Solo forums > Ringo Starr

Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?

(1/16) > >>

Walrus:
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.

Hello Goodbye:
4:01

A Hard Day's Night - Part 6

Hombre_de_ningun_lugar:
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".

Joost:
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.

Mr Mustard:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page