Ringo is considered a great drummer by other good drummers and musicians, unfortunately he's the butt of jokes.
Combination of Paul and John's douchy interview comment, and our friend, the internet meme:
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Is it time to re-evaluate Ringo Starr?
- Thread starter Richland123
- Start date
Ringo is considered a great drummer by other good drummers and musicians, unfortunately he's the butt of jokes.
Combination of Paul and John's douchy interview comment, and our friend, the internet meme:
You know how the song changes dramatically when you drop the bass?
And you know how different your band sounds if another bass player steps in for you?
In the same respect, if The Beatles had a different drummer, the complexion would change, they would sound completely different, and probably not as good as they did with Ringo. After all, he wasn't their first drummer.
And you know how different your band sounds if another bass player steps in for you?
In the same respect, if The Beatles had a different drummer, the complexion would change, they would sound completely different, and probably not as good as they did with Ringo. After all, he wasn't their first drummer.
LOL!
I would bet you the majority of people on the planet can sing at least one Ringo Starr song.
John Lennon did not suffer fools and Paul McCartney was a stickler for professionalism.
They chose Ringo when they had the pick of all the drummers in Liverpool and kept him, what does that tell you?
Like George Harrison, Ringo played what the song needed, at a moments notice and if Lennon and McCartney thought it was good enough I can't disagree.
They chose Ringo when they had the pick of all the drummers in Liverpool and kept him, what does that tell you?
Like George Harrison, Ringo played what the song needed, at a moments notice and if Lennon and McCartney thought it was good enough I can't disagree.
I think his playing was as important to the overall sound and the magic they created as anything else. None of them (except Paul maybe) were virtuoso players but they created something together way bigger than any one of them.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
I don't know about amazing,but he's held on to the Beatles gig for 50 yrs so he had to be doing something right.
This is a great point. Liverpool is not a "small town," it's not a village somewhere out in the country. It is, and was a booming port city at the time, with a blooming music scene, due in no small part to the abundance of vinyl records from all over the world (but mainly America) that came rolling in with the ships and sailors. Comparable to our Atlanta in the 80s or Seattle in the 90s. Plenty of competent, skilled musicians and entertainers in Liverpool at the time.
He was the perfect fit for the band and widely respected by his peers.
There is a reason why the other three asked him to contribute on their solo albums
And ask Mike Poetnoy, arguably the best drummer of his generation what he thinks of Ringo's
There is a reason why the other three asked him to contribute on their solo albums
And ask Mike Poetnoy, arguably the best drummer of his generation what he thinks of Ringo's
George Martin was not an immediate fan Martin wanted to use sessioneer Andy White for those early recordings Ringo could still play the live shows. This after Starr had just quit his band to join The Beatles. That hadda sting.
Fortunately for George Martin, and for us, despite his formidable abilities as a record producer, he trusted the boys and suppressed his professional instincts on numerous occasions. The decision to let Ringo play sessions was probably the first of many such decisions to come.
If I recall, in the beginning, most of the other executives at EMI thought George Martin himself was nuts to invest his time and talent in The Beatles...
Hell, even back in the 60s people were saying Starr and Watts weren't good enough for their bands. They looked at the mass chaos being played by the big three, Baker, Moon, Bonham, and said this is what drummers should be doing. While I agree Starr and Watts would not have been a good fit for Cream, The Who, or Zep. Can you imagine the unmitigated disaster of any of those three trying to play the music of the Beatles or Stones?
I thought The Beatles kinda got tossed in Martin's lap…at EMI, anything non-Classical or in their comfort zone woulda been considered nuts. Martin heard "something" in those early tunes. IMO, "Please, Please Me" is a great slices of that era's Pop-dom. That it was recorded in such a short time & made available for public consumption…even more impressive.
And-
Moon in The Beatles?!? That's nuts! LOL
Well, Martin was the head of EMI subsidiary Parlophone. I'm not sure The Beatles, or anything for that matter, were "tossed in his lap." He certainly had the power to take a pass on them and focus on safer bets. He rose to the challenge, critiquing the original material and insisting they rely on their extensive catalog of polished covers while waiting for the boys to produce bonafide original hit material. I think the man is a genius for seeing and hearing what others did not, and in the process he revolutionized his label, the recording industry, and pop music world-wide.
I like how Ringo holds the band together here, and its great to watch him go nuts during the solo starting at 2:20.
