he played.

[tkitna]

He definately helped. I mean, come on,,,,we have a very talented drummer with the personality of a cherub and thats not even mentioning his novelty name,,,Ringo Starr. It was a cant miss. As for the actual question,,,no. Paul, John, and george wrote better songs than anybody and they were going to be played regardless if it was a studio drummer, Ringo, pete, paul, or whatever. Just to good to place the emphasis on any one section.

[Studio2]

I believe Ringo was an integral part of The Beatles success story. The number 1 drummer in Liverpool, at a time when there were more drummers than any one city has a right to, was deservedly coveted by the other three members of the band. His technique was and is uniquely excellent, lending a great deal of personality to any track it graces. His personality is in itself a massive asset, his great northern sense of humour, underpinned with a more serious side that resulted in him pushing himself to meet the standards of his fatastically talented peers.

Indeed, if Ringo had never returned from his enforced absence from the group it's fair to say the group would have carried on producing great work like Revolver and Pepper's. However, I, personally, can't imagine Revolver without old Ringo throbbing beneath the waves of Tomorrow Never Knows or pushing and pulling his way through A Day in the Life.

And you can totally tell it's Paul on Back in the USSR!  

[raxo]

I like all the 'if' things but I can't imagine the guys with another drummer  :-/ ...

... they played live with Jimmy and recorded with Andy or even without Ringo but when you think of them you see Ringo with the other three ...

... John said that the four of them could understand each other pretty well, almost read their minds ... and when they're at the studio (rehearsing or searching for an arrangement) Ringo almost didn't make a mistake in his playing (some sources say) and that was very important for a group that recorded so many tracks (playing live in the studio, remember) so quickly: to reduce as much as possible the number of takes ... having a drummer like Ringo was like having a life insurance   ...

[Kevin]

Your biggest of endorsements is that "he didn't make mistakes" (according to some sources)?
 Break out the champagne Ringo.

[raxo]

LOL!  
Well, having the arrangements and tracks they recorded in mind it's one of the best things to be said about his profesional work ... by reducing the number of takes the had more time for experiments, for example ...

I'm sure he wouldn't be angry or upset with the others seeing them making mistakes and having to record his drums part again and again ... endless takes of some of the songs for the White Album had to be a torture for him ...

[Loco Mo]

This type of question is oft repeated and open to endless matter-of-opinion speculation.  We can't know the effect of Ringo's absence because we can only know what has been and not what could or could not have been.

Ringo seems a perfect fit for the group with his Clown-Prince personality and his deft drumming routines.  He was a simple yet competent and effective drummer.  He apparently had some measure of inventiveness in order to cope with the variety of drumming challenges that were presented to him by the creatively diverse mill of Paul/George/John.

Ringo is comfortably familiar.  He is the Beatles just as each of the Beatles is the Beatles.  We can't really separate them out because this is a band we're talking about here and not a collection of motley performers.  That's what everyone loves and continually debates about - THE BEATLES - as they were, as we knew them to be.

Was Ringo the key to their success?  Okay, was J, P or G (each) the key to their success?  How can we ever hope to know this?  Can we ever deliver the ultimate kudos to any one particular member of the Beatles?  Remember - BAND - that's the key word.  We're not dissecting Elvis Presley here.  If we were, we'd have to somehow take him apart to see which pieces of him were most important.  Truthfully, maybe some of us would have to give ultimate credit to his mother or maybe even his dog or his purported twin.

So I will say this:  Yes, Ringo was the key!!!  (Because he was a Beatle, each were a Beatle, and each Beatle is key.)  Tell me, do you agree?

[Kevin]

This type of question is oft repeated and open to endless matter-of-opinion speculation.  We can't know the effect of Ringo's absence because we can only know what has been and not what could or could not have been.

Holy sh*t! You mean we've been wasting our time? Hoiwabouts we guess, just for fun.
All you Ringophiles have said some very nice things about him, but nothing that would convince me he was The Key. But on the upside he did learn to play chess during the Pepper sessions (when he wasn't too busy doing key-type things of course- like drumming, or being pleasantly nonthreatening. )

[raxo]

After all, his playing liked the others a lot: just keeping the rythm (the beat) backing the singer when he was singing and not distracting the listener   ...

... when John was recording his last album (Double Fantasy) he didn't want complicated arrangements for his songs ... just pure rock (or pop or whatever he was doing)  :-/ ... and I can see that he was, in es-sense, searching for a Ringo style ...

I think the four of them came from the same place and shared the same roots and liked more or less the same kind of music so they made a very united band while they were recording (forgeting that they were great friends -brothers- too) ...

Anyway, I can't answer to the main question: was Ringo the key? ??) ... "to what door"  8)could have asked one of them in mid 60s (they made bad jokes looked as good ones just with their smiles  ).

[GreenApple]

He was a simple yet competent and effective drummer.  He apparently had some measure of inventiveness in order to cope with the variety of drumming challenges that were presented to him by the creatively diverse mill of Paul/George/John.

Tell me, do you agree?

That says it all!

[Loco Mo]

Actually, I have posed this question to a rather scholarly fellow who responded in the affirmative thusly, "Yes, Ringo was, indeed, the key."  He went on to explain that this fact has been suppressed for years by Beatles insiders.  "The problem is that the Lennon-McCartney myth was quite endearing and considered to be paramount to maintaining the inexplicable mystique of the Beatles.  Many fans could not have tolerated the notion that a mere drummer could have been responsible for the vast musical accomplishments of the Beatles.  Not only that, but the others were insanely jealous.  They tried everything they could to render Ringo clueless as to his true status.  Consider that at one point Ringo expressed his fear that they were going to "Pete Best" him.  The Beatles had to use subtle psychological strategies to keep Ringo at bay lest he arrive at full awareness of his importance to the group.  Had Ringo realized this, he may have demanded the band be further and henceforth known for future posterity as "Ringo and His Beatles."  

I hope that this tidbit will perhaps mitigate to some degree or, at the very least, conclusively settle the matter as raised by the question:  "Was Ringo the key?"

Indeed - he was.

[Studio2]

Personally I think the question itself pushes any respondant into somewhat of a corner, Ringo was a vital ingredient in the Beatles success if not the 'KEY' ingredient. Without him they would not have been the entity which they became... but with him they were able to attain true greatness. Ringo was ' THE DRUMMER' The Beatles required at the key time in their development. He was older and wiser to the game in which they were then entering and therefore vital in their route to success.

As Paul often says, they were all in the right place at the right time. Ringo was the right man at the right time, from the right place, to take them to the next level.

God bless Ringo and his achievements, and merry christmas every one!!!!
  

[raxo]

If not the key he was lucky ...



RINGO MISSES OUT ON TRAMP DREAMS

Former The Beatles drummer Ringo Starr has failed in his ambition to become a tramp.

The rocker admits he grew up dreaming of being homeless and penniless because he feared he'd never amount to anything.

He says, "When I was a kid I wanted to be a tramp."

But in a reckless moment, the drummer did dream that one day he'd own a park, just like the one where he used to spend his childhood in Liverpool, England.

He adds, "To get to school I had to walk through this park and if it had snowed we never went to school and if it was really warm we never went to school. I went to school very little.

"We now have this place in England now and sometimes I look at it and say, 'My God, I got the park!'"

[Revolution]

No, but he brought humor to the band. He helped to keep it looser.