DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => The Beatles => Topic started by: Joost on May 27, 2004, 01:31:42 AM
-
Just wondering what you guys think.
-
No.
Two songwriting geniuses. Four very good musicians who, when together and only together, became magically genius musicians.
With a dollop of help from their producer.
-
If this is the question, then why didnt they just keep Pete?
-
The Beatles had two music geniuses with a great guitarist & a great drummer.
-
No, George was a musicial genius, just Lennon and McCartney were better. Ringo was too, thats how he got into the Beatles (they wanted him because they thought he was the best drummer in the world).
-
I don't believe George OR Ringo were musical geniuses, strictly speaking.
-
reguardless of what you think it was and could have only been those 4 in that role.
-
What is up with you guys? Why is Ringo so underrated? He is a very good drummer, he did had musical talent. Didn't he had to create all the stuff he played in the drums?
PS: George wrote better than Lennon and McCartney. If I had to order the songs from the best to the worst, all the harrison's will appear before the Lennon/McCartney's. Lennon and McCartney just wouldn't let him be.
-
Ringo WAS an excellent drummer, yes, and a big [part of the Beatle magic and personality.
-
That really depends, we all have a different definition of what a genius is. I personally think that the four of them together made up a genius combination of talent.
-
I personally think that George, even though not as productive, was just as brilliant as John and Paul. I think that without any of the three of them, the Beatles wouldn't have been the band that they were.
On the other hand I think that, even though he was a really good drummer and a loveable character, Ringo was replacable, especially after they stopped playing live. I think that with Pete Best or any other decent drummer the Beatles would've been just as big.
-
Ringo was not replaceable.
-
They were all great. Each one was an explosive element compounded into one magical band. In my honest opinion.
-
They've even said it themselves about the combination of all 4 being the thing that made it work. They didn't hit it big untill Ringo joined. And none of them was as brilliant as a solo artist. They did ok, but it wasn't as profound as anything they did as Beatles. But Ringo a genius? That's a big stretch.
-
If you look at what they did on their own...wouldn't John Lennon be considered the genius of the group?
If you were to break the group down I would do it like this
Paul - a genius..but an a**hole b/c he knows that he's a genius
John - a genius and the coolest member
George - great guitarist and a great song writer but not the song writing machine that Paul and John are
Ringo - an underrated oddball who was probably capable of alot but got lost in all that talent.
-
[quote by=LonelyPeople link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=14 date=1086030414]If you look at what they did on their own...wouldn't John Lennon be considered the genius of the group?
If you were to break the group down I would do it like this
Paul - a genius..but an a**hole b/c he knows that he's a genius
***Ridiculous comment.
John - a genius and the coolest member
***JOHN was the one who proclaimed -himself- a genius. Does that make HIM an a**hole?
George - great guitarist and a great song writer but not the song writing machine that Paul and John are
***Correct
Ringo - an underrated oddball who was probably capable of alot but got lost in all that talent.
***Again, correct.
[/quote]
-
[quote by=Maccalvr link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=13 date=1085772212]They've even said it themselves about the combination of all 4 being the thing that made it work.[/quote]
Of course they said that. Image that any of them would've said "We could've made it work without Ringo"... Of course they didn't say that...
[quote by=LonelyPeople link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=13 date=1085772212]
Paul - a genius..but an a**hole b/c he knows that he's a genius
John - a genius and the coolest member[/quote]
Have you ever read that long Rolling Stone interview with John Lennon? John also knew very, very well that he was a genius. He could also be pretty arrogant about it... And what do you expect of Paul? "Yeah, I wrote dozens and dozens of million selling hits, but I don't find myself that good a songwriter"... Some people just don't have to be humble because there's no reason for it.
[quote by=mister charlie link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=13 date=1085772212]
Pete Best (or anyone else for that matter) could NEVER have come up with the drum fills Ringo used in A Day In The Life.[/quote]
You can't be sure about that... Being the drummer for the Beatles meant that your full time job was to constantly jam with three of the biggest geniuses in pop music history... I think that after a while you almost "automatically" start doing brilliant things as well. Maybe Pete Best or someone else would've came up with some really brilliant stuff as well.
