A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?  (Read 6093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kangaroo Kev

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3346
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2012, 10:44:41 PM »

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."

I just re-read this tomMo, its a great post mate, I agree with you on what you say......Ringo was a team player, whenever I watch Let It Be, Ringo just sits at his drums waiting for the others to start playing something (listening to the bullsh*t bickering) and then doing his best to join in, he mustve had the patience of a saint......and we all know how many days he sat around during Pepper ......Months !!
can you imagine John or Paul putting up with that day in day out :D
Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11166
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2014, 02:23:07 AM »

Ringo Wants to Sing More (Music Video)





;)
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

oldbrownshoe

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 426
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2014, 06:58:30 AM »

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.
Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5463
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2014, 05:49:35 PM »

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
Logged
don't follow leaders

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6979
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2014, 04:41:39 AM »

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

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.

oldbrownshoe

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 426
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2014, 11:28:10 AM »

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!
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6979
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2014, 04:33:27 PM »

So in order to make a name for yourself or be labeled something, you had to have done it in the 60's.  Got it.

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5463
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2014, 05:43:47 PM »

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!

I have to agree with the basic sentiment here. By the 70's rock had fractured - too many people listening to too many things. The chance for one band to dominate had gone.
I'm going to guess that most people buying pop music were of roughly the same demographic (maybe some older siblings still listening to Elvis) but by the 70's kids who were buying the latest teen sensation were competing in the market with an older probably more conservative generation.
Maybe the perfect storm of The Beatles could only happen once in a unique set of circumstances.
Logged
don't follow leaders

Moogmodule

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 745
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2014, 09:08:23 PM »

I tend to think that John and Paul together would have been very successful. John and Paul with George Martin as producer would have been 70 to 80 per cent what we know as the Beatles.

But I do think Ringo was the best drummer for them and the ideal personality for a band that initially was feted for it's charisma as much as it's music.

George similarly. His love of different chord shapes helped deepen the Beatle sound early on. Throwing in 6ths, diminished etc. gave another layer to the sound that I think is why you can listen to a Beatle track over and over while similar poppy songs wear on you quickly.

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.
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6979
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2014, 11:58:55 PM »

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.

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."

Kangaroo Kev

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3346
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2014, 11:59:53 PM »

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.

Have to agree with Todd here

I think its eminently possible for a band/act to become as big as the Beatles, they just have to be good enough and have that x factor (good songs helps too)
ABBA nearly did it in the 70's with great songs, a new sound and humongous success world wide, they just couldnt change with the times (The fabs did) and got stuck in a groove, then decline and acrimonious split .
Michael Jackson, also in the 70's wasnt to far away in terms of record sales either.

The 3 bands mentioned had huge success, 2 of them still do but in the end they didnt have the talent of John & Paul when it came to commercial writing and therefore appeal.......maybe if Ray Davies had been in the same band as Pete Townsend, who knows  ;)

I think its the case (my opinion) that talent like J & P only comes along very very rarely , other bands were great, but those 2 were phenomenal.

As for decades obviously when you grew up has the main bearing, I know plenty of younger than me music fans who would say The Smiths/Morrisey & The Stone Roses were miles ahead of The Beatles..........were all slaves to what was the music scene when we were 18

Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

Moogmodule

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 745
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2014, 02:01:49 AM »

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.
Logged

Kangaroo Kev

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3346
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2014, 02:55:26 AM »

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.
Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6979
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2014, 04:43:11 AM »

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.

I often wonder why they kept George to be honest.  He blew more guitar solo's then should have been allowed in my opinion.  What do I know though, hell Martin put a bunch of them on the albums even. 

Quote
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.

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. 

Quote
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.

Yeah, hard to tell with that one.

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6979
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2014, 04:44:48 AM »

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.

Still bitter to this day.   ha2ha

Moogmodule

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 745
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2014, 05:52:41 AM »

   

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. 


I guess he was one I was thinking of as an example of how they'd ditch people. They put up with him despite personality differences, but when the big time beckoned and they had professional advice he wasn't up to it then boom, down came the axe.

But no doubt it's more complicated then that. Always is.

Logged

Moogmodule

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 745
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2014, 05:54:05 AM »

Still bitter to this day.   ha2ha

While life is about acceptance, part of me can't blame him.
Logged

oldbrownshoe

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 426
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2014, 06:26:13 AM »

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!
Logged

Kangaroo Kev

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3346
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2014, 09:22:21 AM »

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
Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

Moogmodule

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 745
Re: Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?
« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2014, 09:42:33 AM »

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

And it's the way it should be. It'd be pretty moribund if the music repertoire got stuck on a few artists. In a way it's what's happened to opera. A set standard repertoire being endlessly repeated and " reinterpreted".  While there are new operas they're pretty niche overall.

I'm happy for the new stuff. Never displaced the stuff I grew up with completely. But gives a lot more variety.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
 

Page created in 2.265 seconds with 26 queries.