DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => Polls => Topic started by: number14 on July 10, 2004, 04:18:20 AM
-
This one is kinda tough but i just want to know your guys opinion. Im not sure how good ogf a guitarist george harrison was...
Ringo was a ok drummer, They dont need any new songwriters. John lennon and paul were good "lead" Singers. .........
-
Nothing. I think they needed less drugs :P
-
Realy? You think the beatles couldnt improve at all?
-
I dunno. I liked them just as they were
-
You can't really beat perfection.....
Unless you cloned The Beatles, that would mean twice as many albums.
-
[quote by=number14 link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1089433100,s=2 date=1089433896]Realy? You think the beatles couldnt improve at all?[/quote]
That's right.
They were the toppermost of the poppermost.
The only category you may have hit on was management.
-
Better?? If they are perfect!!! I don't think they need anything to improve. we al know they imporved on their own, JOHN and Paul were always trying to imporve their songwriting, their instrumentation, everything. Also their manager, Brian, was always trying to improve things for them.
George was a hell of a guittarrist and Ringo could play the drum marvellously (have you heard him in "Rain" and "Strawberry Fields"? Amazing!!
-
if the beatles had changed any of the things on the poll they wouldn't be the beatles we know and love ;D
-
I aboslutely agree!
-
Ringo was a brilliant drummer - it seems like it's suddenly trendy to deminish his contribution to The Beatles - he is extremely underestimated, probably because he prefers not to fan the flames of his legend.
Ask any decent drummer - they will know just how good he was.
-
A better understanding that they they don't!...lol
They have an amazing legacy. The group is over, the legacy continues. Only man's understanding and interpretation is what the LEGACY needs....oh and a few Beatle forums lol!...
-
Yes, which group will survive their own legacy 40 years after braking up?
-
[quote by=number14 link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1089433100,s=0 date=1089433100]Ringo was a
-
[quote by=Sadie4 link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1089433100,s=11 date=1089642740] Yes, which group will survive their own legacy 40 years after braking up?[/quote]
Well Said!!! There is no better measure!
-
[quote by=Mr_Kite link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1089433100,s=12 date=1089658050]Ringo was an amazing drumer ! very unrecognised for his contributions to the Beatles by the general public... but to a true Beatle fan...... need
-
The Beatles wouldn't have been what they were without Ringo. It's as simple as that.
To answer the poll : Nothing. We're here discussing them 40-something years later. They were perfection.
-
nobody's perfect, but maybe a group can be. Anyway, they were the closest to perfection i've ever seen. Of course, perfection would have them all alive, together and still making great albums.
-
Ya i dont think there 100% perfect. Mayve like 95% or 90 or something like that
-
i agree with hideousjohn...........
-
aaawwww it seems the baby deleted his post.................everybody go aaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwww
-
Oooooo I think Harrison is an awesome lead guitarist!!! If you ask me he is way better than a lot of modern day guitarists...
-
Nothing
-
I think they fit perfectly together as they were.
I think there are better drummers than Ringo and there are better guitar players than George, but there aren't many others (if any) you could replace them with and still have the Beatles as we know them.
For example, I think Charlie Watts of the Stones was a better overall drummer than Ringo(I still love Ringo, mind you, I just think Charlie was a bit better), however, without Ringo's quirky fills, the music wouldn't sound the same. Also, Charlie wouldn't have fit in with the Beatles personality. He's far too quiet.
-
Oh, I don't know much about drumming but I know that Ringo can drum his ass off. That solo in The End? (Tee hee, I just noticed the user above me) is sublime! AND I think he helped to keep the group together during the tough times. The Beatles just aren't the Beatles without Richard Starkey.
-
[quote by=Mairi link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1089433100,s=23 date=1102027128]Oh, I don't know much about drumming but I know that Ringo can drum his ass off. That solo in The End? (Tee hee, I just noticed the user above me) is sublime! AND I think he helped to keep the group together during the tough times. The Beatles just aren't the Beatles without Richard Starkey.[/quote]
I think do too, Ringo does kick a** at druming ;D
-
Ringo is a great Drummer..its just that he is in the Beatles..and so he often gets stick.
-
I agree, Ringo had a tremendous lot to do with the Beatles sound. His contribution can't be denied. I often think he's underrated as a drummer.