-
[quote by=Biscuit_Power link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=16 date=1086032023]
You can't be sure about that... Being the drummer for the Beatles meant that your full time job was to constantly jam with three of the biggest geniuses in pop music history... I think that after a while you almost "automatically" start doing brilliant things as well. Maybe Pete Best or someone else would've came up with some really brilliant stuff as well.[/quote]
I'm not saying what Pete would have or wouldnt have become, but some drummers (no matter how long they play) just dont progress. Peter Criss anybody?
-
>>>You can't be sure about that... Being the drummer for the Beatles meant that your full time job was to constantly jam with three of the biggest geniuses in pop music history... I think that after a while you almost "automatically" start doing brilliant things as well. Maybe Pete Best or someone else would've came up with some really brilliant stuff as well.<<<
Yes I can. While your point about playing with three other heavyweights is a valid one, as John said Ringo was already a star before the Beatles, and he didn't need them as he was already successful. Of course you can pooh-pooh that as well, saying he had to say that, but John rarely said anything because he HAD to.
As a drummer I can tell you that after learning the rudiments every drummer develops their own style. I've heard Pete Best's. Good live work. I've heard Ringo's. On A Day In The Life his drumming is as lyrical as the song. That's not just knowledge, that's not just style, that's art.
SOmeone else would undoubtedly played it differently, and someone else *might* have even done something very good. But it wouldn't have been the same. Hence, not as good.
-
i think the general idea is that it doesn't really matter who's a genius and who's not...b/c if you were missing one piece you wouldn't have the Beatles.
-
[quote by=LonelyPeople link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=19 date=1086102284]i think the general idea is that it doesn't really matter who's a genius and who's not...b/c if you were missing one piece you wouldn't have the Beatles.[/quote]
Well exactly. Without ANY one of the four there would be no Beatles.
-
Let's face it ringo was an adequate drummer,nothing exceptional,but he did gell with the boys.Ringo is eclipsed by the others in terms of the gift of the muse,but i wouldn't go so far as to say the same magical combination would have resulted without him.
-
Ringo waws a very exceptional drummer and a good song writer as well...i mean you have to look at who you're comparing him to..John and Paul were INSANE..just because Ringo can't match their abilities doesnt mean that he isn't a exceptional musician still. Ringo did write a song or two on every album.
-
Nah, Rings only wrote two full songs and was given partial credit on two more. Ringo had talent, and when a Beatle it was as great as the other 4. But alone he never was an exceptional talent.
He was definitely better than 'adequate'.
-
[quote by=LonelyPeople link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=22 date=1086325660]Ringo did write a song or two on every album.[/quote]
He sang one or two songs on every album, but he didn't write most of these songs.
-
[quote by=misterchaz link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=23 date=1086327903]
He was definitely better than 'adequate'.[/quote]
The exact words I would have used.
-
Ringo was simply perfect. He was exactly what the group needed. His drumming always fit exactly in the music that the other guys wrote. I don't know if it happens to you, but every time I hear a beatles cover the first thing I miss is Ringo's drumming (except in phil collins' "golden slumbers - carry that weight - the end"). Pete sucks really bad, he never did the fill-ins Ringo did. Anyone who think's Ringo could be replaced by any other just hear the crappy drumming Paul did in "the ballad of John and Yoko", i'm sure you'll miss Ringo.
John and paul were amazing song writers. However, when you write so much songs in a relatively short period of time they somehow lose quality. George's songs were much fewer but much more elaborate. John and Paul sometimes wen't a bit too comercial for my liking. As a song writer Ringo was certainly left behind, he's a great song writer, but having to deal with 3 of the greatest songwriters of all time didn't give him the chance to show his talents.
-
As a songwriter I do not think Ringo has much to show. His drums on A Day In The Life alone should qualify him for the Drummer's Hall of Fame.
-
[quote by=Rocky_Raccoon link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=26 date=1086404683] Anyone who think's Ringo could be replaced by any other just hear the crappy drumming Paul did in "the ballad of John and Yoko", i'm sure you'll miss Ringo.[/quote]
Yeah, but 'Dear Prudence' kicked and 'Back in the USSR' was decent. If you listen to alot of Pauls solo stuff, you'll realize that he can drum pretty efficiently. I realize that he could never have replaced Ringo, but he didnt suck.
