Solo forums > Ringo Starr

Where Would The Beatles Be Without Ringo?

<< < (2/5) > >>

tkitna:
Damn, I posted here earlier and I guess I didnt hit the post button. Regardless, I still think George was the one that could have been replaced if anybody. Ringo was the personality and glue of the group. He seemed to be able to cope with the egos and bickering better than the others (and he even left), but barring that, he had the name RINGO STARR. What a great moniker. That name alone would cause people to take notice. Besides all that hoopla, Ringo was a stud drummer that brought a style to the band. They could have done much worse.

In My Life:
Yep, he was a steady presence.

Bobber:

--- Quote from: Mr Mustard on July 21, 2011, 10:58:13 PM --- never missed a beat

--- End quote ---

Listen to I'm Looking Through You! One complete miss and one or two on the rim. But then, maybe it's Paul drumming there. ;D

Gary910:

--- Quote from: Mr Mustard on July 21, 2011, 10:58:13 PM ---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.


--- End quote ---

Well Said...


--- Quote from: tkitna on July 22, 2011, 01:45:52 AM ---Regardless, I still think George was the one that could have been replaced if anybody.

--- End quote ---

I don't think you could take any of them out. I think it was just the chemistry that they had that made it what it was. It is all speculation on our parts as to who did what. But, truth be told, the only way you would be able to tell how they felt about each other would be to be one of them. They loved each other like brothers, maybe more. They were soul mates on a level that only they could understand. I don't think that Pete Best is a bad drummer, but he didn't fit into the group like Ringo did. Would they have played much of the same songs, had the success they had without Ringo, maybe, but it would have a different feel, because it wouldn't be John, Paul, George and Ringo (or JohnPaulGeorgeRingo).

TomMo:
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."

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version