-
[quote by=Polly link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1089433100,s=26 date=1103044026]I agree, Ringo had a tremendous lot to do with the Beatles sound. His contribution can't be denied. I often think he's underrated as a drummer.[/quote]
He was the perfect drummer for the Beatles and that's why I don't think he could have been easily replaced.
A band is more than just the individual musical talents. Ringo's talents fit in perfectly with the Beatles, musically, but Ringo, at least to me, always seemed to be the biggest fan of the Beatles in the world. He was often a rallying point for the band in a way that most others would not have been. He, truely, was the binding force.
-
[quote by=broady link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1089433100,s=1 date=1089433840]Nothing. I think they needed less drugs :P[/quote]
Haha I think the drugs made their music amazing! I think a lot of their stuff would have sounded the same without it, I think.
-
If we wanted them to last longer it would have been a better manager after Brian Epstein died, but things have gone well after they finished!
-
The Beatles were The Beatles...they wouldn't have been what they are now...or what they are in the future...without John,Paul,George and Ringo! ;)
-
:o who voted to replace George as lead Guitar?! :)
seriously though, I had to vote for nothing because even what may be seen as 'imperfections' or 'places to improve' all contribute to what they were- and I think any band needs that to make them more interesting or perhaps even to make them 'better'. The Beatles somehow made something really unique and appropriate, and, well, necessary which everone held on to in the early 60s- hence Beatlemania. I mean, beatlemania was a crazy outburst of energy and hysteria which the Beatles somehow created or caused and it seems to me, the conditions for that to happen needed to be very very precise. We don't know what you could take away or replace which could have somehow made them a less or more powerful formula at the time. But what they were worked, and I kind of think it needed to be exactly what it was for it all to work. I don't even know if I am making sense. Like the way the Big Bang theory says the Big Bang had to have loads of things exactly right for it to happen, and if even one tiny element of it was a bit off it may never have happened. I see it to be a bit like that with the Beatles though obviously Beatlemania was not by any means such an unlikely event as the big bang theory! I reckon something huge was bound to happen at that crucial time because it needed to- the whole post-war thing and there needed to be some sort of big change or shift be it revolution or something else. Anyway, Beatlemania fulfilled this need for something big happening (along with the whole young hippie generation) and I think everything about the Beatles played an important role in the way it all happened. So to me, the answer is 'nothing'
Though perhaps another manager after Epstein to take over well and sort out the chaos
No but even that needed to happen really
Maybe this is just be being unimaginative and unable to imagine the Beatles being any other way!
Ugh sorry for my bad post- I can never be concise! I apologise :)
-
I voted Nothing!
What's done is done & the music is there for all to cherish!! ;)
All 4 of those guys put a thousand percent into what they did best!
:)
-
^ I agree - big fat "nothing" from me too! ;D
I think they were great as they were... and that none of them should or could have been replaced.
I was thinking of a New Manager after Brian Epstein's departure... but as you said, tangerine, maybe even that had to happen (meaning the lack of a new manager). I think, if you chnaged anything (or anyone), the Beatles wouldn't be what they were/are anymore (as you said, DSL). They would have been something else, maybe still successful, maybe more successful (if that's even possible... :o) but I dunno if I would consider that to be "better" than the Beatles that we know. I love them the way they are! :)
-
Nothing... anything new would have thrown off the balance they had going
-
Nothing... anything new would have thrown off the balance they had going
Nicely said Flaming Pie In The Sky ;)
-
Absolutely nothing could have made the Beatles better than they were. They were perfect the way they were, and I love that. They had the two best songwriters ever, an excellent lead guitarist, and Ringo filled the spot for drummer perfectly. Everything happened the way it was meant to, and well, it all worked! They are still, even forty years later, the best and most popular band ever. So, I'd say that they were pretty darn perfect the way they were. ;D
-
Absolutely nothing could have made the Beatles better than they were. They were perfect the way they were, and I love that. They had the two best songwriters ever, an excellent lead guitarist, and Ringo filled the spot for drummer perfectly. Everything happened the way it was meant to, and well, it all worked! They are still, even forty years later, the best and most popular band ever. So, I'd say that they were pretty darn perfect the way they were. ;D
Just about says it all. Only real criticism I can think of is that there should have been more of George's songs.
-
Well said, Beatlemaniac64. Welcome to the forums!
-
I voted nothing .