As a song writer Ringo was certainly left behind, he's a great song writer, but having to deal with 3 of the greatest songwriters of all time didn't give him the chance to show his talents.
No. I disagree. Ringo was never great song writer. God bless him, he tried and still does. Have you ever heard the stories of poor Ringo taking three weeks to write a song only to find out that he ended up re-writing a classic or standard? Even his biggest solo album, "Ringo", was written in a large part by the other three Beatles and others. Even Mal Evans co-wrote with George on "You and Me(babe)". He isnt a great song writer and never was.
-
[quote by=Wayne_L. link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=3 date=1085677865]The Beatles had two music geniuses with a great guitarist & a great drummer.
-
I think there all musical geniuses, i cant rate one more than the other, there all amazing at what they do, Ringo is equally as good as all the Beatles.
-
I think it's totally wrong to say that they were "three musical geniuses and a drummer" I don't understand where people get off saying that? Ringo was just as much a part of the group as the others. Maybe he didn't have as big of a part as say Paul or John but he still did his part! I remember something I read somewhere about a time when they were recording and Paul said some stuff and Ringo ended up leaving because whatever Paul had said made him feel like he was a bad drummer, but they called him and they told him that they couldn't be the Beatles without Ringo. Which is 100% true! They wouldn't be the Beatles without Ringo! Period!
(sorry, I can't help myself when things like that are said cause Ringo is extremely talented and extrememly underappriciated!)
-
Ringo was a fantastic drummer that helped make it a band of four personas....how many other bands have recognizable/interesting drummers AND bassists? Not many...
-
Paul-annoying sometimes but insanely talented.
John-when Yoko came he got annoying,but was also insanely talented.
George-what the other two were to songwriting he was towards music.
Ringo-o_0 uhuhuhhhhhhh...he got them the gig.
-
[quote by=Strawberryfields67 link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=33 date=1087396481]Paul-annoying sometimes but insanely talented.
John-when Yoko came he got annoying,but was also insanely talented.
George-what the other two were to songwriting he was towards music.
Ringo-o_0 uhuhuhhhhhhh...he got them the gig.[/quote]
Ringo was the base, the foundation and the back up for the other three. He grounded these three bobbing balloons and kept them from flying off forever.
Imagine if he too had been a mercurial ego-driven genius drummer. The Beatles surely would have splintered before the mid-60's from the masive tension.
George was also a grounding force, obviously. He had talent but not that competitive ego-driven need to top everything that went before. He too anchored J & P and let the group survive far longer than it would have otherwise (think of 'supergroups' made up of equal partners: CSN&Y, Cream, Blind Faith, etc.---how they shortly exploded into conflicts due to not having those grounding forces).
-
Interesting take on Ringo's role in the band. I never looked at it that way. I suppose it makes sense! Yay Ringo! :)
-
John Lennon And Paul were the reason The Beatles Were so famous
-
[quote by=number14 link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=36 date=1087767079]John Lennon And Paul were the reason The Beatles Were so famous[/quote]
Yet they smoked! :)
Seriously, the Beatles were a four compnent group. Neither John nor Paul ever achieved the solo success they had as a foursome.
-
no ringo...no beatles
-
I can't really add anything new here but my vote is NO! An amazing band.
-
NO! The Beatles would not be "The Beatles" without Ringo!
-
Ringo was a great drummer. Check out Strawberry Fields Forever, Come Together, and of A Day in the Life if you are not sure. As a writer, Don't Pass Me By is Ringo's signature piece as Octupus' Garden was largely rewritten by George (even if Ringo got the credits).
George was a great guitarist who wrote two of the finest songs ever (Something and Here Comes The Sun), but I think the calibre of his songwriting drops off fairly quickly after that.
Paul is a creative genius, an excellent musician, and one of the best singer's ever. Yes he could write shmaltz (see some of his solo work), but he can do it all. Consider the variety, musical talent, and range of "Helter Skelter", "Mother Nature's Son", "Back In The USSR", and "Martha My Dear" off the White Album - and that is not Paul's best work.
John was a genius as well, but what made him work is that he had an edge that Paul didn't. John could croon (Julia), but he was the master of the lyrical (Norwegian Wood, In My Life, Strawberry Fields, the list goes on and on).