If it an't broke don't fix it :)
Maybe one thing would have been to have some great female backing vocals on Let It Be , big gospel vocals :)
Ringo's a great drummer .
DaveRam :)
-
Ringo's my kind of drummer. Straight forward Rock n Roll drumming! :)
-
Absolutly nothing. they were perfect as they were and they improved so much and kept on getting better all the time. and they made the right decision getting Ringo as their drummer, he fit in with the Beatles where as Pete Best didn't.
-
In the Anthology movies, George says something that I liked. He says something like "Ringo always was a member of the band, it's just that he didn't enter the story until that specific scene." Where would they be without Ringo and George? I don't agree at all on them getting a new drummer or new lead guitarist, they're perfect! Everything tangerine said above is true, it all was meant to happen the way it did.
-
If it an't broke don't fix it :)
Precisely! You cannot really be better than having like 6 number ones in a row, really...
-
i agree that if the got rid of george or ringo they wouldnt find someone the same, but i think when they became a studio band if they had gotten rid of george and ringo on all there recordings but kept them for publicity shots and brought them in to do there owned penned tracks only, it wouldnt have made a difference to the sound of any of the lennon/McCartney songs at all, everything that l+M especially paul was writing was practically finished to the point they knew how they wanted the guitar parts and drum parts to sound and they could have easily have played it themselves if they had wanted to.
And a few songs george was playing bass or tambourine and paul would play the drums if he wasnt happy with ringos contribution, although i love them as a 4 you could have taken ringo and george out without too much of difference :S but take either john or paul out and it wouldnt have completly altered the way the music was
-
This question isn't even worth considering. I'm sorry to be so blunt. The Beatles were perfect for their time, place & generation. Their musicianship was impeccable, their lyrics were timeless and universal and their melodies were extraordinarily original. The ONLY thing I can say about them negatively is that they broke up far too soon. Eight years of recording was NOT ENOUGH :'( (i meant the serious recording years from 1961-'69)
-
I hate to say it, because without his interest they might never have got a recording contract, but Brian Epstein was the real weak link in the Beatles. He put them in suits, bought boxes of "Love me Do" so it would chart, but made horrendous business decisions that would come back to haunt the Beatles and quicken their demise. A real manager would have been much more creative in dealing with the personalities and placating egos and keep them busy with solid projects. "Help" was a joke after "Hard Day's Night."
We don't even need to go into the merchandising mess.
Also, Brian was managing a half a dozen acts at the time of the height of the Beatles career. What the hell was he thinking?
I think he exacerbated the splits in the band with his infatuation with John.
A professional manager would have gotten them a better deal with EMI--which again would have settled some of the money problems that led to their split.
Let's face it, a good manager brings at least some creativity, organizational ability and honesty to the table. Brian seems to have been weak in all three. Especially the last. He screwed the guys through the whole NEMS enterprises holding company.
And he let them give away their publishing to hack like D-ick James.
Stupid, greedy, stupid.
-
The ONLY thing I can say about them negatively is that they broke up far too soon. Eight years of recording was NOT ENOUGH :'( (i meant the serious recording years from 1961-'69)
That is my thoughts exactly.
-
Why would you want to change anything about them? :-/
EDIT: In Eppy's defence, though...I know he wasn't the best manager as he'd never done it before, but the boys themselves wouldn't have had anyone else. When Brian mentioned that he was thinking of selling them to someone who knew how to handle them better, John announced that if he did so, they'd do nothing but record out-of-tune versions of 'God Save The Queen' for the rest of their lives. So don't be so quick to knock Eppy - the Beatles themselves didn't want it any other way.
-
Yeah, it's hard to hate Eppy. I think the Rutles got him down pat with Leggy Mountbatten. "He hated their music, he hated their hair, he hated their noise: but he loved their trousers." And about Dick James: "Dick Jaws, an unemployed music publisher of no fixed ability, who signed them to a publishing contract for the rest of their lives."
The whole Beatles story really is an impossibility. And I guess Eppy is the riddle wrapped inside an enigma wrapped inside the Melody Maker.
-
The Beatles need me. I will be their muse.
-
Since they already had plenty of fifth Beatles, they needed a sixth to keep them together.
-
I think drugs screwed up John Lennon's sense of perspective - it made him, in a way, insane, the way he brought Yoko Ono into the studio like that, and needing her by his side even when he went to the toilet. That's not the act of a sane individual. John's drug problem really was the problem for the group.
As much as I would have liked to have seen them perform together as a group into the seventies, it was probably for the best that they quit when they did. As the old saying goes, get out while the getting's good! They left while they were still at the top of the game, and a lot of other groups don't have enough sense to do that. Or the courage. Of course, the Beatles didn't quit because of courage - they quit because John was leaving the group. If John wasn't leaving, George might have been persuaded to stay on, since George Martin and Geoff Emerick (and everybody else) decided they'd been wrong about George after hearing his work on Abbey Road, and were going to give George a wider berth to work with, and more assistance and attention. That would have satisfied George, and kept Paul McCartney at bay and behaved (he was notorious for rushing George's work so he could continue on with his own).
We are lucky to have had them for the 10 years they were around, for they really were perfect in what they put onto their albums. WE STILL ENJOY THEIR MUSIC! And not just one or two songs, but practically ALL of it. That's some testament. And that's something none of them could produced on their own. Not to that extent.
-
The Beatles could have benefitted by having someone like Brian Jones in the group. Brian Jones had a talent for being able to pick up any instrument he's never learned or used before, and being able to play it before too long. For some reason I never understood, the Beatles never really bothered learning how to play instruments that require you to blow into them (other than a harmonica).
Brian Jones guested on the song You Know My Name (Look Up The Number) by playing the sax, and I think that one little sax solo was the best part of the song - and it meant something because it wasn't just some classical music performer doing it, it was a young rock'n'roller. Brian's music is, to me, the best part of the Stones early stuff.
-
And you don't think that Paul McCartney played enough instruments? Doesn't he play the cornet as well.
-
the Beatles never played the harp, or trumpets, or horns, or violins. Or flute. Things like that.
-
the Beatles never played the harp, or trumpets, or horns, or violins. Or flute. Things like that.
what about macca on recorder on Fool On The Hill?
-
the Beatles never played the harp, or trumpets, or horns, or violins. Or flute. Things like that.
And Brian Jones didn't write an endless string of hits or generation-defining albums. Things like that. What was up with him - I don't understand??
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Personally I think The Beatles had the mix of songwriting/musicianship/personality just about right. Obviously really, since they were far more successful than Jones & Co.
-
the Beatles never played the harp, or trumpets, or horns, or violins. Or flute. Things like that.
Well, how often did Brian Jones get to do that on Stones records? Anyway, it didn't stop The Beatles using session musicians if they needed that sort of thing. What difference would it have made if one of them could play the Lute, or the xylophone? Or the didgeridoo for that matter?
-
Well, how often did Brian Jones get to do that on Stones records? Anyway, it didn't stop The Beatles using session musicians if they needed that sort of thing. What difference would it have made if one of them could play the Lute, or the xylophone? Or the didgeridoo for that matter?
It's not often that you get the opportunity to use didgeridoo in a sentence. Well done! ;D
-
Well, how often did Brian Jones get to do that on Stones records?
For the simple reason that Jagger & Richards purposely marginalized Brian because they were both threatened by his enormous abilities. As much as I love the Stones for their incredible abilities, it's common knowledge that Mick & Keith were tyrannical to Jones from the mid to later years. It's one of the few scourges on this legendary band.
Brian Jones was the greatest talent in The Rolling Stones but he wasnt fully able to flourish in that environment. In any other band, all his formidable gifts would have come to fruition.
-MMM
-
The Beatles' were the Beatles, were the Beatles as they were.
What I mean by this, is it was the right "mixture" of talent, personalities, musicianship that made John, Paul, George and Ringo "right"!!!! There wouldn't have been a Beatles as we know now if not for these four being "The Four".
-
The Beatles' were the Beatles, were the Beatles as they were.
that's the best desciption anyone can give i think! :)
-
Nothing.
-
Absolutely Nothing. the Beatles were, well, the Beatles. anything else would just destroy what they worked hard to create.
-
Who said either "New Drummer" or "New Guitarist"? I will find out who you are and go all ninja on you!
-
A new version of Apple that would get busy and reissue the back catalog properly.
... also the Magical Mystery Tour TV film, the Let It Be movie, and anything else that would suit me. ;D
-
Absolutely Nothing. the Beatles were, well, the Beatles. anything else would just destroy what they worked hard to create.
Agreed!