One of the big things that made the Beatles work was three individual songwriters, including two of the best ever. When the boys went solo they had to fill albums with second rate material. George is the best example here. Instead of one or two songs on an album, he has to provide 10 or 12. I think that's a pretty deep dig and I think it shows on all of George's solo work except "All Things Must Pass".
-
Don't forget the drumming on 'Rain'!
-
they were all musical geniuses but maybe a bit too much, i mean look at where they are now.
-
Songs that Ringo didn't play drums on (he did do some handclaps or minor percussion thingies on some though):
Across the universe
And I love her
Back in the USSR
The ballad of John and Yoko
Because
Blackbird
Dear Prudence
Eleanor Rigby
Her Majesty
I'll follow the sun
The inner light
I will
Julia
Love me do
Love you to
Martha my dear
Mother nature's son
Mr. Moonlight
Norwegian wood (this bird has flown)
Piggies
PS I love you
Revolution 9
She's leaving home
Till there was you
Wild honey pie
Within you without you
Yesterday
You've got to hide your love away
Unsure:
Michelle
Ob-la-di, ob-la-da
And that doesn't even include any of the songs with Pete Best, or any Anthology songs.
Conclusion: the Beatles were still great without Ringo.
I'm not trying to put Ringo down cause I think he's a really cool guy, I just think that realistically seen the Beatles were still great without Ringo.
-
[quote by=Biscuit_Power link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=44 date=1092254938]Songs that Ringo didn't play drums on (he did do some handclaps or minor percussion thingies on some though):
Across the universe
And I love her
Back in the USSR
The ballad of John and Yoko
Because
Blackbird
Dear Prudence
Eleanor Rigby
Her Majesty
I'll follow the sun
The inner light
I will
Julia
Love me do
Love you to
Martha my dear
Mother nature's son
Mr. Moonlight
Norwegian wood (this bird has flown)
Piggies
PS I love you
Revolution 9
She's leaving home
Till there was you
Wild honey pie
Within you without you
Yesterday
You've got to hide your love away
Unsure:
Michelle
Ob-la-di, ob-la-da
And that doesn't even include any of the songs with Pete Best, or any Anthology songs.
Conclusion: the Beatles were still great without Ringo.
I'm not trying to put Ringo down cause I think he's a really cool guy, I just think that realistically seen the Beatles were still great without Ringo.[/quote]
Not realistic at all. Other percussion certainly counts. And Indian music had it's own.
This list is skewed to your point. And how many total songs are in their canon (over 200 something). This is a very small percentage at best.
-
Actual percussion counts, but handclaps or woodblocks hardly do... You or I could've done those just as well.
And 30 on 200 makes 15% (again, not even including the Pete Best and the Anthology songs...) is not such a small percentage...
And do you think Back in the USSR, The ballad of John & Yoko or the Come and get it demo would've been any better with Ringo playing instead of Paul? Hardly, I think...
But I'll admit that this list doesn't say much... I could also make a pretty decent list of songs that John or George had nothing or hardly anything to do with...
-
It really pained me to pick Yes, but I really think George, John, and Paul were the geniuses with the deep, amazing lyrics. Ringo was a great drummer, and he sang some wonderful stuff, but he didn't compose most of his songs, and the songs just didn't have the complexity of the other three.
-
Actually, I just looked it up and I'm going to admit that my list of songs made no sense, because the lists of songs that John or George didn't participate on are maybe even more impressive.
-
[quote by=Biscuit_Power link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=48 date=1092261581]Actually, I just looked it up and I'm going to admit that my list of songs made no sense, because the lists of songs that John or George didn't participate on are maybe even more impressive.[/quote]
Well it makes sense in a twisted sort of way...I suppose one could take the list of songs and come up with all manner of theories, some of which might very well be true.
I just didn't think the idea about Ringo held up. But hey! It sure looks like John and George were just milestones around Ringo's poor neck!
;-)
-
:)
-
<grin> what a great title for a thread!
got a smile here!
Herb
-
[quote by=misterchaz link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1085621502,s=5 date=1085697231]I don't believe George OR Ringo were musical geniuses, strictly speaking.[/quote]
George was a musical genius, I think. but he just didn't have as many good songs, and I agree, John and Paul were both good. and I don't think they could have put another drummer in and it could be the same, Ringo was a true Beatle